Coronavirus 666: The Number of the Delta Variant (but in an entirely scientific context)

[Raithe]

That fine line of "Stop caring about the plague to becoming Pro-Plague" ?

https://www.news4jax.com/business/2021/09/16/5000-fine-for-vaccine-passports-in-florida-takes-effect-thursday/

Florida will start issuing $5,000 fines Thursday to businesses, schools and government agencies that require people to show proof of a COVID-19 vaccination.

Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis signed a bill earlier this year that banned vaccine passports, and fines start Thursday if people are asked to show proof of a vaccine.

But there’s still no word on exactly how customers would go about reporting businesses that do ask for a vaccine passport, and it’s also unclear how the investigations would work.

The Florida Department of Health will be responsible for enforcing the fines. If you receive a notice saying your business violated the law, you will have a right to a hearing before a judge. Fines will be paid to the department and they’re due within 30 days of a final order.

The penalties for asking for a vaccine card could hit millions of dollars, according to the governor.

“You will face a $5,000 (fine) for every single violation ... that’s millions and millions potentially in fines,” DeSantis said.
The statute reads that a business entity “...may not require patrons or customers to provide any documentation certifying COVID-19 vaccination or postinfection recovery to gain access to, entry upon, or service from the business operations in this state.”

The same rules apply to governmental entities and educational institutions.

[Skarpen]

3 hours ago, Raithe said:

That fine line of "Stop caring about the plague to becoming Pro-Plague" ?

https://www.news4jax.com/business/2021/09/16/5000-fine-for-vaccine-passports-in-florida-takes-effect-thursday/

 

 

Best law ever. Fine for violating someone's rights should be standard. 

[Amentep]

29 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Best law ever. Fine for violating someone's rights should be standard. 

Its not even a consistent law, unless they also start fining businesses for requiring shirts and shoes for services and fining the store if they refuse service to disruptive patrons and fine them if they do not accept whatever form of payment the customer brings and fine them for any of the millions of other limitations to service business make everyday under the guise of protecting the customer's 'rights'.  Otherwise its just an arbitrary limitation to the business owner's right to determine how best to run their company made to win political points without a real rational basis for being done.

[Skarpen]

7 minutes ago, Amentep said:

Its not even a consistent law, unless they also start fining businesses for requiring shirts and shoes for services and removing the ability of a store to refuse service to disruptive patrons and force them to accept whatever form of payment the customer brings and any of the millions of other determinations business make everyday to run their business as they want under the guise of protecting the customer's 'rights'.  Otherwise its just an arbitrary limitation to the business owner's right to determine how best to run their company made to win political points without a real rational basis for being done.

I don't think either inappropriate behavior nor inappropriate clothing is protected right, like anywhere. Quite the contrary even. The right to privacy including medical privacy and so on is a right in most civilized countries. So I don't see your point beyond usual American business owners are our owners routine. 

Edited September 17, 2021 by Skarpen

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

Best law ever. Fine for violating someone's rights should be standard. 

Skarpie have you been fully  vaccinated , Im concerned with the levels of vaccine hesitancy we see in most of our countries and how this primarily spreads the virus and mutations 

[Amentep]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I don't think either inappropriate behavior nor inappropriate clothing is protected right, like anywhere. Quite the contrary even. The right to privacy including medical privacy and so on is a right in most civilized countries. So I don't see your point beyond usual American business owners are our owners routine. 

You have no legal compulsion to shop at a particular store, therefore you are not being legally required to give up your right to medical privacy, as your choice to shop at the store is dependent on you volunteering to choose to disclose your medical information to retain the privilege of shopping at that private institution or not.  Not unlike you choosing to abide by no shirt/no shoes, buy into a shoppers club or any other reasonable measures business owners may institute that would be voluntarily accepted by its clientele.

I see this as being fairly reasonable unless there were situations where necessities (primarily food and water) have no alternatives ways of purchase for patrons (ie stores that could opt out if that's an option within laws and mandates or by paying for delivery to your home, for example), in which case local mandates covering only stores providing necessities rather than state mandates (or even finding ways to make alternative arrangements on behalf of the citizens by the government to meet those necessities) might be better choices, in my opinion, and obviously dependent on the situations involved.  This does not appear to be the case in the blanket Florida order, however. 

I'm more understanding of limiting governmental offices and operations from requesting medical information since there is often no other option in governmental dealings that hold legal requirements to attend outside of a face-to-face meetings/appointment and in those cases the surrendering of medical information would be more compulsory due to the legal requirements of the business being conducted with the municipality.  But I'd consider it reasonable for states/local governments to look at them there if there were options available that would allow citizens to finalize their legal business with the government without disclosures, but only for those services that had those alternatives.

