The mandates I speak of are official orders from governments. These orders require private establishments to enforce discriminatory government policy, or risk fine and other punishments. These policies have been implemented around the globe, if you weren’t aware.

But it was very quickly clear that no communication was happening, until I finally had resorted to clear and unambiguous brutality. That is, I had to communicate with it on its terms. — tim wood

What do you mean? Spell it out.

Does twisting the truth achieve anything? — Cheshire

What twisting of truth?

Ok. At first, it was verbal. "No kitty, don't do that!" Then I whistled, then clapped my hands, then sprayed cat with some water. And no matter how quickly my response followed the scratching, it was clear the cat was not connecting my behavior with his own. So - in retrospect - it appears to me that I finally was able to convince the cat that the rug itself was/would be hurtful to the cat. So it steered clear. I have no evidence it understood anything about its scratching the rug - I can guess, but no evidence.

They do. All you need is a covid pass, and then you can do anything you want. You can be a superspreader. — baker

Yours is a perverse interpretation. As is the remainder of your post. I feel sorry for you.

Flogging. — tim wood

I believe you. What you are speaking to has been referred to as "imprinting". Animals do it well and you are right, there is minimal lasting damage to a relationship while the lesson learned is life long.

When a fully vaccinated but infected man shows up at a establishment with a vaccine passport, he gets let in, — NOS4A2

I can't verify your laws, but here if someone did so they would receive a $1000 fine. IN addition anyone they infect could take civil action against them.

FYI, Chris (Simpsons artist) has advice

• how to wear your mask

• coronavirus - how to wash your hands

It's so convenient to blame covid for what is actually the general decline of quality in human interaction. — baker

Oh but of course! What else would be better that when being rude and not caring about manners, you can insist that you are only being thoughtful and taking into consideration others. And that those who perform these antique antics, likely shaking hands or (OMG!), hugging or kissing to the cheek are putting others in danger. Just as one now famous and widely popular doctor said, he would like that people would not shake hands anymore in general.

People just love it when something that has been nearly a vice can be portrayed as an virtue. And yes, I think people have become more rude and unfriendly in the past two decades compared to the 20th Century.

And yeah, then we'll notice that being lonely has increased! Well, thanks Faceb, correction, META, we will have a better alternative reality to go in later. (As if I'm not here already commenting someone who is a totally stranger to me likely living on another continent or at least in another country)

Do they not work? — baker

How many now have started to work from home? Working from home isn't because of Covid, but this experiment has surely increased working from home.

It's far cheaper for your employer if the employees stay at home and work from there and only occasionally comes to a physical meeting or something. No need to have or rent huge office spaces.

What has been the normal, regular, ordinary experience for so many minorites, for those bullied and mobbed, excluded from normal society, has now become a temporary experience for a few more people. And they cry foul?! — baker

Ah yes, the evil arrogant majority with their white privilege. They (we) surely deserve this!

The mandates I speak of are official orders from governments. These orders require private establishments to enforce discriminatory government policy, or risk fine and other punishments. These policies have been implemented around the globe, if you weren’t aware. — NOS4A2

Generally "discriminatory" is considered an unjustified distinction, like race, age, or sex. Refusal to participate in a public health matter is a justified distinction even if considered disagreeable. The threshold for keeping an endemic wave from spiking is pretty sensitive and the R value of the mutations seems to be increasing. Lastly, people just aren't used to having to manage outbreaks of infection. Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. If a man wants to live as an island then he ought not complain when finding himself on one.

What twisting of truth? — baker

You keep pretending that the holes in the system are the system for the sake of an argument. There is no provision for an exception granted to infected persons who happen to be vaccinated. Can infected persons be allowed unintended admission? Yes, it isn't a perfectly exclusionary distinction. The "twist" is seeing this as hypocrisy instead of a statistical limitation.

An extreme example would be arguing that not everyone is required to wear a parachute because they don't open on occasion.

Sigh. The vaccine does not prevent a person from getting Covid. The vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will catch it - and if you do catch it the vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will have a serious case.

Anyone who ever said that the vaccine totally prevents Covid is wrong. Indeed, even the liberal press has criticized such mistaken statements

Sigh. The vaccine does not prevent a person from getting Covid. The vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will catch it - and if you do catch it the vaccine significantly reduces the odds that you will have a serious case. — EricH

Sigh. No it doesn't. The vaccine significantly reduces the prevalence of cases in the community and significantly reduces the prevalence of serious outcomes in the community.

