• TrickDacy@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    35
    ·
    1 year ago

    If the government mandates something, it has the same weight as a law.

    No it doesn’t. I don’t think this happened at all except with govt as an employer. You morons could just get a new job.

    it’s hard to say

    It’s actually very easy to say. The vaccine complication rate is near zero and not a single harebrained theory you idiots had has panned out. Try again

    • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      Lol, you need time to know long term effects, there still hasn’t been enough of that yet.

      And yes, a mandate has as much weight as a law, it just depends who issued it. The only really difference in mandate vs law is how it’s initiated, but here, they hold the same weight.

      I won’t be deleting lemmy :)

      • TrickDacy@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        24
        ·
        1 year ago

        You ignore that not a single person was mandated to get a vaccine in a scenario where they had no choice.

        Also you idiot, we know the long term effects of death but that didn’t stop you from pretending a hypothetical issue born of a bullshit theory should take precedence.

        Thanks for the block request btw

        • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          1 year ago

          The choice was lose your income, travel no where, and gather with zero loved ones - or take this vaccine we just came out with, but havent finished testing lol.

          It’s kind of funny that I’ve been pretty civil despite all the name calling, and you’re the one blocking me.

          • edric@lemm.ee
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            15
            ·
            1 year ago

            Assuming you’re in the US, no one was banning you from traveling or gathering with loved ones. There was nothing close to an actual lockdown that was implemented in the US. Losing income is a different story. Coming in to work and endangering other people’s health without their consent is not acceptable. Not to mention that most antivaxxers are antimaskers as well, which made it worse. If you purposely do not take the necessary precautions to keep other people around you safe, then you shouldn’t be working there. That applies to anything, not just Covid.

            • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              4
              ·
              1 year ago

              I’m not in the US - but also thank you for responding without malice.

              Losing income is a big deal, especially with dependants, but that aside - you’re right about your point of possibly endangering others.

              However If the vaccine fully protected you (as it was advertised at first) this wouldn’t be the case - anyone who was vaxxed would’ve been immune. Also having natural immunity is just as good, if not better - but instead of doing any sort of antibody testing, we stuck with “be vaccinated or lose your job”. Wouldn’t anti body testing instead of mandates be the pinnacle of making sure those around you are safe? Especially at a time when we didn’t know the risks or effectiveness of the vaccine.

              • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                5
                ·
                1 year ago

                No company or government agency claimed the vaccine fully protected anyone, the efficacy results were published long before the vaccines were made available to the public. Natural immunity isn’t better at all, it’s as good in some cases, but less consistently so across the board and hybrid immunity was better than either. No, antibody testing would be unnecessary overkill vs just vaccinating everyone for this reason.

      • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        6
        ·
        1 year ago

        Lol, you need time to know long term effects, there still hasn’t been enough of that yet.

        How long after a pandemic starts should a vaccine be released? Give me a number please.

        • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          For a pandemic with a really high survival rate? Like a 99% survival rate?

          5-10 years makes sense to me

          If the survival rate was different, my answers here would be different

          • Flying Squid@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            1 year ago

            So death is the only metric? Long COVID isn’t a metric? Just missing two weeks of work isn’t a metric? Because we don’t get flu vaccines because we’re worried about dying from the flu, we get them because we want to avoid getting the flu and avoid the worst symptoms if we do. And that’s even true of other vaccines. The polio vaccine wasn’t about stopping death, it was about stopping the crippling effects of polio. Sort of similar to the crippling effects of COVID.

            • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

              The worst symptoms are death. I see your point about extending the metrics, and maybe I should consider more than just dying, but I think it’s a strong factor in why this whole thing seems over blown in the way mandates and restrictions came.

              For polio, it was about stopping death, paralysis is a death sentence in most places in the world.