RE: The foundational issue is still that of the premise of the lethality of Covid being so high across all ages and conditions (vs. mainly the aged and unhealthy) and that of vaccination being so effective that such a mandate could be justified
_____________________________________
I’ve heard the pro-Mandate side argue that you should look at the vaccine mandate as similar to the requirement to wear your seat belt when you drive.
The Seat Belt does not prevent accidents ( just as the vaccines do not prevent infection ), but seat belt laws save lives when accidents occur ( just as vaccines prevent severe illnesses and deaths when infections occur ).
What do you think about this argument?
Apples and Oranges, because seatbelts are not permanently attached to your body.
Also known as the fallacy of false equivalence.
A seat-belt does not:
o change your DNA
o introduce risk of blood clots, inflammation of the heart, risk of stroke
o get manufactured with fetal stem-cells
o enter your body
o exist as an extended experiment and shield it's manufacturer from liability
o is not irreversible, and is removed when you leave your vehicle.
(to name just a few things)
Quoted like mad...
“vaccines prevent severe illnesses and deaths when infections occur”
But where’s the scientific proof?
A seat belt does not play games with my DNA, my immune system, hurt when I get it, make me sick for a few days, and possibly give me a stroke or heart attack.
It is truly benign when I use one.
Seat belt wearing is invasive? Experimental?
Irreversible?
Not even close to the same as the jabs.
The Court disavowed any intention to rule on mandates AS POLICY. They made no findings about whether vaccines were good, or bad, or necessary, or safe, or dangerous.
They simply ruled that the laws which created OSHA did not grant OSHA the authority to do this, while the laws that created Medicare and Medicaid DID grant CMS the authority to do this.
Simple. You can remove the seat belt when you exit the car, (a necessity if you want to get out of the car), but you can not remove the vaccine when you leave the work site, quit or get fired. That is permanent.
The only way this argument would make sense is if you are required to have the seat belt permanently implanted around your waist.
Well, thanks for asking, but I disagree with the foundational premise that there must be more laws to protect us from ourselves, vs. protecting others (buckle up passengers if not yourself), with the latter being the usual rational for vaccine mandates (kids can infect grandparents...)
Otherwise the analogy is lacking in equivalence. The efficacy of a seat belt is not much conditional upon the age or health of the person in a crash, nor related to whether they had survived crashes ("acquired protection"), while they have no real negative risks (how many people die because of seat belts?), and does not need constant upgrades (the Tercel outside has the same ones from 1992), while clearly saving lives, and youth likely at least as much as elderly alike.
. Meanwhile vaccination is of very limited efficacy over the space of a year, thus requiring more "installations," and if it was very effective then it would not justify vax mandates since the vaxxed would not be in danger from the unvaxxed, while the argument of reduced deaths has its own problems (many of the unvaxxed are likely those who spurn health care), and not only is there more chance for youth dying in vehicle accidents than from Covid, but while being of small percentage, there have been thousands of negative effects related to it. Thus the analogy fails due to false equivalency, with cost/benefits not justifying an all-ages and conditions mandate.
In addition, if saving lives from an infectious diseases warrant such long-term severe restrictions on freedom of movement, travel, association and even breathing, then where the equivalent program to greasily reduce obesity, while murdering innocents is hardly consistent with saving lives.
Nov. 18 (as well as at the original time of this writing on 12/10/21), the Case Fatality Rate (CFR) — which is the percentage of Covid-19 deaths in the U.S. out of the total number of cases — is 1.6%, and which includes all people of all ages and conditions. Based on statistics from between the beginning of January 2020 until December 8, 2021,the CFR for those aged 0-17 calculates (Y is what % of X) to 0.01% (644 deaths out of 6,310,536 cases); and for those aged 18-29 the CFR is 0.05% (4,700 deaths out of 8,667,566 cases); for ages 30-39 it is 0.21% (13,882 deaths out of 6,697,096 cases)
For comparison, the odds of dying in a motor vehicle accident are 1 in 107 (0.93%) and your chances of getting into a motor vehicle accident are one in 366 (0.27%) for every 1,000 miles driven. And thus despite headlines of exceptions, for the young (and fit and healthy) the odds of dying from Covid-19 are very minimal.That is, unless you are “quarantined” in the womb. since as the CDC reports, "in 2019, the abortion ratio was 195 abortions per 1,000 live births,” which means that the “pregnancy fatality rate” (PFR) is 19.5% (excluding spontaneous miscarriages among known pregnancies which are estimated to average approx. 15%).