Happier Abroad Forum Community

For NY state

According to this short video, life may become difficult without getting the vaccine:

Employers, schools and airplanes may all make getting the vaccine mandatory, and if at least 70% of state residents don't get the vaccine, then...

Read the comments below the video. Many people are against the concept of taking vaccines for a hoax virus.

If the constitutional right to privacy means anything at all, it means government can't do this.

The corona-virus is not a hoax, it is a real threat. I am however against to force somebody to accept vaccination if he really does not want it.

One sentence however in this video is true, people who refuse vaccination might face problems in future if they intend to board an international flight.

Non-vaxxers are not such a big issue in Japan and Korea, many people really want that corona-vaccination. The reason is about dense population in the large cities, you might be infected easily despite social distance, face mask, washing your hands, air purifiers/with hepa filters in closed rooms etc.-

Another reason is about international travel, in Japan and Korea without using an airplane you cannot travel to other countries, except using the ferry between Japan and SouthKorea.

You might use the ferry, however if you are allowed to enter the other country is another question....

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:15 am

If the constitutional right to privacy means anything at all, it means government can't do this.

Not that I support mandatory vaccines, but as an attorney, you do know that the government CAN make it mandatory if the courts deem that it passes the Strict Scrutiny test (narrowly tailored action to protect a compelling state interest).

Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:31 am

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:15 am

If the constitutional right to privacy means anything at all, it means government can't do this.

Not that I support mandatory vaccines, but as an attorney, you do know that the government CAN make it mandatory if the courts deem that it passes the Strict Scrutiny test (narrowly tailored action to protect a compelling state interest).

Yes, the court could completely bungle the weighing process of the right involved and the competing state interest. But simply stating that governmental interest, and claiming that it is compelling and the remedy narrowly tailored, does not end the court's inquiry. It's the beginning of the weighing process.

The big question in covid constitutional litigation is how down and dirty courts are prepared to get with medical data. If they don't shirk the task and take a close look, like the Portugal appellate court did in de-legitimizing the PCR tests, then the whole house of cards falls down. And even if they defer to the states' "experts" and accept their judgment at face value, the shelf life of these measures is going to be limited. As Justice Gorsuch said recently: "The Constitution may take a holiday, but it is not going on a sabbatical."

Of course, that last point doesn't apply to vaccines. They're forever. It's hard to think of a more egregious violation of the right to privacy.

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 8:37 am

Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:31 am

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:15 am

If the constitutional right to privacy means anything at all, it means government can't do this.

Not that I support mandatory vaccines, but as an attorney, you do know that the government CAN make it mandatory if the courts deem that it passes the Strict Scrutiny test (narrowly tailored action to protect a compelling state interest).

Yes, the court could completely bungle the weighing process of the right involved and the competing state interest. But simply stating that governmental interest, and claiming that it is compelling and the remedy narrowly tailored, does not end the court's inquiry. It's the beginning of the weighing process.

The big question in covid constitutional litigation is how down and dirty courts are prepared to get with medical data. If they don't shirk the task and take a close look, like the Portugal appellate court did in de-legitimizing the PCR tests, then the whole house of cards falls down. And even if they defer to the states' "experts" and accept their judgment at face value, the shelf life of these measures is going to be limited. As Justice Gorsuch said recently: "The Constitution may take a holiday, but it is not going on a sabbatical."

Of course, that last point doesn't apply to vaccines. They're forever. It's hard to think of a more egregious violation of the right to privacy.

The smart way to do it is thru passive compulsion ie. you will not have access to government (and some commercial) services like renewing driver’s licenses, getting student loans, attending schools, getting government employment, etc. in the same way they passively compel men to register for the draft.

I could foresee a special tax credit for the vaccination too.

Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 8:46 am

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 8:37 am

Contrarian Expatriate wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:31 am

gsjackson wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 6:15 am

If the constitutional right to privacy means anything at all, it means government can't do this.

Not that I support mandatory vaccines, but as an attorney, you do know that the government CAN make it mandatory if the courts deem that it passes the Strict Scrutiny test (narrowly tailored action to protect a compelling state interest).

