Mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court [pdf]
ca5.uscourts.gov
ca5.uscourts.gov
Another interesting piece of the public conversation around mandates is the redefinition of the term vaccine (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...). The CDC claims they redefined it away from the word “immunity” towards the word “protection” because no vaccine grants perfect immunity. Personally I find that to be a bad answer. By taking a weighty word like “vaccine” and redefining it, the expectations of risks and benefits the public holds were exploited. For the majority of the public, those who are under 50 and healthy, COVID poses little risk - it’s not much different from a typical seasonal flu. Personally I think getting an mRNA vaccine is a reasonable low-risk action but the risk of undergoing any medical intervention is nonzero, and it is higher for a novel technology. I bet that if the COVID vaccines were not called a vaccine, people would evaluate the risk reward trade off differently.
You can probably get away with 'mostly healthy', but there's enough people under 50 that are overweight to make it so that more than half the country is either over 50 or has a co-morbidity. And then there's lots of other things that are impacting people's health.
If you called the mRNA vaccines something else, the risk reward trade off wouldn't change, and there is nice clear evidence that they reduce overall risk for adults, even relatively health adults. The trade off is tighter for younger males, but it also slightly favors vaccination (the number of serious adverse events due to vaccination is smaller than the number of infections requiring hospitalization).
The regulation requires a vaccine OR a set weekly testing structure. Seems reasonable to me though perhaps a bit broadly targeted.
Usually I think OSHA has specific regulations by specific industries.
There is a different risk between super tightly packed meat plants and Google work from home.
https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/11/what-is-the-osha-vacc...
It's perfectly compatible with base logic to say that there's a bar for very good that they were above then and are still above now, so that's not really a great argument. If you want to construct an argument about what 'very good' should mean, that's different, but there's no logical contradiction involved.
It's like if you eat the best cake of your life and call it very good, that doesn't mean you are lying if you later also call the second best cake of your life very good.
Now go read my original post and tell me who sounds more in line with reality: the person noticing the relatively low efficacy of the vaccines to stop transmission and saying this deficiency should be incorporated in policy, or those who say it is very good (often because they do not want to lead people to avoid the vaccine, ironically, which happens due to loss of trust from such spin) and go on to write and impose policies that assume it is highly effective at stopping all aspects of the virus.
Why? Who do these measures protect? What problem is being solved and what metrics are being used to determine when we get there? So far, I have yet to hear any politician state any of this.
An argument worth having could be whether or not that is tied enough to workplace to fall under OSHA.
People continuing to wear masks post vaccine clearly don’t think the vaccine works.
Nice.
> People continuing to wear masks post vaccine clearly don’t think the vaccine works.
Maybe they think the vaccines work, but that there are still far too many unvaccinated and unmasked fuckwits walking around spreading the virus and they themselves are trying to avoid participating in that.
This isn't anything new though. Vaccines have always had varied amounts of effectiveness. While some, like the polio vaccine are essentially 100% effective, other common ones like the MMR vaccine (components range from 30-90% effectiveness) and flu vaccine (40-60% effective based on year) are about as effective as the covid vaccines, and its never been controversial to call them vaccines.
That's not what the CDC says. The CDC says [1]:
"One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.
"Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps."
Very different from either flu vaccines or COVID vaccines. Especially since, when talking about any vaccines except flu and COVID, when the CDC says "effective", they mean "prevents you from getting the disease at all or being able to transmit it to others". The people who could still get the disease or transmit it to others are the few percent for whom the vaccine is not effective.
Whereas, when the CDC talks about COVID vaccines, reducing the severity of illness or reducing (not eliminating) the chance of passing it on to others are what you get if the vaccine is "effective" for you. So not only has the meaning of "vaccine" been changed, the meaning of "effective" has been changed as well.
> MMR vaccine is very safe and effective. The mumps component of the MMR vaccine is about 88% (range: 32-95%) effective when a person gets two doses; one dose is about 78% (range: 49%−92%) effective.
Per https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mumps/index.html
> Whereas, when the CDC talks about COVID vaccines, reducing the severity of illness or reducing (not eliminating) the chance of passing it on to others are what you get if the vaccine is "effective" for you. So not only has the meaning of "vaccine" been changed, the meaning of "effective" has been changed as well.
