Off Topic Corona virus

oldschool · Jan 24, 2022

FORZA LEEDS said: ↑

Discriminating against the unvaccinated is illegal and wrong
January 6, 2022 | 9:47 pm

Remember when the medical experts said two years ago that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve”? And when that didn’t happen, they told us that things will be back to normal when the vaccines arrive? Well, now with nearly 95% of the National Capital Region’s target population vaccinated (MMDA Chairman Benhur Abalos declared it at 100%; see GMA News, Dec. 9, 2021), we’re still nowhere back to normal.

OMICRON AND ITS DISCONTENTSo now many in the country are in a snit because of the so-called “Poblacion Girl,” who escaped quarantine and apparently spent the night out with her friends. Then it was reported that she was COVID-19 infected and so were a number of her friends. What the news media bafflingly refuses to report is her vaccination status. After all, she should have at least gotten one vaccine shot (otherwise she wouldn’t have been allowed to travel by air) and so were her friends (otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed inside the bars). In any event, these vaccinated people triggered an Omicron panic. And yet it’s the unvaccinated that are being discriminated against? How does this make any sense?

VACCINES, WHATEVERIt’s not as if current data is being inconsistent about the non-difference (infection transmission-wise) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. St. Luke’s Medical Center reported (as of Jan. 3) that of their patients confined with COVID-19, 40% were unvaccinated, 40% vaccinated, and 10% already received booster shots, with two in the ICU. The Philippine General Hospital on the same day reported 60% of their COVID-19 patients as already vaccinated (with only 25% ICU occupancy). Mandaluyong then also reported that of their 67 COVID-19 patients, nine were unvaccinated and 58 vaccinated.

Apparently, vaccines aren’t that effective in protecting people from getting COVID-19. Even the hero of the pro-lockdown/ COVID-19 panic crowd, Dr. Anthony Fauci, declared that we are seeing people who are vaccinated and boosted who are getting breakthrough infections.” (“Fauci discourages fully vaccinated going to restaurants,” Jan. 2).

And most of those hospitalized for COVID-19, aside from perhaps the elderly or those with serious comorbidities, reported mild or moderate symptoms of runny noses, itchy throats, cough, low fever, and body aches.

Even then, one vaccine shot is reportedly ineffective against COVID-19 (hence why people are required to get second shots). So why the ban only against the unvaccinated? Why not also prohibit those with one vaccine shot from leaving their homes? But two vaccine shots without a booster are also said to be ineffective against Omicron. So why not prohibit those with two vaccine shots without booster from leaving their homes as well?

Why are the unvaccinated the only ones being discriminated against?

WHAT LAW? NONEHence why the Metro Manila local government executives’ measures against the unvaccinated (through MMDA Resolution No. 22-01) is utterly baffling. And it’s not as if they have any authority to do so in the first place.

The Resolution (released this week) needs individual city ordinances, which in turn need to be published. As the ordinances likely contain penal sanctions, they need a few weeks of publication before becoming effective. Unless that happens, there is no legal basis for malls, public transportation, etc., to deprive anyone of their rights.

However, even if such ordinances were enacted, they remain inherently questionable as no law authorizes local governments to discriminate against the healthy and unvaccinated. RA 11332 (referred to in MMDA Resolution No. 22-01) penalizes “non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern.” But if you’re healthy (and the legal presumption should be is that you are), then why should your movements be restricted?

FORCED VACCINATIONS IS WRONGOther countries’ experiences show the futility of forced vaccination: “In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the censorship aims to stamp out any questions about a universal vaccination program that, it is now clear, was based on the false premise that low-risk individuals must get vaccinated to halt the spread of COVID-19 and end the pandemic. Almost a year into the global vaccination campaign — and starting long before Omicron arrived — all the data stand in stark opposition to this belief.

“Rapidly waning vaccine efficacy and COVID-19 surges in countries and regions with high vaccination rates — including Israel, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and now Europe, as well as high-vaccination US states like Vermont — are evidence that vaccinated individuals can spread COVID-19 at rates comparable to the unvaccinated. Multiple studies have shown that viral loading vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 is the same as in the unvaccinated.” (“Forcing people into COVID vaccines ignores important scientific information,” The Federalist, Dec. 14, 2021)

The argument goes that depriving the unvaccinated of their rights is not discriminatory but merely done because “it’s for their protection” is simply inutile.

First of all, government has no right to deprive anyone of their rights, cannot intrude into one’s individual bodily autonomy, without due process and without equal protection, which are not present in this case.

As mentioned above, why target the unvaccinated for an Omicron variant whose symptoms are similar to the flu, where the aforementioned hospitals report that most of their COVID-19 patients either, a.) are already vaccinated and/or, b.) are merely having mild or moderate symptoms? Why target the unvaccinated when reportedly those with two vaccine shots are still not protected against Omicron if without boosters?

In fact, if the argument that the government is entitled to step in and deprive people of their rights for their own protection, then equitably the prohibitions should be imposed on those with underlying health conditions and senior citizens, vaccinated or not. Senior citizens (i.e., persons 60 years old and up), even after nearly a year of vaccinations, still comprise the substantial bulk of COVID-19 deaths in the country.

IATF UNAUTHORIZEDEven the IATF’s “resolutions” regarding “mandatory vaccination” for public and private employees (ref. IATF Resolutions 148b and 149, s.2021) and requiring bi-weekly tests on unvaccinated employees, are legally dubious. For exhortatory purposes, fine, but to impose a mandatory requirement? No. It’s just wrong. Notice as well the seeming lack of penalties therein for noncompliance.

Allowable intrusions into constitutional rights can (within certain conditions) be had but only through a congressional enactment. There is no law — not Bayanihan Acts I and II, not RA 11332, not RA 11469, not the Local Government Code — that authorizes the IATF to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.

On the other hand, actual legal penalty is provided for under RA 11494 (Bayanihan II) for acts of discrimination done against any person in relation to COVID-19 measures. Any person (public or private) that so discriminates can be imprisoned for six months and fined P100,000.

RA 11525, Sec. 12, also makes clear that vaccination cards cannot be made a requirement for government or business transactions. More importantly, it also declares that vaccinated individuals shall “not be considered immune from COVID-19.”

The Executive Branch, of which the IATF is under, simply cannot demand mandatory vaccination. It goes against the Bill of Rights and the tripartite, equal branches of government principles of our Constitution.

RIGHTS MAKE RIGHTIndeed, employers and employees, any citizen for that matter, that have been illegally or unduly or implicitly forced or coerced to be vaccinated just so they can exercise their inherent rights should take the appropriate legal measures.

The best and true checks and balance against undue government intrusion is not merely the words of the Constitution but the willingness of people to stand up for it.

Click to expand...

Wow that's some report!! The only thing I think is that if you do or don't have the vaccine it should be entirely at your discretion and in no way should you be forced to have it to keep your job, surely this is against your civil liberty to take away your livelihood especially when even if you have been triple jabbed you can still catch the virus and pass it on...when is it going to be the time to live with this virus as we have lived with others, or is it going to be a round robin of countless jabs.... life's a gamble every day time to live it

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

OLOF said: ↑

I've a feeling a lot of **** scared saps, a few on here too, who will still be wearing face nappies in years to come the behavioural psychologists have done a right ****ing job on them
Click to expand...

Funny post olof , if the government told them to wear a straight jacket they would like sheep barrrr

FORZA LEEDS · Jan 24, 2022

sniffer1 said: ↑

What you think they been doing for years in the Wuhan lab getting BJs or perfecting a deadly virus
Click to expand...

Probably both.

Brizzlewhite · Jan 24, 2022

FORZA LEEDS said: ↑

Discriminating against the unvaccinated is illegal and wrong
January 6, 2022 | 9:47 pm

Remember when the medical experts said two years ago that it would only take “two weeks to flatten the curve”? And when that didn’t happen, they told us that things will be back to normal when the vaccines arrive? Well, now with nearly 95% of the National Capital Region’s target population vaccinated (MMDA Chairman Benhur Abalos declared it at 100%; see GMA News, Dec. 9, 2021), we’re still nowhere back to normal.

OMICRON AND ITS DISCONTENTSo now many in the country are in a snit because of the so-called “Poblacion Girl,” who escaped quarantine and apparently spent the night out with her friends. Then it was reported that she was COVID-19 infected and so were a number of her friends. What the news media bafflingly refuses to report is her vaccination status. After all, she should have at least gotten one vaccine shot (otherwise she wouldn’t have been allowed to travel by air) and so were her friends (otherwise they wouldn’t be allowed inside the bars). In any event, these vaccinated people triggered an Omicron panic. And yet it’s the unvaccinated that are being discriminated against? How does this make any sense?

VACCINES, WHATEVERIt’s not as if current data is being inconsistent about the non-difference (infection transmission-wise) between the vaccinated and unvaccinated. St. Luke’s Medical Center reported (as of Jan. 3) that of their patients confined with COVID-19, 40% were unvaccinated, 40% vaccinated, and 10% already received booster shots, with two in the ICU. The Philippine General Hospital on the same day reported 60% of their COVID-19 patients as already vaccinated (with only 25% ICU occupancy). Mandaluyong then also reported that of their 67 COVID-19 patients, nine were unvaccinated and 58 vaccinated.

Apparently, vaccines aren’t that effective in protecting people from getting COVID-19. Even the hero of the pro-lockdown/ COVID-19 panic crowd, Dr. Anthony Fauci, declared that we are seeing people who are vaccinated and boosted who are getting breakthrough infections.” (“Fauci discourages fully vaccinated going to restaurants,” Jan. 2).

And most of those hospitalized for COVID-19, aside from perhaps the elderly or those with serious comorbidities, reported mild or moderate symptoms of runny noses, itchy throats, cough, low fever, and body aches.

Even then, one vaccine shot is reportedly ineffective against COVID-19 (hence why people are required to get second shots). So why the ban only against the unvaccinated? Why not also prohibit those with one vaccine shot from leaving their homes? But two vaccine shots without a booster are also said to be ineffective against Omicron. So why not prohibit those with two vaccine shots without booster from leaving their homes as well?

Why are the unvaccinated the only ones being discriminated against?

WHAT LAW? NONEHence why the Metro Manila local government executives’ measures against the unvaccinated (through MMDA Resolution No. 22-01) is utterly baffling. And it’s not as if they have any authority to do so in the first place.

The Resolution (released this week) needs individual city ordinances, which in turn need to be published. As the ordinances likely contain penal sanctions, they need a few weeks of publication before becoming effective. Unless that happens, there is no legal basis for malls, public transportation, etc., to deprive anyone of their rights.

However, even if such ordinances were enacted, they remain inherently questionable as no law authorizes local governments to discriminate against the healthy and unvaccinated. RA 11332 (referred to in MMDA Resolution No. 22-01) penalizes “non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as having the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public concern.” But if you’re healthy (and the legal presumption should be is that you are), then why should your movements be restricted?

FORCED VACCINATIONS IS WRONGOther countries’ experiences show the futility of forced vaccination: “In the case of COVID-19 vaccines, the censorship aims to stamp out any questions about a universal vaccination program that, it is now clear, was based on the false premise that low-risk individuals must get vaccinated to halt the spread of COVID-19 and end the pandemic. Almost a year into the global vaccination campaign — and starting long before Omicron arrived — all the data stand in stark opposition to this belief.

“Rapidly waning vaccine efficacy and COVID-19 surges in countries and regions with high vaccination rates — including Israel, the United Kingdom, Singapore, and now Europe, as well as high-vaccination US states like Vermont — are evidence that vaccinated individuals can spread COVID-19 at rates comparable to the unvaccinated. Multiple studies have shown that viral loading vaccinated individuals with COVID-19 is the same as in the unvaccinated.” (“Forcing people into COVID vaccines ignores important scientific information,” The Federalist, Dec. 14, 2021)

The argument goes that depriving the unvaccinated of their rights is not discriminatory but merely done because “it’s for their protection” is simply inutile.

First of all, government has no right to deprive anyone of their rights, cannot intrude into one’s individual bodily autonomy, without due process and without equal protection, which are not present in this case.

As mentioned above, why target the unvaccinated for an Omicron variant whose symptoms are similar to the flu, where the aforementioned hospitals report that most of their COVID-19 patients either, a.) are already vaccinated and/or, b.) are merely having mild or moderate symptoms? Why target the unvaccinated when reportedly those with two vaccine shots are still not protected against Omicron if without boosters?

In fact, if the argument that the government is entitled to step in and deprive people of their rights for their own protection, then equitably the prohibitions should be imposed on those with underlying health conditions and senior citizens, vaccinated or not. Senior citizens (i.e., persons 60 years old and up), even after nearly a year of vaccinations, still comprise the substantial bulk of COVID-19 deaths in the country.

IATF UNAUTHORIZEDEven the IATF’s “resolutions” regarding “mandatory vaccination” for public and private employees (ref. IATF Resolutions 148b and 149, s.2021) and requiring bi-weekly tests on unvaccinated employees, are legally dubious. For exhortatory purposes, fine, but to impose a mandatory requirement? No. It’s just wrong. Notice as well the seeming lack of penalties therein for noncompliance.

Allowable intrusions into constitutional rights can (within certain conditions) be had but only through a congressional enactment. There is no law — not Bayanihan Acts I and II, not RA 11332, not RA 11469, not the Local Government Code — that authorizes the IATF to deprive citizens of their constitutional rights.

On the other hand, actual legal penalty is provided for under RA 11494 (Bayanihan II) for acts of discrimination done against any person in relation to COVID-19 measures. Any person (public or private) that so discriminates can be imprisoned for six months and fined P100,000.

RA 11525, Sec. 12, also makes clear that vaccination cards cannot be made a requirement for government or business transactions. More importantly, it also declares that vaccinated individuals shall “not be considered immune from COVID-19.”

The Executive Branch, of which the IATF is under, simply cannot demand mandatory vaccination. It goes against the Bill of Rights and the tripartite, equal branches of government principles of our Constitution.

RIGHTS MAKE RIGHTIndeed, employers and employees, any citizen for that matter, that have been illegally or unduly or implicitly forced or coerced to be vaccinated just so they can exercise their inherent rights should take the appropriate legal measures.

The best and true checks and balance against undue government intrusion is not merely the words of the Constitution but the willingness of people to stand up for it.

Click to expand...

That's not a formal legal or medical "report". Two minutes of Googling shows that its an opinion piece by a Philippine 'Business World' journo, talking about the Philippines. The dangers of using selective sources.

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

oldschool said: ↑

Wow that's some report!! The only thing I think is that if you do or don't have the vaccine it should be entirely at your discretion and in no way should you be forced to have it to keep your job, surely this is against your civil liberty to take away your livelihood especially when even if you have been triple jabbed you can still catch the virus and pass it on...when is it going to be the time to live with this virus as we have lived with others, or is it going to be a round robin of countless jabs.... life's a gamble every day time to live it
Click to expand...

In april in uk they were going to mandate all health care , nurses and doctors have the jab wether they like it or not , I don't know if they still are going to do it after government backtracked after seeing the rioting in Europe over mandates , if they do , the Civil War in England will be coming .

Irishshako · Jan 24, 2022

Ffs I know how the Lefties feel like on the politics thread.

Brizzlewhite · Jan 24, 2022

sniffer1 said: ↑

What you think they been doing for years in the Wuhan lab getting BJs or perfecting a deadly virus
Click to expand...

So it's a Moderna (not owned by Bill Gates....) / Chinese Govt conspiracy to produce a deadly / not deadly (choose as appropriate) virus then?

FORZA LEEDS · Jan 24, 2022

Brizzlewhite said: ↑

That's not a formal legal "report". Two minutes of Googling shows that its an opinion piece by a Philippine 'Business World' journo, talking about the Philippines.
Click to expand...

Yeah I know it was had a quick look cos I haven’t got all ****ing day

xbpod · Jan 24, 2022

The point of if you agree with the vaccination rules or not is irrelevant. If the rules say you can't do certain things if you refuse to be vaccinated then it's personal choice, you are not being discriminated against. If you choose to not have a driving license don't expect to be able to drive legally.

OLOF · Jan 24, 2022

FORZA LEEDS said: ↑

Yeah I know it was had a quick look cos I haven’t got all ****ing day
Click to expand...

These ****ing experts on here still can't tell us one thing the Sage behavioural psychologists got right with their computer modelling predictions Forza.

FORZA LEEDS · Jan 24, 2022

OLOF said: ↑

These ****ing experts on here still can't tell us one thing the Sage behavioural psychologists got right with their computer modelling predictions Forza.
Click to expand...

It is a difficult one to answer tbf

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

Brizzlewhite said: ↑

So it's a Moderna (not owned by Bill Gates....) / Chinese Govt conspiracy to produce a deadly / not deadly (choose as appropriate) virus then?
Click to expand...

It's already been proved that America partly funded the Wuhan lab and fauchi the Pratt was organizing it

wakeybreakyheart · Jan 24, 2022

sniffer1 said: ↑

In april in uk they were going to mandate all health care , nurses and doctors have the jab wether they like it or not , I don't know if they still are going to do it after government backtracked after seeing the rioting in Europe over mandates , if they do , the Civil War in England will be coming .
Click to expand...

Not here people can't be bothered to vote so can't see them taking to the streets.

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

xbpod said: ↑

The point of if you agree with the vaccination rules or not is irrelevant. If the rules say you can't do certain things if you refuse to be vaccinated then it's personal choice, you are not being discriminated against. If you choose to not have a driving license don't expect to be able to drive legally.
Click to expand...

People already have been finished In usa and uk for not getting the jab in care homes was mandated they did not have a choice

OLOF · Jan 24, 2022

sniffer1 said: ↑

It's already been proved that America partly funded the Wuhan lab and fauchi the Pratt was organizing it
Click to expand...

That eminent virologist and scientist Bill Gates funds, or bungs as I call it, many many 'causes' not for his own gain obviously

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

OLOF said: ↑

That eminent virologist and scientist Bill Gates funds, or bungs as I call it, many many 'causes' not for his own gain obviously
Click to expand...

True , also he owns a big chunk of pharma. No wonder he wants everyone to get the jab

OLOF · Jan 24, 2022

FORZA LEEDS said: ↑

It is a difficult one to answer tbf
Click to expand...

True Forza
They put the ****ing fear of God in the soppy ****s though

FORZA LEEDS · Jan 24, 2022

wakeycentraloneleeds said: ↑

Not here people can't be bothered to vote so can't see them taking to the streets.
Click to expand...

They will if the woketards see a statue that needs pulling down because of something he supposedly did hundreds of years ago.

But you’re right, this country is too pathetic to riot about something that actually matters.

OLOF · Jan 24, 2022

sniffer1 said: ↑

True , also he owns a big chunk of pharma. No wonder he wants everyone to get the jab
Click to expand...

Hes made a few billion with his investments Sniff

sniffer1 · Jan 24, 2022

wakeycentraloneleeds said: ↑

Not here people can't be bothered to vote so can't see them taking to the streets.
Click to expand...

What if authorities said you cant go to elland road unvaccinated to see Leeds play and before game you can't go in a pub for a beer , and peacock fish and chips you can't go there for lunch before the game or can't go on the bus or train to go there and the only thing you can do is stay at home , would you start thinking I'm been discriminated against all because im not vaccinated

Off Topic Corona virus

oldschool Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

Brizzlewhite Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Brizzlewhite Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

xbpod Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

wakeybreakyheart Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

About Us

Quick Navigation

Like us on Facebook

Buy us a beer!

Useful Searches

Off Topic Corona virus

oldschool Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

Brizzlewhite Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

Irishshako Well-Known Member

Brizzlewhite Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

xbpod Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

wakeybreakyheart Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

FORZA LEEDS Well-Known Member

OLOF Well-Known Member

sniffer1 Well-Known Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches