NYC won't rehire unvaccinated workers, lifts vaccine requirement of athletes, performers

It's about keeping the little people in line. It isn't hypocrisy when it's intentional. Then, it's just plain tyranny.

 

I tend not to be a cynic and don't see conspiracy at every turn a government makes. Perhaps you are right and I am wrong, but I think I likely sleep better at night.

 

Do you have to see a conspiracy at every turn a government makes to see different requirements for vaccinations for different people?
Is that the new qualification now?

 

I just explained the difference.

 

You mean like requiring them for public school students but not home schooled kids?
Or maybe requiring flu shots for nurses but not truck drivers?

 

No, I mean people like yourself who crucify others for not getting the Covid shot then magically, turn the other cheek for others.

 

Not to me you didn't .. and there is no significant difference in transmission between vaxed and unvaxed .. so your explanation was obviously some false narrative you ingested.

 

I think they should get it too. I seem to recall several athletes getting crucified for it.

 

Sure.
https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/st...-get-breakthrough-infections-less-contagious/

 

Yes, I'm all too familiar with that horror and many others.

I believe the fact that minorities were given priority in some states is more than enough proof something is amiss. Minorities are treated like second class citizens in every aspect of their daily lives. There is no way the government is interested in their well-being and longevity.

I didn't go back to reread my post or yours but I don't think either one of us used the words "Democrats". Did I miss something?

I absolutely agree with you that our government is constantly encroaching and they are nosy and bullies. I just don't see it as advantageous to kill people, businesses, opportunities or anything else globally. I mean, if you had the resources and powers to do away with millions of people in a relatively short period, wouldn't you fine-tune to your mental list of people you don't like?

Given the "kind and tolerant" /sarc. posts of countless people all over social media, doesn't it seem more likely (and cost effective) to kill everybody that might be looking at our Southern border, all the people that everyone cheers for when the cops shoot them for little to no reason and all the unwanted kids that girls and women who have no business being entrusted with a fragile, completely dependent little human bring into the world with no intentions or wherewithal to provide, love, care and nurture that life? It hardly seems "loving" to guilt-trip somebody into not having an abortion and then not giving a damn what happens to that precious little life once it's detached from an umbilical cord. I haven't checked recently but recent comments here and there suggests many people would be onboard with exterminating homosexual, bisexual, metrosexual and transgender people. The list goes on.

So, we're not talking about Democrats (and I don't see how they are to blame anyway. From all the comments I read, Democrats seem to be universally panned as the dumbest people alive) but *if* there was a conspiracy to oust Trump, there are about a hundred other easier ways to get rid of him and allowing him to play victim for over a year and counting which garners him a ton of money and a possible run in 2024 was a really dumb way to go about it.

 

Statistically insignificant to transmission. That is the scientific fact - from the article you posted .. and the actual data from around the world.

You just don't understand what you are reading ... and probably never read the article .. just saw a catchy headline that seemed to fit the false narrative kool-aid you have been ingesting .. and this is not your fault .. it is what it is .. there are hundreds of "catchy headlines" that will seem to support your false narrative .. due to the massive propaganda effort to feed you that false narrative.

Post some of the "Science" from your article that you think supports your claim ...so I don't have to waste time looking it up my self - and as 1) posting a link is not an argument 2) bad form in general 3) against Forum rules 4) nonsensical fallacy.

 

This finding suggests that people with breakthrough infections may be as infectious as unvaccinated people in the early stage of their infection, but that those with breakthrough infections are infectious for a shorter period and therefore less likely to transmit the disease to others over time.

 

Look -- the Science mate .. from the Article .. I read it already .. know what it says - how study was done. Will keep the article for the headline is a poster child for propaganda ... from the "Harvard Review" .. something I find extremely unfortunate and disturbing ... because no scientist .. with any knowledge of Statistics ..or just folks with a drop of common sense - would not know that the headline is a 95% pants on fire false narrative.

