I agree. I also no longer have any confidence in our courts.No that would fall under HIPAA discrimination. It is an overall illegal move.
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
I agree. I also no longer have any confidence in our courts.No that would fall under HIPAA discrimination. It is an overall illegal move.
I agree. I also no longer have any confidence in our courts.
If you say so.The courts here are online. The side with the best devices and strongest wifi win almost all the time. Wifi speed is decided by zipcode.
Very interesting read.
It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.Very interesting read.
Yep. HIPAA is broad, vague, and not fully tested in courts. All the court decisions about vaccines, predate Hipaa. IMO, those court decisions do not apply.It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.
That being said, no private entity actually has the "right" to require you divulge health information. They especially do not have the right to treat you differently based on health information. That's called discrimination.
The context ofvthe article was not protecting others or oneself but trying to eliminate a pandemic (of interest, smallpox).It's an interesting, yet misleading read. Getting the vaccine is not about protecting others, it is about protecting yourself. If others want to be protected, they should get a vaccine. That's the point of vaccines. It isn't to protect other people, it is to protect yourself.
That being said, no private entity actually has the "right" to require you divulge health information. They especially do not have the right to treat you differently based on health information. That's called discrimination.
So the bottom line is to still wear mask at all times. They may have implemented this for the safety of those not yet vaccinated. Though, the question is, what if they intend not be vaccinated at all xp
... That's called discrimination.
Smallpox was also a very different animal. 30% death rate. Covid is less than 2%. Hardly the same scenario. The freak out over COVID has been RIDICULOUS.The context ofvthe article was not protecting others or oneself but trying to eliminate a pandemic (of interest, smallpox).
What made it interesting is that vaccines were mandatory (legally manditory) and proof of vaccine also required.
I did not know thatvabout smallpox. I knew I had a vaccine scar. I also did not realize smallpox is the only disease that had been eradicated.
It was interesting to me.
I agree. All of these pandemics are different.Smallpox was also a very different animal. 30% death rate. Covid is less than 2%. Hardly the same scenario. The freak out over COVID has been RIDICULOUS.
Interesting read on the Jacobson case...I agree. All of these pandemics are different.
In the last election the GOP used the Obama Administration's reaction to H1N1 in comparison to the Trump Administration's to point out the failure of Biden to handle the pandemic. But that was not the same scenario. The comparison was ridiculous. The diseases were different in the same way small pox is different from COVID.
But what is interesting about the article is how the government can act under the law. They can force immunizations and proof of immunizations. That is the part I did not know.
Good point. The government cannot force us to get vaccinated ("hold us down and put a needle in our arm") but they can fine us if we refuse to get vaccinated.Interesting read on the Jacobson case...
Can the government force you to get a vaccine? | Pacific Legal Foundation
And, more importantly, the decision did not allow for the refusal of services based on vaccination status.Good point. The government cannot force us to get vaccinated ("hold us down and put a needle in our arm") but they can fine us if we refuse to get vaccinated.
The problem is exactly who makes those decisions. Personally, I do not think people should be fined, but all it takes is a decision.And, more importantly, the decision did not allow for the refusal of services based on vaccination status.
That being said, the article also talked about the very limited scope of the decision and not a broad license to require vaccinations in any stretch of the imagination.