[CoachKandSportsguy]

For those who want to educate themselves not do research on court court rulings on vaccine mandates, here's an article on the history of public health and vaccine mandates. . .

Even Conservative Judges Haven’t Shot Down Vaccine Mandates - The American Prospect

So for those who claim that the vaccine mandate is not legal, don't really have much legal ground for support in the last 100 years of court rulings. . .

but they can always hope. . . .

[GrumpyOldMan]

Yup, think about the Baker Act. A person can be incarcerated if they are determined by doctors (medical experts) that they are a danger to themselves or others.

There are numerous other examples. So, we don't have mask and vaccine mandates because the politicians don't want to face the possible public backlash at the polls.

As it seems always for the past decade or so, politics and party are more important than public welfare.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Yup, think about the Baker Act. A person can be incarcerated if they are determined by doctors (medical experts) that they are a danger to themselves or others.

There are numerous other examples. So, we don't have mask and vaccine mandates because the politicians don't want to face the possible public backlash at the polls.

As it seems always for the past decade or so, politics and party are more important than public welfare.

Your opinion. Some like gov control and some enjoy the freedom of controlling their own lives. Right now, at least we have the happy illusion of freedom.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Your opinion. Some like gov control and some enjoy the freedom of controlling their own lives. Right now, at least we have the happy illusion of freedom.

Common, jeez.

NO it is NOT my opinion, it is LAW. Your angry ex-wife can get a few doctors to sign off on your being a danger to yourself and you are committed and you stay there until a doctor says you are no longer a danger.

There are literally hundreds of years of precedence in the same manner. And our legal system is based on precedence.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

Common, jeez.

NO it is NOT my opinion, it is LAW. Your angry ex-wife can get a few doctors to sign off on your being a danger to yourself and you are committed and you stay there until a doctor says you are no longer a danger.

There are literally hundreds of years of precedence in the same manner. And our legal system is based on precedence.

Wouldn't know about an "ex-wife" as my wife was a keeper. And we are not speaking of mental illness anyway. Play with the law all you wish but real life is dynamic, not static.

[Garywt]

I just had my booster shot, doctor ordered. I have no issue with the shots. It still comes down to selfish people. The shot is for everyone you come in contact with and not just about you. If everyone would just care about others everyone would be vaccinated and Covid would not be on the rise. I have no problem if unvaccinated people are not allowed into restaurants, stores and any other indoor activities.

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by Garywt

I just had my booster shot, doctor ordered. I have no issue with the shots. It still comes down to selfish people. The shot is for everyone you come in contact with and not just about you. If everyone would just care about others everyone would be vaccinated and Covid would not be on the rise. I have no problem if unvaccinated people are not allowed into restaurants, stores and any other indoor activities.

I understand how you feel, BUT.......how about those that cannot get vaccinated for one reason or another? How about those that have had Covid and have been advised by their doctors NOT to get vaccinated yet? No one should be making decisions on other's liberties. I agree that folks should think seriously about getting vaccinated in these difficult times. I do not believe in mandates at this time. If the death rate was higher, perhaps I would change my view. Unfortunately, there are many folks that are too weakly disciplined to make decisions for themselves and need the gov to run their lives and direct them like mindless zombies.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Wouldn't know about an "ex-wife" as my wife was a keeper. And we are not speaking of mental illness anyway. Play with the law all you wish but real life is dynamic, not static.

There is no playing with the law, the Baker act is just one example of the government being able to enforce laws to protect the public from individuals, as the OP said in this thread. Children not allowed into school without vaccinations is another, there are literally hundreds on the books. The government CAN and DOES enact laws to protect the public.

Not opinion, just fact.

And obviously, I don't know you or your wife, so I was speaking in general terms.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

I understand how you feel, BUT.......how about those that cannot get vaccinated for one reason or another? How about those that have had Covid and have been advised by their doctors NOT to get vaccinated yet? No one should be making decisions on other's liberties. I agree that folks should think seriously about getting vaccinated in these difficult times. I do not believe in mandates at this time. If the death rate was higher, perhaps I would change my view. Unfortunately, there are many folks that are too weakly disciplined to make decisions for themselves and need the gov to run their lives and direct them like mindless zombies.

You keep using the term liberties, and it does not apply, that is in fact an opinion or yours, it is NOT the law.

[waynet]

Personal freedom equals no responsibility

[MDLNB]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

You keep using the term liberties, and it does not apply, that is in fact an opinion or yours, it is NOT the law.