[Malcador]

8 hours ago, Raithe said:

That fine line of "Stop caring about the plague to becoming Pro-Plague" ?

https://www.news4jax.com/business/2021/09/16/5000-fine-for-vaccine-passports-in-florida-takes-effect-thursday/

 

 

Have to admire such brazen hypocrisy.

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, Amentep said:

You have no legal compulsion to shop at a particular store

 

 

Not true in any civilized country. In fact it's mostly illegal for business owners to refuse service to a customer unless there is a reasonable reason like disorderly conduct etc. In civilized society you don't need a special right to be a customer.

Quote

I see this as being fairly reasonable

I'm sorry but I find nothing reasonable in sharing my medical records to some schmuck to buy sneakers or headphones. The only business I should disclose any medical information is medical businesses that actually need those to properly provide their services to me.

 

5 hours ago, BruceVC said:

Skarpie have you been fully  vaccinated , Im concerned with the levels of vaccine hesitancy we see in most of our countries and how this primarily spreads the virus and mutations 

I've had my flu shot last week as I had for years before flu season.

 

 

 

[Amentep]

40 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Not true in any civilized country. In fact it's mostly illegal for business owners to refuse service to a customer unless there is a reasonable reason like disorderly conduct etc. In civilized society you don't need a special right to be a customer.

The government does not require you to buy your groceries at Stokrotka does it?  My point is that even if stores want your vaccination information and you do not want to voluntarily surrender it, there is no government requirement making you shop at that store that requires you to give up your vaccine information.  If left to their own devices, owners would choose what would be best for them and their clientele and customers would choose where to take their business.  If one place requires vaccines, then odds are another will not.  Or vice-versa, and if one didn't exist then there would be incentive to create it to cater to the customers who'd use it if a sustainable customer base existed.

Further, it is completely legal to deny services to customers. No shirt no shoes no service exists because of public safety concerns with germs, if I recall correctly, which is why it is usually a requirement for restaurants.  Having to pay to be a member of a store like Sam's Club means stores are only open to members, not just anyone.  Most standardized testing companies will deny service if you can't show proof of identity with a non-expired government issued ID with photo and signature.  There there are things like requiring a suit jacket and tie for male patrons of an upscale restaurant which might no tbe seen as reasonable in this day of business casual, but also is not illegal. And then you have even more arbitrary situations like Ali “Al” Yeganeh refusing service to anyone who takes too long to order which, again, is not illegal.

What is illegal, here at least, is for businesses open to the public to refuse service for certain types of immutable demographic characteristics.  Immunization status would not be one of those.

Also, there is the issue that public health emergencies are a different thing entirely, anyhow.  As has been pointed out in these threads before, we already require proof of vaccinations here in the US for other public health issues (like immunizations for enrollment in public school) which isn't a violation of privacy.

40 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I'm sorry but I find nothing reasonable in sharing my medical records to some schmuck to buy sneakers or headphones. The only business I should disclose any medical information is medical businesses that actually need those to properly provide their services to me.

You don't have to buy sneakers or headphones to live; you can probably buy them from a number of places that would deliver them to your home without you needing to disclose your medical information, nor are you required, by the government, to shop at a particular store under penalty of legal action for sneakers and headphones.  That would make it a voluntary disclosure on your part and not illegal.  You can choose not to patronize any store that requires of you something you do not want to give, whether its putting on shoes, a tie or showing your vaccination status.  

[BruceVC]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

 

 

I've had my flu shot last week as I had for years before flu season.

 

 

 

Well thats good news, I have never had  a flu shot before 

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Amentep said:

The government does not require you to buy your groceries at Stokrotka does it?  My point is that even if stores want your vaccination information and you do not want to voluntarily surrender it, there is no government requirement making you shop at that store that requires you to give up your vaccine information.  If left to their own devices, owners would choose what would be best for them and their clientele and customers would choose where to take their business.  If one place requires vaccines, then odds are another will not.  Or vice-versa, and if one didn't exist then there would be incentive to create it to cater to the customers who'd use it if a sustainable customer base existed.

Or better yet the law prohibits businesses to require unreasonable things like private medical record which they are not entitled to for any reason ever. I don't get the "you don't have to buy there so the business can basically require you to do anything" mentality at all. Will you be ok with a business requiring customers to literally eat sh*t just because you don't have to shop there? Or would it be unacceptable regardless of you willingness to shop there?

