PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE GET THE COVID SHOT.

Death by seat belt:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4608342/

"Here we report a 49-year-old man without any underlying disease, which has instantly died in an accident scene due to compression of neck critical elements by a three-point seat belt."

"Generally, a safety belt is essential during driving and often decreases the mortality rate of the passengers up to 50-75%."

***


Whaaaaat? Seat belts are only 50 to 75% effective? And they are responsible for actually killing people?

I'm never wearing mine again.

And screw those commies who want to take away my rights by giving me a ticket for not doing so!

"A federal judge ruled against Florida over the weekend and declined to temporarily block the Biden administration’s order mandating Covid-19 vaccines for healthcare workers..."

"The state has also filed a lawsuit opposing a mandate for federal contractors and has threatened to sue over the federal government’s vaccine-or-test requirement for all large employers, though that rule is presently blocked as litigation against it moves forward. DeSantis signed several bills into law last week that also target the federal mandates, including a policy that requires all employers to carve out exemptions to vaccine policies like prior Covid-19 infection, pregnancy and willingness to use personal protective equipment. Another law directs the governor to develop a plan to pull Florida out of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which is the agency responsible for the vaccine-or-test mandate for large employers."

Sounds like the blow was against healthcare workers, not private employers requiring anything.
Sounds like the "vaccine or test" has been blocked (for now).
Sounds like the exemptions that I mentioned still legally exist and could have been utilized.
Sounds like (hopefully) OSHA will be booted out on their rears soon.

Do I have the facts straight, now?

It seems like this is a reasonable analogy -- vaccine is 50% effective and seat belts are 50% effective. However, it isn't so since some are not that clear on the science I will give a more detailed explanation on the difference between these two.

The vaccine is "leaky" which means we have variants from Covid that it does not protect you from. If they only gave the vaccine to those most at risk, say the elderly and those with comorbidities then the fact that the vaccine is 50% effective would be a valid reason for those most at risk to get the vaccine. However, once they mandate it for everyone and try and get the vaccination rate over 80% you create an environment that favors the variants that it doesn't protect from, hence the protection wanes over a six month period of time. This does not happen with seat belts, they are 50% effective regardless of how many people use them.

So then if you understand the theory of evolution and "survival of the fittest" you would understand that a vaccine that is only 50% effective should only be given to 5% of the population.

I agree 100% that nobody should take it.

But I can't help but feel like this guy who had so much "moxie" should have held his ground and waited to see what his legal options were. He had exemptions he could have pursued. So much is being said by the Powers-that-Be and then lawsuits are bouncing into play. Joey could have bided his time, maybe searched for another job while playing the waiting game instead of being kowtowed. I know that's hard to do (find another job) but if you have convictions, you sometimes have to suffer to protect them.

After my grandma was in an accident where she only survived because she WASN'T wearing a belt, she basically didn't use seatbelts again. Still have to argue with her to strap in. lol. However, I've always thought it should be an individuals choice if they want to risk not wearing one.

No.

The facts presented in the article concerning his death says the employer forced him to get the vaccine or be fired.

Whether or not Florida has a vaccine mandate does not stop an employer from firing someone. Obviously some jobs may be protected and someone with financial resources might be able to fight getting fired in court. But none of that is relevant here. There is nothing in the article to suggest that he had any protection. For example, in NYC if you get tenure you will have the legal protection of the union if you are fired to support you if you fight it in court. However, it now takes a minimum of 5 years to get tenure. Prior to that they can let you go for any reason, it doesn't matter. There is no recourse.

Then better to get fired and sue for wrongful dismissal. If exemptions are legal (which they appear to be) and his job boots him out without allowing one of the exemptions, sounds like he has a case against them. If this guy had so much moxie, he should have fought.

I agree there was nothing in Joey's article about any protections. But if he had looked up Florida law, he would have seen he had exemptions he could have taken and presented them to his employer.

Agreed!

Do you believe in evolution?
You are seeing in people just numbers?
But in Gods eyes every Single Person is so much worth, that he gave the life of his son for him.
And in your eyes the life of people is how much worth?

