Mike Fisher stands with Aaron Rodgers

[D as in David]

This thread is giving me a headache. Fortunately, I know of a medical procedure to relieve my pain; aka taking a Tylenol.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by foshizzle11

I just can't comprehend why these people don't understand how vaccines work, yes the vaccinated can spread the virus but the infections and the reaction to it is much less severe than the unvaccinated. 11x more likely to die from covid when unvaccinated. 11x.

It isn't hard to understand.

And it isn't like the flue or a cold, this can affect many systems in the body including our brain, our brain...who the hell knows what happens in 5 years, 10 years, in 30 years after getting covid and surviving, that is scary too.

Anyway, the team was fined like 300k and him 15k and suspended for a couple of games. Is that punishment enough? The NFL needs to make an example out of him, get with the mandate or the &*^% out of our league. He is not to come to practice, be near any facilities, no games, nothing until he is fully vaccinated. Come on NFL, do the right thing here.

Not to dunk on you specifically, but the fact of the matter is that you don't have to understand how vaccines work.

Simply the benefits and results.

The same reason you dont have to know every step of an appendectomy or heart surgery.

What blows me away is that the negatives of the vaccine are absolutely laughable. The downside is so miniscule as to be not even worth talking about.

What it comes down to is 'absolute right' and 'absolute freedom.'

Which are fine concepts and all but they do not exist. They are rhetoric.

Now I dont pretend to know what skin in the game Rodgers or Fisher have, maybe they're genuine objectors who are ignorant of realities surrounding vaccines. Maybe they're attention whores. Maybe they're just idiots.

Maybe they're getting bad advice but are convinced its solid? I cannot imagine what advice I would genuinely take from Joe Rogan.

At the end of the day though: Get the Vaccine. It cant hurt.

Hell!! That should be the official Vaccination Campaign Slogan!

"Get the Vaccine! It can't Hurt!"

[Atlantica]

Originally Posted by KootenayFlamesFan

When he talks about what the science clearly shows, I'd love for him to put a link up as well so we can tell what 'scientific' sources he's using.

I did a quick google search and this came up:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Basically indicates that with Delta, doubly vaccinated individuals (like me and many others on this site) may spread the virus at rates comparable to unvaccinated after a number of months. I have no idea whether the literature cited in this article is accepted by the medical community or not.

This is an evolving field and I assume that unlike my quick search, a comprehensive medical lit. search may uncover other perspectives. All that said, it is easy to see how individuals like Mike Fisher can always find "evidence" to support their opinions.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

What about a private business wishing to allow unvaccinated people?

I'll bite: how does requiring a business to prohibit unvaccinated people from its premises violate anyone's bodily integrity?

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by opendoor

Yes. Pro-mandate and pro-choice are largely utilitarian positions. Basically do what you want as long as it doesn't place a significant burden on society at large. Things get judged on a case-by-case basis and opinions can change based on circumstances. If COVID becomes much less serious over time (either through pre-existing immunity or effective antivirals) to the point where it's not really a significant burden on society, then vaccination status will no longer really matter to the vast majority of people.

Being antivaxx mandate and pro-life at the same time is more incongruous. The justification for being against requiring vaccination for anything is that no one can tell you what to do with your body no matter how much harm it causes other people. But then how can that logic coexist with the notion that women should be forced to carry a pregnancy to term and have no control over their own body? I have no idea, but I'm guessing it's because these opinions are rooted far more in emotional reactions rather than in any coherent philosophy or ideology.

I will try my best to explain it as someone who leans libertarian. Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomy by forcing someone to undergo a vaccine against their will. As such, it ought not to be implemented. We place the onus on individuals to make their own decisions and what makes sense for them. Does this make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity and the benefits that entails? Yes. But it's part of living in a society that respects bodily autonomy. Let's push for vaccination because it saves lives. Tell your friend, pleed to your neighbour, incentivize it etc. However, the choice over one's body should be respected. Being pro-life doesn't require supporting vaccine mandates. Is is not the only way to increase uptake and get us through this pandemic.

