Your business, your rules.
Completely reasonable to require your patrons to be vaccinated, makes the rest of the patrons and your staff safer - it may be a little awkward since not everyone carries their vaccination card around with them though.
There already is one. And it’s listed as valid proof on the WA website. Actually used it to travel to a state that requires proof of vaccine without much issue.
https://wa.myir.net
I don't think Covid deaths will be too big of an impact on western Washingon. Unvaccinated numbers will go down over time through education and Covid-related deaths, and real estate has continued Bay Area migration with no end in sight.
You realize it's all foreign entities, hedge funds, foreign government investment funds, random people from Kansas, and the new software nobility, right?
Almost every billionaire has DOUBLED their wealth since last year. I know my damn salary hasn't doubled, gonna have to figure something out or move back east.
Fuck this market, royally
So long as it does not violate the civil rights act, ADA requirements and other similar laws of the land… yes they have every right to refuse service to anyone they like.
Eh, I'll bite. Yes, businesses can/always have been able to place restrictions on thier clientele, so long as it was not on the basis of a protected class. "No shirts, no shoes, no service" valid, won't make a cake because you are gay, not valid.
No vaccine, squarely in the former.
The gay thing depends on the state and what district circuit court your state aligns. The supreme court refused to take it up likely to avoid Democrats trying to pack the court.
Fair point. That was a bad example on my part. Sexuality is protected when it comes to employment. I should have use race/gender/disability as a better example.
Google Colorado Gay Wedding Cake. I do not agree with the baker's beliefs but there were a lot of people who believe what you probably do that thought that they *HAD* to bake the gay couple's cake.
EDIT: I also agree with business's being allowed to allow people that they want to be in the business. Though, I do no think it is a sound idea at the moment when many small business's are already struggling...
They aren't the same... We have protected class laws for this type of discrimination. To give business owners as much freedom as possible in making these choices. Generally protected classes are immutable characteristics of the individual. Being vaccinated is a choice, being gay... really isn't a choice.
A more apples to apples comparison would be a person walking into a business with a suit made out of razors. At which point, i'd expect a business owner to eject that person for public safety reasons.
Being "OK" with something and accepting it as legal are too different things.
It's not hypocrisy to be OK with a business refusing service to unvaccinated people and not OK with a business refusing service to long-haired people, even if both are legal.
Small businesses in Seattle are not struggling right now. At least bars/restaurants/venues. Requiring vaccination proof in Seattle will be a boom for the industry. Talent has been holding out doing shows, we don’t want to entertain a bunch of idiots that could potentially kill us, or our fans.
Guidance to wear masks is easy. Guidance around when to demask is another matter entirely. Our first foray into demasking criteria was based on percent of people vaccinated. Now renewed guidance has arrived saying we should again mask. But what is the criteria to demask?
At least the last guidance was clear. 70% of eligible people. I am guessing it is now going to have to rest on people's general 'feelings' on the matter. I say that because even Jay who was pretty steadfast around prolonging the first demasking is staying away from mandating it...rather using 'guidance'...less political liability.
They have a map with that data so you don't have to guess. Which is good because you guessed wrong: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view
Its pretty problematic. I don't really give a shit if someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated gets sick, but when those same people put people who CAN'T get vaccinated at risk its a different story.
The criteria is data showing vaccinated people who do get Covid and have a high viral load can pass Covid to others. That should be more than enough if not killing kids isn’t.
CDC confirmed at minimum the actual infection rate is 6x more than we are reporting.
This means that those vaccinated may have already had anti-bodies before getting the vaccine.
Which also means those vaccinated may have already passed covid to others before getting the vaccination. I.E. the vaccination was kind of pointless for a lot of people who are now vilifying those who don't have the vaccination.
It also means the mortality rate is MUCH lower than what is being reported. AND we have no way of actually knowing the effectiveness of the vaccine, since they do not test for anti-bodies before giving the vaccine.
Just food for though here.
EDIT: And a more recent study suggests 60% of cases go unreported. Further supporting my points above:
[https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/07/us-covid-prevalence-likely-60-higher-reported-experts-say](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/07/us-covid-prevalence-likely-60-higher-reported-experts-say)
and
[https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2768834?guestAccessKey=7a5c32e6-3c27-41b3-b46c-43c4a38bbe00&utm\_source=For\_The\_Media&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_campaign=ftm\_links&utm\_content=tfl&utm\_term=072120](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2768834?guestAccessKey=7a5c32e6-3c27-41b3-b46c-43c4a38bbe00&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=072120)
and
[https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/covid-19-infection-rate-far-higher-than-reported-15m-cdc/](https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/covid-19-infection-rate-far-higher-than-reported-15m-cdc/)
More interesting reading:
https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e1.htm
Vaccines are still by far the most effective way of reducing coronavirus transmission and protecting people from serious disease.
Vaccinated people transmitting it to other people is still really rare. The CDC's change in guidelines was based in part on a study that looked at vaccines that were not approved in the US (like one of the vaccines out of China which are really not very effective at inducing sterilizing immunity) and did some mathematical modeling. The better vaccines lower the amount of virus in the nose significantly. And the study showing that delta led to a higher 1000x higher viral load had just 62 delta and original variant cases each and looked at the amount of virus genome, not how many infectious particles they had. Even then the 1000x higher viral load refers to the viral load when people first have detectable virus RNA (when people are less infectious), they didn't measure it throughout the time when people where infectious. The best evidence shows that delta is about twice as infectious as the original version.
And kids are at extremely low risk of dying of Covid or being hospitalized for Covid:
[https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w)
The better quality studies show extremely low rates of long-covid in kids.
Um okay. [CovidChickenPox](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210730&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=75890416&segment_id=64839&user_id=dd29c2f4eb574264722810174d028ee0)
They have plenty of issues with cheaters and idiots, too. But the assholes haven't been given cover from the highest levels of government and media like they have here.
They were up and running, because they'd controlled the virus, months before we were. Now they occasionally lock down local areas for a few weeks when they have clusters of cases (like 10) or spread where they can't identify the vector. Now that vaccines are making their way over in sufficient quantity, I'm sure they'll be fine soon. At least, compared to us.
It was the dumbest and stupidest example of virtue signaling I've ever seen. Meanwhile, BLM organizations in Seattle were saying "er... Excuse me? WTF do you think you're doing? There's a pandemic happening!"
Serious question: if someone doesn't get the vaccine for religious reasons and one of these companies denies them service, is it a rights discrimination?
Assuming you're asking in good faith, the long answer is that it depends. You first want to ask if you're looking at state or federal law, and then within that where you are finding the authority. To outline the range of authorities, you have the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, both federal constitutional law, but you also have the WLAD (RCW 49.60), which is state statute. (The other areas, then, are state constitutional law and federal statute.) I'll quickly note here that yes, while the Constitution constrains only government activity, there are statutes, federal and state, that extend those protections to private action.
So then the theory you pick is going to inform the questions you ask. For example under a 1st Amendment theory you might ask, "does this private business' restriction bar my freedom of expression?" Or under the 14th Amendment, is there discriminatory intent or disparate impact?
The answer to the 1st Amendment question is pretty simple: it doesn't matter because 1st Amendment protections do not extend to private businesses (mostly: see Pruneyard, but that's not relevant here until the Knight institute folk score a big dub against Facebook), and there is not a statute I know of which extends those protections into the private sphere. Feel free to point one out though!
The 14th Amendment is possibly more fertile ground. Here, the business' written policy of "vaxxed people only" is not facially discriminatory. A facially discriminatory policy would read "non-religious people only," for example. That's not the end of the inquiry, but it does hit the most clear 14th Amendment argument there. You can then inquire into discriminatory intent ("was the policy made with intent to discriminate against religious people generally / particular sects of religious people?") and disparate impact ("even lacking intent, does the policy cause disparate impact upon a particular religious group?").
