Voices
in
Japan

have your say

Vaccine mandates: Is no jab, no entry into restaurants, cafes, bars, sporting and event venues discrimination?

124 Comments

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

124 Comments

Comments have been disabled You can no longer respond to this thread.

I would not say it is discrimination, but it is not nice to refuse people who are not vaccinated to enter restaurants, bars, and so on...

In my opinion, nobody should be forced to take the vaccine. But to refuse entry to some etablissements because you are not vaccinated, is a kind of forcing them to take the vaccine.

I know 2 people, who refused to take the vaccine and I have contact with them almost every day.

I don't feel bad or anything to meet and talk to them.

I don't make any difference how to look at a person or treat a person according if he or she is vaccinated or not.

And anyway, what should we do in the future?

Should I ask every person first to show me their vaccine passport before I start talking or working with them?

That is completely over the limit.

16 ( +38 / -22 )

In the sense of recognizing differences between people? yes, it can be a valid measure to increase the safety based on objective evidence.

Some people will disagree trying to make the point their irrational beliefs should be protected even if they can be clearly contradicted by the scientific consensus, but they themselves find no problem doing it against other people as long as they don't share the irrational belief, which makes obvious their double standards.

If someone says he doesn't believe the science about smoking, should they be allowed to smoke whenever and wherever they like? obviously not, even if they endlessly repeat they believe not smoking is more risky for everybody's health.

-6 ( +27 / -33 )

It is.It's pathetic that you're not "forced" to get jabbed, but if you don't,you're prevented from being able to do normal things.Like go to bars/restaurants,gyms,indoor or outdoor facilities. Will end up can't talk to someone if they're not vaxxed,which many posters here want to espouse. Being brain-washed to think like that is dangerously sick in of itself. I'm sure you've got family members who won't take the jab.But you'll not ignore them though.Or not with your usual online warrior bravado anyway.

0 ( +25 / -25 )

Well, you’re not forced to wear a collared shirt and nice shoes, but if you don’t, some restaurants or bars/clubs will refuse you entry. Don’t see people protesting about that!!

so, no it’s not discriminatory at all.

9 ( +35 / -26 )

IMO, barring entry to bars, restaurants, etc. to the unvaccinated would be discrimination. Also, let's remember that some of us are not anti-vax, but people who are holding out for safer vaccines (non-mRNA). Masks, hand-washing, distancing and other protection measures should of course, be required.

-9 ( +21 / -30 )

Also, let's remember that some of us are not anti-vax, but people who are holding out for safer vaccines

This is still irrelevant, not only because you are deliberately exposing yourself (and others) to higher risk by not vaccinating, but because it makes no difference for the reason to restrict the unvaccinated person from entering a place.

If someone is ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, would he saying "but I am waiting for newer models that are safer" have any importance? You are choosing to irrationally wait, consequences are part of that choice.

0 ( +31 / -31 )

if you don't,you're prevented from being able to do normal things.Like go to bars/restaurants,gyms,indoor or outdoor facilities.

All those places require the payment of money (with the possible exception of outdoor facilities, depends on the facility). Is it discrimination to refuse service or entry to people who have no money?

As others have mentioned, some places require a certain dress code: is it discrimination to refuse entry to a restaurant to someone straight off the beach, dripping wet and wearing only trunks and flip flops?

Businesses and facilities impose restrictions to maintain standards for themselves and their customers. If they charge an entry fee, you either pay up or don’t go in. Same applies if the entry ‘fee’ involves showing proof of vaccination.

If you’re mentally strong enough to put up with not being vaccinated in the middle of a pandemic, then suck it up and be mentally strong enough to put up with being denied entry to vaccinated-only venues.

13 ( +34 / -21 )

It's anti-virus discrimination.

The kind that the overwhelming majority of people are in support of.

-3 ( +23 / -26 )

If you’re mentally strong enough to put up with not being vaccinated in the middle of a pandemic...blah,blah,blah.

I got vaxxed by the way,but unlike many of you vaccine thumpers,I care about people.And discriminating against them openly because they're not doing the same as me is weak.But when you've only known entitled,well...

-7 ( +21 / -28 )

If someone is ticketed for not wearing a seatbelt, would he saying "but I am waiting for newer models that are safer" have any importance? You are choosing to irrationally wait, consequences are part of that choice.

Uh, seat belts such as the well-known 3-point currently in use (courtesy of Volvo) have been around since 1959. What's that? A 62 year PROVEN safety record? We've had a lot of time to learn about seat belts. On the other hand, the mRNA COVD vaccines that you worship only received emergency authorization in 2020. It's apples to oranges and a lousy comparison at that. If there were to be any comparison at all, it should be between traditional vaccines (inactivated, recombinant, etc. ) and mRNA. Anyways, please don't bother because I'm not listening.

-4 ( +21 / -25 )

Uh, seat belts such as the well-known 3-point currently in use (courtesy of Volvo) have been around since 1959. What's that? A 62 year PROVEN safety record?

So what? if a person say this is not enough for them, even if it is enough for the rest of the world, will he get a free pass from the consequences of not using it? In the same way that with vaccines there is room for improvement, there are risks associated with using them, and more importantly they are hugely safer than not using them.

For the scientists of the world vaccines have been demonstrated to be much safer than the infection, so choosing not to vaccinate is an irrational position, so if someone says that 62 years of safety records are NOT enough to prove seat belts as safe for him you would be both in the same position. Irrationally choosing a risky option and then expecting others to let you be free from the consequences of that irrational reason.

And again, if the person says the 6 point harness is still "not safe enough" and he is waiting for the safer next model, that still do not make it fine for him not to wear one.

That is the problem with choosing the irrational side (and being on the opposite side from science means precisely that), either you let everybody act irrationally or you have to act rationally as well, not doing so only evidence deep hypocrisy and double standards.

-4 ( +20 / -24 )

Just got to love the "GET THE SAME VACCINE AS US NOW OR ELSE!" attitudes some people have.

Intimidation, IMO.

-4 ( +19 / -23 )

I hope our anti-vaxxers are not going to put forward the idea that private businesses should not have the right to bar service to the non-vaccinated. Surely they wouldn’t want the government stepping in here and telling people what they should do with their own lives and livelihoods.

That would be the height of hypocrisy.

I still think there’s an opening in the market for anti-vaxxer venues for the more entrepreneurial. They would be hilarious.

1 ( +21 / -20 )

Just got to love the "GET THE SAME VACCINE AS US NOW OR ELSE!" attitudes some people have.

Intimidation, IMO.

Strawman, the actual argument is "vaccinating is the rational choice that protects everybody better, choosing irrationally have consequences, same as with everything else". You have to choose, either objective scientific knowledge can be applied to regulate how people (and you) behave or not, but pretending only to regulate others is not valid.