Quote

Also, there is the issue that public health emergencies are a different thing entirely, anyhow.  As has been pointed out in these threads before, we already require proof of vaccinations here in the US for other public health issues (like immunizations for enrollment in public school) which isn't a violation of privacy.

Of course it is. And big time violation. 

Quote

Further, it is completely legal to deny services to customers. No shirt no shoes no service exists because of public safety concerns with germs, if I recall correctly, which is why it is usually a requirement for restaurants.  Having to pay to be a member of a store like Sam's Club means stores are only open to members, not just anyone.  Most standardized testing companies will deny service if you can't show proof of identity with a non-expired government issued ID with photo and signature.  There there are things like requiring a suit jacket and tie for male patrons of an upscale restaurant which might no tbe seen as reasonable in this day of business casual, but also is not illegal. And then you have even more arbitrary situations like Ali “Al” Yeganeh refusing service to anyone who takes too long to order which, again, is not illegal.

All of those examples would fall into reasonable category because of the type of business. Members only, dress code, ID requirement etc. are all reasonable if the business model rely on those things. Which is ok as I previously stated. But personal medical records are completely something else, sorry.

 

34 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Well thats good news, I have never had  a flu shot before 

Well, I had got very severe flu's like every flu season and my physician said it's best if I take the vaccines to avoid those. Haven't got a flu since then and it's great. If you don't have flu problems then I envy you.

 

[rjshae]

I took my annual flu shot yesterday. Barely felt it go in and I've felt fine since. Maybe it was just water? 

[BruceVC]

10 hours ago, Skarpen said:

 

 

Well, I had got very severe flu's like every flu season and my physician said it's best if I take the vaccines to avoid those. Haven't got a flu since then and it's great. If you don't have flu problems then I envy you.

 

Skarpie I want to ask you an important question, what would you need to see or believe to convince you to take the Corona vaccine. I am not trying to change your mind based on my reasons I just want to know what will change your mind?

The reason I ask is SA is only at about 30 % vaccination as we have many people who dont want to take and I am trying to see how to change this. Also this is global problem for many counties with the US at about 55 % and Poland more or less the same and we not gaining traction so its time to try something different and ask " how can can help convince people who dont want to take the vaccines " ? 

•  

Edited September 18, 2021 by BruceVC

[Skarpen]

48 minutes ago, BruceVC said:

Skarpie I want to ask you an important question, what would you need to see or believe to convince you to take the Corona vaccine. I am not trying to change your mind based on my reasons I just want to know what will change your mind?

The reason I ask is SA is only at about 30 % vaccination as we have many people who dont want to take and I am trying to see how to change this. Also this is global problem for many counties with the US at about 55 % and Poland more or less the same and we not gaining traction so its time to try something different and ask " how can can help convince people who dont want to take the vaccines " ? 

•  

Well if my physician would recommend me to take vaccine based on my health conditions I would do this. Right now he doesn't recommend me to take any of the currently available vaccines as they will not improve my well being in any significant way.

 

[BruceVC]

27 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Well if my physician would recommend me to take vaccine based on my health conditions I would do this. Right now he doesn't recommend me to take any of the currently available vaccines as they will not improve my well being in any significant way.

 

Okay that makes sense and are you not worried about getting Corona and then getting more sick than you would be if you hadnt taken the vaccine?

In other words I am not saying you cant get the virus with vaccines but the evidence is real that 95 % of the hospitalizations and deaths are people without vaccinations

https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/unvaccinated-individuals-now-account-for-the-vast-majority-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-and-deaths-in-the-u-s-according-to-available-data/

[BruceVC]

https://www.investorvillage.com/smbd.asp?mb=4288&mn=682097&pt=msg&mid=22403445

 

Here is an really interesting link about a study  that possibly explains causes for long term symptoms of Corona, in summary

 

" According to the findings, there is an antibody that appears weeks after the initial infection and "attacks and disrupts a key regulator of the immune system."
Researchers and scientists have been trying to understand the cause of COVID-19 patients experiencing symptoms for longer. Around 30% of patients with the virus deal with "lingering fatigue, brain fog and shortness of breath."

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

Sad how long this list is

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

And for a milestone: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html

I guess as year two of covid comes on, we're in for even more fun.

[InsaneCommander]

2 hours ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

Sad how long this list is

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

Plenty of cases like that here in Brazil too, including an antivax politician.