Yes, the court could completely bungle the weighing process of the right involved and the competing state interest. But simply stating that governmental interest, and claiming that it is compelling and the remedy narrowly tailored, does not end the court's inquiry. It's the beginning of the weighing process.

The big question in covid constitutional litigation is how down and dirty courts are prepared to get with medical data. If they don't shirk the task and take a close look, like the Portugal appellate court did in de-legitimizing the PCR tests, then the whole house of cards falls down. And even if they defer to the states' "experts" and accept their judgment at face value, the shelf life of these measures is going to be limited. As Justice Gorsuch said recently: "The Constitution may take a holiday, but it is not going on a sabbatical."

Of course, that last point doesn't apply to vaccines. They're forever. It's hard to think of a more egregious violation of the right to privacy.

The smart way to do it is thru passive compulsion ie. you will not have access to government (and some commercial) services like renewing driver’s licenses, getting student loans, attending schools, getting government employment, etc. in the same way they passively compel men to register for the draft.

I could foresee a special tax credit for the vaccination too.

The things you mention are all state action (assuming the schools are public and the government is still involved with student loans), and therefore unconstitutional if the right to privacy argument prevails. A dicier question would be, say, the airlines. They make use of a system of transportation regulated by government, couldn't function without it. Is that a sufficient nexus to the state that the courts could prevent them from forcing American citizens to give up what has (hypothetically of course) been found to be a fundamental constitutional right in order to exercise their other fundamental right of freedom of movement?

Tax credits -- no problem. Bring on the incentives (though they couldn't meet my price).

CE and Yohan,
You still didn't answer my question. If Covid-19 has a 99.9 percent survival rate, why take a vaccine that will give you a nasty fever for a while? Ok even if it's a 98 percent or 97 percent survival rate, that's about the same. Why do you need to take a risky vaccine for that?

Did you know vaccine makers cannot be sued? President Reagan passed a bill to make them immune to lawsuits. So they can harm you or kill you with their vaccines and you can't do anything about it. They are unaccountable and can get away with anything. Do you like that? Does that make you uncomfortable?

Can you answer these questions without dodging them?

Winston wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

CE and Yohan,
You still didn't answer my question. If Covid-19 has a 99.9 percent survival rate, why take a vaccine that will give you a nasty fever for a while? Ok even if it's a 98 percent or 97 percent survival rate, that's about the same. Why do you need to take a risky vaccine for that?

Did you know vaccine makers cannot be sued? President Reagan passed a bill to make them immune to lawsuits. So they can harm you or kill you with their vaccines and you can't do anything about it. They are unaccountable and can get away with anything. Do you like that? Does that make you uncomfortable?

Can you answer these questions without dodging them?

I have given my reasons in detail on at least two occasions already. But as usual, you like to ask the same question repeatedly for some odd reason.

As I mentioned before, I come into contact with far more people then most do because of my extensive travel patterns. I travel to many different cities, states, and countries within any given calendar year. That being the case, your statistical cite does not account for the higher risk I personally have for getting infected, nor the higher risk I have in terms of age, ethnicity, and other relevant health factors.

If I am in a foreign country like Ukraine, Kazakhstan, Armenia, or Serbia and I come down with COVID-19, I will want to have antibodies already introduced into my system to greatly mitigate both the morbidity and the mortality risks for me personally. I just don’t know how this is so difficult for you understand.

You yourself would be at higher risk of dying from Covid because you are obese and because you have high blood pressure and sleep apnea. So that 97% survival rate does not necessarily apply to you, you might have only a 60 to 70% chance of surviving an infection given those heightened risk factors. What you don’t seem to grasp is that 97% survival rate does no apply to everyone equally. Therefore the neat little statistics that you cite as relevant for everyone is a gigantic and irresponsible fallacy.

But CE.

Rudy Giuliani recently got infected with Covid-19 but he recovered quickly. Same as Trump. Giuliani is not more healthy than me. Come on. I am healthy too. I take the best supplements and never get colds or flus.

Btw, why did you lie before when you said that each time you get vaccines you feel nothing? I asked around and everyone usually gets a fever for a few days when they get a vaccine. That's normal and to be expected. Why do you lie and pretend to feel nothing?