-5 ( +20 / -25 )

Just got to love the "GET THE SAME VACCINE AS US NOW OR ELSE!" attitudes some people have.

Intimidation, IMO.

Take it easy there, Tom.

The question should be if you oppose the right of businesses to choose not to serve people based on what that person chose to do. They already do this.

The ‘or else’ is simply that you will pay for the consequences of your choice in the form of being refused service.

I hope you don’t agree with taking away the right of businesses to choose.

1 ( +21 / -20 )

I bet most people who are in favour of discriminating against unvaccinated people never wore a mask or even thought of staying home when they have a cold before 2020. They probably have an exaggerated image of the risks form the coronavirus too and think 10% of people who get it die or something like that when really it's more like 0.15%. They probably haven't seen that many African countries like Nigeria have only vaccinated a tiny fraction of their population but the coronavirus has already essentially disappeared with barely a few thousand dying in populations of many, many millions without high standards of healthcare either. They will not have compared Israel, their model nation for population control, where cases and deaths are soaring to anywhere else where there are less vaccinated but this is not happening. They will certainly not have considered asymptomatic spread of the virus amongst the vaccinated, who could therefore be more of a danger than the unvaccinated as they will not be able to tell who is potentially carrying it and mingle unrestrained with them.

Therefore, anyone demanding other people be vaccinated should have to pass a test on these things to prove they really understand the effects of the coronavirus.

I doubt they would get even a few questions correct.

2 ( +20 / -18 )

I bet most people who are in favour of discriminating against unvaccinated people never wore a mask or even thought of staying home when they have a cold before 2020.

So you have a problem with people being more informed and acting better against diseases? it your point completely depends on people acting worse so you can do the same you are no longer arguing for any kind of improvement.

They probably haven't seen that many African countries like Nigeria have only vaccinated a tiny fraction of their population but the coronavirus has already essentially disappeared with barely a few thousand dying in populations of many, many millions without high standards of healthcare either.

When you begin to use "barely" for thousands of people dying it becomes much clear how much you are against actual public health. Vaccines can reduces those "barey" thousands to hundreds, or dozens, which is why those countries (and international organizations like the WHO) are desperately trying to get the vaccines for them. Are all the health care professionals of the world "exaggerating" the risks according to you?

They will certainly not have considered asymptomatic spread of the virus amongst the vaccinated, who could therefore be more of a danger than the unvaccinated as they will not be able to tell who is potentially carrying it and mingle unrestrained with them.

Because unvaccinated people can't be asymptomatic? Who do you think is more likely to use masks, social distancing and refrain? people that listen to scientific recommendations (incuding the vaccines) or those that instead choose to minimize the risks from COVID and act the opposite of what every health care and scientific institution of the world recommends? it is not such a big mystery.

I doubt they would get even a few questions correct.

You completely demonstrate this point.

-8 ( +18 / -26 )

Therefore, anyone demanding other people be vaccinated should have to pass a test on these things to prove they really understand the effects of the coronavirus.

Not to sound rude, but you don’t come across as an authority on this issue just like the vast, vast majority of us.

What’s your take on allowing businesses to choose who they allow service to based on what that customer chose to do?

This seems to be the central issue here but it’s being completely avoided.

Very suspicious. I’d almost go as far as saying disingenuous.

-7 ( +14 / -21 )

I hope you don’t agree with taking away the right of businesses to choose.

To choose or to discriminate? It sounds the same to me.

BTW, the meaning of "OR ELSE" is subjective and open to interpretation.

-1 ( +13 / -14 )

Vaccine mandates could be a valid measure if Covid-19 was much deadlier than it actually is, and if the vaccines were much more effective at decreasing the spread. As it is now, it's clear that the vaccine mandates are only for pressuring people to get something they don't need/want. If they truly motivated by saving lives, they would encourage the use of safe and effective early treatments...

4 ( +20 / -16 )

Businesses can do what they want. However, governments forcing people to be injected with largely unproven and unneeded chemicals makes me pause. There is a lot of hysteria and, dare I say, fake news about how contagious and dangerous Covid is. If you are under 50, the chances are virtually zero of dying from Covid. Fifty or so people dying from Covid is a tragedy, but considering that 4,000 people die every day in Japan from all causes, it isn't a number worth worrying too much about.

Not to mention, nobody is talking about people who have natural immunity to Covid, through previous exposure to the virus. It is ridiculous to expect THEM to also get vaccinated!

I have no problem with vaccines. If you choose to take them, good for you. I will probably eventually get one myself. But certain groups (young, healthy, children) really don't benefit as much as others (elderly, pre-existing conditions, etc).

8 ( +22 / -14 )

Vaccine mandates: Is no jab, no entry into restaurants, cafes, bars, sporting and event venues discrimination?

It's a tough one. I got vaccinated. I am 100% in favor of vaccination and beyond legit (and, well, "proven") medical reasons for not doing so, everybody "should" get vaccinated.

Still, I have the word "discrimination" on the tip of my tongue when it comes to the idea of excluding the non-vaccinated, buuuuut...

...But again, it is a pandemic, it is about protecting society as a whole in order for all of us to be able to return as much as we can to a pre-Corona situation which would ultimately benefit everyone.

I would believe that the groups in decreasing order of numbers to be:

.pro-vaccination (the overwhelming majority of the world population, these people have a choice)

.anti-vaccination (a fraction of the above group, these people have a choice)

.can not vaccinate / vaccination potentially being risky due to (proven) medical history (a fraction of a fraction of the above, these people may not have a choice but may appreciate not being ignored by the above groups)

As such, the overwhelming number of pro-vaccination should enable us to get the pandemic "under control", the problem being that if the anti-vaccination (much lower in numbers) but potentially still be numerous enough to prevent us from getting back to a pre-Corona situation or to delay any idea of a return to normality which ultimately is what all three groups want...

As such, the anti-vaccination crowd "sabotages" to an extend the efforts to deal with the crisis and as such puts people's lives in harm's way, some of which may not have the luxury of a choice when it comes to vaccinate or not.

To be blunt, if the situation would be limited to self-responsibility as in: you don't vaccinate and any results / effects of this would impact you and only you, I would think that most of the pro-vaccination crowd would not care (heck, I for sure wouldn't give a damn). Darwin awards are by default given out posthumously, so everything peachy...

More seriously, the problem is that as this is about a pandemic, it is not only about you and only you, it is about all of us and therefore there is not much of a choice and if discriminatory measures are called for, be it. It is not a popularity contest, it is about getting a health crisis under control.

it is the 21st century, we now have means and the choice to get the contagion under control and limit the chances of getting infected. For centuries, that choice was not available and the infected were sentenced to seclusion, solitary lives and ultimately solitary deaths in order to protect society in its entirety. So it is mind-boggling that some may now opt for:

.refusing that choice/chance

.deciding to put all of us at risk and

.expecting that society as a whole will bow to their choice

Anti-vaccination people are noisy about their choice, their bodies, their whatsits but...well, it is also about their responsibility. If they feel they are ok to run the risk to themselves, fine. But an airborn contagious disease doesn't stop at "their bodies" and goes beyond "their choices" to impact the people around them who incidentally may hove chosen the other option.