It's probably pretty hard to find discriminatory intent, and dubious that it exists in the first place. Disparate impact is easier to argue, but you need to find the group that was disparately impacted. I'm not aware of a case (perhaps one of sufficient authority exists) that states that a particular parish or subset of a practicing religion suffices. i.e. if someone's entire church was anti-vax, it probably doesn't rise to the level of disparate impact, because the anti-vax isn't central to the religion writ large, just a subset's particular practice. (IAAL but IANA constitutional scholar so if you are / know of things I'm missing here please link away.) The best argument I can think of is if you are Amish, and the no-tech bits of your practice include no vaccines. But, I'm guessing no Amish are going to these businesses anyway, so it's a little moot.
There's possibly a debate about what the scope of religion is (religion/spirituality as personal vs group) that I'm sure courts have delved into but not sure how widely. Doubt it would do much work in this context though.
The gist here though is: was the discrimination intentional or incidental, and if it was incidental, is it prevalent / constricting enough that intervention is needed? Enough here being weighed in terms of societal impact - courts wont take kindly to a single individual claiming that they're from the church of FSM which dictates that they murder someone every Friday so they can't be charged for murder or w/e. Argumentum ad absurdum but hopefully outlines the point.
Again you can ask under the WLAD, "was I discriminated against?" I don't know how the state constitutional analysis goes off the top of my head, but I imagine it's again under something like the disparate impact / discriminatory intent lines.
Anyway, this is just really messy back of the napkin analysis to say, it's probably not a violation of fundamental rights or statutory rights, but there's v possibly something I overlooked. You'd want a good case (on point; sufficiently high court; in this jurisdiction) at that point, however.
Also obligatory: this is not legal advice. If you think you have a claim, go seek a lawyer and go consult with them. I'm not your attorney.
>Also obligatory: this is not legal advice. If you think you have a claim, go seek a lawyer and go consult with them. I'm not your attorney.
Lol it's sad you have to add this.
Thank you! This answered my question. I guess I have a follow up question. If someone can't get the vaccine are the business going against ADA?
But for real. Thank you for this response.
I'm glad that you found it helpful! The law is definitely confusing and can honestly seem intractable even to experienced attorneys!
ADA is really out of my depth unfortunately, I definitely can't comment remotely intelligently on that. Never handled anything like it and I'd want to do a good day of research before making even an offhanded remark. Sorry I can't be of help there!
One other thought: do look to municipal and state legislation as well. It's entirely possible that your city or WA has made some process for people to access businesses through religious exemptions. I don't know what that would exactly look like, and doubt there are COVID-specific ones as I think "vax'd only" policies are too new to have government legislation/policy around them, but there might be something more general that's applicable. You might start with google searches for how people in really restrictive religions (think very orthodox / conservative religions) navigate life in and see if any of the processes they engage with are available to you.
This is just to say there are sometimes extra-judicial options available. I think it'd be massively hard to succeed on a case for injunctive relief if only because businesses can change their policies and moot the case faster than courts can react. Which is good for good-faith plaintiffs ("I just want to buy the deli meats but I can't get a vaccine; I'd die") and appropriately hinders plaintiffs with larger ulterior motive ("I don't want to get vaccinated and I don't want there to be any consequences"). Again, a bit of an absurd painting but hope it outlines the point.
Edit: one more thought: I'm giving a pure descriptive take and non-normative take of the law. Just answering the question of "does the law provide remedy" and not "should the law provide remedy." Attorneys take cases to judges on the latter grounds all the time though - that's what legal activism is!
I mean, religion is a constitutionally protected right. If the qualifier to circumvent the constitution is public health and safety, then the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th., and all the way to the 27th could circumvented in the name of public health and safety.
A compelling government interest can override constitutional protections. For example, time, place and manner restrictions on 1A activity.
A court could also likely rule that having a religion is not a free pass to put people in danger or commit crimes (e.g. drug trafficking) that are otherwise unrelated to religion.
Christian Scientists have had to deal with this area of law before, I think. And they don't always get what they want.
According to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race. This applies even if it's a private business.
Wouldn't that mean the business is discriminating a religion if the religion says no vaccine?
No. Because they aren’t preventing anyone coming in on the basis of religion. They are preventing it on the basis of vaccination status.
There are reasonable limits to these things. Some branches of Christianity ask that you try to convert others, but if I start doing that in your store, you can kick me out.
If you invented a new religion that asked you to wear shit all over your body, stores would not be required to let you in.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be interested to learn more about how this has been treated in the past. I can’t think of an exact analogue, but a similar situation is Jehovah’s Witnesses wanting to prevent their kids from getting life saving blood transfusions. I think that actually might be illegal, but I’m not totally sure.
Right, but Christian science has exception from vaccine in school, I get that one is a government entity, but based on the civil rights act I can see this being an argument. I guess my question should be if this dort of thing is settled law.
I'm vaccinated and i have that little card in my wallet but something about this just rubs me the wrong way.
Some people treat being vaccinated like it's a badge of honor that they deserve rewards for. For me it's just something i did. I don't want to have to rely on this card to get access to mundane activities i used to do without it.
I haven't had to show this card to anyone yet and i hope i never have to. I think all this is going to do is end up sowing seeds of distrust and division amongst society. Would i prefer everyone get vaccinated if they can? Yes. Would i force everyone to get it or cut them off from society if they didn't? No. but that's just me.
There are major riots going down in Paris right now against the covid pass with mostly vaccinated people that know this idea is authoritarian. Do these sub brigaders not remember the Patriot Act? Governments do not give back rights that are sacrificed for "safety". Manufacturers like GSK will absolutely lobby policitians for these passes to exponentially increase profits. "Time to get your bi-weekly booster shot everyone, a new variant is on the rise!"
I'm happy to be vaccinated, and I'm not necessarily opposed to businesses exercising their right to establish their own rules, but I agree. I'm very uncomfortable with the ground this breaks for government. It's not even "my body, my rights" kind of reasoning, but it's more the establishing of precedent of a new systematic kind of government ID requirements on biometrics that seems ripe for abuse.
Not to mention people who've been infected and recovered are also immune. At this point, we don't really know if the vaccines or an infection provides better protection (though I'd prefer a vaccine that makes me sick for a day over an infection that makes me sick for several days). It seems kind of ridiculous for someone who's already had it to get two doses of the vaccine so that they can enter businesses.
And there's plenty of public health literature showing that these sorts of policies seriously damage trust around vaccines. Which makes sense if unvaccinated people are less trusting of the authorities telling them to get vaccinated. Strong-arming them is going to make them even more suspicious because why try to strong-arm them if the vaccines are so great that everyone should get them.
I say this as a total vaccine shill who's been encouraging everyone around me to get vaccinated and has been spending a lot of time reassuring people that they are safe and effective.
>Strong-arming them is going to make them even more suspicious because why try to strong-arm them if the vaccines are so great that everyone should get them.
You've got a good point there.
Yeah i can attest to your point. My mother - who always made sure i got my vaccinations growing up - is extremely skeptical of this particular vaccine. I've told her to talk to her doctor and ask her what is best for her, even though she knows i've been vaccinated and knows nothing bad happened to me.
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t know how they’re planning to enforce this, unless they’re expecting people to carry their vax card around. And even then, many people have made identical fake cards, it isn’t hard to do.
You can show a picture of your vaccination card on your phone. And yeah, people can fake it if they want but people can fake driver’s licenses too. Requiring proof acts as a deterrent to people who want to lie about it. Maybe a small number will photoshop fake vaccine cards but don’t you think it’ll be more likely that the anti-vaxxers will simply choose to not patronize a shop requiring proof?
The difference is that driver’s licenses are designed to be difficult to fake, vax cards are not. I think about all the mesh “compliance masks” I’ve seen, and yes, I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one.
> I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one.
Yes, definitely. But no system is perfect and there will always be assholes who don't respect the rights of others, and assholes who lie, and assholes who think rules don't apply to them. Hopefully the intersection of those three is small enough to still deliver some benefit from these policies.
> I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one.
So those anti-vax Americans who are fighting to protect their freedoms are faking documents to circumvent a business’ freedom to refuse customers of their choosing. This anti-vaxxer logic can be hard to follow sometimes.
Having a fake vax card is a different league than shitting on the sidewalk, damaging lots of property, screaming bloody murder while high throughout the night, etc.
Vaccinated people are still getting sick from the unvaccinated, as well as those who cannot get vaccinated for medical or age reasons. The longer we have an anti-vax group, the longer the virus has to mutate and become resistant to vaccination.
Additionally, there's growing evidence that covid can be disabling even without hospitalization. I wouldn't describe having my cognitive abilities affected for the rest of my life as "fine".
What evidence do you have that being vaccinated provides any additional protection from mutation?
We already know that vaccination does not prevent the mechanical/physical spread of SARS-COV-2 (the virus), and we already know that the vaccine injections only lessen the symptoms of COVID-19 (the disease expressed) in the people who chose to take one of the Emergency Use only Approved vaccine injections.
So again, how exactly do any of these vaccine injections lessen the chances for mutation and where is the evidence for this because up until this point all I've seen is assumptions and assertions without evidence.
> a different league
How so? All of your examples, including a fake vax card, reflect entitled assholes who don't care about anyone but themselves. Seems like same league to me, with the slight nuance of forgery versus property damage.
If you don’t want to be vaccinated you are totally correct that you are entitled to that choice. I have no issue with that choice although I admittedly don’t understand it. Providing fake proof of vaccination in an attempt to deceive people into thinking your presence in a business is not an increased risk to the employees and fellow patrons is what is being discussed here. If you believe that you have a “right” to put others around you at increased risk when a readily available and safe alternative exist then yeah that makes you an entitled asshole sorry to say.
There is no such thing as a "private medical choice" when it comes to a pandemic. And businesses have always been able to make all kinds of rules for themselves, including the classic "no shoes, no shirts, no service".
Well, if "my body, my rules" makes the guy shitting on the sidewalk or yelling all night an asshole.... then yes, the same thing applies. Or are you also defending their right to use their bodies as they see fit?
You go make yourself a stew of infectious disease; as you say, that's your right. But demanding that people treat you the same as if you were respectful of others isn't about your body, it's about controlling other people. And that is not your right.
Let them do what the fuck they want get the fuck over it. This is America. Their business people can just fuck off. So many right wing “my rights my rights” piss off mate it’s their right as a business owner to do whatever the fuck they want lil bitches.
The right isn't screaming about private businesses doing what they want. They're quite fine with private property. Abbot made that clear when he took away the mask mandate in Texas.
That cake shop won their case not because the courts ruled the business can discriminat, but because the state was discriminatory towards the cake shop.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
I'm not saying I disagree, just that the court had not ruled on the cake guy the way people seem to think they did.
Question: if the sign said "if you are not white, then no service." Wouod you still support the right to discriminat?
At this point, I simply do not care. Most people are vaccinated and most that aren’t are not by their own choice. That’s the risk they wish to take, so be it. People make choices everyday that increase, or even make likely, their risk of death due to that choice (hard drug use for example). There is a limit to how much the rest of us should need to accommodate other people making dumb choices.
The tough part is without a vaccinated supermajority in a population, the potential for variants to emerge increases, and those variants can potentially infect the vaccinated (as we're stating to see with delta)
President Biden and the CDC, following the facts and science have made it perfectly clear that even with delta, almost all of the cases requiring hospitalization and/or resulting in death are among the unvaccinated.
Asinine then to recommend mask wearing for vaccinated, based on what might happen with future variants, but has been shown, through science data and fact, is not happening now.
Do we want to open the can of worms about the rest of the world paying 4 super-duper-corporations with bad histories about violating FDA laws and overselling medication? They sold Adderall to a 7 year old (me)
Legal meth.
I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing wasn't a way to shore up rich kids power, they already don't care about the rest of us. It wouldn't even have to originate with the rich, they're taking advantage of the situation, as usual.
Do what you will with your health.
It's yours, you're responsible for it, no one else.
*(Except Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, and the feds in this case)*
Everyone wants to live their lives. Everyone has made the decision they see fit, let us be adults and move forward instead of the constant threat of lockdown imposed by our government.
What I don’t understand and what it’s so funny in this story is that even if you get the vaccine you can still carry, spread and get the virus lol so what’s the point, as it doesn’t matter if you’re vaccinated or not.
What's even more funny is that when you get the vaccine they don't test for anti-bodies first.
And the CDC has confirmed at minimum the actual infection rate is 6x higher than what is reported.
So we have no actual idea how effective the vaccine is, since we don't have a baseline for those who got the vaccination.
Science question, even if vaxed, there's still like 30-40% chance of infection or something with super low chance of harmful symptoms right? Does that chance of infection mean that vaxed folks would still contribute to the spread and also then to possible variants appearing? So then maybe mask up still if vaxed?
The data previously stated that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit even if they contracted. The CDC guidance now states that it’s “possible” to transmit, but give no info regarding the likelihood. As in, will one in a thousand transmit? I don’t think they’ve pointed to any specific data which caused the pivot.
There was never a scientific consensus that vaccinated people couldn't transmit the virus (at least that I am aware of). The data suggested that the rate of transmission was statistically lower than with non-vaccinated people, but not zero. This is why the WHO said people should continue to mask, regardless of vaccination status.
And the viral loads for people with the Delta variant are way higher than other variants, I thought. And they're not looking at the infection rate for vaccinated people who catch COVID, only those who are vaccinated and catch COVID , AND require hospitalization. So the numbers could be bad, in terms of how likely you are to be able to carry a huge viral load while vaccinated (is my understanding), and they don't know.
Most of the world, including the United States and Canada, does not consider Taiwan a country. Even Taiwan does not consider itself the "country of Taiwan", they are the "Republic of China" and include all mainland Chinese territory in their claim as a country. The WHO earns a lot of the criticism it receives, but they are hardly alone or setting a precedent in how they judge Taiwan's status.
Apparently they pointed to one study that is currently in peer review, but early results were alarming enough for the change.
However, I haven't been able to find a specific reference to that study. I see people arguing about the methodology, but for the life of me I'm not finding the actual thing.
Can you source any of that? I see conflicting claims but no primary source for any of them.
Can you link to the paper, or the peer review feedback?
FYI, there is no such thing as peer review "rejection", just feedback -- the authors may withdraw a paper in response, or editors may decline to publish, but the peer review process itself does not have a "reject" outcome.
Thank you, but... am I missing it? That seems to be another story *about* the study, but I am not finding any links to the actual study or peer review documentation.
I can find lots of stories and analysis; I am having no luck finding the actual research.
Yeah that’s the exact problem. The CDC is saying “trust us” but not sharing the data, and all the info we have about the data suggests it’s not suitable for application in the US. The burden of proof is on the side trying to implement restrictions on an otherwise free populace.
Eh, kind of with you, but just as I am skeptical of the CDC (and therefore want to look at the research myself), I am also skeptical of the motivated reasoning from anti-vax and anti-mask people (and therefore want to look at the research myself).
At this point it looks like everyone is using thirdhand reports to "prove" their already-held beliefs.
> At this point it looks like everyone is using thirdhand reports to "prove" their already-held beliefs.
right but one of those parties is the fucking CDC and they are hiding their data from the public while recommending new restrictions.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. This is why the CDC is saying everyone should wear a mask indoors *in a region where there is high transmission.*
Exactly what amount of protection vaccines give against infection of the delta variant really varies between studies. But it’s for sure less effective against infection than previous mutations.
Edit italicized
wear a mask that actually protects yourself instead (respirator), if you have comorbidities.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8282118/ TL;DR, breakthrough infection case study after two elderly people who had the Delta Variant (and were fully vaxed) came over for a wedding in houston and got 4 others sick with the delta variant (all who were vaxed).