On the other hand, being pro-choice in regards to the abortion debate on the grounds of my-body-my-choice, seems entirely incongruous with being for vaccinate mandates. These individuals say we shouldn't restrict abortions because of the mother's autonomy over their body but turnaround and say it's ok to mandate that people receive the vaccinate--a violation of their body. They'll say, it's okay because it saves lives all the while forgetting that they are for abortion while conveniently forgetting the lives of unborn babies--who are directly targeted by abortion. Pro life people don't see abortion legislation as a violation of bodily autonomy, because it prohibits a procedure designed to terminate the life of the baby. The choice to have a baby or not existed when one chose to engage in sexual activity not once it's already alive in the womb. Don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. The choice to have an abortion no longer directly impacts your own body but another as well.

Anyways, appreciate the discussion with you all. These are always interesting.

[Ullr]

The fact that people simply Google an argument and find supporting claims to their arguments shows that nobody really understands how to properly research and support a claim.

Nature.com as a source? Laughable. It even says right in the article (which has a single source for the claim) that it was not peer reviewed. Peer Review process is an integral component to the Scientific Method. So at this point its headline abstract skimming for a self-fulfilling bias.

[Kipper_3434]

Originally Posted by Scroopy Noopers

In implementation yes.

What would you say is the biggest difference between requiring a drivers license to operate a vehicle on public roads, and mandating a vaccine to enter shared air public spaces during a respiratory pandemic?

Well being able to drive or not ,while it can effect quality of life, I would see it as slightly less impactful than banning a large number of people from most public spaces. Driving has been a regulated privilege for a century, while people have been mostly free to enter businesses without needing photo ID. Yes I know bars are a thing and there have been exceptions over the years to who the government allows in public space ( see segregation). I can see some similarities between a drivers license and a vaxport, I wouldn't call them the same thing or a great comparable.

[opendoor]

Originally Posted by Atlantica

I did a quick google search and this came up:
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y

Basically indicates that with Delta, doubly vaccinated individuals (like me and many others on this site) may spread the virus at rates comparable to unvaccinated after a number of months. I have no idea whether the literature cited in this article is accepted by the medical community or not.

This is an evolving field and I assume that unlike my quick search, a comprehensive medical lit. search may uncover other perspectives. All that said, it is easy to see how individuals like Mike Fisher can always find "evidence" to support their opinions.

That study only looks at positive vaccinated cases though, which ignores the fact that vaccinated people are still much less likely to become infected in the first place (current effectiveness in Canada is still about 80%). When you combine the 80% reduction in symptomatic infection with the 25-30% reduction in transmission among mRNA recipients at 14+ weeks in that study, a vaccinated person would be about 85% less likely to transmit COVID than an unvaccinated person (5-6x less likely). That is a pretty significant difference, particularly when talking about larger groups and reducing capacity restrictions in businesses.

[Looch City]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I will try my best to explain it as someone who leans libertarian. Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomy by forcing someone to undergo a vaccine against their will. As such, it ought not to be implemented. We place the onus on individuals to make their own decisions and what makes sense for them. Does this make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity and the benefits that entails? Yes. But it's part of living in a society that respects bodily autonomy. Let's push for vaccination because it saves lives. Tell your friend, pleed to your neighbour, incentivize it etc. However, the choice over one's body should be respected. Being pro-life doesn't require supporting vaccine mandates. Is is not the only way to increase uptake and get us through this pandemic.

On the other hand, being pro-choice in regards to the abortion debate on the grounds of my-body-my-choice, seems entirely incongruous with being for vaccinate mandates. These individuals say we shouldn't restrict abortions because of the mother's autonomy over their body but turnaround and say it's ok to mandate that people receive the vaccinate--a violation of their body. They'll say, it's okay because it saves lives all the while forgetting that they are for abortion while conveniently forgetting the lives of unborn babies--who are directly targeted by abortion. Pro life people don't see abortion legislation as a violation of bodily autonomy, because it prohibits a procedure designed to terminate the life of the baby. The choice to have a baby or not existed when one chose to engage in sexual activity not once it's already alive in the womb. Don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. The choice to have an abortion no longer directly impacts your own body but another as well.