If anti-vaccination people do not feel any responsibility towards all of us and our legitimate health concerns, then be it. But again, why would we, those favoring vaccinations, need to feel any responsibility about hurting their feelings...?

Ultimately, it could boil down to: what goes around comes around and cherry-picking what you don't want to do without any repercussions resulting from your choice will simply not work. It's pretty simple actually...

So, well, I guess that as discrimination is ultimately what the anti-vaccination crowd asked for, discrimination is what they will get, so everything peachy...No?

-5 ( +10 / -15 )

As for the anti-vaxxers who claim they are waiting for a 'safe vaccine' - as in anything that hasn't been approved yet, just wait until they ARE approved -They will find further reasons not to get jabbed.

Jumping to conclusions? There are those who will always find reasons not get vaccinated AND there are those of who will get the non-mRNA vaccines when they're ready to be rolled out (Novavax and Shionogi for example).

2 ( +13 / -11 )

Very peachy @blue.

Of course those who cannot be vaccinated for legitimate medical reasons should be exempt from all restrictions but in reality with both mRna and AZ vaccines available here in Japan you are looking at a very small amount of people that fall under that umbrella.

It just always makes me wonder, why is it that that the most vociferous anti vaxxers are also the those that claim to be 'pro freedom' when it's come to virus measures. They are the same people that are anti mask/anti lockdown (whatever form that takes), anti Big Pharma, anti Google, anti Apple, anti Big Finance, anti mainstream press etc. Don't understand why these 'people' wish to condemn us to continuing restrictions on that basis. It's a very odd mindset.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

This is not a simple discussion. There are those who cannot get vaccinated because of medical conditions and others refuse for personal reasons. I get it and they can claim discrimination. ( the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories of people). For the record, I am vaccinated.

Restaurant Situation:

A customer (vaccinated) is seated next to B customer (unvaccinated). Neither are infected.

Neither will infect each other. You have to be infected in order to infect someone else.

C customer (vaccinated and recently but still unknown that they are infected as they show no symptoms) is seated next to D customer (vaccinated).

D customer starts showing symptoms 3 days later. D customer has no idea how they got infected.

You can still be vaccinated and get infected and pass it on to others. The vaccination is a way to reduce the severity of the symptoms that arise from being infected. It is not immunity.

Temperature testing, wearing masks, using alcohol to sanitize hands before entry to an establishment which has been put into place since the pandemic started at a lot of establishments is the way to help limit the spread of the virus. I think establishments have a right to continue that practice as a means to protect their staff and customers.

But simply refusing entry to someone who is not vaccinated is not good. Don't confuse unvaccinated as being infected.

11 ( +19 / -8 )

It is pretty simple. IF you believe the vaccine protects you, then by all means get it. But then, shut up. You have protected yourself, so why should other peoples' choices bother you? Sure there is a small chance you might pick up a very mild case of Covid from an unvaxxed person. But the same can be said for a fellow vaxxed person. No solution is perfect. If you are vaccinated, you won't die if you get Covid- at least the chance of dying is the same as getting hit by a falling Soviet satellite. Relax and get on with your life.

The world is not teeming with deadly viruses, just waiting for the chance to kill you. That is paranoid thinking. You don't need to constantly spray alcohol on yourself, wipe down every surface after every touch, or wear a mask when you are jogging. In the US it has taken 18 months for the virus to kill 0.5% of the population, and most of those people were already nearing the end.

Again, nobody answers about what to do with the 99% of people in Japan who survive the infection. Do THEY need to be vaccinated, even though they have natural immunity? There are more than 1.5 million people in Japan who caught, and survived, Covid. There is no need for them to get vaccinated.

17 ( +25 / -8 )

How come the antivaxxer crowd is so active this week? you don't vaccinate, you can't do some things, in the same way that if you want to drink you can't drive, even if you think alcohol makes you drive better, waiting is fine you are just accepting to be treated as not vaccinated until you do (if you ever do).

-9 ( +8 / -17 )

@theResident

It just always makes me wonder, why is it that that the most vociferous anti vaxxers are also the those that claim to be 'pro freedom' when it's come to virus measures. They are the same people that are anti mask/anti lockdown (whatever form that takes), anti Big Pharma, anti Google, anti Apple, anti Big Finance, anti mainstream press etc. Don't understand why these 'people' wish to condemn us to continuing restrictions on that basis. It's a very odd mindset.

In another post a few weeks or months ago, I did wonder about that one too.

I feel that the pro/anti-vaccination issue summarizes a divergence in what view of society some of us have, as in (roughly):

.society is a grouping of independent individuals (anti-vaccination)

.society is a network of linked individuals (pro-vaccination)

These 2 views influence both groups': thinking, talking, acting, supporting/opposing stances, etc.

Also, as these 2 views are radically opposed, they do clash. The clashes present very interesting differences in vocabulary / references as well:

.I vs we/us

.individual vs group (even society itself)

.freedom vs obligation/responsibility

.individual-think vs group/hive-think

.reference made to generally recognized authorities (e.g. government authorities, science, authority figures) vs what could be called "fringe" authorities (e.g. debunked science/theories, discredited scientists, people with dubious credentials, radio/internet influencers who all ultimately seem to stand as "individuals" against or opposing the "groups" which are generally recognized by the majority)

Somehow, this accumulation of individualities and individualism a "big picture" (also to them) does not make. Which would then explain why ultimately these people have themselves run in circles because as a whole they do not present any solution to what even some of them see as a "problem" (e.g. by opposing/ignoring a limited amount of time-limited lockdowns they force all of us in a never-ending cycle of ineffective lockdowns, by opposing the initial call for vaccination-shots they may well force all of us into a potentially never-ending cycle of booster-shots, etc). In short: where group action is required, does individual actions prove to be detrimental.

Ultimately, whatever the number of individuals / minority groups opposing the "majority group (here: society)" the latter will backlash, resulting in, I guess, discriminatory measures. It is pretty much unavoidable as both sides show simply unreconcilable standpoints.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

@thaonephil: I 'think' because they are beginning to realise that they have failed to stop uptake in Japan (whereas they have been a success in the US sadly), the Japanese are less likely to be swayed by fake news/social media than those in red states across the Pacific.

As I assume you know Japan has met little resistance or hesitancy and is well on course to get all those jabbed eligible very soon.

-9 ( +5 / -14 )

Businesses can do what they want. However, governments forcing people to be injected with largely unproven and unneeded chemicals makes me pause. 