If we're talking this definition got covid vaccines, then the covid vaccines are much more effective than flu vaccines (and probably on par with MMR). If we're using a consistent definition of effectiveness, then covid vaccines are probably slightly less effective than the flu vaxes.
IIRC, there was a mumps outbreak in Ontario in 2011 that raised some doubts about the effectivness of the mumps component of the MMR vaccine; possibly the ranges are from studies done of that outbreak. But again, if the ranges are 95% confidence intervals (and I can't imagine what else they could be), they are atrociously wide for a disease and a vaccine that has been around this long.
It is possible, I suppose, that almost all vaccines really are that uncertain in their effects; but if that's true, it should make us much, much less confident about the wisdom of vaccine mandates in general, and COVID vaccine mandates in particular. If we can still be that uncertain about a vaccine that has been around for decades, how much more uncertain should we be about one that was only discovered last year?
They've never been mandated by law before (let alone a unilateral executive order). That it was done by executive fiat rather than legislation makes it especially troubling. If the president can unilaterally mandate a forced medical procedure, what can't they do? This isn't a question about vaccines or vaccine effectiveness, its a question about law, Constitutional rights and executive power.
But you're also wrong. The mmr vaccine is mandated if you want to attend k-12 public schools or federally funded public universities, and the ability to do that is uncontroversially in executive purview (for universities).
Also note that this EO has a testing option, so calling it a vaccine "mandate" is a stretch, unlike the EO that applies to federal contractors which is a mandate and is uncontroversially constitutional.
Interestingly, one of the entry-level Covid denialist talking points is that the vaccine is "classified as experimental gene therapy, and not a vaccine".
It's probably not worth spending too much energy seeking logic in illogic. I just thought it was interesting and kind of ironic in this context.
In this case the metadata just tells us the PDF was generated by iText, so it's probably from a Java or .NET DMS the court uses. The use of Butterick's Equity suggests it's pretty new but I wasn't able to figure out what product they're using.
https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41251-CR0.pd...
Of course they may have upgraded to something else that shows the same producers, but the pattern is still there.
(It may also be that it works better with PDFMaker, doing paragraphs instead of individual words, I've only noticed the difference, not figured out the specifics)
So that's a justification for lawlessness? If it's so important, then pass a law, don't rule by executive order.
A vaccine mandate by OSHA, however, is unprecedented, and I can’t speak on how successful it’ll be and whatever unintended consequences it may have
I think the courts have a history of disagreeing on that point. Not enough, mind you, we've seen an unprecedented expansion of federal powers, but they have been ruling some of the more extreme executive orders unconstitutional.
1. It doesn't close the door on private vaccine mandates, which while certainly concerning to some on the fringe, aren't as much of a hot topic.
2. It specifically calls out "premature"; one of the strongest pro-public vaccine mandate arguments is in their precedence. We absolutely do require vaccination in many situations, such as at grade schools or going to university. A critical, nuanced centrist opinion is simply the sense that these vaccines are extremely new; while they have scientifically demonstrated safety for the duration of the studies, and more generally perceived safety for the duration of their availability, both of these timelines pale in comparison to the timeframe many other commonly available vaccines have been available for.
3. Additionally, on the premature angle: We did have three highly effective vaccines in the US. This has been more-or-less reduced to two (as the J&J's efficacy is in such broad question, combined with their production issues, many vaccine sites aren't offering it anymore). Public vaccine mandates would in-effect be a public backing of a private corporation's revenue; the same people who rightly despise America's military-industrial complex aren't seeing the incredibly apt correlates to the increasing power of the public health-industrial complex.
4. Finally, on the premature angle: I strongly, in all walks of life, take the stance "if a choice isn't obvious, its because you don't have enough data". The choice on public vaccine mandates, democratically, is undeniably Not Obvious; its obvious to many individuals, in both direction, and thus it is not obvious to the voting public in aggregate. Thus, doing nothing except gathering more data, which our public health institutions are quite great at, is the right course. This always crystalizes the correct choice.