The vaccine gives no 100 % protection, maby 50, maby 60, maby 70 %
So instead of 100 people unprotectet 50/60/70 people are protectet.

No, this is not true, and this is because you do not understand.

Yes, it appears to protect you from some variants, but not from others. If you are exposed to a variant, like the Delta variant, that it does not protect you from it does not give you any protection.

By vaccinating everyone they create an environment where all the variants that you are not protected from will become prevalent. If you only vaccinated those who were most at risk, perhaps 5%, then those variants would not become prevalent and the vaccine would be far more effective for those who need it most, ie it would save more lives.

As for "do you believe in evolution" I have no interest in that debate. I qualified the remark saying "survival of the fittest". That is a very biblical concept. This is why Paul says physical exercise has some benefit. What Darwin actually observed was "survival of the fittest". He theorized a process which has since been debunked mathematically as being an impossible explanation.

Now some will say that since I am protected from some variants that is better than nothing. Again, that is not true. They have forced your body to make antibodies specific to one feature of one virus (spike protein) and therefore you have fewer non specific antibodies. That makes your immune response to all other viruses weaker. This is not simply a theory but has been shown with peer reviewed studies. A good analogy is the Magino line, a very robust defense of the French border with Germany. It would have worked great except that Germany drove through Belgium and around that wall. If France had had tanks instead of a wall (non specific antibodies versus specific antibodies) they would not have fallen to Germany in two weeks.

They say 30% of the world claims to be Christian. Let's assume that number is correct.

What if Jesus decided not to go to the cross because 30% effectiveness wasn't worth it?

In baseball, 30% hitting (.300 batting average) is total success!

So following this analogy does the Lord mandate that everyone be saved or else you lose your job? That sounds like Russia or China. That sounds like an Islamic nation.

So then why not mandate that every player on the team hit 300?

So an individual chooses not to wear one and is badly injured in a wreck because of it. Said individual also chose not to buy health insurance, and doesn't have the money to pay for his medical treatment. Should that individual be treated, even tho the cost will be put upon others (the insured and the taxpayers)?

Likewise, yon individual does not get the shot. S/He catches covid and has a very mild case. Good for them. But they infect someone else, who is not as lucky, gets deathly sick, and ends up with a humongous medical bill. Is it fair to allocate the cost of not getting a shot upon an another person who incurs an expense because of it?

Nice dodge

Because that's not reasonable. Batting is a skill, a shot is a decision. Not everyone has .300 level skill, but everyone has the decision to get a shot.

Your analogy was fatally flawed. The vaccine is not salvation. Even if the vaccine is 30% effective against Covid 19 it is not salvation. When you get a vaccine it is a calculation of risk and reward. Since 99.97% survive Covid19 you can calculate the risk, it is more for those with comorbidities and less for those who are young and healthy.

You then look at the reward from the vaccine. At most six months of limited benefit. But even if it protects you for that time it does not protect society. During that time you can contract Covid19 (and many have) and you can transmit it. Therefore there is 0 reward for society if I get the vaccine. After six months I will need a booster shot, and then again after another six months, etc. There is no basis to think otherwise.

So then what is the risk from the vaccine? We don't know fully because it is an experimental vaccine. What we do know is the number of adverse reactions listed so far is much, much greater than with any other vaccine that was rejected because of the risk. We do know that for people with very low risk from Covid19 the risk from the vaccine is greater than from Covid19. Based on what we do know about the risk it is really up to each individual. For example, you might get numbness in your hands, that may seem like a small thing but not for Eric Clapton or Aaron Rodgers, that could be the end of their career.

So then another way to look at this is what kind of treatment do we have for those who get Covid19, what other options are there? India has proven with peer reviewed studies that Ivermectin is very effective. Oxygen is obviously one way you could help someone who is very sick. Also HCQ is proven effective in Africa which has done very well with the pandemic without being vaccinated, they use HCQ.

OH, so this was a fatally flawed analogy, got it. No one is protesting you if you get the vaccine, the protests are about the mandate.

True, mostly, and I don't really agree with mandates.

But on the other hand, what do you do when far too many people are doing the wrong thing for the wrong reason? Especially when their decision may affect others for life?