I agree with the businesses being allowed to choose. I don’t think there’s a good argument against it given that the customer has made a choice ( there is an issue here with customers still waiting to be vaccinated ). Anti-Vaxxers tend to lean right/libertarian/conspiracy theory and couldn’t really argue for government intervention here in good faith.

As for government, I agree that there should be no mandate from the government, but in an emergency situation where the unvaccinated are much more likely to put strain on the medical system, the government would be under understandable pressure to act.

One solution put forward is that hospitals could refuse treatment to the unvaccinated, but I’m not sure of the legality or morality of this and if it violates the doctors’ oath to treat all people. I’m not knowledgeable in this area and would welcome input from those who are ( no links to nutters on YouTube please ).

I have come across reports from medical professionals who are exasperated with anti-vaxxers.

It’s a tough one.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

Discrimination is the u just treatment of others based on what or who they are or what they believe and the likes.

I think its great that there is a vaccine and think that all who want to should have access to it.

I also think that forcing someone who figures they arent concerned about corona, already had it, are young (so are mostly immune) to get the vaccine will result in resentment and problems in the long run.

7 ( +15 / -8 )

Jimizo

You aren’t sure of the “morality” of a hospital not treating someone who is sick or injured but unvaccinated?

I am sure that is wrong. And I am not anti vaccination.

Smokers should also not get treatment then.

And if you drink and drive and crash, thats pretty bad behavior!

Let him/her stay there?

10 ( +17 / -7 )

 there is a small chance you might pick up a very mild case of Covid from an unvaxxed person. But the same can be said for a fellow vaxxed person

That is exactly the point!

If a vaccinated person can spread the virus in the same way like an unvaccinated person, then it makes no sense to "separate" unvaccinated and vaccinated people.

This question must to be clearly answered:

Can an infected vaccinated person spread the Virus in the same way like an infected unvaccinated person?

(Symptomatic or asymptomatic. Whichever)

I am not talking about getting sick.

If an unvaccinated person is getting seriously sick, then it was his choice because he refused to take the vaccine.

And one more point I agree with @Attilathehungry,

We protected ourselves, so why should other peoples' choices bother us?

Like I said in my upper post:

I have almost every day contact with two unvaccinated persons.

That doesn't bother me at all!

12 ( +22 / -10 )

Anti-vaxxers should all be willing to sign agreements that if they catch covid, they won't go to the hospital. After all, they don't trust the science, so why are they going to trust it to heal them? This way they can not displace a bed from someone who does trust the science.

-8 ( +14 / -22 )

Anti-vaxxers should all be willing to sign agreements that if they catch covid, they won't go to the hospital. After all, they don't trust the science, so why are they going to trust it to heal them? This way they can not displace a bed from someone who does trust the science.

It is exactly because I understand and trust the science that I stay away from these vaccines.

5 ( +20 / -15 )

It would not be discriminatory if unvaccinated people could cause vaccinated people to get sick. However, because unvaccinated people cannot cause vaccinated people to get sick, it is discriminatory.

-6 ( +10 / -16 )

Strangerland

It must be a pretty dark world that you live in man.

I am pretty dissapointed at how quickly so many of us are ready to turn on the next guy for something.

7 ( +18 / -11 )

When the polio vaccination was invented, the scientists had no computers, super computers nor a huge group of super educated teams behind them. Today we have all the computer power and thousand s upon thousands of years of educated people working together. So those of you waiting for a new and improved mRna vaccine because you think our teams and computers suck, well you are a sorry bunch. I would bar you and will from my establishments, including family members.

Why did you get all the untrusted first of kind vaccines for MMR, Polio etc? I trust super computers more than I do Chicken Eggs.

-8 ( +9 / -17 )

@

StrangerlandToday 01:55 pm JST

Anti-vaxxers should all be willing to sign agreements that if they catch covid, they won't go to the hospital. After all, they don't trust the science, so why are they going to trust it to heal them? This way they can not displace a bed from someone who does trust the science.

-1( +6 / -7 )

Doctors in my family agree but they took an oath so they accept them. The sad part is the antivaxer begging for the vaccines while on their death beds and being refused because it is too late really hurts the doctors in my family that a life was wasted due to stupidity.

-9 ( +10 / -19 )

The thing a lot of people are forgetting is that vaccinated people can ALSO make other vaccinated people sick. It doesnt matter who spreads the virus to a vaccinated person, the result is the same. A vaxxed person doesn't get sicker if they are inadvertently infected by a non-vaxxed person, so I really don't get the hysteria.

Get the vaccine if you want. It probably reduces your chance of serious illness/hospitalization/death. Then, relax. Be happy. You are really obsessing over very unlikely scenarios. Let the others infect each other and suffer, laugh at them, and watch some baseball.

Seriously though, does anyone have hard data on the chance of a vaccinated person getting seriously sick? They might get a mild case of Covid, but actually sick? I would love to see some numbers that don't use weasel words like "cases" or "contacts" or "related to". I want to know how many vaccinated people die from Covid or are in the ICU.

6 ( +12 / -6 )

I am pretty dissapointed at how quickly so many of us are ready to turn on the next guy for something.

Many people have been found out for who they really are during this pandemic,including in our families,friends and internet posters etc.And it's not always about whether you got the jab or not.But at the same time, it shouldn't be a surprise either.A crisis is how we really learn about people,no?

8 ( +12 / -4 )

What people dont understand is that whether or not you support THIS "VACCINE", you might not support ENDLESS VACCINES. However, once you have a system in place that forces you to update your status or be denied access to basic services ITS TOO LATE.

8 ( +15 / -7 )

This question must to be clearly answered:

Can an infected vaccinated person spread the Virus in the same way like an infected unvaccinated person?

An infected vaccinated person can spread the virus, but apparently for a shorter period than an infected non-vaccinated person.

A vaccinated person is much less likely to become infected than a non-vaccinated person.

So a vaccinated person can spread the virus, but not quite ‘in the same way like an infected unvaccinated person’.

An analogy some might find easier to understand: A man wearing a condom can still get a woman pregnant (accidents do happen), but not as likely as a man not wearing a condom, who as well as making babies can also spread the cooties and worse.

And if the woman is on the Pill and stays well away from the condomless man, she’s on pretty safe ground with regard to both pregnancy and cooties.

-3 ( +11 / -14 )

yes, as it is artificially creating another "class" of citizenry.

hate crimes are not far behind when you create an environment that supports treating someone in such a way.

3 ( +12 / -9 )

And it should not be called a vaccine mandate as those who have natural immunity (after recovering from infection) are 13 or 27 (depending on the study) times less likely to get infected compared to a vaccinated person.