Anyways, appreciate the discussion with you all. These are always interesting.

Again your bolded statement is all irrelevant...Are hospitals over run with abortion patients? Are surgeries being delayed because so many bed are filled with abortion patients?

Yes or no?

You are entirely ignoring the key factor that being unvaccinated has FAR more consequences to society and other people than an abortion.

[Bring_Back_Shantz]

Originally Posted by calumniate

Joe rogan is Alex Jones 2.0. Time to put Rodgers and fisher into the same swamp

I prefer to think of Joe Rogan as "Dr. Oz for Bros"

Both of them have talk shows where they allow just about anyone to come on and spew whatever untested, or totally false information, or cure, or tincture that they happen to be pedaling, and people swoon over how they are showing the truth behind "Alternative treatments or whatever" they are exactly the same, they just cater to different audiences.

Next time someone mentions Joe Rogan, try replying with "Oh, you mean Dr. Oz for bros", and see how they react. It's truly wonderful.
You're not likely to change their mind, but at least you can point out the hypocrisy in listening to Joe Rogan, while thinking Dr. Oz is stupid (this isn't 100% accurate, but the Venn diagram does have A LOT of overlap).

[FiftyBelow]

Originally Posted by Looch City

Again your bolded statement is all irrelevant...Are hospitals over run with abortion patients? Are surgeries being delayed because so many bed are filled with abortion patients?

Yes or no?

You are entirely ignoring the key factor that being unvaccinated has FAR more consequences to society and other people than an abortion.

Yes, hospitals are overrun because of the unvaccinated. I'm all for vaccinating as many people as possible. Just not through mandates. Hospitals are being overrun because of people not getting vaccinated not because of the lack of prior vaccinate mandates. It's because of people choosing not to get the vaccine for a whole host of reasons, largely disinformation I suspect. We can hit the targets necessary without resorting to mandates. You can be for saving lives and not supporting mandates. Based on the responses in this thread, it seems society no longer trusts people to make their own decisions and would rather make it for them. It's a dangerous game when it especially comes to people's body.

Saying that ones ok with the violation of bodily autonomy because a perceived common good threshold is achieved, assuming that's what you're arguing, still doesn't negate the fact that many of these same people use bodily autonomy arguments to support pro-abortion arguments. Why use my body my choice for pro-abortion stances if it can merely be undone because of some perceive common good factor?

[GioforPM]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I will try my best to explain it as someone who leans libertarian. Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomy by forcing someone to undergo a vaccine against their will. As such, it ought not to be implemented. We place the onus on individuals to make their own decisions and what makes sense for them. Does this make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity and the benefits that entails? Yes. But it's part of living in a society that respects bodily autonomy. Let's push for vaccination because it saves lives. Tell your friend, pleed to your neighbour, incentivize it etc. However, the choice over one's body should be respected. Being pro-life doesn't require supporting vaccine mandates. Is is not the only way to increase uptake and get us through this pandemic.

On the other hand, being pro-choice in regards to the abortion debate on the grounds of my-body-my-choice, seems entirely incongruous with being for vaccinate mandates. These individuals say we shouldn't restrict abortions because of the mother's autonomy over their body but turnaround and say it's ok to mandate that people receive the vaccinate--a violation of their body. They'll say, it's okay because it saves lives all the while forgetting that they are for abortion while conveniently forgetting the lives of unborn babies--who are directly targeted by abortion. Pro life people don't see abortion legislation as a violation of bodily autonomy, because it prohibits a procedure designed to terminate the life of the baby. The choice to have a baby or not existed when one chose to engage in sexual activity not once it's already alive in the womb. Don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. The choice to have an abortion no longer directly impacts your own body but another as well.

Anyways, appreciate the discussion with you all. These are always interesting.

There are no vaccine mandates that force anyone to actually take a vaccine.

[Scroopy Noopers]

Originally Posted by Kipper_3434

Well being able to drive or not ,while it can effect quality of life, I would see it as slightly less impactful than banning a large number of people from most public spaces. Driving has been a regulated privilege for a century, while people have been mostly free to enter businesses without needing photo ID. Yes I know bars are a thing and there have been exceptions over the years to who the government allows in public space ( see segregation). I can see some similarities between a drivers license and a vaxport, I wouldn't call them the same thing or a great comparable.

Why is driving regulated? The main reason. What is it?

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I will try my best to explain it as someone who leans libertarian. Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomy by forcing someone to undergo a vaccine against their will. As such, it ought not to be implemented. We place the onus on individuals to make their own decisions and what makes sense for them. Does this make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity and the benefits that entails? Yes. But it's part of living in a society that respects bodily autonomy. Let's push for vaccination because it saves lives. Tell your friend, pleed to your neighbour, incentivize it etc. However, the choice over one's body should be respected. Being pro-life doesn't require supporting vaccine mandates. Is is not the only way to increase uptake and get us through this pandemic.

On the other hand, being pro-choice in regards to the abortion debate on the grounds of my-body-my-choice, seems entirely incongruous with being for vaccinate mandates. These individuals say we shouldn't restrict abortions because of the mother's autonomy over their body but turnaround and say it's ok to mandate that people receive the vaccinate--a violation of their body. They'll say, it's okay because it saves lives all the while forgetting that they are for abortion while conveniently forgetting the lives of unborn babies--who are directly targeted by abortion. Pro life people don't see abortion legislation as a violation of bodily autonomy, because it prohibits a procedure designed to terminate the life of the baby. The choice to have a baby or not existed when one chose to engage in sexual activity not once it's already alive in the womb. Don't want a pregnancy, don't have sex. The choice to have an abortion no longer directly impacts your own body but another as well.

Anyways, appreciate the discussion with you all. These are always interesting.

That isn't really an honest reflection of these two issues though.

For one, vaccine mandates don't "force" anything. You can continue to live a life unvaccinated, should you choose. You have continued access to shelter, food, all of things necessary to live. You can continue to find employment. It does limit those options, of course. You can't go to a restaurant. You can't work as a nurse. But you don't have the right to do those things in the first place. A hospital is not required to employ you just because you have the required education. A restaurant is not required to serve you just because you show up.

So, with the premise that this violates bodily autonomy thrown out the window, as it is completely ridiculous, here is how these two beliefs actually align:

"Pro-life" people, which are actually anti-abortion people, value the existence of life over the quality of life or societal good. They are against a medical procedure, but do not actually care about the life of the mother or child involved. If a mother was forced to carry a child of rape to term, give up the child to foster care due to inability to care, and have that child become the responsibility of an already overwhelmed foster care system, that would be seen as a win, as the actual medical procedure was prevented. They are not "pro-life" because they don't actually value life in qualitative terms. If that child lived a terrible life, one full of horrific abuse and neglect, and ended up taking their own life in their teens, they would still count 15 years of hardship and abusive as objectively better than an abortion. They do not care about quality of life.

Anti-vaxxers are similar. They are strictly against a medical procedure. They do not care if people get sick, hospitals become overwhelmed, or rising death tolls, so long as the procedure itself is prevented. The actual impact on other people doesn't matter, even if people die, so long as the procedure itself is prevented.

There is a clear through-line between those positions. Pretending that either life or bodily autonomy are values at the core of those positions is false.

On the other side, pro-mandate and pro-choice people share a higher value placed on quality of life and societal health. "Forcing" people to undergo a medical procedure is not a belief held in either position; the choice to do so is respected and upheld in either case. What mandates accomplish is limiting the areas where those who choose to remain unvaccinated can spread the virus. Choices have consequences. You have the right to choose to be vaccinated or not and deal with the consequences of those actions, just as you have the right to an abortion or carry a baby to term and deal with the consequences of those actions. Bodily autonomy is fully intact.

It's the same sort of mental gymnastics that occurs in free speech debates. It's a very loosely applied term. Mike Fisher has every right to say what he wants, nobody is debating that, nobody is seriously suggesting that the government intervene and arrest him for saying it. But still self proclaimed "libertarians" come in waxing poetic about his right to say it, as if it's a counter-point to the equally respected right of everyone else to call it ridiculous bull#### and call his position idiotic. Think of how silly it looks when someone says controversial, people say "that's bull####," and a pseudo-intellectual comes by trotting out "actually, it's free speech," describing what's happening on both sides of the conversation, but using it as justification for only one side and as a counter-point to the other. It's the same with bodily autonomy in that the way it's being applied here is political, libertarian nonsense, and not based on upholding the actual right itself.

[TheIronMaiden]

Who tf cares about what athletes have to say. They should be treated like livestock.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

I will try my best to explain it as someone who leans libertarian. Vaccine mandates violate bodily autonomyby forcing someone to undergo a vaccine against their will. As such, it ought not to be implemented. We place the onus on individuals to make their own decisions and what makes sense for them. Does this make it more difficult to achieve herd immunity and the benefits that entails? Yes. But it's part of living in a society that respects bodily autonomy. Let's push for vaccination because it saves lives. Tell your friend, pleed to your neighbour, incentivize it etc. However, the choice over one's body should be respected. Being pro-life doesn't require supporting vaccine mandates. Is is not the only way to increase uptake and get us through this pandemic.
-snip-

Anyways, appreciate the discussion with you all. These are always interesting.

Libertarianism isn't really compatible with functioning society given all its pressures and needs, so that's the first issue. Being part of society means living by the rules that benefit society as a whole, which by definition, must infringe on individual rights and freedoms. Being vaccinated benefits everyone. By not doing what I would consider the bare minimum, then you lose the privilege to participate in many of the things that society offers. You don't get to enjoy the fruits of everyone else's efforts, while simultaneously bringing them harm and expense. That's freeloading.

[Philly06Cup]

Originally Posted by Harry Lime

It's interesting that Pro-life and Pro-mandate doesn't overlap more than it does.

From the Anti-mandate crowd, there is the argument that there should be no outward control on decision making concerning your own body. This would seem to align with Pro-choice.

From the Pro-mandate crowd, there is a desire to control a body to protect the common good, which would align more with the Pro-life stance.

But what I see in the media, and on forums such as these, is that the type of person who is Pro-mandate is generally Pro-choice, and viceversa. A lot of the arguments that each side are using appear to go against previously held beliefs.

Or am I seeing this wrong?

Conservatives lean anti-vax. Conservatives lean pro-life / anti-abortion. This holds much more true in the US when political schisms are much stronger.

But, strange side story, I was just in Las Vegas. There was a large anti-vax rally -- about 300 people -- marching up and down the strip and through hotels. A lot of "F Biden" "F Fauci" "Covid is a hoax" "vaccines don't work" rhetoric. But, strangely, marching with them were the pro-abortion group. "Keep abortions legal" "Woman's body woman's choice"

So, hey, sometimes body autonomy does cross political beliefs.

[Aarongavey]

Originally Posted by FiftyBelow

What about a private business wishing to allow unvaccinated people?

Had the same concern myself at the car dealership the other day. Brought my 5 year old son down to buy his first car. Dealer was willing to take my money for the car, but when I said that the registered owner would be my 5 year old son, I was told that my five year old son can't drive a car or even be the registered owner. Told the business owner it was a shame because I had $15,000 bucks for the car.

Then he told me that if he deposited over 10,000 dollars in cash in his bank account, his bank would have to report it to the Federal government and FINTRAC would look into it. He told me that as a private business he was more than willing to take my cash in a duffle bag. But nonetheless, the government interfered with our freedoms.

[MoneyGuy]

Originally Posted by Flamesfan05

Why do people listen to Mike Fisher and Aaron Rodgers for medical decisions?

Because they confirm your own beliefs.

[FiftyBelow]

As with any ideological leanings, there are degrees. I do not support zero regulations as many in here are attempting to paint it. I simply have reservations in forcing someone to do something to their body, no matter how minor it may seem. I suppose I have faith in our society to convince our peers no matter how difficult, rather than resorting to increasingly draconian means. The belief that good old, discussion, campaigning, PR etc is the better way to go than resort to more heavy handed means.