Ah, but you are not speaking of the law. There is NO law mandating the vaccination or masks....yet. As far as I know Martial Law has not been declared. In America we still have the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I may not agree with those that refuse to get vaccinated, and I may think that masks have little use if they are not made for this particular virus or worn properly, but I respect other's ability to make their own life choices. On the other hand, I DO NOT demand others to live according to my desires. I don't care for red colored cars, but I do not feel they should be banned from The Villages.

So far the law does not mandate vaccinations or masks. Just because I may be vaccinated and wear a mask if I feel it prudent, I do not demand that of others. I do not infringe upon their liberty to make their own personal choice.

[GrumpyOldMan]

Originally Posted by MDLNB

Ah, but you are not speaking of the law. There is NO law mandating the vaccination or masks....yet. As far as I know Martial Law has not been declared. In America we still have the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

I may not agree with those that refuse to get vaccinated, and I may think that masks have little use if they are not made for this particular virus or worn properly, but I respect other's ability to make their own life choices. On the other hand, I DO NOT demand others to live according to my desires. I don't care for red colored cars, but I do not feel they should be banned from The Villages.

So far the law does not mandate vaccinations or masks. Just because I may be vaccinated and wear a mask if I feel it prudent, I do not demand that of others. I do not infringe upon their liberty to make their own personal choice.

You stated and I responded to, "no one should be making decisions taking away other peoples LIBERTIES". You comment claims you have a liberty to not take vaccines and not wear the mask. That is NOT true.

It is currently not against the law to not do those two, but there is NOTHING in the law or the constitution that says you have a liberty (or right) to those, and yes, people should be making decisions about those things for most citizens because most are not qualified to do it themselves.

[drducat]

Originally Posted by CoachKandSportsguy

For those who want to educate themselves not do research on court court rulings on vaccine mandates, here's an article on the history of public health and vaccine mandates. . .

Even Conservative Judges Haven’t Shot Down Vaccine Mandates - The American Prospect

So for those who claim that the vaccine mandate is not legal, don't really have much legal ground for support in the last 100 years of court rulings. . .

but they can always hope. . . .

What is probably not legal is the way FDA has tricked everyone into thinking the Pfizer vaccine has been approved.....it has not and the BioTech vaccine is approved and still not available and won't be for over a year.

Also FDA has not followed their own approval policies which use strict guidelines for path to approval and those are years worth of trials.

[lkagele]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

There is no playing with the law, the Baker act is just one example of the government being able to enforce laws to protect the public from individuals, as the OP said in this thread. Children not allowed into school without vaccinations is another, there are literally hundreds on the books. The government CAN and DOES enact laws to protect the public.

Not opinion, just fact.

And obviously, I don't know you or your wife, so I was speaking in general terms.

Maybe you're correct. Maybe not. I just don't know enough about it to really know for sure.

What does concern me, however, is the overwhelming ban on dissenting opinions. It seems to me we're being forced to believe only one version of 'facts'. Big tech, social media and mainstream media are effectively banning legitimate debate.

Try bringing up the rise in infections in Israel even in vaccinated folks despite having the highest vaccination rate in the world? Nope. Twitter won't allow any discussion.

Let's talk about Viet Nam having the lowest infection rate in world until it started its mass vaccination program. Now infections in that country are going through the roof. Nope. Facebook will ban you.

What about the publisher that's posting articles on its web site about the vaccines not being nearly as effective as we've been led to believe. Or, recapping some studies showing the vaccines may be temporarily damaging your immune system. Nope. Google will de-platform you and take away your ad revenue.

Advocate for people that have recovered from the 'thank you very much China' COVID not needing the vaccine because their immune system is infinitely better than that of a vaccinated person and probably for a much longer period of time. Nope. The mainstream media labels you as a conspiracy theorist.

We're being told what 'facts' are true and being told the rest is disinformation. The law is being determined with dissenting debate being stifled. And maybe what may be more frightening, a lot of folks are OK with that.

[John Mayes]

Originally Posted by GrumpyOldMan

There is no playing with the law, the Baker act is just one example of the government being able to enforce laws to protect the public from individuals, as the OP said in this thread. Children not allowed into school without vaccinations is another, there are literally hundreds on the books. The government CAN and DOES enact laws to protect the public.

Not opinion, just fact.

And obviously, I don't know you or your wife, so I was speaking in general terms.

It really depends on whether you’re talking about federal vs state mandates. The federal government does not mandate vaccines for all citizens but can for those that work for any federal branch. States can mandate vaccines for any state agency employees or for participation in any state or locally funded institutions such as public schools and universities. Private companies can mandate vaccines as a condition for employment. Of course there are exception clauses that have to part of any of federal, state or private company mandates. The Baker mandate is somewhat Florida specific although numerous other states have similar laws.