Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

Status
Not open for further replies.
DisneyNittany

DisneyNittany

Well-Known Member
This is political and not really related to the topic- not acceptable
havoc315 said:
Why should the government stop people from shooting each other? If you're afraid of a bullet in the heart, just don't leave your house.
Click to expand...

When has the government ever stopped people from shooting each other? Hell, they're the ones doing the shooting/killing (reminder that Breonna Taylor's state murderers are still roaming free).

I don't know what to tell you here. I wear my mask, I stayed at home to protect my family, and I got vaccinated. I'm sorry that I just don't feel like I'm important enough to force other people to do the same to so that I, personally, can feel safe. I respect your right to make your own choices too much. I guess that makes me "childish and immature"?

Also, to be more to the point. The government acting as an arbitrator to protect your right to live (i.e. not allowing me to walk up and shoot you for fun) is NOT even close to the same as the government demanding that someone puts a fluid into their body so that you can enjoy life on your terms. One protects your rights while the other infringes upon them.
 
Last edited:
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
Chip Chipperson said:
Am I reading that table correctly by assuming the -8.6 for Moderna vs. the South African variant is saying they believe it would still be approximately 85% effective against that particular variant? If so, that's not too bad for a variant that wasn't known to exist when the vaccine was developed.
Click to expand...
It says it is 8.6 times less effective. I haven't been able to look deeply enough into how to translate that into how effective it is. My initial reaction would be that if it was 95% effective against the original variants, it would be 57% effective against the SA variant. I'm not sure if I'm correct and don't have time for further research right now.
 
H

havoc315

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
It's more complicated than that. I'd imagine if a car manufacturer only sold cars in the State in which they are incorporated and manufacture, the US Federal Government couldn't mandate anything. Of course, the State would have highway funding tied to requiring seatbelts so it is unlikely that any State wouldn't require them.
Click to expand...

That's still "the government." And wouldn't matter where cars are manufactured -- Cars can be driven across state lines, and Federal government has explicit jurisdiction over interstate transportation. (Establishment of Roads is right in Art 1, Sec 8)

DisneyCane said:
With respect to vaccines, there is absolutely no way that the US Federal Government can require any person be vaccinated for anything.
Click to expand...

Again. Not true. Federal government has direct jurisdiction over:
1 -- It's borders. Can require vaccination to get into the country. (already required!)
2 -- Military, and can therefore require vaccination for military enlistment (already required!)
3 - Air travel -- The TSA is a Federal agency after all.

There are plenty of other examples. But there are plenty of times the US Federal government already requires vaccinations and there are plenty of other times when they have the power.



DisneyCane said:
In Florida law, the "State Health Official" can order vaccinations during a "Public Health Emergency." If a person refuses to be vaccinated they are subject to isolation or quarantine.

I'm sure there would be court challenges if they actually tried to do it but the power exists in the Florida Statutes.
Click to expand...
 
G

GimpYancIent

Well-Known Member
As things stand right now it is still a difficult, involved, wait we will get to you, restricted and controlled process to get the appointment to get the vaccine! Regardless of age or other qualifying group. A lot of vaccinations have been and are occurring mostly because people are creative, patient and diligent in getting through all the hoops to get vaccinated. Each geographic location and jurisdiction has had differences in the process. I believe if and when any person wanting to get vaccinated can do so by simply going to their clinic, pharmacy or other location authorized to administer vaccinations and receive it on request with out the bureaucratic crap then a concentrated effort can be initiated to motivate the non-vaccine portion of the population.
 
D

DisneyCane

Well-Known Member
havoc315 said:
That's still "the government." And wouldn't matter where cars are manufactured -- Cars can be driven across state lines, and Federal government has explicit jurisdiction over interstate transportation. (Establishment of Roads is right in Art 1, Sec 8)



Again. Not true. Federal government has direct jurisdiction over:
1 -- It's borders. Can require vaccination to get into the country. (already required!)
2 -- Military, and can therefore require vaccination for military enlistment (already required!)
3 - Air travel -- The TSA is a Federal agency after all.

There are plenty of other examples. But there are plenty of times the US Federal government already requires vaccinations and there are plenty of other times when they have the power.
Click to expand...
OK. So if the car was only driven within the producing state they wouldn't have jurisdiction.

Regardless. Of course the Federal government can require vaccination for people entering the country. The Federal government controls (supposedly) the national borders.

For military, it is an employment requirement. Completely different from requiring a private citizen to be vaccinated.

For air travel they can try to use the same justification as the mask mandate. They essentially say that because air transport safety is regulated by the FAA they can have a mask mandate with the force of law on aircraft. If somebody was motivated to take it to court, it could probably be argued that public health was not part of the legislative intent of creating the FAA and therefore, they can not enforce public health rules.
 
Sirwalterraleigh

Sirwalterraleigh

Premium Member
Touchdown said:
One thing the federal govt could do, next budget bill, as refusing to get a vaccine costs this country economically, (makes us social distance longer, still wear masks, prevents business profits) let’s give the govt some of that money back. Pass a new part of the tax code, raise everyone’s income tax by $1000 for the next 5 years, but if you can provide proof of vaccination you get $1000 tax credit. There is virtually no contraindications to the mRNA vaccines, and there likely won’t be any for the Novavax shot either and between those two options you shouldn’t be allergic to both.

The vaccine is free, it’s effective and come Dec 31 2021 will be available to all Americans with no hassle. If you want to be a drain on society you still can be, it will just cost you.

Also the federal govt is totally within its rights to do this too.
Click to expand...

I actually think there’s a way to do something similar with unemployment...if you’re on it and you get a lesser paying job - they give you a stipend over your pay amount to keep it. That would cost the system much less and would not create a codependency scenario.

but I’m sure it would take 10 seconds to game that too.
 
H

havoc315

Well-Known Member
DisneyCane said:
OK. So if the car was only driven within the producing state they wouldn't have jurisdiction.
Click to expand...

No, there would be jurisdiction as the car can be driven outside the state. Even the strictest conservatives on the court would not parse out jurisdiction like that.


DisneyCane said:
Regardless. Of course the Federal government can require vaccination for people entering the country. The Federal government controls (supposedly) the national borders.

For military, it is an employment requirement. Completely different from requiring a private citizen to be vaccinated.

For air travel they can try to use the same justification as the mask mandate. They essentially say that because air transport safety is regulated by the FAA they can have a mask mandate with the force of law on aircraft. If somebody was motivated to take it to court, it could probably be argued that public health was not part of the legislative intent of creating the FAA and therefore, they can not enforce public health rules.
Click to expand...
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom