EPTRelatedly, looking at US vaccination rates, I'm actually surprised at how little this vaccine mandate did in terms of getting people to vaccinate up. I expected a sharp rise corresponding to all the people that are willing to begrudgingly risk their health (per their own concerns, even if misguided) in exchange for continuing to have a job, but evidently that wasn't the case. And it takes only a cursory glance of the news to see that it did spark some pretty substantial social turmoil. Much political goodwill was sacrificed to make the mandate and with what looks to me like little to show for it.
US Politics Mega-thread - Page 3341
| Forum Index > General Forum |
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets. Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source. If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
Relatedly, looking at US vaccination rates, I'm actually surprised at how little this vaccine mandate did in terms of getting people to vaccinate up. I expected a sharp rise corresponding to all the people that are willing to begrudgingly risk their health (per their own concerns, even if misguided) in exchange for continuing to have a job, but evidently that wasn't the case. And it takes only a cursory glance of the news to see that it did spark some pretty substantial social turmoil. Much political goodwill was sacrificed to make the mandate and with what looks to me like little to show for it. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
WombaT
Northern Ireland26012 Posts
On October 18 2021 02:29 LegalLord wrote: I do wonder how far some people would be willing to take the enforcement of a corvid vaccine mandate. Evidently there's a large contingency of people who will gleefully watch people lose their jobs for choosing to leave work instead of get a vaccine, so that doesn't seem like enough of a bar to give people pause. So what would be too far in pursuit of that noble, noble goal? Relatedly, looking at US vaccination rates, I'm actually surprised at how little this vaccine mandate did in terms of getting people to vaccinate up. I expected a sharp rise corresponding to all the people that are willing to begrudgingly risk their health (per their own concerns, even if misguided) in exchange for continuing to have a job, but evidently that wasn't the case. And it takes only a cursory glance of the news to see that it did spark some pretty substantial social turmoil. Much political goodwill was sacrificed to make the mandate and with what looks to me like little to show for it. I’m sure it will vary considerably. I don’t particularly care anymore, it’s been however long now with working with the public and nobody having the balls to actually enforce our ostensible Covid mitigation measures, and a significant portion of the public not bothering to do them off their own bat I don’t particularly care to draw a line in the sand and making vaccine uptake the hill to ostracise people on, I don’t get any cathartic pleasure from that. There may be some wider social utility in doing it of course. Is person x who has been rock solid with distancing and adhering to various recommendations, but who has (misguided perhaps) worries about getting the vaccine deserving of not partaking fully in society over person y who did whatever the fuck they wanted throughout but got a vaccine to protect them self? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 02:42 WombaT wrote: I don’t particularly care anymore, it’s been however long now with working with the public and nobody having the balls to actually enforce our ostensible Covid mitigation measures, and a significant portion of the public not bothering to do them off their own bat Evidently the US government doesn't have the balls to enforce the measures themselves either, given that the approach they took is to basically dump the enforcement task on larger employers. Can't even be bothered to send the feds to enforce a vaccine mandate and instead take a half measure with questionable reach, enforced by unwilling company grunts! And of course "employees of companies of more than 100 people" is a very weird group to target if you want the vaccination to be as widespread as possible. | ||
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On October 18 2021 03:19 LegalLord wrote: Evidently the US government doesn't have the balls to enforce the measures themselves either, given that the approach they took is to basically dump the enforcement task on larger employers. Can't even be bothered to send the feds to enforce a vaccine mandate and instead take a half measure with questionable reach, enforced by unwilling company grunts! And of course "employees of companies of more than 100 people" is a very weird group to target if you want the vaccination to be as widespread as possible. What is it that you are calling for instead of the current approach of setting the requirement and expecting companies to follow it? Isn't that how these things usually work? There are many rules that the government sets and then its up to the employer to follow it. Do you want the government to personally inspect every >100 employee company daily? I imagine you'd actually like that less. If you are worried this won't be enforced properly since we can't trust companies to follow the rules, then the government can, from time to time, send someone to the company to audit the COVID compliance through a simple document review... nothing is preventing that. I'm not trying to defend the 100 people cutoff though... I'm not sure what the right answer is on that part. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 03:25 micronesia wrote: What is it that you are calling for instead of the current approach of setting the requirement and expecting companies to follow it? Have the feds enforce it directly rather than dump it on employers. This isn't really a matter for companies to take care of for any reason beyond that that was the easiest way to pass the buck. Not really a very well targeted measure considering how many people are out of the labor force entirely, and how many people work for smaller companies. The idea of "mandate by telling businesses to mandate it" is a pretty bad one in principle. | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
outside of schools, a job is where a person is going to interact with non-family members to facilitate spreading the virus. whether 100 employees is the number or not, it also stands to reason that we don’t need to be pushing this on mom and pop shops for at least two reasons: undo burden on administration, and the likelihood of spread. idk, seems like the extremely obvious approach. | ||
|
GreenHorizons
United States23459 Posts
A company can choose to run a 10,000 employee company and not have a single vaccinated employee if they want. "vaccine mandate" is a bit of a misnomer. EDIT: The situation is that Biden went all in on vaccines and didn't get the necessary buy-in from the public to make that work. Unable or unwilling to reinstate/enforce gathering restrictions and with 1500+ people dying every day on average the Biden admin is under pressure to do something and inconveniencing people that won't get vaccinated and the businesses that employ them is the best the US can come up with given its piss poor politics. | ||
|
micronesia
United States24740 Posts
On October 18 2021 03:39 LegalLord wrote: Have the feds enforce it directly rather than dump it on employers. This isn't really a matter for companies to take care of for any reason beyond that that was the easiest way to pass the buck. Not really a very well targeted measure considering how many people are out of the labor force entirely, and how many people work for smaller companies. The idea of "mandate by telling businesses to mandate it" is a pretty bad one in principle. Having the feds enforce what exactly? Are you calling for 100% vaccination for all citizens with the feds going door to door checking vaccine cards? Brian also made a good point but it really comes down to what group of people you think should be required to be vaccinated, regardless of enforcement mechanism, first. I'm okay with not making it a law for 100% of people in the country to get vaccinated. If someone really wants to never leave home and never get vaccinated, the risk of them getting infected is generally low and therefore they won't clog up the healthcare system during a time of crisis. So who do you think should be vaccinated, and how should it be enforced? You seem to be complaining about the current plan without being sufficiently clear about what the government should actually be doing. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 03:45 brian wrote: it seems the most obvious area to me, and the number of people another good sign that someone with a brain is out there considering it. outside of schools, a job is where a person is going to interact with non-family members to facilitate spreading the virus. whether 100 employees is the number or not, it also stands to reason that we don’t need to be pushing this on mom and pop shops for at least two reasons: undo burden on administration, and the likelihood of spread. idk, seems like the extremely obvious approach. It's the easy approach, which is why they went with it. A stroke of a pen without any legislative input and it's mandated, and the costs of enforcement are externalized away from the government. No forethought necessary! Although, not without its problems. For one, it affects only about 100 million people - a mere 30% of the population when you exclude all those people who either don't work or work for "mom and pop" shops (which is a major portion of the workforce). And probably an overrepresented portion of the vaccinated versus the population at large given that large companies would have already either incentivized or mandated vaccines far more often than average (my employer certainly did). So affecting a portion of 30 percent of the population - well done! I also question whether work is really the prime vector of infection spreading as you seem to imply here. Leisure (bars, clubs, eating, travel) and personal social networks (family & friends) seem to have played a much more active role in doing so throughout the pandemic. That just seems to be more of a retroactive justification for a mandate already in place than anything else. | ||
|
Gorsameth
Netherlands21950 Posts
On October 18 2021 04:26 LegalLord wrote: Note how none of this explains how the government goes about enforcing a vaccination mandate without going door to door to check people. Which is about as bad a look as you can create.It's the easy approach, which is why they went with it. A stroke of a pen without any legislative input and it's mandated, and the costs of enforcement are externalized away from the government. No forethought necessary! Although, not without its problems. For one, it affects only about 100 million people - a mere 30% of the population when you exclude all those people who either don't work or work for "mom and pop" shops (which is a major portion of the workforce). And probably an overrepresented portion of the vaccinated versus the population at large given that large companies would have already either incentivized or mandated vaccines far more often than average (my employer certainly did). So affecting a portion of 30 percent of the population - well done! I also question whether work is really the prime vector of infection spreading as you seem to imply here. Leisure (bars, clubs, eating, travel) and personal social networks (family & friends) seem to have played a much more active role in doing so throughout the pandemic. That just seems to be more of a retroactive justification for a mandate already in place than anything else. Where does the government get the manpower to do it? It would be a tremendous operation, it would probably take the army. So now we have the army going door to door checking peoples vaccination passports. So like Micronesia I ask you. How do you see this working? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 04:11 micronesia wrote: So who do you think should be vaccinated, and how should it be enforced? You seem to be complaining about the current plan without being sufficiently clear about what the government should actually be doing. My preference would be not to enforce a mandate at all, because it's not worth it. Failing that, then yes - some variant on "go door to door checking cards" is indeed how I would expect the government to enforce a mandate when the goal is to maximize vaccination among the entire population. Something a bit less crude to account for being in the digital age, but that's the idea at least. On October 18 2021 03:58 GreenHorizons wrote: EDIT: The situation is that Biden went all in on vaccines and didn't get the necessary buy-in from the public to make that work. Unable or unwilling to reinstate/enforce gathering restrictions and with 1500+ people dying every day on average the Biden admin is under pressure to do something and inconveniencing people that won't get vaccinated and the businesses that employ them is the best the US can come up with given its piss poor politics. That's a pretty good read on the situation. A perceived need to act bundled with famously bad politics leading to a half-assed solution. On October 18 2021 04:30 Gorsameth wrote: Note how none of this explains how the government goes about enforcing a vaccination mandate without going door to door to check people. Which is about as bad a look as you can create. Where does the government get the manpower to do it? It would be a tremendous operation, it would probably take the army. So now we have the army going door to door checking peoples vaccination passports. So like Micronesia I ask you. How do you see this working? Three minutes later, there's your answer. So why not send the military to enforce it? Evidently it's important enough that people who don't get vaccinated shouldn't have a job; is having the army provide some logistical support really where you have to draw the line? Not like they weren't already involved in the logistical process of distributing vaccines - one of my own vaccine doses was administered by an army medical team brought in to speed up the process. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 18 2021 02:15 Jockmcplop wrote: I'd be totally for mandated vaccinations if I lived in a country where the government hadn't recently experimented on the local population without their consent or knowledge, in collusion with the industry that is now making the vaccines. I'm vaccinated by the way, but that isn't the issue here. What are you referencing? | ||
|
Starlightsun
United States1405 Posts
On October 18 2021 04:34 LegalLord wrote: So why not send the military to enforce it? Evidently it's important enough that people who don't get vaccinated shouldn't have a job; is having the army provide some logistical support really where you have to draw the line? Not like they weren't already involved in the logistical process of distributing vaccines - one of my own vaccine doses was administered by an army medical team brought in to speed up the process. Lol this is like conservative wet dream for taking up their arms to fight the guvment. US military going door to door, and when they find the unvaccinated what, forcibly restraining and injecting them? Hauling them in to detention? | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 17 2021 22:10 Liquid`Drone wrote: But it seems to me like the consensus is that Covid isn't going anywhere, and that it's gonna be around in a couple decades, too. While I don't know if there's a scientific consensus on how frequent booster shots must be administered to maintain good protection, a ballpark estimate of 'one booster shot per year' doesn't seem too far-fetched. Myself, I'm inclined to think that while I can be on board with forced vaccines to eradicate smallpox, or even forced vaccines to protect children from polio, I'm not okay with forcing 100 million American adults to vaccinate - mostly for their own benefit - every year. I'm on board with this being a 'damned if you don't, damned if you do' type of scenario, though, and I can understand people's frustration. One booster per year might even be a generously low estimate. From the UK Office for National Statistics: An estimated 93.6% of the adult population in England, 91.2% in Wales, 91.9% in Northern Ireland and 93.3% in Scotland tested positive for COVID-19 antibodies in the week beginning 23 August 2021. The presence of antibodies suggests a person previously had COVID-19 or has been vaccinated. Over 90% of the UK adult population has antibodies from vaccines or infection. UK is averaging roughly 40,000+ new cases/day right now with 15,000+/day occurring in people that are fully vaccinated. Perhaps the last few % and then getting children vaccinated will turn the tides to create a COVID-free world, but I don't think there's a guarantee of that. For a COVID-free world we may need boosters and we may need them more than once/year. I actually credit Salazar for saying he would be on board with forced vaccinations every 6 months if that's what it takes. What I disagree with his characterization that anybody that isn't onboard with forced vaccinations/boosters is non-sensible. Even the FDA advisory committee voted 16-2 against approving the Pfizer booster for people 16 and older. 2 leading vaccine regulators in the FDA resigned their positions and wrote a letter to The Lancet arguing against approving booster shots. Among their considerations Although the benefits of primary COVID-19 vaccination clearly outweigh the risks, there could be risks if boosters are widely introduced too soon, or too frequently, especially with vaccines that can have immune-mediated side-effects (such as myocarditis, which is more common after the second dose of some mRNA vaccines,3 or Guillain-Barre syndrome, which has been associated with adenovirus-vectored COVID-19 vaccines4). If unnecessary boosting causes significant adverse reactions, there could be implications for vaccine acceptance that go beyond COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, widespread boosting should be undertaken only if there is clear evidence that it is appropriate. The FDA/CDC has still only approved boosters in people 65+ older/healthcare workers, at-risk, etc. It's not widely available for all adults. Mohdoo can say we the FDA is criminally incompetent if they don't approve boosters. Salazar can say we should have mandated vaccines/boosters. That's fine, I'm happy you're so confident in your opinions that you think the FDA/CDC should fall in line with them. What I think is slightly obnoxious is when people start to paint everyone that disagrees with them as non-sensible, or anti-science, or caring about "the right to infect others." Even the CDC/FDA has not gotten on board with some of the opinions expressed here. Maybe the horse paste eaters have infiltrated these organizations? | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 05:46 Starlightsun wrote: Lol this is like conservative wet dream for taking up their arms to fight the guvment. US military going door to door, and when they find the unvaccinated what, forcibly restraining and injecting them? Hauling them in to detention? The same thing that'd happen if you don't pay your taxes I'd imagine - fines, court appearances, a chain of events that could eventually lead to use of force. The standard way that legal enforcement works, of course. The prospect of unvaccinated people being dismissed from their jobs is a prospect that fills many in the pro-mandate crowd with glee - why would the standard process of enforcing federal law suddenly be a bridge too far? None of the logic justifying the business-enforced mandate has been broken; it's still all just scumbags that are endangering their fellow citizen by being too selfish to take the vaccine, right? Public safety mandates that they get vaccinated, even if they have to be pressed into complying! | ||
|
brian
United States9629 Posts
On October 18 2021 04:26 LegalLord wrote: It's the easy approach, which is why they went with it. A stroke of a pen without any legislative input and it's mandated, and the costs of enforcement are externalized away from the government. No forethought necessary! Although, not without its problems. For one, it affects only about 100 million people - a mere 30% of the population when you exclude all those people who either don't work or work for "mom and pop" shops (which is a major portion of the workforce). And probably an overrepresented portion of the vaccinated versus the population at large given that large companies would have already either incentivized or mandated vaccines far more often than average (my employer certainly did). So affecting a portion of 30 percent of the population - well done! I also question whether work is really the prime vector of infection spreading as you seem to imply here. Leisure (bars, clubs, eating, travel) and personal social networks (family & friends) seem to have played a much more active role in doing so throughout the pandemic. That just seems to be more of a retroactive justification for a mandate already in place than anything else. sorry was your qualm with its reach into the number of people it vaccinated? i definitely didn’t read that from your first post. i’ll look forward to your sources on leisure activities being the driving factor. but work is where the majority of the people spend their waking hours. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 06:35 brian wrote: sorry was your qualm with its reach into the number of people it vaccinated? i definitely didn’t read that from your first post. i’ll look forward to your sources on leisure activities being the driving factor. but work is where the majority of the people spend their waking hours. The qualm is that it's a poorly conceived idea, one of the reasons being that it causes as much trouble as it does while targeting the wrong population for mandatory vaccination. Other reasons being the many other items I mentioned - that it's buck-passing, that it isn't worth the cost, and several more I think you could parse by reading my last page or so of posts. I look forward to you providing the sources that work is the probable source of infections first! + Show Spoiler + Well not really - here's at least one source suggesting leisure and personal social networks as leading causes - but I do want to note that you made a source-worthy claim first. | ||
|
BlackJack
United States10574 Posts
On October 18 2021 06:45 LegalLord wrote: The qualm is that it's a poorly conceived idea, one of the reasons being that it causes as much trouble as it does while targeting the wrong population for mandatory vaccination. Other reasons being the many other items I mentioned - that it's buck-passing, that it isn't worth the cost, and several more I think you could parse by reading my last page or so of posts. I look forward to you providing the sources that work is the probable source of infections first! + Show Spoiler + Well not really - here's at least one source suggesting leisure and personal social networks as leading causes - but I do want to note that you made a source-worthy claim first. It's not a poorly conceived idea because the idea isn't to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. The idea is to get as many people vaccinated as possible with the least amount of blowback. Obviously having the military kick down doors with syringes ready is going to be the fastest way to vaccinate the most amount of people. But the best strategy is to do it incrementally so you don't anger too many people at the same time. I don't think it targeting only 100 million people means it is poorly conceived. I think it only targets 100 million by design. I would do things exactly the same way if it were me. | ||
|
LegalLord
United States13779 Posts
On October 18 2021 07:59 BlackJack wrote: It's not a poorly conceived idea because the idea isn't to get as many people vaccinated as quickly as possible. The idea is to get as many people vaccinated as possible with the least amount of blowback. Obviously having the military kick down doors with syringes ready is going to be the fastest way to vaccinate the most amount of people. But the best strategy is to do it incrementally so you don't anger too many people at the same time. I don't think it targeting only 100 million people means it is poorly conceived. I think it only targets 100 million by design. I would do things exactly the same way if it were me. It was almost certainly more about that it’s what could be passed by executive order and require minimal government direct cost than some form of well-planned strategy towards a gradual mandate for everyone. | ||
| ||
