Red Mosquito

Bammer wrote:Washington State University football coach is one of MANY state employees fired today for refusing the vax. He walks away from $3.2 Million.

Wow.

Looking forward to Allison Williams being on the sideline reporting on one of Rolovich's games at some NAIA backwater.

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:Washington State University football coach is one of MANY state employees fired today for refusing the vax. He walks away from $3.2 Million.

Wow.

Looking forward to Allison Williams being on the sideline reporting on one of Rolovich's games at some NAIA backwater.

Yeah, it would have taken him like a day to find some doctor that would write him a medical waiver right then for a couple grand and he chose 'be a dipshit' instead. Probably better off for all this way.

Green Habit wrote:

macphisto wrote:I'd love to get verb's take on this. When is he allowed back?

I joked that verb's return should be directly tied to some threshold where cases and hospitalizations are at a consistently low enough level to not be enough of a societywide threat.

Green Habit wrote:

macphisto wrote:I'd love to get verb's take on this. When is he allowed back?

I joked that verb's return should be directly tied to some threshold where cases and hospitalizations are at a consistently low enough level to not be enough of a societywide threat.

So never. Well that's just great!

macphisto wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

macphisto wrote:I'd love to get verb's take on this. When is he allowed back?

I joked that verb's return should be directly tied to some threshold where cases and hospitalizations are at a consistently low enough level to not be enough of a societywide threat.

So never. Well that's just great!

ur smrt

spike wrote:

macphisto wrote:

Green Habit wrote:

macphisto wrote:I'd love to get verb's take on this. When is he allowed back?

I joked that verb's return should be directly tied to some threshold where cases and hospitalizations are at a consistently low enough level to not be enough of a societywide threat.

So never. Well that's just great!

ur smrt

Enjoy your week off for this personal attack.

More ammo for me to use when I say this place is one of the most overrated places ever.

Team In n Out!

*Their fries do suck, though.

Bammer wrote:Team In n Out!

*Their fries do suck, though.

That's a pretty massive asterisk given how central of a menu item that is.

The burgers were fine from what I recall, but hardly exceptional. And as someone who hardly digs on beef, their lack of getting into the chicken sandwich game shoves them down my culinary priority list even further.

Green Habit wrote:

Bammer wrote:Team In n Out!

*Their fries do suck, though.

That's a pretty massive asterisk given how central of a menu item that is.

The burgers were fine from what I recall, but hardly exceptional. And as someone who hardly digs on beef, their lack of getting into the chicken sandwich game shoves them down my culinary priority list even further.

We get it, you have to rep big potato.

I was talking more about their stance against tyranny. But the cheeseburgers are also very good.

tYrAnNy!!!

Spike gets it

spike wrote:tYrAnNy!!!

Do you honestly not see the authoritarianism in play when a government says you're not allowed to go into private establishments or to have a job if you don't get vaccinated? I understand that you support these type of mandates and I know that you can make an argument about this being a necessary sacrifice to protect other people. I get that. My point is not to argue against those positions. But can't you see the civil liberties argument against this? Can you see the parallels between this and TSA/Patriot Act type of stuff? "We have to stop terrorism/covid at all costs. If you're not with us, you're against us. Put the safety and security of the community above your personal rights/comforts."

I know that a lot of the people who oppose mandates, masks, vaccines, etc., don't make themselves particularly sympathetic but that doesn't mean that mandates don't reek of authoritarianism and I find it very disappointing that people who probably who in other areas demand personal freedom and autonomy are so quick to uncritically support mandates. Again, it's possible that mandates are the right policy for this particular time, but it seems to me that any person who believes in individual liberties and decides that the mandates are needed in spite of those concerns should be uncomfortable with the precedent this establishes and admit that this is a difficult dilemma and understand why others might come down on the other side rather than mocking their civil liberties based objections as if this is a perfectly mundane regulation that only an anarchist could oppose.

I am still waiting to hear a convincing argument about how another person being vaxed helps me at all.

