Yes, I am. I find it strangely curious that on the one hand you and he are taking it as a sleight, but on the other hand you guys (I assuming as to you, but feel free to correct the record) are curiously in favor of such policies. Almost as if ashamed of em. Which is it?
Vaccine
- Thread starter Multi Sport
- Start date
Yes, I am. I find it strangely curious that on the one hand you and he are taking it as a sleight, but on the other hand you guys (I assuming as to you, but feel free to correct the record) are curiously in favor of such policies. Almost as if ashamed of em. Which is it?
You're erecting that strawman so you know right where to light it.
Me? You're the one that built up presumptions in something that's not even about you, and are trying to deflect criticism away because he's embarrassed by his own list. If I'm building a strawman, you are building an entire row of scarecrows buddy.
p.s. the strawman thing...drink!
All I did was quote your own words.
now you are out right fibbing. You asked a question, which I answered.
I can't help it if you don't like your own rules for what is and isn't an ad.
Most of the non-workplace vaccines “mandates” don’t actually require you to get a vaccine. They require a vaccine if you want to do a specific thing.
The SF vaccine requirement is a good example. You can choose to be vaccinated. Or you can choose to avoid indoor dining. Either course of action reduces your odds of giving covid to someone else, and either course of action is permitted.
What you can’t do is be unvaccinated while dining indoors, because that is a course of action with a higher risk of infecting other people.
Restricting dining indoors is arbitrary when transmission at home is significantly more likely. I don't believe in arbitrary restrictions like masking children. I also don't believe its the responsibility of private businesses, particularly restaurants, to verify someone's medical status and being used as a tool to enforce the government's mandates. The mandates also discriminate against those that actually have superior immunity.
kickingandscreaming
PREMIER
I guess it's not obvious to me how that will affect Santa Clara County. We currently need to wear a mask in stores. Fortunately, the virus can't get you when you are seated at a restaurant or bar, so we don't have to wear masks then - only during the dangerous walk from the front door of the establishment to the table or barstool. I assume this means San Diego will see the same restrictions as SC County - unlike at the Showcase in November where it was up to the individual store to decide.
"Ad hominem" translates to "at the person". That's the only rule I need.
I tend to ignore any post that calls me an idiot, a communist, or a child molester (those have all happened). I figure the poster has nothing valid to say and is just trying to get away with cheap insults.
Arbitrary? Public indoor dining was one of the very first things to be identified as a transmission vector. The rule is the opposite of arbitrary: the scope is limited to a specific high risk activity.
If your complaint is that private indoor gatherings are unaffected, imagine how loudly you would complain if they passed a rule that affected private gatherings. You’d hate that rule even more than you hate this one.
That sucks. No one requires mask indoors in San Diego, and those that claim to do, don't enforce it. Hospitalizations and deaths are down and flat since September in San Diego. Data doesn't support reimplementing masking in SD. Imagine that.
In VC a lot of businesses that are non-chains are ignoring it. I wonder how this is going to play out particularly in red leaning areas.
You do know the difference between being the first and being the most significant? And of course that's not my complaint and you know that.
See new statewide restriction being applied to San Diego for another arbitrary restriction.
I suspect enforcement will come from other customers (aka Karens and Brandons) and not from employees. Small businesses are not interested in being the face diaper (see South Park) police.
Desert Hound
DA
For starters before one mandates anything there should be LONG TERM studies on it.
It is not ethical to mandate vaccines to a population that has little actual risk to the virus.
The yelp and open table wars in VC are interesting. Some businesses are breaking into the pro/anti mask camp and being skewered by the other side in the reviews. I suspect this is going to be a particular problem in the Jefferson counties, which will outright disregard the rule.
what-happened
GOLD
Who is attacking you? You are entitled to your opinion and your choices. Your problem is you live in a very linear world. There is much more nuance to this disease than you would like. This is the first time that many people have actually experienced an event that may threaten their lives. Even practicioners are scared.I‘m not denying that vaccinated immunocompromised people are dying. They are. And the rest of us could choose to prevent most of those deaths by getting vaccinated and masking up. Expect this board to attack anyone who proposes it.
But that is not the majority of the deaths. The vast majority of the deaths are people who were not vaccinated. The unvaccinated risk of infection is over 5X as high as for the vaccinated. The unvaccinated risk of death is about 14x as high as the unvaccinated.
COVID Data Tracker
CDC’s home for COVID-19 data. Visualizations, graphs, and data in one easy-to-use website.covid.cdc.gov
I think it’s entirely fair to say that delta has become a pandemic of the unvaccinated, which then leaks over into the vaccinated population.
The linear approach to the management of this disease has put us right where we are. The idea that we wait for a vaccine to save humanity is ridiculous and borderline unethical. Early treatement of any disease is the standard. We've decided this is not the case for this event. Why?
Would widespread adoption of vaccines prevented more deaths - of course.
Same as before. Blue areas will enforce the mandate. Red areas won’t.
It’s the flip of immigration law. One party likes the law and tries to help enforce it. The other party disagrees with the law, and does their best to undermine it.
That one depends on the area. Around here, everyone just does it. Enforcement is the wrong word. In six months, I’ve only seen one person walk into a store without a mask. The clerk offered him a free mask, and the guy said thanks. That was it.
Maybe other areas have people who would verbally abuse or assault the clerk in that case.
what-happened
GOLD
It is 100% arbitrary and hardly passes the sciency test.