OK I get you don't know a wit about Science .. but this is fine.. as I can guide you through it .. having tutored calculus while I was a Student .. not having rich parents to send me to Harvard .. waited tables .. did what I could...

but in any case --- The Study is not studying transmission directly - looking at people who already have covid ..how long the carry the virus ... and by inference should have some relationship to ability to infect others. .. So regardless of the resultes .. can't say much in relation to actual transmission for that we look at real world data .. such as the London Study .. and numerous others .. none of which have found a significant difference.in transmission...

but back to this joke of a study .. where they look at days of viral load ... hoping to be able to guess if these folks can transmit as correctly as possible .. big error bar right there .. but reasonable if you know what doing. get it in a range which is fine. Ability to transmit is not an exact science .. at all .. lots of hocus pocus .. no worries .. still we are OK ..

Then .. we see the results .. same viral load for 5.5 days .. what they figured was "transmissible" 7,5 days for unvaxed. This is a rather small difference to begin with .. specially since small sample size like less than 200 .. half and half vaxed/ unvaxed we would presume .. but no detailes on the individuals .. which makes a big difference just pointing out some variables but either way .. small difference.

Now .. the problem.. If we are talking spread of a virus .. the difference between 5 days and 7 days is ZERO .. Everyone in the population who is succeptible to it .. is going to get it .. The overall rate of transmission .. and number of people who get it .. in a population will not be any different .. be it you are a Superspreader for 5 days .. or 7 days .. and taking personal hygeine into consideration .. your not out in the public when you have it... The vast and overwhelming majority of transmission is going to occur before you show symptoms .. this is just common sense .. and practical experience .. backed up by such Loads of Scientific Data .. not questioned in non serious circles .. never mind serious ones ..you yourself know this .. but if you don't .. ask 5 people and they will ..

You want to take a stab at quantifying the risk of harm vaxed verse unvaxed .. that would be funny .. but what ever one comes up with .. it will be super duper low .. rounding error kind of difference.. No Significant difference in Transmission .. .. Yet ... the Harvard Review posts deceptive headline .. not supported at all by the data ..

Now how about you compare this to someone who has had covid .. has natural immunity.. and you want this person to get the Jab .. risk harm to themselves .. on account of this unvaxed person has a lower number of days of transmissibility than the vaxed person.

Anyways .. 1) Utilitarianism .. harm reduction .. is not a valid justification for law to begin with .. "Sans meeting exceedingly high bar kind of risk of harm" .. Not only does this risk of harm not meet this bar .. It is a falsehood "Fallacious Utilitarianism" it does not even measure to begin with .. there is no significant risk of harm .. but,,,, whether here or there It is up to those that want to force their creepy beliefs on others through physical violence .. to which the onus of quantification of that risk of harm goes .. proving it exceeds that bar

Crying out .. "risk of harm" as you have done ... even if true -- which its not but assuming it was - does not justify law simply on that basis .. and would be a ridiculous absurdity if it did.


Over to you mate .. prove your claim .. quantify the risk of harm .. show that it meets the threshold ..

 

I began by acknowledging the hypocrisy. But I can believe in blatant hypocrisy without me thinking it is an evil plot by government.

 

Tell the Mayor of NYC to expect a law suit.

 

It's reality, not a conspiracy theory.

 

If you were any more misinformed, you'd be Madison Cawthorn..... I actually cannot prove you aren't, come to think of it...

 

Care to dispute what I posted or were you just going to deflect all night because you can't

 

What is reality to some is a conspiracy theory to others. We appear to be on the opposite sides of this one.

 

It's an historical fact that oppressive governments have claimed "for the good of the people" as an excuse for their oppression.

Take the covid lockdowns: everyone of the restrictions involved the citizens of the republic to surrender their rights.

In Pennsylvania, the governor ordered gun stores closed (a violation of the Constitution), but allowed pot stores to stay open.

In Michigan, you could fish, but you couldn't use a motorboat.

The governors who ordered lockdowns went after everything they don't like. The lockdowns had ****all to do with containing the spread of the virus.

 

I don't catch your meaning.

 

I have to disagree. This was never based on creating a healthy, strong country; it was about big pharma getting a sweet government contract with zero liability. The risk for strong, healthy people was extremely low before the vaccine. If the vaccine was effective, there would be no need for mandates.

Instead of government regulating the pharma industry, the pharma industry is regulating government.