[Skarpen]

2 hours ago, KP the meanie zucchini said:

Sad how long this list is

https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

And for a milestone: https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/15/health/us-coronavirus-wednesday/index.html

I guess as year two of covid comes on, we're in for even more fun.

Interesting. Is there the same one for provaxers who died regardless of the vaccination?

[Maedhros]

9 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Interesting. Is there the same one for provaxers who died regardless of the vaccination?

Difference being nearly all anti-vaxxer deaths could've been prevented with the vaccine. Some die regardless, but they're in the 0,001%. Not getting it is selfish AND dumb.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Maedhros
typo

[Skarpen]

38 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Difference being nearly all anti-vaxxer deaths could've been prevented with the vaccine. Some die regardless, but they're in the 0,001%. Not getting it is selfish AND dumb.

How exactly is it selfish? Vaccines don't prevent from getting corona and they don't prevent the spreading of the virus which was proven. Also there is no proof of vaccines preventing the deaths for people who would die if not vaccinated. So your statement is complete bollocks.

Edited September 18, 2021 by Skarpen

[Malcador]

40 minutes ago, Maedhros said:

Difference being nearly all anti-vaxxer deaths could've been prevented with the vaccine.

Surprised you needed to spell that out, heh

[Maedhros]

1 hour ago, Skarpen said:

How exactly is it selfish? Vaccines don't prevent from getting corona and they don't prevent the spreading of the virus which was proven. Also there is no proof of vaccines preventing the deaths for people who would die if not vaccinated. So your statement is complete bollocks.

Selfish because the vaccine by far and large prevents hospitalization and death. Why be a bother when it's easily avoided?

[Zoraptor]

2 hours ago, Skarpen said:

How exactly is it selfish? Vaccines don't prevent from getting corona and they don't prevent the spreading of the virus which was proven. Also there is no proof of vaccines preventing the deaths for people who would die if not vaccinated. So your statement is complete bollocks.

Vaccines do prevent getting corona, they just don't stop it in all people*. They also do prevent the spreading of the virus in most people, and greatly reduce it in almost everyone since there's significant symptom reduction (which includes main vectors like, well, coughing or sneezing). The flu vaccine also doesn't stop people getting flu and doesn't stop spreading that virus either, and it's in every single metric worse than even the worst approved coronavirus vaccine; it's efficiency varies year to year  but is typically in the 45% range. No vaccine works with 100% efficiency, even the ones people think as being 100% effective are only that because enough people get vaccinated. There is also statistically far too much improvement in mortality rates when vaccinated for it not to be preventing deaths.

*It's notoriously difficult to vaccinate effectively for respiratory diseases. Most 'lining' tissues such as found in the throat and lungs use a different antibody (IgA) from the 'general' body (IgG), and vaccines tend to not stimulate IgA as effectively, and not for as long as they do IgG. So you can get high viral loads in the upper respiratory tract even if vaccinated because there isn't much covid specific IgA there at the start of infection. But, the immune system is still primed, and you do get rapid production of specific IgA when stimulated so you seldom get infection reaching the lungs (--> pneumonia) nor moving into other organs (--> myocarditis, 'long covid' etc) as you'd get if not vaccinated and relying on the generalised immune response (--> inflammation, fevers; correspondingly, if you get infected when vaccinated it will probably be asymptomatic with no fever or inflammation). That's why you can still get infected and be infectious after a vaccine, but also why the symptoms are much reduced and you're a lot less likely to infect others.

[I'm pretty sure that that's also why there's so much interest in aerosolising vaccines for covid, as that directly targets the relevant cells rather than being injected intermuscularly]

Edited September 18, 2021 by Zoraptor

[Skarpen]

9 hours ago, Maedhros said:

Selfish because the vaccine by far and large prevents hospitalization and death. Why be a bother when it's easily avoided?

So it affects only the person vaccinated. So if you want it then vaccinate yourself. It's someone's personal choice. And there is no proof that vaccine prevents hospitalizations and death of people that would be hospitalized or would die without it when infected.

8 hours ago, Zoraptor said:

Vaccines do prevent getting corona, they just don't stop it in all people*. They also do prevent the spreading of the virus in most people, 

No they don't. It was proven to be false just like the herd immunity and other "miraculous cure" BS we were fed for months. All claims about vaccines have been steadily retracted and it seems that the current ones will not hold up as well. Just look at Israel and recently Ireland 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/health/covid-54-of-hospital-patients-with-virus-are-fully-vaccinated-1.4670229