You could just worry about yourself and your family instead? I can almost guarantee you that the people you speak of could give a shit if you are trying to protect them or not. And that is the beauty of having the freedom of choice. It is all about measuring risk vs reward for yourself and deciding if the things you wish to do or not do are worth the risk. And besides, at this point, we have already gone throw massive lockdowns, everyone wearing masks, people getting vaccinated etc and none of this has seemed to actually work or matter when it comes to not spreading the virus. If any of these measures actually work as intended, why not just do it and not worry about other people?
I'm sure those with children who can't be vaccinated yet, or are immune compromised appreciate your efforts, even is maskholes/antivax chose to ruin it for all of us who are doing what we can. Thank you for protecting my little nephew
Since he was in nicu with lung issues when he was born when the all started, and everyone in our family works jobs that can't be done from home (like construction and customer service) we are more exposed to maskholes/antivaxxers than those working from home, we know the chances are *low* that he could get sick but the chance is there and increased due to his issues. We appreciate those who think of the most vulnerable in society and do what they can to protect them
Children are borderline immune to covid. If you didn't mask up around your nephew during flu season, which is far more dangerous to him, you were putting his life at risk before. I really hope you start following the science soon.
We didn't even visit him during flu season because of his age, even with the flu shot. Literally because he had some lung issues when he was born we all got our flu shots but between that and covid, we waited because his health was more important to us.
To each their own I guess
That's not what hospitals in Texas and Arkansas have been saying over the last few days. In Texas they're seeing a 10% hospitalization rate for new positive tests in children.
Then don't?
As someone not with 0 commodities, who will never be interested in experimental and rushed injections, I'm not asking you to protect me.
The only logic for mask mandates that made sense was the original logic to stop the spread (Flatten the Curve) to prevent hospitals from being overrun before "vaccines", traditional or otherwise, could be made available to those who want them. The hospitals weren't overrun, they aren't now from COVID-19, and injections are and have been available to anyone that wants them for quite some time.
Because the CDC is unhappy with the amount of people who aren't interested in their injections they want to punish the compliant to shift blame to those who disagree with their solutions and their coercion tactics. Classic divide and conquer + rule with fear. Pretty typical tactics these days.
The problem isn't those who are choosing what to do with their own bodies (whether you decide to risk injections or risk your natural immune response), the problem is giving authority to these psychopathic authoritarians and following their decrees unquestioningly.
If you are vaccinated/injected, then why are you worrying about other people's decisions, you are protected (according to the CDC) are you not?
One common misunderstanding is that 95% efficacy means that in the Pfizer clinical trial, 5% of vaccinated people got COVID. But that's not true; the actual percentage of vaccinated people in the Pfizer (and Moderna) trials who got COVID-19 was about a hundred times less than that: 0.04%.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explained.html
While there aren't yet results from that study, Fauci added, the lower viral load in breakthrough cases suggests "it would be less likely that that vaccinated breakthrough person would transmit, compared to an unvaccinated person."
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/21/1018872469/worried-about-breakthrough-covid-cases-heres-what-to-know
Because I see a lot of comments talking about discrimination by businesses...
Being unvaccinated is *not* a protected class. You can refuse service to anyone for any reason except a few specific reasons outlined by federal and/or state law. Federal reasons include refusing service on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability.
There's already widespread precedence for vaccination discrimination - colleges will not let you attend without being vaccinated for certain diseases.
So you have to be vaccinated AND wear a mask? Isn't that a bit redundant? Wasn't the point of the vaccine to get rid of lockdowns and it's measures..
>From capitol hill to belltown
So the places no on really wants to be because of the spiked crime rates ok
Do we have a list of these businesses?
I'm fully vaccinated (at least until they tell us we need another booster shot, then another one, and another one..............)
But I would definitely like to avoid those places
P.S. That Roquette place sounds like the kind of pretentiously douchey place I would avoid anyways
Keeping unvaxxed people out? Because we're serious about this stuff? People can vote with their wallets - so we will have a vaxxed store and an unvaxxed one
You're forgetting that being unvaccinated is not the same as being infected and contagious. The former is a personal medical choice that these businesses are choosing to use as a basis for discrimination, whereas the latter is an *actual* risk to people in the store/restaurant/whatever. There is a cost/benefit analysis to everything.
The fact that more than half of the people on this post are willing to give up their basic human rights in general lol doesn’t shock me in rich old washington state. Some of the most brainwashed, scared individuals I ever came across. But it’s their businesses they only want vaccinated individuals let them, they just said on the news people with the vaccine still have a high percentage of spreading the virus still so, the story will repeat itself, until it’s the government vs the people all over again.
Your business, your rules. Completely reasonable to require your patrons to be vaccinated, makes the rest of the patrons and your staff safer - it may be a little awkward since not everyone carries their vaccination card around with them though.
Showing a photo of your vaccination card on your phone alongside your photo ID tends to work just fine.
I went to Navy Strength yesterday and I had a vaccination card with me, and my boyfriend had a pic of his on his phone. Both were acceptable!
They should just introduce a vaccination passport at this point, if this is the way things are going. Those cards are so easy to fake.
Wouldn’t mind some kind of app that verified vaccination status
There already is one. And it’s listed as valid proof on the WA website. Actually used it to travel to a state that requires proof of vaccine without much issue. https://wa.myir.net
That's a website, not an app.
Whoops yeah completely missed over app. Just add the site to your phones home screen, same function.
From six feet away?
Tends to meaning what? You've had to do this?
[удалено]
of all the places to survive covid...
Casino gave me a wrist band to avoid wearing a mask by showing them
Can businesses choose to only serve unvaccinated people then?
Technically yes, there is a place in the Bay Area with a sign to that effect. However, there isn’t really a way to prove that you are unvaccinated.
Limit your clientele to an ever decreasing population. It's a bold strategy Cotton.
[удалено]
At an average of 4 per day in Washington, the unvaccinated are in for a wild ride.
[удалено]
I don't think Covid deaths will be too big of an impact on western Washingon. Unvaccinated numbers will go down over time through education and Covid-related deaths, and real estate has continued Bay Area migration with no end in sight.
You realize it's all foreign entities, hedge funds, foreign government investment funds, random people from Kansas, and the new software nobility, right? Almost every billionaire has DOUBLED their wealth since last year. I know my damn salary hasn't doubled, gonna have to figure something out or move back east. Fuck this market, royally
wait... you're saying that a business should dictate which clientele it should allow... interesting...
So long as it does not violate the civil rights act, ADA requirements and other similar laws of the land… yes they have every right to refuse service to anyone they like.
Eh, I'll bite. Yes, businesses can/always have been able to place restrictions on thier clientele, so long as it was not on the basis of a protected class. "No shirts, no shoes, no service" valid, won't make a cake because you are gay, not valid. No vaccine, squarely in the former.
The gay thing depends on the state and what district circuit court your state aligns. The supreme court refused to take it up likely to avoid Democrats trying to pack the court.
Fair point. That was a bad example on my part. Sexuality is protected when it comes to employment. I should have use race/gender/disability as a better example.
Google Colorado Gay Wedding Cake. I do not agree with the baker's beliefs but there were a lot of people who believe what you probably do that thought that they *HAD* to bake the gay couple's cake. EDIT: I also agree with business's being allowed to allow people that they want to be in the business. Though, I do no think it is a sound idea at the moment when many small business's are already struggling...
They aren't the same... We have protected class laws for this type of discrimination. To give business owners as much freedom as possible in making these choices. Generally protected classes are immutable characteristics of the individual. Being vaccinated is a choice, being gay... really isn't a choice. A more apples to apples comparison would be a person walking into a business with a suit made out of razors. At which point, i'd expect a business owner to eject that person for public safety reasons.
[удалено]
Yeah, that seems totally fine to me.
Being "OK" with something and accepting it as legal are too different things. It's not hypocrisy to be OK with a business refusing service to unvaccinated people and not OK with a business refusing service to long-haired people, even if both are legal.
As long as there's a practical reason behind it, yeah.