In short, the issue has become too politicized; I feel the best course of action right now is for politicians to step back and let our doctors and scientists take the lead. With the increasing existence and availability of effective treatment options, combined with the increasing pro-vaccine population driving down infections, hospitalizations, and death; a public vaccine mandate may end up inflaming one side of the political spectrum, and hurting our economy by causing significantly increased turnover and vacancies in an already difficult climate for businesses, unnecessarily.
I think you've misstated the centrist opinion here. If it were really obvious that "the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine", then public vaccine mandates would be the obvious choice. The reason public vaccine mandates are premature is that it is not obvious that everyone should get the vaccine. People's risk profiles vary widely, for both vaccines and for COVID. That's why it should be left to individual people and individual workplaces to strike the best balance for them, instead of a one-size-fits-all mandate for everybody.
Not all mandates are equal, not all vaccines are equal, and not all diseases are equal. A mandate barring employment, for a vaccine involving a novel mechanism and drug, for COVID is bonkers.
> a novel mechanism and drug
Yes, exactly: these are reasons to not be convinced that "everyone should get the vaccine". It is extremely hard to imagine a realistic situation in which we would be that convinced--convinced enough to justify the mandates that are actually being done--but that's exactly my point. The "really obvious" standard (which is extremely difficult to meet) is the one we should be applying, but we're not.
"The vaccine is good, and everyone should get a vaccine" is, ultimately, a personal health decision.
"The vaccine is good, and everyone must get a vaccine if you want to work" brings in a fantastically large number of externalities to the discussion, including, but not limited to:
* The exploitation of America's lack of social safety net to more tastefully hide the assertion that this is a blanket vaccine mandate. America is capitalistic; most people work. A bill which straight-up said "every citizen must get a vaccine" would be shot-down by every judge in the country, rightfully; is this bill really, meaningfully different, when there are few public safety nets in place to catch people who refuse?
* The overuse of executive power to dictate private company behavior. This is basically what OSHA does; no one is arguing there is not precedence. The argument is whether this goes too far beyond their jurisdiction.
* The overuse of executive power to force companies to become vaccine police; this is something many companies, even ones that BROADLY support the vaccine, fundamentally do not want to do. Its a massive internal logistical effort. They've never done anything like it before.
* Personal liberty; like it or not, America is founded on a strong basis of personal liberties, arguably the strongest in the world. A common counter-argument is "what about my freedom to feel safe among my coworkers"; first, semantically, what's being described here is not a Freedom. You cannot have the "Freedom" to feel safe. Maybe it could be classified as a Right, but the Rights afforded to US Citizens are few between and very well defined; this is absolutely, in any sense of the word, not one of them.
* Logistics; everyone forgets about the second part of the mandate; either be vaccinated or face continuous testing. Going back to the corporate vaccine police argument; companies are not set up to do in-house testing, by and large. Its OBSCENELY expensive and time-consuming; one local, large company, here in a low-vaccination state, says they've already spent eight figures this year on testing, thanks to an internal mandate that looks identical to this upcoming public one. Off the record; they wish they could discontinue it, they fundamentally cannot afford it. Many companies will outsource it to the Walgreens and CVS's and other private healthcare entities, which are already strained enough. Can our healthcare system handle the increased load of tens of millions of tests every day? Did anyone in power even consider this?
* Executive christening of private corporation profit; we have, effectively, two highly functional vaccines. Passing this bill means, in no uncertain terms, that these two companies will make billions of dollars. We already have a military-industrial complex; why not add a public health-industrial complex to the mix as well; so much for equitable, public good.
* Impact to other countries; Vaccines are a critical, limited resource. We have the best ones, and the best manufacturing capacity. Other countries, including many low-income underserved ones like in Africa and East Asia, need and want these doses that we're forcing onto people who don't want them.
* Impact to future elections; We live in a democracy. This is a massive gambit by the left, which may end up inciting the right-leaning centrists to actually get out and vote Biden out. Political power is a limited resource; is this the best thing for the left to spend theirs on?
* Impact to the economy; we're in a worker shortage right now. Forcing a massive portion of the population to make a decision between their personal health and work, will inevitably lead to many choosing personal health. They'll "make it work"; maybe by moving to smaller companies that aren't subject to the mandate, leaning on spousal support, what little public safety net our country has, or something else worse.