Except for possibly keeping a hospital bed available if I get into a car accident.

Otherwise my vax helps me, your vax helps you. My vax does not help you, and your vax does not help me. The end.

Bammer wrote:I am still waiting to hear a convincing argument about how another person being vaxed helps me at all.

Except for possibly keeping a hospital bed available if I get into a car accident.

Otherwise my vax helps me, your vax helps you. My vax does not help you, and your vax does not help me. The end.

I think data still show that a vaccinated person is less likely to transmit Covid than an unvaxxed person. But it also seems like the benefits from the vax are largely for the individual and less social than originally believed/hoped for.

Bammer wrote:I am still waiting to hear a convincing argument about how another person being vaxed helps me at all.

Except for possibly keeping a hospital bed available if I get into a car accident.

Otherwise my vax helps me, your vax helps you. My vax does not help you, and your vax does not help me. The end.

The current studies show the vaccine shortens the period of infection and infectiousness. This slows the spread to new hosts where the virus encounters new biological responses and reduces the number times the virus is put under evolutionary pressures, and thus lowers the likelihood of new and more dangerous variants emerging that could effect you vaxxed or not.

I don't think the question is whether or not the mandates work, in a society where you must work to feed your children, they will. The question I hear in 4/5's post is "what about the next mandate? and the one after that? and after that?", which is legit because governments do not really have a good track record of relinquishing power once it is obtained and there are plenty of other 'public health crises' out there this can bleed over into.

4/5 wrote:

spike wrote:tYrAnNy!!!

Do you honestly not see the authoritarianism in play when a government says you're not allowed to go into private establishments or to have a job if you don't get vaccinated? I understand that you support these type of mandates and I know that you can make an argument about this being a necessary sacrifice to protect other people. I get that. My point is not to argue against those positions. But can't you see the civil liberties argument against this? Can you see the parallels between this and TSA/Patriot Act type of stuff? "We have to stop terrorism/covid at all costs. If you're not with us, you're against us. Put the safety and security of the community above your personal rights/comforts."

I know that a lot of the people who oppose mandates, masks, vaccines, etc., don't make themselves particularly sympathetic but that doesn't mean that mandates don't reek of authoritarianism and I find it very disappointing that people who probably who in other areas demand personal freedom and autonomy are so quick to uncritically support mandates. Again, it's possible that mandates are the right policy for this particular time, but it seems to me that any person who believes in individual liberties and decides that the mandates are needed in spite of those concerns should be uncomfortable with the precedent this establishes and admit that this is a difficult dilemma and understand why others might come down on the other side rather than mocking their civil liberties based objections as if this is a perfectly mundane regulation that only an anarchist could oppose.

Yes, I understand. I just don’t happen to think our current administration is interested in perpetuating any of this once the pandemic’s under control.

And don’t worry - even if that is the master plan - this is all building up to Trump being elected again in a few years to wash it all away.

Bi_3 wrote:

Bammer wrote:I am still waiting to hear a convincing argument about how another person being vaxed helps me at all.

Except for possibly keeping a hospital bed available if I get into a car accident.

Otherwise my vax helps me, your vax helps you. My vax does not help you, and your vax does not help me. The end.

The current studies show the vaccine shortens the period of infection and infectiousness. This slows the spread to new hosts where the virus encounters new biological responses and reduces the number times the virus is put under evolutionary pressures, and thus lowers the likelihood of new and more dangerous variants emerging that could effect you vaxxed or not.

I don't think the question is whether or not the mandates work, in a society where you must work to feed your children, they will. The question I hear in 4/5's post is "what about the next mandate? and the one after that? and after that?", which is legit because governments do not really have a good track record of relinquishing power once it is obtained and there are plenty of other 'public health crises' out there this can bleed over into.

There’s also some evidence emerging that, by and large, breakthrough infections are occurring when a vaccinated person is exposed to an unvaccinated person. And if that isn’t a clear enough concept for bammer, it means vaccinated people aren’t infecting other vaccinated people… which has always been the original idea.

I said convincing