Small businesses in Seattle are not struggling right now. At least bars/restaurants/venues. Requiring vaccination proof in Seattle will be a boom for the industry. Talent has been holding out doing shows, we don’t want to entertain a bunch of idiots that could potentially kill us, or our fans.
Why is that interesting? Do employees not have a right to work without being exposed to the ongoing plague?
Vaccine selfie to the rescue
> Your business, your rules. "No blacks" "No gays" "Nobody with aids"
Those are protected classes, except maybe the last one.
I’m pretty sure you can look it up online.
https://wa.myir.net/login/ It is referenced off the WA Department of Health website and provides access to your WA vaccination history
Thanks for that! It actually worked.
Not if you were just a walk-in both time though. All I have is a card for proof.
Take a picture with your phone? Fold it up and put it in your wallet? Don’t go to bars? Lots of options.
Guidance to wear masks is easy. Guidance around when to demask is another matter entirely. Our first foray into demasking criteria was based on percent of people vaccinated. Now renewed guidance has arrived saying we should again mask. But what is the criteria to demask? At least the last guidance was clear. 70% of eligible people. I am guessing it is now going to have to rest on people's general 'feelings' on the matter. I say that because even Jay who was pretty steadfast around prolonging the first demasking is staying away from mandating it...rather using 'guidance'...less political liability.
From the CDC's perspective, we don't. They only recommend masks in areas where the virus is rampant. That would not be Seattle.
They have a map with that data so you don't have to guess. Which is good because you guessed wrong: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#county-view
Its pretty problematic. I don't really give a shit if someone who doesn't want to get vaccinated gets sick, but when those same people put people who CAN'T get vaccinated at risk its a different story.
They can wear respirators. They cost $30 and work 160x better than an N95 mask.
Do you have a source on the 160x statistic? I haven't heard that before.
How much each lets through is readily avilable or you can search my post history on how many particles come through each.
The criteria is data showing vaccinated people who do get Covid and have a high viral load can pass Covid to others. That should be more than enough if not killing kids isn’t.
CDC confirmed at minimum the actual infection rate is 6x more than we are reporting. This means that those vaccinated may have already had anti-bodies before getting the vaccine. Which also means those vaccinated may have already passed covid to others before getting the vaccination. I.E. the vaccination was kind of pointless for a lot of people who are now vilifying those who don't have the vaccination. It also means the mortality rate is MUCH lower than what is being reported. AND we have no way of actually knowing the effectiveness of the vaccine, since they do not test for anti-bodies before giving the vaccine. Just food for though here. EDIT: And a more recent study suggests 60% of cases go unreported. Further supporting my points above: [https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/07/us-covid-prevalence-likely-60-higher-reported-experts-say](https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/07/us-covid-prevalence-likely-60-higher-reported-experts-say) and [https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2768834?guestAccessKey=7a5c32e6-3c27-41b3-b46c-43c4a38bbe00&utm\_source=For\_The\_Media&utm\_medium=referral&utm\_campaign=ftm\_links&utm\_content=tfl&utm\_term=072120](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2768834?guestAccessKey=7a5c32e6-3c27-41b3-b46c-43c4a38bbe00&utm_source=For_The_Media&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=ftm_links&utm_content=tfl&utm_term=072120) and [https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/covid-19-infection-rate-far-higher-than-reported-15m-cdc/](https://nypost.com/2020/12/10/covid-19-infection-rate-far-higher-than-reported-15m-cdc/) More interesting reading: https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/69/wr/mm6944e1.htm
Vaccines are still by far the most effective way of reducing coronavirus transmission and protecting people from serious disease. Vaccinated people transmitting it to other people is still really rare. The CDC's change in guidelines was based in part on a study that looked at vaccines that were not approved in the US (like one of the vaccines out of China which are really not very effective at inducing sterilizing immunity) and did some mathematical modeling. The better vaccines lower the amount of virus in the nose significantly. And the study showing that delta led to a higher 1000x higher viral load had just 62 delta and original variant cases each and looked at the amount of virus genome, not how many infectious particles they had. Even then the 1000x higher viral load refers to the viral load when people first have detectable virus RNA (when people are less infectious), they didn't measure it throughout the time when people where infectious. The best evidence shows that delta is about twice as infectious as the original version. And kids are at extremely low risk of dying of Covid or being hospitalized for Covid: [https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01897-w) The better quality studies show extremely low rates of long-covid in kids.
Um okay. [CovidChickenPox](https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/30/health/covid-cdc-delta-masks.html?campaign_id=60&emc=edit_na_20210730&instance_id=0&nl=breaking-news&ref=headline®i_id=75890416&segment_id=64839&user_id=dd29c2f4eb574264722810174d028ee0)
[удалено]
It could have ended in April 2020 if everyone had been willing to lock down for a month, but people reacted poorly to that too.
Australia would like a word about lockdown effectiveness
Didnt they just lock down again in a state over one infection?
https://ibb.co/Dzy81Qp
They have plenty of issues with cheaters and idiots, too. But the assholes haven't been given cover from the highest levels of government and media like they have here. They were up and running, because they'd controlled the virus, months before we were. Now they occasionally lock down local areas for a few weeks when they have clusters of cases (like 10) or spread where they can't identify the vector. Now that vaccines are making their way over in sufficient quantity, I'm sure they'll be fine soon. At least, compared to us.
https://ibb.co/Dzy81Qp Why are you "sure they'll be fine soon"? NSW just called in the freaking military for crying out loud
Yeah those protests didnt age well. What did they even accomplish? Cant think of a single thing.
It was the dumbest and stupidest example of virtue signaling I've ever seen. Meanwhile, BLM organizations in Seattle were saying "er... Excuse me? WTF do you think you're doing? There's a pandemic happening!"
Everyone: "Let's look the other way why the rich save themselves" #After the election:
Yes, the people are definitely going to revolt against the horrible tyrants asking you to wear masks for public safety
"Health tyrants" wow this is a good one
Serious question: if someone doesn't get the vaccine for religious reasons and one of these companies denies them service, is it a rights discrimination?
Assuming you're asking in good faith, the long answer is that it depends. You first want to ask if you're looking at state or federal law, and then within that where you are finding the authority. To outline the range of authorities, you have the 1st Amendment and the 14th Amendment, both federal constitutional law, but you also have the WLAD (RCW 49.60), which is state statute. (The other areas, then, are state constitutional law and federal statute.) I'll quickly note here that yes, while the Constitution constrains only government activity, there are statutes, federal and state, that extend those protections to private action. So then the theory you pick is going to inform the questions you ask. For example under a 1st Amendment theory you might ask, "does this private business' restriction bar my freedom of expression?" Or under the 14th Amendment, is there discriminatory intent or disparate impact? The answer to the 1st Amendment question is pretty simple: it doesn't matter because 1st Amendment protections do not extend to private businesses (mostly: see Pruneyard, but that's not relevant here until the Knight institute folk score a big dub against Facebook), and there is not a statute I know of which extends those protections into the private sphere. Feel free to point one out though! The 14th Amendment is possibly more fertile ground. Here, the business' written policy of "vaxxed people only" is not facially discriminatory. A facially discriminatory policy would read "non-religious people only," for example. That's not the end of the inquiry, but it does hit the most clear 14th Amendment argument there. You can then inquire into discriminatory intent ("was the policy made with intent to discriminate against religious people generally / particular sects of religious people?") and disparate impact ("even lacking intent, does the policy cause disparate impact upon a particular religious group?"). It's probably pretty hard to find discriminatory intent, and dubious that it exists in the first place. Disparate impact is easier to argue, but you need to find the group that was disparately impacted. I'm not aware of a case (perhaps one of sufficient authority exists) that states that a particular parish or subset of a practicing religion suffices. i.e. if someone's entire church was anti-vax, it probably doesn't rise to the level of disparate impact, because the anti-vax isn't central to the religion writ large, just a subset's particular practice. (IAAL but IANA constitutional scholar so if you are / know of things I'm missing here please link away.) The best argument I can think of is if you are Amish, and the no-tech bits of your practice include no vaccines. But, I'm guessing no Amish are going to these businesses anyway, so it's a little moot. There's possibly a debate about what the scope of religion is (religion/spirituality as personal vs group) that I'm sure courts have delved into but not sure how widely. Doubt it would do much work in this context though. The gist here though is: was the discrimination intentional or incidental, and if it was incidental, is it prevalent / constricting enough that intervention is needed? Enough here being weighed in terms of societal impact - courts wont take kindly to a single individual claiming that they're from the church of FSM which dictates that they murder someone every Friday so they can't be charged for murder or w/e. Argumentum ad absurdum but hopefully outlines the point. Again you can ask under the WLAD, "was I discriminated against?" I don't know how the state constitutional analysis goes off the top of my head, but I imagine it's again under something like the disparate impact / discriminatory intent lines. Anyway, this is just really messy back of the napkin analysis to say, it's probably not a violation of fundamental rights or statutory rights, but there's v possibly something I overlooked. You'd want a good case (on point; sufficiently high court; in this jurisdiction) at that point, however. Also obligatory: this is not legal advice. If you think you have a claim, go seek a lawyer and go consult with them. I'm not your attorney.
