Vaccine Mandate Purpose?

Ephrata Lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2001
3,127
1,497
1
Vaccine mandates cost this young mother her life..........

vaccine-death.jpg


Oct. 29, 1983 – Sept. 7, 2021

Jessica Berg Wilson, 37, of Seattle, Wash., passed away unexpectedly Sept. 7, 2021 from Covid Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopenia (VITT) surrounded by her loving family.

Jessica was an exceptionally healthy and vibrant 37-year-old young mother with no underlying health conditions.

Jessica’s greatest passion was to be the best mother possible for Bridget and Clara. Nothing would stand in her way to be present in their lives. During the last weeks of her life, however, the world turned dark with heavy-handed vaccine mandates. Local and state governments were determined to strip away her right to consult her wisdom and enjoy her freedom. She had been vehemently opposed to taking the vaccine, knowing she was in good health and of a young age and thus not at risk for serious illness. In her mind, the known and unknown risks of the unproven vaccine were more of a threat. But, slowly, day by day, her freedom to choose was stripped away. Her passion to be actively involved in her children’s education—which included being a Room Mom—was, once again, blocked by government mandate. Ultimately, those who closed doors and separated mothers from their children prevailed.

It cost Jessica her life....

 

Ephrata Lion

Well-Known Member
Jun 19, 2001
3,127
1,497
1
And another vaccine mandate casualty......

Denver Police Officer and Father of Four Takes the Jab and Now Cannot Walk​

According to the GoFundMe account created by his sister:​

Jose Manriquez is a 7 year veteran of the Denver Police Department and a 12 year veteran of the Army National Guard but his most important job is taking care of his 4 children and being a loving husband, son, brother, and uncle. Manriquez was given the mandatory COVID vaccine required by the City of Denver. The mandatory mandate stated either get the vaccine or face termination from the job he loves so much!

Jose Manriquez received the mandatory vaccine on August 22, 2021, and immediately started having a bad reaction. Since receiving the vaccine he has not been able to return to work and his future is uncertain. After receiving his vaccine he developed severe tremors and has trouble sleeping due to the amount of pain in his legs. He has fallen a number of times and basically can’t walk.

 
  • Sad
Reactions: indynittany

BoulderFish

Well-Known Member
Oct 31, 2016
10,083
6,766
1
I legitmately am asking the question looking for a reasonable answer. I honestly have no idea what the logical reasoning is. And while it doesn’t impact me, it also wouldn’t impact me if my employer said “we won’t hire women” or “you must own a home to work here”, but it doesn’t make those requirements good or right. Heck, we don’t drug test anymore. I’m just trying to find the rationale other than virtue signaling or rooting out non-conformity.

There is no reasonable answer.

Back early on when it looked like the vaccines might actually provide sterilizing immunity indefinitely, and there might actually be some community-level value to higher vax rates, they got this in their thick heads, but weren't ready/able to coerce yet (it at least had to be widely available to all) - but they put the idea in their pockets for later.

Then, over time, we've learned that there's borderline zero community-level benefit (for the reasons you mentioned), BUT:
1. They haven't gotten it back out of their thick heads that there is next to no community-level benefit from higher rate of vaccination; and/or...
2. They are butt-hurt that their previous coercive tactics didn't work, and so going nuclear with it.

In other words, they're like bad parents that have been trying to get little Johny and Jane to eat their bread, but then after they find out "oh the bread isn't that good for them after all," now it's become about "principle" for them, and so they still need little Johny and little Jane to eat their bread... Or else they let little Jonny and Jane win and that sets a bad precedent for later.

Problem is, our government isn't our parents.
 

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,449
17,939
1
A trial balloon of control.

If they can mandate a vaccine for a disease that 99.95% of people under 65 survive, what will they mandate next?

^^ nails it. ^^

And let's not forget the profit motive. Big Pharma is making a fortune off the shots. Can't get that off generic therapeutic treatments. So even should you have natural immunity they want you to get jabbed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany

Cosmos

Well-Known Member
May 29, 2001
25,449
17,939
1
There is no reasonable answer.

Back early on when it looked like the vaccines might actually provide sterilizing immunity indefinitely, and there might actually be some community-level value to higher vax rates, they got this in their thick heads, but weren't ready/able to coerce yet (it at least had to be widely available to all) - but they put the idea in their pockets for later.

Then, over time, we've learned that there's borderline zero community-level benefit (for the reasons you mentioned), BUT:
1. They haven't gotten it back out of their thick heads that there is next to no community-level benefit from higher rate of vaccination; and/or...
2. They are butt-hurt that their previous coercive tactics didn't work, and so going nuclear with it.

In other words, they're like bad parents that have been trying to get little Johny and Jane to eat their bread, but then after they find out "oh the bread isn't that good for them after all," now it's become about "principle" for them, and so they still need little Johny and little Jane to eat their bread... Or else they let little Jonny and Jane win and that sets a bad precedent for later.

Problem is, our government isn't our parents.

Or put another way, they can't admit when they're wrong.

I believe it's a little more complicated. Consider they once threw shade on the "Trump vaccine," refused to take it, etc... But eventually they came around to embracing it. Why. My guess is they're searching for policy victories and vaccine mandate is a low-hanging fruit. Based on polling data they knew more people embrace vaccines than reject them. As another poster pointed out, it's a trial balloon for exerting more control. Up next: guns under the mantle of a public health crisis. I guarantee it.

I would also be interested in knowing if Ron Klain, Susan Rice, Kamala Harris and her hubby and any of the Biden family have considerable holdings in Pfizer, Merck and J&J. Just sayin'.
 

83wuzme

Well-Known Member
Apr 27, 2005
13,279
12,446
1
I am a vaccine proponent myself, but it has become clear that the mandate is not supportable on the basis of evidence. When vaccines were being rolled out, there was significant expectation of sterilizing immunity and long term protection from the effort. This has been shown not to be the case. It doesn’t mean that the vaccines are useless, but it means they are, like a number of vaccines, limited in the scope and duration of their effectiveness.
A large study now coming out of Israel is showing very similar protection from infection compared with vaccines and duration of protection that will likely be longer from infection.
It might be possible to make a case for vaccine mandates to prevent hospital resources from being exceeded, but it’s a thin case given the current numbers in all but a few areas. You could make the case that the mandate will reduce mortality and morbidity, but that is also the case for a number of other viral diseases for which there are vaccines, but not vaccination mandates.
I see this as an Administration lashing out at it’s perceived enemies and trying deflect attention from it’s incompetence and authoritarian leanings.