Winston wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 11:32 am

But CE.

Rudy Giuliani recently got infected with Covid-19 but he recovered quickly. Same as Trump. Giuliani is not more healthy than me. Come on. I am healthy too. I take the best supplements and never get colds or flus.

Both Trump and Giuliani have much better healthcare than you do. No amount of supplements will lesson the risk of obesity, high blood pressure and respiratory problems.

Winston wrote: Btw, why did you lie before when you said that each time you get vaccines you feel nothing? I asked around and everyone usually gets a fever for a few days when they get a vaccine. That's normal and to be expected. Why do you lie and pretend to feel nothing?

I feel nothing when I get the flu vaccine each year. Just because you are too dense to understand that does not make it a lie. Duh!

Winston wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 11:32 am

Btw, why did you lie before when you said that each time you get vaccines you feel nothing? I asked around and everyone usually gets a fever for a few days when they get a vaccine. That's normal and to be expected. Why do you lie and pretend to feel nothing?

I hate to agree with CE on anything, but I got a flu vaccine (before visiting a nursing home) and I felt nothing. I generally trust old vaccines that have a historical record of not causing problems.

fschmidt wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 2:17 pm

I generally trust old vaccines that have a historical record of not causing problems.

Aired on Nov. 4, 1979
CBS 60 Minutes - Swine Flu Vaccine of 1976
https://www.bitchute.com/video/C8IDeuGOSR8i/

Winston wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2020, 10:25 am

CE and Yohan,
You still didn't answer my question. If Covid-19 has a 99.9 percent survival rate, why take a vaccine that will give you a nasty fever for a while? Ok even if it's a 98 percent or 97 percent survival rate, that's about the same. Why do you need to take a risky vaccine for that?
Did you know vaccine makers cannot be sued?

@Winston

I estimate my survival rate to be around 94 percent, surely not 99.9 percent.

Covid-19 infection rate and death rate depend on age, gender, otherwise medical condition etc.
It's not the same for everybody.

viewtopic.php?style=1&f=31&t=43126&p=351103#p351103

I answered this already in another thread, there are too many open threads about covid-19 in this forum.

The survival rate is not 99.9 percent, except you are younger than 50 and as recent research shows, be a female.

The death rate in Japan/South Korea is now as follows (in average around 1.7 to 1.8%)

patient - age
80+ 11.6%
70+ 6.3%
60+ 1.5%
50+ 0.4%
40+ 0.1%
This means 90% of all deaths are people 60+ of age.
-----------------
There are however also differences between the genders. 2/3 of the deaths are men, 1/3 are women.

Same is true with covid-19 infections in general 2/3 are men, 1/3 are women.

----------------------------------------------
About lawsuits, this is about USA only what you say.
The legal situation is different in Europe and here in Japan too - as responsible is the importer, a Japanese based drug maker.

About vaccination itself, covid-vaccine will be available in Japan not earlier than March or April 2021, as it has to be tested again in Japan.
It is expected to take around 3 months more until those new vaccines can be used for a shot to ordinary citizens. It will be free of charge and voluntarily.

Up to that date around March/April, various covid-19 vaccinations will be given already to millions of people in Europe, China, Indonesia, Russia... likely also in the USA, Brazil etc. If there is a serious problem with those vaccines, Japan/SouthKorea should notice that.

Now, at this moment, Japanese/South Korean medical doctors are more into vaccination of flu and pneumonia - and try to vaccinate as many people as possible, because if you get infected, even as a young and healthy person, at around the same time with covid-19 AND pneumonia or flu, this will trigger indeed a life-threatening situation for any patient.

Yes, I have regular vaccinations already against flu and pneumonia and my wife too. We do this since about 10 years, and since that time I never got infected again with flu and pneumonia.

I can say for sure flu/pneumonia vaccine really work.
There is nothing to feel if you get pneumonia vaccine, and only a few days my upper arm after receiving flu-vaccine, it was a bit painful, but that's all. Never any serious side-effects noticed for both of us or heard anything from other people next to us.

I hope this answers your question.