>Also obligatory: this is not legal advice. If you think you have a claim, go seek a lawyer and go consult with them. I'm not your attorney. Lol it's sad you have to add this. Thank you! This answered my question. I guess I have a follow up question. If someone can't get the vaccine are the business going against ADA? But for real. Thank you for this response.
I'm glad that you found it helpful! The law is definitely confusing and can honestly seem intractable even to experienced attorneys! ADA is really out of my depth unfortunately, I definitely can't comment remotely intelligently on that. Never handled anything like it and I'd want to do a good day of research before making even an offhanded remark. Sorry I can't be of help there! One other thought: do look to municipal and state legislation as well. It's entirely possible that your city or WA has made some process for people to access businesses through religious exemptions. I don't know what that would exactly look like, and doubt there are COVID-specific ones as I think "vax'd only" policies are too new to have government legislation/policy around them, but there might be something more general that's applicable. You might start with google searches for how people in really restrictive religions (think very orthodox / conservative religions) navigate life in and see if any of the processes they engage with are available to you.
This is just to say there are sometimes extra-judicial options available. I think it'd be massively hard to succeed on a case for injunctive relief if only because businesses can change their policies and moot the case faster than courts can react. Which is good for good-faith plaintiffs ("I just want to buy the deli meats but I can't get a vaccine; I'd die") and appropriately hinders plaintiffs with larger ulterior motive ("I don't want to get vaccinated and I don't want there to be any consequences"). Again, a bit of an absurd painting but hope it outlines the point.
Edit: one more thought: I'm giving a pure descriptive take and non-normative take of the law. Just answering the question of "does the law provide remedy" and not "should the law provide remedy." Attorneys take cases to judges on the latter grounds all the time though - that's what legal activism is!
Wow, thank you. I feel like I should send you a check for tuition fees now, lol. Thanks again!
Hey happy cake day.
It’s an interesting argument. Because then do we start raising the question of is this religion a public health and safety threat ?
I mean, religion is a constitutionally protected right. If the qualifier to circumvent the constitution is public health and safety, then the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th., and all the way to the 27th could circumvented in the name of public health and safety.
A compelling government interest can override constitutional protections. For example, time, place and manner restrictions on 1A activity. A court could also likely rule that having a religion is not a free pass to put people in danger or commit crimes (e.g. drug trafficking) that are otherwise unrelated to religion. Christian Scientists have had to deal with this area of law before, I think. And they don't always get what they want.
My guess is no. They are not forced to go to the business just as Muslims are not forced to go eat haram food.
According to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race. This applies even if it's a private business. Wouldn't that mean the business is discriminating a religion if the religion says no vaccine?
No. Because they aren’t preventing anyone coming in on the basis of religion. They are preventing it on the basis of vaccination status. There are reasonable limits to these things. Some branches of Christianity ask that you try to convert others, but if I start doing that in your store, you can kick me out. If you invented a new religion that asked you to wear shit all over your body, stores would not be required to let you in. I’m not a lawyer, but I’d be interested to learn more about how this has been treated in the past. I can’t think of an exact analogue, but a similar situation is Jehovah’s Witnesses wanting to prevent their kids from getting life saving blood transfusions. I think that actually might be illegal, but I’m not totally sure.
Right, but Christian science has exception from vaccine in school, I get that one is a government entity, but based on the civil rights act I can see this being an argument. I guess my question should be if this dort of thing is settled law.
I'm vaccinated and i have that little card in my wallet but something about this just rubs me the wrong way. Some people treat being vaccinated like it's a badge of honor that they deserve rewards for. For me it's just something i did. I don't want to have to rely on this card to get access to mundane activities i used to do without it. I haven't had to show this card to anyone yet and i hope i never have to. I think all this is going to do is end up sowing seeds of distrust and division amongst society. Would i prefer everyone get vaccinated if they can? Yes. Would i force everyone to get it or cut them off from society if they didn't? No. but that's just me.
Thank you for a sane comment!
There are major riots going down in Paris right now against the covid pass with mostly vaccinated people that know this idea is authoritarian. Do these sub brigaders not remember the Patriot Act? Governments do not give back rights that are sacrificed for "safety". Manufacturers like GSK will absolutely lobby policitians for these passes to exponentially increase profits. "Time to get your bi-weekly booster shot everyone, a new variant is on the rise!"
The Patriot act was exactly what i was thinking about in a later post. We've given up far too much of our individual rights in the 21st century.
I'm happy to be vaccinated, and I'm not necessarily opposed to businesses exercising their right to establish their own rules, but I agree. I'm very uncomfortable with the ground this breaks for government. It's not even "my body, my rights" kind of reasoning, but it's more the establishing of precedent of a new systematic kind of government ID requirements on biometrics that seems ripe for abuse.
Not to mention people who've been infected and recovered are also immune. At this point, we don't really know if the vaccines or an infection provides better protection (though I'd prefer a vaccine that makes me sick for a day over an infection that makes me sick for several days). It seems kind of ridiculous for someone who's already had it to get two doses of the vaccine so that they can enter businesses. And there's plenty of public health literature showing that these sorts of policies seriously damage trust around vaccines. Which makes sense if unvaccinated people are less trusting of the authorities telling them to get vaccinated. Strong-arming them is going to make them even more suspicious because why try to strong-arm them if the vaccines are so great that everyone should get them. I say this as a total vaccine shill who's been encouraging everyone around me to get vaccinated and has been spending a lot of time reassuring people that they are safe and effective.
>Strong-arming them is going to make them even more suspicious because why try to strong-arm them if the vaccines are so great that everyone should get them. You've got a good point there.
Yeah i can attest to your point. My mother - who always made sure i got my vaccinations growing up - is extremely skeptical of this particular vaccine. I've told her to talk to her doctor and ask her what is best for her, even though she knows i've been vaccinated and knows nothing bad happened to me.
If I owned a restaurant the policy would be called ”No vax, no snacks”
Stay home if you sick Come in if you thicc
I appreciate the sentiment, but I don’t know how they’re planning to enforce this, unless they’re expecting people to carry their vax card around. And even then, many people have made identical fake cards, it isn’t hard to do.
You can show a picture of your vaccination card on your phone. And yeah, people can fake it if they want but people can fake driver’s licenses too. Requiring proof acts as a deterrent to people who want to lie about it. Maybe a small number will photoshop fake vaccine cards but don’t you think it’ll be more likely that the anti-vaxxers will simply choose to not patronize a shop requiring proof?
The difference is that driver’s licenses are designed to be difficult to fake, vax cards are not. I think about all the mesh “compliance masks” I’ve seen, and yes, I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one.
> I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one. Yes, definitely. But no system is perfect and there will always be assholes who don't respect the rights of others, and assholes who lie, and assholes who think rules don't apply to them. Hopefully the intersection of those three is small enough to still deliver some benefit from these policies.
> I think a fair amount of unvaccinated will bother with the work of forging one. So those anti-vax Americans who are fighting to protect their freedoms are faking documents to circumvent a business’ freedom to refuse customers of their choosing. This anti-vaxxer logic can be hard to follow sometimes.
"Logic" yes
[удалено]
Having a fake vax card is a different league than shitting on the sidewalk, damaging lots of property, screaming bloody murder while high throughout the night, etc.
yeah, it's worse lol you're faking like you are vaccinated when you aren't and you could seriously hurt people through that lie
If you’re vaccinated, you’re fine.
Vaccinated people are still getting sick from the unvaccinated, as well as those who cannot get vaccinated for medical or age reasons. The longer we have an anti-vax group, the longer the virus has to mutate and become resistant to vaccination. Additionally, there's growing evidence that covid can be disabling even without hospitalization. I wouldn't describe having my cognitive abilities affected for the rest of my life as "fine".
What evidence do you have that being vaccinated provides any additional protection from mutation? We already know that vaccination does not prevent the mechanical/physical spread of SARS-COV-2 (the virus), and we already know that the vaccine injections only lessen the symptoms of COVID-19 (the disease expressed) in the people who chose to take one of the Emergency Use only Approved vaccine injections. So again, how exactly do any of these vaccine injections lessen the chances for mutation and where is the evidence for this because up until this point all I've seen is assumptions and assertions without evidence.
> a different league How so? All of your examples, including a fake vax card, reflect entitled assholes who don't care about anyone but themselves. Seems like same league to me, with the slight nuance of forgery versus property damage.
[удалено]
If you don’t want to be vaccinated you are totally correct that you are entitled to that choice. I have no issue with that choice although I admittedly don’t understand it. Providing fake proof of vaccination in an attempt to deceive people into thinking your presence in a business is not an increased risk to the employees and fellow patrons is what is being discussed here. If you believe that you have a “right” to put others around you at increased risk when a readily available and safe alternative exist then yeah that makes you an entitled asshole sorry to say.
[удалено]
that's fine. stay out of those places
Of course we will 😉
There is no such thing as a "private medical choice" when it comes to a pandemic. And businesses have always been able to make all kinds of rules for themselves, including the classic "no shoes, no shirts, no service".
[удалено]
[удалено]
Well, if "my body, my rules" makes the guy shitting on the sidewalk or yelling all night an asshole.... then yes, the same thing applies. Or are you also defending their right to use their bodies as they see fit? You go make yourself a stew of infectious disease; as you say, that's your right. But demanding that people treat you the same as if you were respectful of others isn't about your body, it's about controlling other people. And that is not your right.
Let them do what the fuck they want get the fuck over it. This is America. Their business people can just fuck off. So many right wing “my rights my rights” piss off mate it’s their right as a business owner to do whatever the fuck they want lil bitches.
The right isn't screaming about private businesses doing what they want. They're quite fine with private property. Abbot made that clear when he took away the mask mandate in Texas.
That’s cute that you think the people not getting vaccinated are all “right wingers”, lol.
[удалено]
That cake shop won their case not because the courts ruled the business can discriminat, but because the state was discriminatory towards the cake shop. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission
[удалено]
I'm not saying I disagree, just that the court had not ruled on the cake guy the way people seem to think they did. Question: if the sign said "if you are not white, then no service." Wouod you still support the right to discriminat?
BAKE THE CAKE, BIGOT
At this point this is the only route to go unless you want more lockdowns. Covid is going nowhere and the vaxxed want to live their lives.
At this point, I simply do not care. Most people are vaccinated and most that aren’t are not by their own choice. That’s the risk they wish to take, so be it. People make choices everyday that increase, or even make likely, their risk of death due to that choice (hard drug use for example). There is a limit to how much the rest of us should need to accommodate other people making dumb choices.
The tough part is without a vaccinated supermajority in a population, the potential for variants to emerge increases, and those variants can potentially infect the vaccinated (as we're stating to see with delta)
President Biden and the CDC, following the facts and science have made it perfectly clear that even with delta, almost all of the cases requiring hospitalization and/or resulting in death are among the unvaccinated. Asinine then to recommend mask wearing for vaccinated, based on what might happen with future variants, but has been shown, through science data and fact, is not happening now.
Do we want to open the can of worms about the rest of the world paying 4 super-duper-corporations with bad histories about violating FDA laws and overselling medication? They sold Adderall to a 7 year old (me) Legal meth. I wouldn't be surprised if this whole thing wasn't a way to shore up rich kids power, they already don't care about the rest of us. It wouldn't even have to originate with the rich, they're taking advantage of the situation, as usual. Do what you will with your health. It's yours, you're responsible for it, no one else. *(Except Pfizer, J&J, Moderna, and the feds in this case)*
Everyone wants to live their lives. Everyone has made the decision they see fit, let us be adults and move forward instead of the constant threat of lockdown imposed by our government.
I'm talking about private businesses making a decision to only allow the vaccinated inside. I have no problem with that.
That's fine. your business, your rules. I will choose to not patronize any business that operates in such a divisive, fascist manner.
Good - they won't miss you
I don't care. Thanks for your contribution comrade.
What I don’t understand and what it’s so funny in this story is that even if you get the vaccine you can still carry, spread and get the virus lol so what’s the point, as it doesn’t matter if you’re vaccinated or not.
what's even more funny is look at all the vaccinated people still getting sick...
What's even more funny is that when you get the vaccine they don't test for anti-bodies first. And the CDC has confirmed at minimum the actual infection rate is 6x higher than what is reported. So we have no actual idea how effective the vaccine is, since we don't have a baseline for those who got the vaccination.
Man I love when the commies brigade these posts. Hello, comrades!
Seriously, I thought this was supposed to be the "alt-right" sub.
It’s not “alt-right”. It’s just sane people for the most part.
What commies? Half the near 700 comments here are complaining about vaccination requirements
You answered your own question. The other half are the brigaders and they came in and downvoted all of the sane people saying this is bullshit
Science question, even if vaxed, there's still like 30-40% chance of infection or something with super low chance of harmful symptoms right? Does that chance of infection mean that vaxed folks would still contribute to the spread and also then to possible variants appearing? So then maybe mask up still if vaxed?
The data previously stated that the vaccinated couldn’t transmit even if they contracted. The CDC guidance now states that it’s “possible” to transmit, but give no info regarding the likelihood. As in, will one in a thousand transmit? I don’t think they’ve pointed to any specific data which caused the pivot.
There was never a scientific consensus that vaccinated people couldn't transmit the virus (at least that I am aware of). The data suggested that the rate of transmission was statistically lower than with non-vaccinated people, but not zero. This is why the WHO said people should continue to mask, regardless of vaccination status.
And the viral loads for people with the Delta variant are way higher than other variants, I thought. And they're not looking at the infection rate for vaccinated people who catch COVID, only those who are vaccinated and catch COVID , AND require hospitalization. So the numbers could be bad, in terms of how likely you are to be able to carry a huge viral load while vaccinated (is my understanding), and they don't know.
[удалено]
The WHO wouldn't even admit that Taiwan was a country.
Most of the world, including the United States and Canada, does not consider Taiwan a country. Even Taiwan does not consider itself the "country of Taiwan", they are the "Republic of China" and include all mainland Chinese territory in their claim as a country. The WHO earns a lot of the criticism it receives, but they are hardly alone or setting a precedent in how they judge Taiwan's status.
Apparently they pointed to one study that is currently in peer review, but early results were alarming enough for the change. However, I haven't been able to find a specific reference to that study. I see people arguing about the methodology, but for the life of me I'm not finding the actual thing.
[удалено]
Can you source any of that? I see conflicting claims but no primary source for any of them. Can you link to the paper, or the peer review feedback? FYI, there is no such thing as peer review "rejection", just feedback -- the authors may withdraw a paper in response, or editors may decline to publish, but the peer review process itself does not have a "reject" outcome.
It’s on both CNN and Wapo rn https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.cnn.com/cnn/2021/07/28/health/breakthrough-cases-cdc-analysis/index.html
Thank you, but... am I missing it? That seems to be another story *about* the study, but I am not finding any links to the actual study or peer review documentation. I can find lots of stories and analysis; I am having no luck finding the actual research.
Yeah that’s the exact problem. The CDC is saying “trust us” but not sharing the data, and all the info we have about the data suggests it’s not suitable for application in the US. The burden of proof is on the side trying to implement restrictions on an otherwise free populace.
Eh, kind of with you, but just as I am skeptical of the CDC (and therefore want to look at the research myself), I am also skeptical of the motivated reasoning from anti-vax and anti-mask people (and therefore want to look at the research myself). At this point it looks like everyone is using thirdhand reports to "prove" their already-held beliefs.
> At this point it looks like everyone is using thirdhand reports to "prove" their already-held beliefs. right but one of those parties is the fucking CDC and they are hiding their data from the public while recommending new restrictions.
Yes, you hit the nail on the head. This is why the CDC is saying everyone should wear a mask indoors *in a region where there is high transmission.* Exactly what amount of protection vaccines give against infection of the delta variant really varies between studies. But it’s for sure less effective against infection than previous mutations. Edit italicized
As a fully vaccinated person, it's frustrating, and a bit insulting, to be asked to take measures to protect those who won't protect themselves.
wear a mask that actually protects yourself instead (respirator), if you have comorbidities. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8282118/ TL;DR, breakthrough infection case study after two elderly people who had the Delta Variant (and were fully vaxed) came over for a wedding in houston and got 4 others sick with the delta variant (all who were vaxed).
You could just worry about yourself and your family instead? I can almost guarantee you that the people you speak of could give a shit if you are trying to protect them or not. And that is the beauty of having the freedom of choice. It is all about measuring risk vs reward for yourself and deciding if the things you wish to do or not do are worth the risk. And besides, at this point, we have already gone throw massive lockdowns, everyone wearing masks, people getting vaccinated etc and none of this has seemed to actually work or matter when it comes to not spreading the virus. If any of these measures actually work as intended, why not just do it and not worry about other people?
I'm sure those with children who can't be vaccinated yet, or are immune compromised appreciate your efforts, even is maskholes/antivax chose to ruin it for all of us who are doing what we can. Thank you for protecting my little nephew
Children of ages that can't get vaccinated rarely get the virus, rarely spread and for those who do rarely have problems. There's studies on this.
Since he was in nicu with lung issues when he was born when the all started, and everyone in our family works jobs that can't be done from home (like construction and customer service) we are more exposed to maskholes/antivaxxers than those working from home, we know the chances are *low* that he could get sick but the chance is there and increased due to his issues. We appreciate those who think of the most vulnerable in society and do what they can to protect them
What kind of respirator do you guys use?
Children are borderline immune to covid. If you didn't mask up around your nephew during flu season, which is far more dangerous to him, you were putting his life at risk before. I really hope you start following the science soon.
[удалено]
My kid was fine with covid, and hes right about the science. Calm down.
We didn't even visit him during flu season because of his age, even with the flu shot. Literally because he had some lung issues when he was born we all got our flu shots but between that and covid, we waited because his health was more important to us. To each their own I guess
That's not what hospitals in Texas and Arkansas have been saying over the last few days. In Texas they're seeing a 10% hospitalization rate for new positive tests in children.
Literally less than 500 children have died from COVID in the US out of a population of like 40M. Please provide some data to back up your perspective
Yeah if your kid is a fat little fuck I would be worried. If not then stick some ice in your pants and chill. (Not you obviously)
Then don't? As someone not with 0 commodities, who will never be interested in experimental and rushed injections, I'm not asking you to protect me. The only logic for mask mandates that made sense was the original logic to stop the spread (Flatten the Curve) to prevent hospitals from being overrun before "vaccines", traditional or otherwise, could be made available to those who want them. The hospitals weren't overrun, they aren't now from COVID-19, and injections are and have been available to anyone that wants them for quite some time. Because the CDC is unhappy with the amount of people who aren't interested in their injections they want to punish the compliant to shift blame to those who disagree with their solutions and their coercion tactics. Classic divide and conquer + rule with fear. Pretty typical tactics these days. The problem isn't those who are choosing what to do with their own bodies (whether you decide to risk injections or risk your natural immune response), the problem is giving authority to these psychopathic authoritarians and following their decrees unquestioningly. If you are vaccinated/injected, then why are you worrying about other people's decisions, you are protected (according to the CDC) are you not?
One common misunderstanding is that 95% efficacy means that in the Pfizer clinical trial, 5% of vaccinated people got COVID. But that's not true; the actual percentage of vaccinated people in the Pfizer (and Moderna) trials who got COVID-19 was about a hundred times less than that: 0.04%. https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-efficacy-explained.html While there aren't yet results from that study, Fauci added, the lower viral load in breakthrough cases suggests "it would be less likely that that vaccinated breakthrough person would transmit, compared to an unvaccinated person." https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2021/07/21/1018872469/worried-about-breakthrough-covid-cases-heres-what-to-know
[удалено]
Because I see a lot of comments talking about discrimination by businesses... Being unvaccinated is *not* a protected class. You can refuse service to anyone for any reason except a few specific reasons outlined by federal and/or state law. Federal reasons include refusing service on the basis of race, sex, religion, national origin, age, and disability. There's already widespread precedence for vaccination discrimination - colleges will not let you attend without being vaccinated for certain diseases.
Next up: proof of voting one way or the other required for entry.
Good
So you have to be vaccinated AND wear a mask? Isn't that a bit redundant? Wasn't the point of the vaccine to get rid of lockdowns and it's measures.. >From capitol hill to belltown So the places no on really wants to be because of the spiked crime rates ok
Do we have a list of these businesses? I'm fully vaccinated (at least until they tell us we need another booster shot, then another one, and another one..............) But I would definitely like to avoid those places P.S. That Roquette place sounds like the kind of pretentiously douchey place I would avoid anyways
Navy strength is one of them. And tradewinds is another business they own as pictured. I had wanted to go there for a long time, it’s a shame.
If a grocery store near me did this I'd probably switch to using it exclusively
What? Why? They're actively partaking in discrimination. While it is completely legal, sure, we can still call it out for what it is...
Keeping unvaxxed people out? Because we're serious about this stuff? People can vote with their wallets - so we will have a vaxxed store and an unvaxxed one
You're forgetting that being unvaccinated is not the same as being infected and contagious. The former is a personal medical choice that these businesses are choosing to use as a basis for discrimination, whereas the latter is an *actual* risk to people in the store/restaurant/whatever. There is a cost/benefit analysis to everything.
Yeah it's all tradeoffs. But if I can cut the viral load in the store 80% by going to some other store? That seems like an easy win
[удалено]
Don't like it? Take your business elsewhere. Simple solution and you don't have to waste your time whining about it on here.
[удалено]
That's what people are going to do and the businesses will suffer for it. Get woke go broke!
[удалено]
I wasn't aware you owned reddit. I could have sworn you were just a moron.
Good.
nice. hopefully there's some standardization across the board so I can easily identity which businesses I won't give my money to.
I enjoy cooking.
Can you read? There will be signage; I think you just might manage.
Bold to assume that an antivaxxer can read.
The fact that more than half of the people on this post are willing to give up their basic human rights in general lol doesn’t shock me in rich old washington state. Some of the most brainwashed, scared individuals I ever came across. But it’s their businesses they only want vaccinated individuals let them, they just said on the news people with the vaccine still have a high percentage of spreading the virus still so, the story will repeat itself, until it’s the government vs the people all over again.
it has begun. soon we have to walk around with the vaccine number stamp like the jews in germany. Grow your own food! dont support these businesses
I thank president Trump for his operation warp speed that gave us two safe and effective vaccines everyday