Board 8 > Politics Containment Topic 384: Manchins of Madness

(+) Yeah! (+)

I cant speak to anyone elses districts, but my 8 year old is in a crowded classroom with desks crammed right next to each other, and shes one of 3 kids in her class of 28 that wears a mask, and most of her class is unvaccinated. Our district doesnt believe COVID is a thing, and wont even tell people when theres a classmate that tests positive.

I wish things were as you described though, as far as how classes go here.

RaidenGarai posted...

I cant speak to anyone elses districts, but my 8 year old is in a crowded classroom with desks crammed right next to each other, and shes one of 3 kids in her class of 28 that wears a mask, and most of her class is unvaccinated. Our district doesnt believe COVID is a thing, and wont even tell people when theres a classmate that tests positive.

I wish things were as you described though, as far as how classes go here.

Yup, where my husband teaches is exactly the same. They're telling parents that kids are socially distanced but then they also made him add extra desks to his classroom than normal so everyone can fit. No kids wear mask and they don't do any contact tracing. And it's been this way since September 2020.

Masks and vaccines are "strongly encouraged" here but less than half of students follow that and social distancing in the classroom also isn't happening since the start of the school year.

The kids are SUPPOSED to mask and social distance, but the social distance requirements are so loose as to pretty much not exist, and we have lost the battle of enforcing masks over noses.

The killers of Ahmaud Arbery sentenced to life, two without the possibility for parole.

DeepsPraw posted...

Not allowed in America: masked, vaccinated, socially-distanced school classrooms.

Is this scenario even true anywhere

SCOTUS looking like it's gearing up to kill the vaccinate-or-test OSHA requirement. Roberts suggesting OSHA cant do it because Congress didn't think about COVID when it passed the law 50 years ago.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1479495231087206406

guess we need to elect more time travelers for that needed future perspective

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS looking like it's gearing up to kill the vaccinate-or-test OSHA requirement. Roberts suggesting OSHA cant do it because Congress didn't think about COVID when it passed the law 50 years ago.

https://twitter.com/mjs_DC/status/1479495231087206406

guess we need to elect more time travelers for that needed future perspective

Or just have congress pass a law today to authorize it?

Being able to use old laws as gotchas during congressional deadlock is idiotic no matter who does it.

By that logic people should only have the right to bear the exact same type of arms that were available when the 2nd Amendment was passed. Back then they had no idea how much more lethal guns would become.

I nominate a federal program to exchange modern weaponry for single shot muskets.

Edit: Actually if that is the trade, I'll take it. Kill the osha thing and downgrade all legal guns to muskets.

Congress pass laws lol.

I can kind of see a case for that if its clear there are no provisions in the law for viral outbreaks . pandemics were still a thing 50 years ago.

masterplum posted...

Or just have congress pass a law today to authorize it?

you know damn well nobody in the GOP death cult is going to vote for anything that slows down the rate of COVID transmission

stop being disingenuous

SCOTUS precedent goes back over a century that the government has the right to impose vaccination mandates in response to a pandemic and you can see the same tired anti-vax arguments knocked down in Jacobson v Massachusetts all the way back in 1905.

but stare decesis only applies when the partisan majority of this court wants it to (Or as I believe Kavanaugh had the gall to put it during one of the recent abortion cases (paraphrased) "Many of this Court's most celebrated decisions were overturning past precedent. Who can say this wouldn't be among them?")

So when they inevitably strike down the mandate, when is the point where we finally start telling anti-vaxxers that they're on their own? Why do we continue to allow these fucking morons to keep clogging up hospitals?

When do we finally start telling them "You can be anti-vax if you want, but now we're going to start treating you like the idiot that you are and tell you to fuck the hell off?"

xp1337 posted...

SCOTUS precedent goes back over a century that the government has the right to impose vaccination mandates in response to a pandemic and you can see the same tired anti-vax arguments knocked down in Jacobson v Massachusetts all the way back in 1905.

but stare decesis only applies when the partisan majority of this court wants it to (Or as I believe Kavanaugh had the gall to put it during one of the recent abortion cases (paraphrased) "Many of this Court's most celebrated decisions were overturning past precedent. Who can say this wouldn't be among them?")

If they did overturn it wouldn't Jacobson still be valid precedent? I thought the argument was that Congress didn't design OSHA to cover something like a pandemic, not that the federal government couldn't do a vax mandate at all.

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1479534483426660360?s=21

LordoftheMorons posted...

If they did overturn it wouldn't Jacobson still be valid precedent? I thought the argument was that Congress didn't design OSHA to cover something like a pandemic, not that the federal government couldn't do a vax mandate at all.

Yeah, it would. This case isn't directly challenging Jacobson afaik. I mean, if you want to be specific Jacobson was about Massachusetts legislating a mandate.

I'm just saying the court has been pretty clear over several cases that the government has the authority to issue and enforce vaccine mandates. Jacobson is far from the only one, but it's one where I've read the opinion of the court and quite literally they swat down talking points you still see today like "Vaccines don't work!" or "Actually they cause other problems!" or "Why should it bother you if YOU'RE vaccinated?" or "But I believe this other treatment is better!!!!" etc etc in the opinion of the court.

Contrast to today where Thomas is asking if the vaccine is the only way to "cure" COVID or Alito saying he doesn't question the safety of the vaccine... before doing exactly that.

Same person also donated to Rand Paul in 2015 and was defending waterboarding in 2020 so yeah that's a major yikes by Harris and her team.

ChaosTonyV4 posted...

https://twitter.com/kenklippenstein/status/1479534483426660360?s=21

jfc

StealThisSheen posted...

So when they inevitably strike down the mandate, when is the point where we finally start telling anti-vaxxers that they're on their own? Why do we continue to allow these fucking morons to keep clogging up hospitals?

When do we finally start telling them "You can be anti-vax if you want, but now we're going to start treating you like the idiot that you are and tell you to fuck the hell off?"

When? Can it be 8 months ago?

it sounds nice on paper but I'm not really into setting a precedent of somebody deciding who "deserves" treatment, and it also brings up a lot of gray area logistical stuff

Tom Bombadil posted...

it sounds nice on paper but I'm not really into setting a precedent of somebody deciding who "deserves" treatment, and it also brings up a lot of gray area logistical stuff

We already do this with organ donor transplants.

Smokers also pay higher insurance premiums

Can we atleast do that

I'm also lost on where this "gray area" comes in.

At this point, you're either vaccinated or you're not. And if you medically can't be, that would be very easy to prove.

You cant do that because it never ends.

There may be a way to fairly divide them (maybe set a limit of these beds are for non-Covid patients?) , but if you start refusing healthcare because of dumb, poor, ignorant choices, etc, then you reinforce idea of rationing based on other preexisting conditions, things like obesity, lung and heart cancer, diabetes, etc.

Slippery slope arguments lead to no progress in anything.

Being unvaccinated is unique in that you're literally offered a form of free health care already, and yet you refuse it.

Frankly, comparing being unvaccinated to preexisting conditions is kinda gross, and it's playing right into the right wing playbook that democrats are demonized for fearing when it comes to other things.

https://twitter.com/pervocracy/status/1477399588789174274?s=20

(this is a thread with what I think are some pretty solid points)

That said, I'll cut off arguments now by saying I realize I'm being extreme and there are logical issues with what I'm saying, and I have no actual beef with anybody arguing otherwise, so please don't take it that way.

I'm drunk and I'm angry and I'm venting. But I'm going to admit I am and admit I'm probably wrong ahead of time.

Tom Bombadil posted...

https://twitter.com/pervocracy/status/1477399588789174274?s=20

The problem I have with this argument is that they're dying, anyway, but the current way they're dying is causing unrelated deaths by virtue of them taking up beds that they, frankly, don't deserve.

it's a thread so it's like ten arguments, which I realize was unclear

I'll admit the "refuse care" bit is very extreme and probably not a good idea, but we've gotta do SOMETHING. Even if it's just the aforementioned raising of insurance premiums.

It's way too easy to be an anti-vaxxer and see no repercussions, because if they get sick they just run off to the hospital, get antibody treatment, and then don't change their ways in the slightest.

Permanent disabilities or death is a pretty good repercussion.

god i just realized how big-brained slippery slope arguments are

"<thing is bad> because WHERE WILL IT END!?"
>Just because <thing> exists doesn't make <thing but more extreme> more likely. Besides, we already have <thing but less extreme> and <thing but more extreme> hasn't happened
"But you're using <thing but less extreme> to justify <thing> which is exactly what I'm saying!!"

no escape from the inanity. idiocy by induction

Oh don't worry, EVERYONE'S health insurance premiums are going up because of this!

StealThisSheen posted...

if they get sick they just run off to the hospital, get antibody treatment,

well dang I guess we ain't gotta worry about this pandemic after all if it's that easy a fix!

StealThisSheen posted...

Even if it's just the aforementioned raising of insurance premiums.

I'll be pretty surprised if the insurance companies aren't way ahead of you on that, but yeah sure

reminder: insurance is a scam

not the onion

https://twitter.com/patriottakes/status/1479600787605147650

Also says he was speaking to over a million people (or, I'm sorry, "that sacred number he won't say because the media will claim he's exaggerating")

This is why I will vote blue down ballot until the day I die.

Like yes, I have many issues with democrats, and I will gladly air these issues in here until I pass out...

but... general relative sanity and all that

Tom Bombadil posted...

well dang I guess we ain't gotta worry about this pandemic after all if it's that easy a fix!

That's missing the point a bit.

Said people either die, where then obviously they're not going to learn anything from it, and we've seen that apparently their family/friends/etc. don't, either, or they get better from antibody treatments and have literally no incentive to learn from their behavior.

We, sadly, live in a time where people don't give a shit just because other people are dying. They only give a shit if they are personally inconvenienced.

I think I'm generally just tired of slippery slope reasoning being an excuse to refuse any and all progress.

We can't have universal health care because slippery slope
We can't forgive student debt because slippery slope
We can't have gun control because slippery slope
We can't do apparently anything to control covid because slippery slope

StealThisSheen posted...

We can't do apparently anything to control covid because slippery slope

do you think refusing people care is going to help? I don't think it'll be much of a deterrent, and triage is already a thing for allocating limited resources.

NFUN posted...

god i just realized how big-brained slippery slope arguments are

"<thing is bad> because WHERE WILL IT END!?"
>Just because <thing> exists doesn't make <thing but more extreme> more likely. Besides, we already have <thing but less extreme> and <thing but more extreme> hasn't happened
"But you're using <thing but less extreme> to justify <thing> which is exactly what I'm saying!!"

no escape from the inanity. idiocy by induction

I wasnt saying where will it end, I said it never ends.

As in, were already rationing and restricting careeven for things people choose to do to themselvesand I dislike it, why would I support more?

StealThisSheen posted...

I think I'm generally just tired of slippery slope reasoning being an excuse to refuse any and all progress.

We can't have universal health care because slippery slope
We can't forgive student debt because slippery slope
We can't have gun control because slippery slope
We can't do apparently anything to control covid because slippery slope

We can't have water slides because slippery slope.

Tom Bombadil posted...

do you think refusing people care is going to help? I don't think it'll be much of a deterrent, and triage is already a thing for allocating limited resources.

Based on how these types of people shrivel up in the face of the slightest repercussions, I think it would have an impact, yes, if they couldn't just freely get treated for it whenever they got it instead of getting the vaccine. At the very least, it'd help with the problem of hospital overcrowding.

These people go into the hospital, and then whine, cry, and threaten doctors who won't give them ivermectin or whatever the fuck it is now. Part of me says just leave them to take their shitty dewormer themselves and cure themselves with their own "research," and see how it changes things when they realize the results first hand.

EDIT: Basically, if their choices were only hurting them? Whatever. But when it's hurting others, including people even without covid, SOMETHING needs to be done.

StealThisSheen posted...

Based on how these types of people shrivel up in the face of the slightest repercussions, I think it would have an impact, yes, if they couldn't just freely get treated for it whenever they got it instead of getting the vaccine

I don't see much overlap between "thinks covid is worth worrying about" and antivax and "will survive to learn a lesson for next time.". Heck, sample size of one, but the trump side of my family wasn't loudly antivax until AFTER one of them nearly died.

Refusing people would absolutely help. Hospitals are currently insanely overworked, and non-Covid patients are struggling to get proper care. Unvaccinated people simply do not deserve to take up space compared to people with other medical issues.

Will it make them get vaxed? Probably not. I don't really care. At this point, the people being harmed by their selfishness matter more.

Yeah, even in the event literally none of the anti-vaxxers change their conduct if it becomes harder for them to get treatment, it's still a net positive. Nobody should have to die because anti-vaxxers kept them from getting into a hospital. I wouldn't hold this opinion if this wasn't happening. I'm not saying reserve care because of spite. The overcrowding is a legitimate issue.

Hell, I'm not even saying completely refuse care. Reserve a number of beds for non-covid cases, whatever. Just do something.

The something to do, I think, is to keep them from getting to that point in the first place. Lockdowns, mandates, masks, all that. Which is not gonna happen, but it's more likely than going full death panel anyway

I don't think it's at all fair to equate something like reserving a certain amount of beds for non-covid cases to "death panels."

In either scenario, you're telling somebody you can't treat them.

It's just "Sorry, we know you had a heart attack but we can't treat you, we're full of anti-vaxxers with covid"
vs.
"Sorry, we've reached our maximum load for covid cases."

Both suck, but I'll gladly take one over the other.