-3 ( +10 / -13 )

In my opinion, it cannot be helped to be considered as discrimination. Take Japan as an example. About 50 percent of the population have not gotten second shot yet, most of whom are younger generations. Many say that they cannot make a reservation for the injection on a specific day when they are able to go take a shot, even though the vaccine are provided free of charge. Under the circumstance, these people will be cornered if they are required to show a certification otherwise they cannot enter. Surely putting the mandatory into action will reduce the risk of spreading the virus. However, more research need to be made incorporating opinions from citizens.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Will people also have to prove their not carriers of hepatitis A. B, or C, or HIV/AIDS?

How about mandatory TB tests, to enter a restaurant.

And how about Malaria, ZIKA, or West Nile- can't let them go sliding by...

Not interested in those?

Than this is not about health, it is about ****discrimination and coercion by eliminating choice.

0 ( +11 / -11 )

How many shots is "vaccinated" now? If you are over 65, and no booster in last X months = no entry?

Japan is talking about rolling out 3rd shots next year, how about those that don't get the booster shot, certainly that will not be 100% compliance? Dare we discuss a 4th booster possibility?

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Discriminating. Adverb. Having or showing refined taste or good judgement.

The assumption here is that discrimination is always bad. I happily discriminate between good and bad options on a daily basis, and so do all of you.

Given some government policies, citizens may have no choice but to block unvaccinated people from areas of social mixing. It's not a decision where they have an unfettered choice. Governments will lock them all down if they do not. The only way the majority can protect themselves from government action is by persecuting a minority. I suspect there will be a lot more of that in the future.

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

"It must be a pretty dark world that you live in man."

That's it. It's like they're not content with controlling their own lives, maybe because they feel unfulfilled, they just have to control everyone else's, too! "Progressives" always look for the next power grab: they can't help it! Because, deep down, inside every "progressive" is an actual totalitarian just screaming to get out!

People who claim that the companies have the right to refuse service to anyone they choose, do NOT agree with that company having the right to, say, refuse to sell to a smoker, sinner or whatever, or bake a cake with gay propaganda on it when it violates their set of ethics.

People who drool over the thought of "non vaxxed" people being refused medical care (sorry, but that's simply disgusting, by the way), would be loathe to apply this same sadistic mindset to, say, the world's obese people or those who forego getting a flu booster shot (I hope!) And the very same people who scream "My Body, My Rights!" or "Get your hands off my uterus" in order to continue to snuff out innocent life take the exact opposite approach when it comes to COVID!

Still, they look for more more rules, more restrictions and more power-grabs, while delighting in finding pain. Weird reaction, right?

4 ( +11 / -7 )

I can't think of an example of discrimination on something where people have a choice in. Though I can't say everyone in Japan has the choice to get vaccinated yet.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Not discrimination. Venues can refuse punters for wearing the wrong clothes, who are drunk, being a nuisance etc. They have a right to refuse service to unvaccinated people.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

I seriously doubt any business in Japan will be restricting entry based on a person's vaccination status. Most of them need every bit of business they can get. But if a private business did refuse me service it wouldn't bother me at all. I would just go elsewhere. There will always be somebody willing to take my money.

6 ( +11 / -5 )

We had our second jab on Tuesday. No problems with first or second. Local hospital. I was surprised the appointments had many young school children.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

seriously doubt any business in Japan will be restricting entry based on a person's vaccination status. Most of them need every bit of business they can get.

Unless the fines they get are worse than the money they would make. Which, I think they need to be, to ensure enforcement.

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

It is exactly because I understand and trust the science that I stay away from these vaccines.

And yet, not willing to trust your judgement enough to promise not to go to the hospital if you get sick from covid.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

I am pretty dissapointed at how quickly so many of us are ready to turn on the next guy for something.

I'm not turning on them, I'm asking the willingly unvaccinated to stand up for their beliefs, and promise not to go in the hospitals if they get covid. If you guys feel so strongly that your immune system is enough, you should be confident that you don't need the help of the medical system you've rejected.

Or are you saying you want to eat your cake and have it too?

-2 ( +10 / -12 )

yes, as it is artificially creating another "class" of citizenry.

To be fair, they're choosing to be lower-class citizens. They've done this to themselves. And for some reason, they expect us to feel bad about protecting ourselves from them. Um, if you aren't willing to protect yourselves, then we need to protect ourselves from you people.

The sooner we have vaccine mandates and vaccine passports, the better.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

@Strangerland I was just wondering if you think doctors should refuse to treat people who get HIV through unprotected sex or sharing needles. After all 'They've done this to themselves' (your words). Or someone who has heart disease or diabetes from a poor diet. After all 'They've done this to themselves. Or how about those that get lung cancer from smoking, After all 'They've done this to themselves.'

3 ( +10 / -7 )

@Strangerland I was just wondering if you think doctors should refuse to treat people who get HIV through unprotected sex or sharing needles.

No, I don't think that. Nor do I think they should refuse to treat covid patients either, as it would go against their Hippocratic oath.

But I think that if the anti-vaxxers reject the medial establishment's advice because they think they know better, then they should have the balls to stand up for their convictions, and willingly refuse to go to the hospital if they get covid.

Are you one choosing not to get the vaxx? If so, how strongly do you feel - are you willing to commit to not going to the hospital if you get covid?

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

Monty

If a vaccinated person can spread the virus in the same way like an unvaccinated person, then it makes no sense to "separate" unvaccinated and vaccinated people.

This question must to be clearly answered:

Can an infected vaccinated person spread the Virus in the same way like an infected unvaccinated person?

But a vaccinated person clearly cannot spread the virus like an unvaccinated person. Why? Because they are a fifth less likely to get it in the first place. You can't spread the virus if you don't have it.

I don't know why this simple truth is so difficult for anti-vaxxers to understand.

-1 ( +9 / -10 )

An interesting study in New Zealand found that if 80 percent of the population aged 5+ was fully vaccinated, around 75 per cent of the entire country, COVID-19 would still cause 7000 deaths / year.

However, if 90 percent of the 5+ population was reached however – around 85 per cent of the full population – then deaths would drop to around 50 over a year.

So you can see the unvaccinated are causing widespread death and despair on everyone else. The above figures show why it is imperative for everyone to get vaccinated.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

@2020hindsights

Wouldn't be placing bets on any computer modelling coming out of NZ! Sorry New Zealanders!

2 ( +8 / -6 )

But I think that if the anti-vaxxers reject the medical establishment's advice because they think they know better, then they should have the balls to stand up for their convictions, and willingly refuse to go to the hospital if they get covid.

@Strangerland Fair enough! Can't argue with that!

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Should the vaccine be mandatory?

No, of course not.

Added to that fact is that present medicine allows the virus to be treated effectively without vaccination.

This pandemic is now at an end and there is no need for any type of discrimination

-2 ( +9 / -11 )

kurisupisu

Added to that fact is that present medicine allows the virus to be treated effectively without vaccination.

Sure. Let's go for an ambulance at the bottom of the cliff instead of a fence at the top.

1 ( +10 / -9 )

I will give my business to companies who prevent the unvaccinated from entering.

-2 ( +11 / -13 )

It is all bout the right to choose.

You have a choice to be vaccinated or unvaccinated.

Business have a choice of who they want as customers.

This is freedom of choice in action.

If you chose to be vaccinated there are consequences of your action.

Just as if you chose not be vaccinated you face a range of potential consequences.

Cause and effect.

Choose to, Choose not to, that is your power.

But live with the consequences of your choice.

3 ( +9 / -6 )

This is just forcing people to take responsibility for their actions. People are born into different classes, it’s not a choice like getting vaccinated is.

-3 ( +5 / -8 )

It is blatant discrimination.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

gofigure

You can still be vaccinated and get infected and pass it on to others. The vaccination is a way to reduce the severity of the symptoms that arise from being infected. It is not immunity.

Wrong. It is immunity. A vaccinated person is a fifth less like to catch the virus and hence a fifth less likely to spread the virus.

But simply refusing entry to someone who is not vaccinated is not good. Don't confuse unvaccinated as being infected.

It is as good as, though. Being unvaccinated means you are 5 times as like to be infectious. That's a clearly good enough reason to bar unvaccinated.

But it goes further. Say a vaccinated person is in the restaurant who is has covid, the other vaccinated patrons are a fifth less likely to catch it from them. In the same scenario, but where everyone is unvaccinated, 5 times as many people leaving that restaurant are now going to be infected.

-11 ( +1 / -12 )

If the unvaccinated must be execluded because they MIGHT be sick then why not exclude everyone else who MIGHT be sick with any number of diseases? Every business or establishment would have to have a health marshal at the door with a loooong checklist for every customer to be interrogated on regarding their health and medical history and h health and hygiene practices.

This is getting ridiculous and dangerous.

0 ( +9 / -9 )

I don't see how it is discrimination anymore than "no shirt, no shoes, no service" would be. If private businesses don't want to open themselves up to being a vector of disease spread it makes sense. Even if they didn't care about their employees or customers, the PR would be a nightmare if anybody contracted covid there.

I could maybe see some kind of special dispensation for people who legitimately can't be vaccinated because they are immunocompromised, but those people should probably not be going out in a pandemic to begin with, since they are at immense risk. Not to mention that I am sure such a loophole would be abused by anti-vaxxers one way or another.

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

If the unvaccinated must be execluded because they MIGHT be sick then why not exclude everyone else who MIGHT be sick with any number of diseases?

Because asymptomatic infection is an important mechanism of transmission for COVID, and safe and effective vaccines that lower the risk of disease and death on vaccinated people are for all valid purposes a measure that anybody is benefited from following.

If no significative increase of risk comes from someone being possibly sick (as it does with COVID) then there is no point in enforcing a measure that will not have an easily proven effect by science.

Again, how do you justify discriminating other people, even if they don't believe in the science, but pretend to be excempt of this when you are the one not believing on science. What is your rationale on prohibiting smoking if the person firmly believe that "experts and government are not always right"?

You don't believe the experts are right? prove it with scientific data, else you must be subjected to measures validated by that knowledge the same as you impose measures on other people using science as a justification.

-5 ( +5 / -10 )

Discrimination? Not at all. This virus won't be defeated if people are going to ignore science. If you choose to refuse the vaccine, you endanger yourself and everyone around you. So yes, you should be restricted from entering places where you can potentially infect lots of people. If you won't take steps to protect yourself and others, then governments are going to have to take steps of their own to protect people from you. That's not discrimination, that's just the reality of the situation.

Stop ignoring science, stop believeing conspiracy theories, get the vaccine and protect yourself and others. It's that simple.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrimination

Discrimination is the act of making unjustified distinctions between human beings based on the groups, classes, or other categories to which they are perceived to belong.[1] People may be discriminated on the basis of race, gender, age, religion, or sexual orientation, as well as other categories.

Unless you consider "anti-vaxxer" a category in the above definition, nope it isn't discrimination.

Next question, please.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Again, if you are already vaccinated, why do you care? You are protected. No need for the paranoia and hysteria. If you look at The Science, your odds of getting sick are very low. Just get on with your life and stop being such a scold.

4 ( +9 / -5 )

Yes.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

Let them all in. Let them risk their lives and the lives of their unvaccinated loved ones. If they dont get sick, thats great. If they or their loved ones die from covid... Well thats just tough potatoes.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

No.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Chabba- crudely put but correct. Life is full of risk, just let people get on with it.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Again, if you are already vaccinated, why do you care?

You have to ask again because you refuse to listen to the answer when it's given to you, or even to bother googling it to find out the scientific basis behind why we care about others also being vaccinated.

it's very disingenuous of you to try to pretend like that question hasn't been answered multiple times.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

Is this a private restaurant? Is it a private café? Is it a private bar? Is it a private event? If it is, then I see no reason why the operator or owner can't or shouldn't set their own rules. I.e. only accept those who are vaccinated, or conversely refuse those who are vaccinated. I don't see a problem with that. Just like a bar sets a rule to kick me out if I behave in an unbecoming manner, or come dirty, smelly, etc.

The airline can also turn me away without a boarding pass or even a passport. Now hold on, I can be refused entry to some countries without a travel document. The travel document that I've been given after I've done certain things. And no one has seen a problem with that yet (I'm not talking about "sovereign citizens" now). I can let whoever I want into my house, as well as my business, and refuse whoever I want. Of course, I am considering the consequences of this move.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

No, it's not discrimination. It's keeping the public safe from those who wish them harm. But there has to be something done about people who want to be vaccinated but can't because of allergies or medical conditions, these people can't be mixed in to the same category as those who refuse to be vaccinated. Those who refuse vaccinations, I really do not care what happens to them, but I do not want public money wasted on their health problems, they shouldn't be allowed to go to hospital or clinics either, thus no health insurance for them...

-9 ( +2 / -11 )

Stranger, the reason I ask is that the responses mostly are based in paranoia and not science. People grossly overestimate the danger of catching Covid, and also their risk of serious illness.

It has taken 18 months to infect less than 2% of the population. Or kill 0.02%. Those odds are even slimmer with a vaccine. So why panic and demonize people?

6 ( +9 / -3 )

But simply refusing entry to someone who is not vaccinated is not good. Don't confuse unvaccinated as being infected.

It is as good as, though. Being unvaccinated means you are 5 times as like to be infectious.

I suspect that "5 times" value does not refer to Delta. Data from Israel shows that vaccines are only about 39% effective at preventing infection with Delta, and this protection wanes considerably after a few months. That means that if you would get 100 infected people out of 20,000 unvaccinated people, you would get 61 out of 20,000 vaccinated people.

Vaccinated people who are infected with Delta have the same viral load as an infected unvaccinated person; i.e., they can both equally transmit the virus to others.

Vaccines should be for your own short term personal protection, they do little (if anything) to reduce the spread or protect others.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I hope you don’t agree with taking away the right of businesses to choose.

The right: Businesses should get to decide literally everything in society. That's the free market.

Businesses: I'm going to make a decision that the right disagrees with.

The right: Businesses need to be strictly policed by the state because they did or said something I don't like.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

the reason I ask is that the responses mostly are based in paranoia and not science.

No, that's your reason for disregarding the answer that has been given.

The fact is, to eliminate the virus, we need to have somewhere around 80-90% vaccinated, to prevent mutations, and provide herd immunity.

That's not based in paranoia, and that's entirely based in science.

But I know you'll ask the same question again, like you and your ilk have so many times:

Again, if you are already vaccinated, why do you care?

If you still don't know the answer, read this post again.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

The fact is, to eliminate the virus, we need to have somewhere around 80-90% vaccinated, to prevent mutations, and provide herd immunity.

That's not based in paranoia, and that's entirely based in science.

The fact is that opinion is not based on science. It was a narrative used months ago to get everyone vaccinated, but it is now widely accepted to no longer be a valid approach, mainly because the vaccines are leaky, fast-waning, and non-sterilizing.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

The fact is that opinion is not based on science.

Wrong.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

98% of the population has never had Covid. 99.98% have not died from it.

Millions have already died, tens of thousands are dying right now, other surgeries are being canceled to deal with the dying. Nurses and doctors are risking their lives at work every day to take care of people. Keep trying to pretend this is normal or that we can just afford to ignore it. It's selfish, and your problems are first-world problems mate. You guys have the same problem as the woke - too much time and too much money, so you use it in counterproductive ways because it makes you feel good to stick it to the other team.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

It is exactly because I understand and trust the science that I stay away from these vaccines.

So all the scientists and doctors prescribing the vaccines misunderstood the science?

1 ( +6 / -5 )

No, it is not. Businesses reserve the right. It's like saying that it is discriminatory to deny someone entry into your house because he/she stinks due to refusing to bathe.

Unless the person has a legitimate medical reason for not being vaccinated, those who refuse to be vaccinated have made their choice. Just like businesses have a right to choose.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

So all the scientists and doctors prescribing the vaccines misunderstood the science?

What other explanation could there be?! smh

4 ( +9 / -5 )

As I said, businesses can make their own rules. I get a bit nervous when the government starts mandating.

The facts are that in Japan, 98% of the population has never had Covid. 99.98% have not died from it. It is not the bubonic plague. Nervous and/or vulnerable people should take precautions, others can decide for themselves.

4 ( +10 / -6 )

Vaccine mandates: Is no jab, no entry into restaurants, cafes, bars, sporting and event venues discrimination?

As I've said before I'll just let the courts rule on this.

Meantime, between establishments that will or will not implement this, I will patronize the ones which will implement of course

-6 ( +2 / -8 )

@Strangerland - I appreciate your dedication to the cause. Keep plugging away please! The lack of logical thinking (am I allowed to say that mods?) in the anti-vax arguments is astounding.

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

The fact is that opinion is not based on science. It was a narrative used months ago to get everyone vaccinated, but it is now widely accepted to no longer be a valid approach, mainly because the vaccines are leaky, fast-waning, and non-sterilizing.

Of course you can easily prove this by providing the official opinion of any of the well recognized scientific and medical institutions of the world to support what you believe, because if you can't that obviously would mean this is perfectly well based on science.

Data from Israel shows that vaccines are only about 39% effective at preventing infection with Delta

So, how many "vaccines" do the data from Israel include, it is not like you are generalizing from one single one, and applied many months ago, right?

Vaccinated people who are infected with Delta have the same viral load as an infected unvaccinated person; i.e., they can both equally transmit the virus to others.

No, that is still false, the vaccinated people are infected less, become symtomatic less and those that show symptoms do it for less time, all these three things reduce the risk of transmission, so obviously they do not "equally" transmit the virus, this was something already corrected for you before. The professionals contradict your conclussions and they do not need to misrepresent data to prove it, they are simply much more worthy of trust.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

yes its not nice idea/just to say it nicely and stay on topic/.

as from my point of view,if some restaurant or say business will make rule that vaccinated only can go there for dinner or use their business-i will just go next door where same "rule" will not apply.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

as from my point of view,if some restaurant or say business will make rule that vaccinated only can go there for dinner or use their business-i will just go next door where same "rule" will not apply.

Yes. Sensible. Painless.

Unfortunately that's not how many people think.

They think that their rights are being trampled on when businesses exercise their right to decide who they'll let into their establishments.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

in other words on front of law we are equal.

equal to human rights and yes-equal to pay taxes as ordered by gov.

if some private business does not want get my money and i am not welcomed there-no problem and no issue.

they will learn by own pocket.

i will give my money to someone who will treat me equally.and will make no difference if i am vaccinated or not.

i see no reason to make public to -someone like in restaurant or in some shop-if i am vaccnated or not.its my private matter.i dont care if they are vaccinated or not.its not my business to take care of as same its not theirs to "take care" about mine.

thats all.as simple as is.and yes-"on topic".

8 ( +11 / -3 )

Being unvaccinated means you are 5 times as like to be infectious.

I suspect that "5 times" value does not refer to Delta.

Yes, it refers to delta.

OK, I checked the CDC site. In the 3 month study involves, 8% of the infections were Delta at the start and around 90% at the end. So it includes delta, but I suspect if one could check only Delta, the result would be different.

Data from Israel shows that vaccines are only about 39% effective at preventing infection with Delta, and this protection wanes considerably after a few months.

That was one of a number of studies and the consensus is that it is around 5 times.

"Consensus", really? Or 5X is the value that suits a desired narrative....

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Of course not if a private business.

No shirt no service is no different.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

If vaccines are available to everyone,

and if people who cannot get vaccinated for VALID medical reasons,

then it is not discrimination. I fully support such measures.

-2 ( +6 / -8 )

Many are talking about individual businesses to restrict the unvaxxed, but a mandate is "an official order to do something".

Vaccine mandates are unwarranted.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

The best kind

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Raw Beer

That was one of a number of studies and the consensus is that it is around 5 times.

"Consensus", really? Or 5X is the value that suits a desired narrative....

Doesn't matter. Even if it is only three times, the narrative is the same.

It confers benefit over unvaccinated with regards to spreading covid. Period. And this effect works better, the more people that get vaccinated.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Vaccine mandates: Is no jab, no entry into restaurants, cafes, bars, sporting and event venues discrimination?

YES. Wish all answers were that simple.

