[semimojo]

You might as well mandate wearing raincoats in the rain, because old wives tell you that you'll catch cold and fill up the hospitals with coughing people.

If we had the evidence that raincoats were very effective in preventing severe disease and death we may well consider mandates.

[Political Junkie Too]

Go for it.

And who is this "we" that you speak of?

-PJ

[Political Junkie Too]

If we can mandate that people must wear a raincoat, what if we had the evidence that certain "unclean" members of the population who were mandated to wear yellow stars was very effective in preventing severe disease and death?

Where is the line between which mandates "we" can consider and which ones we cannot?

-PJ

[MayflowerMadam]

“If we had the evidence that raincoats were very effective in preventing severe disease and death we may well consider mandates.”

How about comparing apples to apples? Raincoats, seatbelts, etc., don’t invade your body doing who-knows-what. God and Fauci know, but we certainly don’t. You take off a raincoat and yours cells remain the same.

[Apple Pan Dowdy]

” If we had the evidence that raincoats were very effective in preventing severe disease and death we may well consider mandates. ”

But if we knew that raincoats had a history of causing blood clots, heart attacks, destruction of your natural immune system, and a list of others as well as other devastating long term affects we don’t yet know, then would you mandate them? If the mandated raincoats cost thousands of dollars while there were cheap alternative raincoats available that kept you dry, would you mandate anyway?????????