Whether the reduction in your risk, of either, was significant depends on what your risk was in the first place.

...besides which, as I understand @baker's position, it has nothing to do with the significance of the reduction and everything to do with the heartless abandonment of the poor sods for whom it doesn't work, or worse.

But, then to actually give a shit about that would require one to take a break from their work in Pfizer's PR team and actually look at one of the other major health interventions we could have been spending their $6 billion payday on, so I don't see much hope there.

Generally "discriminatory" is considered an unjustified distinction, like race, age, or sex. Refusal to participate in a public health matter is a justified distinction even if considered disagreeable. The threshold for keeping an endemic wave from spiking is pretty sensitive and the R value of the mutations seems to be increasing. Lastly, people just aren't used to having to manage outbreaks of infection. Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. If a man wants to live as an island then he ought not complain when finding himself on one.

One can show prejudice against any category of people, of whatever status. This category of people in particular, for whatever reason, do not want these chemicals injected into their body, as is their right. Other categories of people are required to prove their medical history, which is no one else’s business. But because of their status the unvaccinated are being denied access to many components of ordinary life, even if they are at relatively no risk of illness, or have antibodies, and have zero coronavirus on their person.

None of it stops the spread of coronavirus.

One can show prejudice against any category of people, of whatever status. This category of people in particular, for whatever reason, do not want these chemicals injected into their body, as is their right. — NOS4A2

No one wants chemicals injected into their body. They aren't special in this regard.

Other categories of people are required to prove their medical history, which is no one else’s business. — NOS4A2

The subtext this carries is what puts me off. The sentiment of a civil rights struggle mixed with protection of ones core privacy is the definition of overkill. It seems like the subtle manipulation of emotion rather than sound reason. Which is suspect in any case I've found it employed.

But because of their status the unvaccinated are being denied access to many components of ordinary life, even if they are at relatively no risk of illness, or have antibodies, and have zero coronavirus on their person. — NOS4A2

Again, "ordinary life" could mean a lot of things when in reality we are mostly talking about dining and entertainment venues.

None of it stops the spread of coronavirus. — NOS4A2

Alright well we have a vaccine and generally the strategy with that tool has been to give it to people. Do you suppose vaccine uptake will increase by eliminating the mandates?

I acknowledge it's unfair and manipulative. Give people enough of a tax credit and they'll take any shot you give them. And it compensates them for the benefit to society it provides. In the US we already killed off the most vulnerable. 1 in every 100 over 65 I think was the summation. So, personally I think my sentiment is actually closer to your argument than mine. But, I stand by the objections to it's being over sensationalized.

When a fully vaccinated but infected man shows up at a establishment with a vaccine passport, he gets let in, — NOS4A2


I can't verify your laws, but here if someone did so they would receive a $1000 fine. — Banno

Really? On the basis of PCR? That seems like opening a hornet's nest of counter claims. Didn't your government only just return three detainment camp escapees, despite them testing negative, on the grounds that "the tests aren't perfect"? Imperfect enough to imprison as a precaution, yet perfect enough to make you $1000 the poorer (typical capitalist response - you can do what you like if $1000 is pocket money, but if it's your life savings you'd better hope to God you're no falsely accused - best just stay in, not worth the risk). It sounds like a legal (and ethical) nightmare!

I'm baffled by your position. Not sure what country you're from, but here in the US we are still experiencing over 1k daily deaths from Covid and the vast majority of those deaths are unvax'd. Our health care systems are being overwhelming. These are verifiable facts.

Are you OK with this state of affairs? If not, what is your solution?

I don't consider the unvaccinated special, but governments worldwide consider the unvaccinated special enough to keep them out of participating in many aspects of the market, their jobs, in some cases denying them access to free healthcare (Singapore), to board a plane (Canada), to shopping in malls and other retail, and even hospitals (France). In Austria, one can be fined $4000 a month by virtue of the absence of Pfizer, Moderna, or AstraZenica in his blood.

Of course if you threaten to fire people because they do not want a vaccination, or deny them access to any facet of a free society—dining, entertainment, shopping, travel, free healthcare—many will fall in line. Coercion and threat and state force are powerful means to get people to do what you want. The point is it is morally wrong for a government to coerce people by threatening to take their rights away, and if they do not abide, to take their rights away.

As I've already said...

This seems to be another common theme here, judging other people's intents using your beliefs. Other people act on the basis of their beliefs, not yours. — Isaac

You're baffled because you think I believe the things you believe and then can't understand why I reach a different conclusion. I don't believe the things you believe. That's why my conclusions are different.

Since you and I are epistemic peers (I assume?) our disagreement is not resolvable by anything other than reason from shared beliefs. Such discussion seems to be out of fashion these days, replaced by the latest fad for believing everything our governments tell us and yelling for the public flogging of anyone who disagrees.

My 'position' has been laid out a dozen times, supported entirely by reputable medical journals and scientists qualified in the relevant fields. Disagreement trails off into either silence or insult, I've nothing left but bored potshots half-heartedly lobbed.

The public discourse on these matters is an absolute disgrace, if the world wanted to walk right into a populist, right-wing world order it could not have found a better way.

Do as your government tells you, don't question the mainstream narrative, publicly shame those that do... Do you see the zeitgeist leading to a new era of enlightened socialism?

The point is it is morally wrong for a government to coerce people by threatening to take their rights away, and if they do not abide, to take their rights away. — NOS4A2

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease?

Yours is a perverse interpretation. As is the remainder of your post. I feel sorry for you. — Banno

A reply straight from the rightwinger's textbook:

Shoot, don't aim.
Act in bad faith.
Assume the other person is immoral, and an idiot.
Don't bother to get to know the other person or remember things about them.
Conjure up the most idiotic interpretation of their words, and then insist that this is what they mean.
Place the entire burden for the quality of the interaction on them.

This is how you win.

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease? — Cheshire

Take a look: Is the country you live in actually in a state of an epidemic? Has the government declared it?

People keep talking about a pandemic, but whether a country is officially, legally in a state of an epidemic is another matter.

Did you answer the question or no?

You keep pretending that the holes in the system are the system for the sake of an argument. There is no provision for an exception granted to infected persons who happen to be vaccinated. Can infected persons be allowed unintended admission? Yes, it isn't a perfectly exclusionary distinction. The "twist" is seeing this as hypocrisy instead of a statistical limitation.

An extreme example would be arguing that not everyone is required to wear a parachute because they don't open on occasion. — Cheshire

What are you talking about?!

I have stated my position many times, but you and your fellows just don't find it worth to remember it. This is the message you're sending.

Power granted to the government regarding matters of public health have been understood to be necessary for centuries. — Cheshire

Then why doesn't the government act accordingly?
Why is it placing the whole burden of responsibility on the people?

Do you mean to say in this particular case or during all or most outbreaks of disease?

In relation to this pandemic, compulsory vaccinations, and vaccine passports.

On the basis of PCR? — Isaac

No.

Didn't your government... — Isaac

Wrong government - that was NT.

In relation to this pandemic, compulsory vaccinations, and vaccine passports. — NOS4A2

Oh ok, but in principle the government can do these things and under the proper conditions you think they are reasonable. Just for clarification. There's a big difference between arguing the case in general and whether or not Covid should qualify.

A reply straight from the rightwinger's textbook: — baker

:lol:

On the basis of PCR? — Isaac


No. — Banno

On what basis then? Must I wring blood from the stone!

Wrong government - that was NT. — Banno

I see. Although not relevant anymore if the fine's not based on PCR anyway. Presumably in NT then one could walk into a bar vaccinated but infected and suffer no legal opposition?

800th time, a vaccine doesn't have to be perfect to be relevant. — Cheshire

:up:

A good 250 pages in, I wonder how many times repetitions have been posted.

None of it stops the spread of coronavirus. — NOS4A2

Do you think there is some magical spell that stops the virus?
It's about stemming the tide, containing, tracking, learning.

Some of your comments can't be differentiated from paranoia.

How long were they expected to be interned (and for what intent)? — again again again

Your line of thinking exits before getting to duration and intent (asked more than once).

Anyway, I, for one, would like to stomp the virus (unlike @Book273 apparently), and move on.
Maybe this is a good time to separate doers and deniers?