No, "The vaccine is good, I should get the vaccine" is a personal health decision. "The vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine" is a much, much broader claim, which only makes sense as an attempt to justify a mandate, which has all of the downsides you list. That's why I objected to it: because framing such a broad claim as a "personal health decision" or a "centrist position" is exactly the kind of lack of critical thinking that you rightly criticize.
If Covid vaccination is a vaccination i true sense the above assumption should apply to it no ?
Also using a government agency intended for construction / mining hard hat and fall safety for vaccinating people who don’t want to get vaccinated for personal medical reasons is outrageous. This is the kind of stuff that happens in a communist country like North Korea
When my "friend" is taking up an ICU bed at the local hospital and I die from a heart attack that would have been easily treatable when there were beds available, I care. When I can't get the surgery I need to deal with cancer because the hospital is overstressed dealing with my "friends", I care.
Every time the virus infects someone, it replicates millions of times inside their body. If one of those mutations is more contagious and prolongs this pandemic, I care.
As other posters have told you, vaccines aren't 100%. I get my flu shot each year and I still don't want to spend time around people who have a cold.
Vaccines don't work like that. They give you a better chance of not getting something (chicken pox vaccine is 90% effective), and the rest of the vaccine's effectiveness is made up in scale (if everyone has 90% resistance, the virus has nowhere to "catch hold" and just disappears). Many people don't get that, and think vaccines should either be 100% effective or they shouldn't be used at all, or they don't understand that they only work well when they are applied at scale (which is why schools mandate many vaccines with few exceptions).
> his is the kind of stuff that happens in a communist country like North Korea
Or America in the 1950s and 1960s when they wanted to get rid of polio, chicken pox, measles, hepatitis, etc... It is crazy: America back then didn't care about these nut case concerns, they were just focused on getting the job done. What happened to this country?
Sticking your nose in everyone else's business is just unhealthy. If others don't want to get it. That is their decision
The virus completely endemic at this point, it will never be eradicated. We have a vaccine that is effective and free to all who want it. Breakthrough infections happen, but not often and those who get them usually recover. Will I need to wear a mask for the rest of my life? Will I need to worry about my children staying home from school forever? I want to forget about the virus and get on with my life.
Data from my country (the Czech Republic), last Thursday (4th): 372 people newly admitted to hospitals, out of them 167 were fully vaccinated. I'm not saying the number is huge or alarming (much more vaccinated people in the population, those 167 people are also older on average than the other group), but it's still far from "not often".
> Will I need to wear a mask for the rest of my life? Will I need to worry about my children staying home from school forever? I want to forget about the virus and get on with my life.
Here's a scary thought: We the humanity are a bit more intelligent than other animals and a bit more flexible (also more destructive), but no one said we'll be the kings forever. Maybe a single lucky virus is enough to significantly hurt us. Maybe we're a couple of mutations far from never being able to forget the virus and yes, wearing masks for the rest of our lives. We can't forget that HIV exists, can we? Nobody said that a stupid new coronavirus can't be our downfall.
The virus is objectively not endemic yet, as demonstrated by the overwhelmed hospital systems. This may not be the case where you live, but there are many places in the US where crisis standards of care are either currently implemented, on the verge of being implemented, or have just been ceased. While you're totally right about breakthrough infections etc, it's a bit premature to say we're back to normal when people are at risk of dying of treatable conditions solely because hospitals are full of mostly unvaccinated covid patients.
My point is just that, as tired of hearing about it as everyone is, covid is still killing many people both directly (through infection) and indirectly (through tying up healthcare resources). We're still not at a place where covid is like the flu or colds because, as one example measure, it's overwhelming hospitals.
We should definitely be talking about expanding healthcare capacity, if not for covid than for the burgeoning obesity, diabetes, and hypertension epidemic. Those are discussions that have been happening for years, and ultimately work on a decade timescale.
She refused to say if CDC staff were returning to work or what their vaccination rate was.
Not sure what they do all day. (My understanding is they have 3,000 staff.)
Just because “we the CDC” didn’t fund it doesn’t make it any less true.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/
Strange that the study would focus on individuals who received a 250-μg dose. The adult dose is 100-μg (https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-...). Yes, the study states that key findings were validated with 8 participants who received the regular dosage, but still seems odd to me.
The comparison dataset is explained as: "The convalescent plasma samples were characterized in earlier studies (13–16) and grouped into an early time point of 15 to 60 days after symptom onset and a late time point of 100 to 150 days after symptom onset."
So the comparison was between vaccinated individuals, most of whom received a higher dose than is being given out, to infected individuals, and the time periods don't exactly line up. For the vaccinated dataset, the time periods were 7 and 90 days after the second dose. For the other dataset, the time periods were 15-60 days, and 100-150 days after symptom offset.
Deeper into the study, there is also this: "The escape maps of the 100-μg cohort resembled those of the 250-μg cohort and fell into the 456/484-targeting, core-targeting, or flat categories (fig. S6). Although the sample sizes are small, and a higher fraction of the 100-μg dose escape maps were flat than for the 250-μg cohort (4 of 8 versus 5 of 14, respectively), this suggests that 100- and 250-μg doses elicit antibody responses similar in the breadth of their RBD-binding specificity."
Source: https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 (time 2:08:35)
https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-wal...
More specifically, the exchange ~46 minutes with Burr where she discusses how the CDC is studying infection derived immunity?
(I'm not gonna watch the 3 hours to figure out what timestamp you are referring to with the vaccination rate)
> This study found that among Kentucky residents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, those who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher likelihood of reinfection during May and June 2021. This finding supports the CDC recommendation that all eligible persons be offered COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status.
We know the vaccine confers high immunity early on, and then wanes.
As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting.
I would really like to see if this 2.34x improvement lasts in individuals vaccinated 6+ months ago.
What are you basing this on? I'm aware of one (unpublished, widely criticized) study with something like this conclusion that people like to throw around.
Oct 28, 2021
> Anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies were identified in 97% of COVID-19 convalescent donors at initial presentation. In follow-up analyses, of 116 donors presenting at repeat time points, 91.4% had detectable IgG levels up to 11 months after symptom recovery
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34089610/
Aug 25, 2021
> Model 1 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=238, 1.5%) were 13 fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 2 ... found that cases in the vaccinated group (n=640, 1.4%) were 6-fold more likely to experience a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
> Model 3 ... found that cases in the infection-vaccine group (n=20, 0.14%) had about half the risk of experiencing a breakthrough infection than the natural immunity group
https://ncrc.jhsph.edu/research/comparing-sars-cov-2-natural...
June, 2021
> The presence of IgG antibodies to nucleocapsid protein was associated with substantially reduced risk of reinfection in staff and residents for up to 10 months after primary infection.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanhl/article/PIIS2666-75...
Jan 26, 2021
> As with antibodies, the numbers of different immune cell types varied substantially between individuals. Neither gender nor differences in disease severity could account for this variability. However, 95% of the people had at least 3 out of 5 immune-system components that could recognize SARS-CoV-2 up to 8 months after infection.
https://www.nih.gov/news-events/nih-research-matters/lasting...
None of the other links indicate infection-acquired immunity is more robust or longer lasting than vaccine-acquired. Only that there is some lasting immunity in some people.
true, none of the other links are directly comparative to vaccine efficacy. my claim is in the context that _other_ studies show vaccine efficacy drops off after 6 months.
https://www.latimes.com/science/story/2021-11-04/study-shows...
overall im trying to make 2 points
1. many (all?) of the vaccine efficacy studies omit data for candidates who received the vaccine 6+ months prior to the time of study.
2. the vaccine is redundant for those with prior infection.
Or take a quote from this article: https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...
>“The biggest limitation in the study is that testing [for SARS-CoV-2 infection] is still a voluntary thing—it’s not part of the study design.” That means, she says, that comparisons could be confounded if, for example, previously infected people who developed mild symptoms were less likely to get tested than vaccinated people, perhaps because they think they are immune.
I don't think your point 2. should be taken for granted. From the conclusion of the contested study:
>Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
we've officially come full circle!
my original complaint is that these studies all baseline against candidates that were vaccinated within the 6 months prior to publishing.
the gained improvement is already marginal in this scenario, but if the improvement diminishes even further, then it's hard to justify a mandate.
after that, who knows?
IF your immune system is strong enough and lucky enough to lock to the appropriate parts of the virus.
If your immune system doesn't do that, well, you wind up dead. So, yeah, immunity after recovery might be better because the other ones aren't part of your study as they're in a hole in the ground.
Most people would rather be in the majority, than be right.
At least 20% of the population has strong authoritarian tendencies, which will emerge under the right conditions.
Fear of death is only rivalled by the fear of social disapproval. The latter could be stronger.
Propaganda is just as effective in the modern day as it was 100 years ago. Access to limitless information has not made the average person any wiser.
Source: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1412012561164390403.html
People I thought were rational just turned complete morons.
My disappointment is high, I'm getting lonelier and lonelier.
Same. Some of the smartest, most rational people I know completely lost their damn minds. Tribalism is more important than just about anything, it seems.
For me, it is very obvious which side this person is on (both the twitterer and HN poster) based on keyword like "authoritarian" and "propaganda" and "fear of death", not to mention "people have science as religion".
- Authoritarianism - The left is authoritarian because they are for mandates and lockdowns.
- Propaganda - The mainstream media and the CDC have continually overexaggerated the threat of COVID.
- Fear of death - People on the left only cares about virtual signaling and not the threat to their personal safety that comes with giving up freedom.
Perspective from the left:
- Authoritarianism - The Trump admin lied to us about the threat of COVID, tried to cover up their mismanagement of the pandemic, restricted people's individual freedom to prioritize their health by forcing people back to work. Also there is the whole trying to invalidate fair elections thing.
- Propaganda - Fox News and Republicans have continually downplayed the threat of COVID and the effectiveness of the vaccine.
- Fear of death - The people on the right would rather follow the leaders of their party than protect their own safety.
The one about science being religion is one of the few that reveals Zuby's bias.
If these vaccines work so well, why are all the blue states requiring fully vaccinated individuals to wear masks? You can even get a booster and still be required to wear a mask. If they are so effective, why does any vaccinated individual give a single crap about the vaccination status of anybody else? Who are these masks trying to protect?
If anything the only people downplaying the effectiveness of the vaccine are the “experts” and all these worthless politicians.
Note: I’m fully vaccinated and believe these vaccines are perhaps some of the best humans have created. There is zero reason to continue dragging this crap on beyond last January. Vaccines were the promised end of all these restrictions. That people seem perfectly okay shifting the goalposts well beyond that is scary as hell.
And vaccomated people don’t need masks. It isn’t a science thing. It’s just plain stupid to keep wearing them. Life has plenty of other things for people to worry about besides just this myopic fixation on covid.
Same with masks… deep in most peoples hearts, they know masks don’t do a darn thing. But they’ll never admit it… don’t wanna be thought of as “the others”…
As an aside, I know that this is a hot-button topic. It would be appreciated if you follow the site guidelines, and be more charitable in conversation.
The 2020 election was as fair and secure as the covid vaccines are safe and effective.
I mean look at all the talk of "authoritarianism" and "people enjoy being subjugated". I can only assume he's talking about things like mask and vaccine mandates. Which is so fucking bizarre to me because we've had things like seatbelt and helmet laws for decades, vaccine mandates ever since I was born, and one of his complaints is that "the government and media can politicize anything"?? None of this shit used to be politicized to anywhere near the degree it is today - now even things that have the most mild downsides, yet with clear benefits to others, are "the government is out to own you". All with the same bullshit tone of "ahh, look at those ignorant sheeple"...
Libertarians and other freedom lovers have been fighting, arguing against and civilly disobeying those laws, vehemently, for as long as they have been in existence. Perhaps it didn't get as much play in the media.
So you'd be OK with denying life-saving measures to overeaters with diabetes, swingers with AIDS, and smokers with lung cancer? After all, their lifestyle choices are to blame, so according to what you have shared, they don't deserve help.
It takes a lot of work to go from seatbelt and helmet laws to requiring proof of medical status to enter a clothing store. Especially since most of the people pushing this crap also require everybody to wear masks as well. Like, do these people think vaccines don’t work? Because they sure don’t seem to act like vaccines do anything at all.
That makes an unfortunate amount of sense.
https://www.slideshare.net/gvwilson/bits-of-evidence-2338367
This will be taught in every US highschool one day.
If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.