-10 ( +3 / -13 )

Of course it’s discrimination. That is literally the point. It’s why we want it. The whole idea is to keep these people away from us.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Regeneron has an effective treatment for the virus-Japan needs to get with the times and roll it out ASAP!

1 ( +5 / -4 )

When you're trying to prevent a disease from spreading, you're not being discriminatory by saying, "I'm not sure you're protecting yourself and others from this disease without proof."

Could you imagine if we replaced COVID with the medieval era black plague or Spanish flu?

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

Business owners have a right to protect their business. “Mah rights” “free thinkers”do not extend to disrupting private business. Smoking, gay wedding cakes, masks or vaccines. Can’t please everyone but it’s the owners right to refuse service.

The hypocrisy of those claiming otherwise is blatant but hardly surprising.

2 ( +6 / -4 )

Nope. Businesses have a right to protect their employees and customers. If you wish to smoke, not bathe, or not get vaccinated, then don't expect to enter establishments that have policies against those things.

-1 ( +5 / -6 )

Knowing that fully vaccinated individuals can spread the virus and die from the virus still, what happens when a fully vaccinated individual goes to one of these vaccine passport businesss.

Everyone in the business is wearing double mask with face shields and gloves.

The individual ends up testing positive for COVID after their visit , they get very sick and pass away from the virus.

Is the business legally responsible for their death and how could you actually prove they caught it from the restaurant?

2 ( +6 / -4 )

I have received both shots; so has my wife, although she was reluctant, as were some of her friends. I have health problems that have nothing to do with the virus and so worry neither about the possibility of contracting the disease nor about the effects of the vaccination.

The fundamental issue is one of government control--and government deception. Yes, there are anti-vax fanatics, but then there are wannabe authoritarians: I know some in both Europe and America. Masks and vaccinations are for them a matter of quasi-religion--and they all claim to be good secular liberals..."Science" has really very little to do with it.

Japan has been relatively sane in that regard.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Masks and vaccinations are for them a matter of quasi-religion--and they all claim to be good secular liberals..."Science" has really very little to do with it.

Japan has been relatively sane in that regard.

Do you mean sane as in pretty much everyone wearing masks and the lack of hysterical vaccine hesitancy?

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

In my opinion Government at all levels should mandate vaccines for everyone entering government buildings, buses, trains, libraries and so on and leave it up to private businesses to decide for themselves whether or not they have a no vax no entry policy but they should mandate that all businesses force customers to check in using QR codes or whatever and if they aren't enforcing a vaccine mandate they must make customers aware that their may be diseased, virus spreading, self entitled fools on the premises.

I think living through the pandemic has been a big wake up call for many people. Previously I would never have thought of wearing a mask in public if I had a cold but from now on I will. I will when I'm flying or on public transport in future regardless of the status of the pandemic.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

No, for sure. We need a license to drive and do certain jobs for safety. People should be vaccinated and wear a mask so as not to spread this disease.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Khuniri

The fundamental issue is one of government control--and government deception.

No it's not. It is about public health. And some public health initiatives require mass drives and everyone to cooperate. Public health isn't individual health multiplied by the population. People getting vaccinated doesn't just help the individual, it helps the community. And that increases as the percentage of adoption increases.

Yes, there are anti-vax fanatics, but then there are wannabe authoritarians: I know some in both Europe and America.

It isn't an authoritarian power grab. The Patriot Act after 9/11 was an authoritarian power grab. This is not.

-4 ( +3 / -7 )

It is more than discrimination.

For anyone familiar with behaviorist psychology, it is a manufacturing of the illusion of choice.

''60% to herd immunity'' has now morphed to ''100% and no immunity''.

Similar to ''no bread and circuses, 'no jab'' ... ''no right to live' is quickly becoming the new norm. Of course, high profile entertainers, the rich, and the ruling elite are exempt from mandates. In the U.S., this has been legalized. Federal employees working the Judiciary or Congress are exempt from mandates or proof of PCR testing or vaccines.

In New York ... by law ... visiting artists, athletes, and the rich and connected are similarly exempt from mandates for the working class. The recent Met-Gala, at $35,000 for entry to 'guests' hi-lighted the new feudalism. Only the guests seem to be immune to the virus or the mandates and were allowed to go maskless. The servant class were all masked. This is scientific nonsense and ethical obscenity of a scale that I could scarcely imagine. And 'progressive' AOC had the nerve to attend, go maskless, and wear a dress only the rich can afford ... with a big 'Tax the Rich' printed on it. Do the ruling class think we are that stupid? Or just that scared and compliant?

For those who still read books, my suggestion for two contrasting reads that lend a lot of light on the situation include:

— Dr. Joseph Mercola and Robert Cummins, ''The Truth About CoVid-19', and

— Klaus Schwab, 'CoVid-19 and The Great Reset'.

One of those books gives a fairly accurate and honest look at what is happening from an educated and humane scientific perspective. The other lays out part of the agenda and apologetics for a world-wide technocratic tyranny by a small ruling elite.

For those who read books, I need say no more.

For those who don't read books, I need say no more.

It's happening.

5 ( +8 / -3 )

Looks like I’m out of a job then!

5 ( +6 / -1 )

Steve Martin

''60% to herd immunity'' has now morphed to ''100% and no immunity''.

60% was never the target 70 - 80% was. Now it's around 85% of the total population, with delta (not 100%, cite that please). And when you see such an easy and achievable target get sabotaged by ignorance, it shows all of humans follies in full view.

For those who still read books, my suggestion for two contrasting reads that lend a lot of light on the situation include:

— Dr. Joseph Mercola

Why would I read a book by a charlatan that I knew was a charlatan before the pandemic. Mercola built a multi-million dollar business on misinformation and quackery.

I read a lot of books, but please do "your research" on who you pick as authors you read and recommend. You might want to leave out charlatans.

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

where are those that said vaccines passports will never happen, lol

6 ( +7 / -1 )

Had Covid and was later vaccinated. My reaction to the vaccination was worse than when I had Covid, though the reaction was shorter - one week versus two.

If the vaccines work, then why force people to get them? How are the unvaccinated a risk to the vaccinated?

The vaccinated are not at risk. Or that means the vaccinations do not really work as promised.

What is the risk versus the risk of getting Covid versus the risk of getting in a car or a plane?

Now everyone is being pushed toward a booster. How many times will a booster be needed? When will it stop?

No mention of natural immunity. It is basically ignored. Will testing for natural immunity be required before the booster? Shouldn't it ber available so people can make a more informed decision?

Nobody knows the long term ramifications of these vaccines.

My experience is that social distancing in Japan is not so distant. My assumption is that the official reports of cases underreports by a large percentage. I would say the same about the U.S. Between acquired natural immunity and vaccinations - I would think we are closer to herd immunity than the drug companies want to admit.

5 ( +7 / -2 )

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites