Where's Your Line In The Sand?

Good Ol' Boy

Active member
I'm reading from other forums all over the net where companies are becoming more in line with the status quo and requiring being experimented on (get the shot).

Many folks are losing their livelihoods over this.

So far my "small" company I work for of 50-60 employees is holding strong but who knows what's coming down the pipeline.


I'm prepared to lose my job and find another or make do.

Are you?
 
Last edited:

theotherwaldo

Well-known member
I work for a city government.
For multiple reasons, almost all of us have already had one form or another of COVID,
Maybe it's because our city is where they warehouse all of those unaccompanied minors before those kids are handed off to the traffickers.
Anyway, most of my fellow employees, like myself, have already been vaccinated, mostly just after the first wave of COVID deaths swept through our departments.

With us, it's a moot point.
 

Howland937

Active member
I reluctantly chose to get vaccinated several months ago. Side effects detrimental to my own well-being were secondary thoughts since my kid isn't old enough to get vaccinated if he wanted to. He has a few things that put him at higher risk, so if it reduces the chance that I bring it home to him by even a miniscule amount I'm ok with it. (Besides, I reasoned that whatever's in it probably isn't any worse than the stuff the FDA authorizes to be used in food production)

That said, I quit a good job because they wouldn't allow me to wear shorts in hot weather. This particular ultimatum doesn't apply to me, but I'd be more likely to oblige an ultimatum from my employer than from someone who ain't even signing my paycheck. Not that there's a high likelihood I'd cave to any ultimatum from anyone though. Never have, and not planning to start.
 

Gridley

New member
For me it is less about the shot itself than the requirement that I divulge private medical information not only to my employer, but to third parties. Yeah, today the only thing I need to divulge is the shot. But tomorrow? You know the .gov will come up with less and less believable excuses that we need to share more and more data until they have everything... or until someone stops them.

Once the fight becomes inevitable, and delay only serves the enemy, I see no point in postponing it.
 

Lilguy

New member
We were all vaccinated, January 2021, out of a need for self preservation and dealing with the healthcare industry. My wife and daughter are both Dentist, spending their working hours turning human oral cavity into water vapor. I also visit two family members in senior care facilities and being vaccinated allowed me access that unvaxed family members could not have.
Vacs are required in both offices my wife and daughter run.
My wife’s office is 100% compliant, My daughters office had 4 employees recently leave until the the mandate is lifted.
You are free to reject the vaccine, which I agree with, but you
must accept the consequences of that decision. Some folks do.
Thats the price of that decision, which I applaud.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I'm retired so the OP-posted scenario doesn't directly apply to me, but it does apply in another way: today I sold all my Pfizer stock even though it's been doing well and by selling I'm going to incur about $1000 worth of unbudgeted-for long-term capital gains tax hit, which for me, is a LOT. I just can't conscience being a shareholder of a company that's benefitting from this. There are more than one way of "putting in on the line" and I'm heartened to see that some people are still willing to stand up for their principles and their convinctions about what makes America America, and willing to accept the consequences of doing so. Thank you, @Good Ol' Boy for your courage to do what you see is the right thing to do for yourself and for your country.
 
Last edited:

roscoe

Well-known member
I'm retired so the OP-posted scenario doesn't directly apply to me, but it does apply in another way: today I sold all my Pfizer stock even though it's been doing well and by selling I'm going to incur about $1000 worth of unbudgeted-for long-term capital gains tax hit, which for me, is a LOT. I just can't conscience being a shareholder of a company that's benefitting from this.
I don't understand. You are opposed to companies making a profit by producing life-saving medicines? Why is COVID different from any other disease in terms of private medical corporations and economic motivations. They aren't responsible for the vaccine mandate.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
I don't understand.
I know. I'm opposed to companies that abandon ethics entirely in favor of profit and in consequence thereof manipulate and dictate to the agencies that are supposed to oversee and regulate them. I used the proceeds to buy Novartis, a Swiss company, hopefully a corporation at some distance removed from U.S. Big Pharma politics. The vaccine mandate alone wasn't responsible for my decision, just the final input into the decision matrix that resolved into SELL.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
I know. I'm opposed to companies that abandon ethics entirely in favor of profit and in consequence thereof manipulate and dictate to the agencies that are supposed to oversee and regulate them. I used the proceeds to buy Novartis, a Swiss company, hopefully a corporation at some distance removed from U.S. Big Pharma politics. The vaccine mandate alone wasn't responsible for my decision, just the final input into the decision matrix that resolved into SELL.
Oh, big pharma is definitely evil. But Pfizer made a vaccine that has and will probably saved hundreds of thousands, if not tens of millions of lives, and they didn't have anything to do with the mandate.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Oh, big pharma is definitely evil. But Pfizer made a vaccine that has and will probably saved hundreds of thousands, if not tens of millions of lives,...
.... and killed tens of thousands while being tested on an unwitting general population that the lying FDA convinced was safe by an emergency use authorization bypassing usual testing requirements, an authorization that could only be issued if there were no other effective therapies, thereby instigating government, corporate and media collusion to surpress multiple effective and safe therapies already existing and available .... and further ended up promoting more infectious and virulent variants of the viruses because of the technology used targets only one part of the immunological response, thereby actually lengthening the duration of the pandemic and in the end being responsible for more infections and more deaths.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
.... and killed tens of thousands while being tested on an unwitting general population that the lying FDA convinced was safe by an emergency use authorization bypassing usual testing requirements, an authorization that could only be issued if there were no other effective therapies, thereby instigating government, corporate and media collusion to surpress multiple effective and safe therapies already existing and available .... and further ended up promoting more infectious and virulent variants of the viruses because of the technology used targets only one part of the immunological response, thereby actually lengthening the duration of the pandemic and in the end being responsible for more infections and more deaths.
I wasn't aware that anybody had died from the vaccine.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
A slightly more reliable source:

Also, we weren't talking about ALL vaccines, just Pfizer. There have been some deaths attributed to J&J.

Just so you understand here: correlation is not causation. If someone dies in some period after taking a drug, it does not mean that drug killed them. People die all the time of a variety of causes, but just because something happened prior does not mean it is a cause. Did you look up how the people on the supposed 'VAERS" death list actually died? That is the only way to determine if there is any relationship. Other, highly qualified people have looked, and found no factors linking the vaccine to their deaths.

There has been an actual causal link identified with the J&J vaccine (thrombosis). In that case, they actually did what I indicated above and found something.
 
Last edited:

wiscoaster

Well-known member
Just so you understand here: correlation is not causation.
No, correlation is not causation, but it is one of many scientific means of determing causation.

If someone dies in some period after taking a drug, it does not mean that drug killed them.
Oh, you mean like "if someone dies in some period while ill with Covid-19 it does not mean that Covid-19 killed them?" Try explaining that to the government.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
No, correlation is not causation, but it is one of many scientific means of determing causation.


Oh, you mean like "if someone dies in some period while ill with Covid-19 it does not mean that Covid-19 killed them?" Try explaining that to the government.

We know exactly how COVID kills, and have a direct causal model that has been observed and confirmed all too many times. Not at all the same.

I think you are misunderstanding the importance of correlation analysis in a case like this. Correlation can never demonstrate causality (although a correlation might be consistent with a causal hypothesis). More relevantly, a hypothesis of causality can be falsified by correlation analysis, and this is why we do not think the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines are killing people. Both vaccines have been taken by hundreds of millions of people without showing a pattern of mortality. Given the sample sizes involved, a causal pattern would show up very apparently, with strong statistical significance. The fact that this is not the case is reason enough to trust the vaccine.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
..... Correlation can never demonstrate causality (although a correlation might be consistent with a causal hypothesis). ....
Getting tricking with your words, again, aren't you? I never asserted that correlation demonstrates causality; I said it could be one of multiple means of determining causation - when used as one of multiple arguments in support of proving a causation hypothesis.
 

roscoe

Well-known member
Getting tricking with your words, again, aren't you? I never asserted that correlation demonstrates causality; I said it could be one of multiple means of determining causation - when used as one of multiple arguments in support of proving a causation hypothesis.
That is what I said (consistent with causes). But you need to reread my second paragraph. Correlation analysis, in this case, has falsified the hypothesis that the vaccine is killing people, not the other way around.
 

wiscoaster

Well-known member
You haven't proven your case with data. Because you can't. The official data, as provided by the CDC, proves otherwise.
 
Top