In China the COVID vaccine is not "mandatory" but you will lose your job, pension, health insurance and access to hospitals if any member of your immediate family fails to get vaccinated. Don't even try to get into a school, bus, plane, train, or anything else if you are not vaccinated. https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/27/china/2-billion-covid-vaccines-mic-intl-hnk/index.html
No vaccine, no custody. Illinois mom says judge stripped custody of son until she gets COVID-19 vaccine https://www.foxnews.com/us/illinois-mom-judge-custody-child-vaccine
State and federal governments can't force people to receive a new coronavirus vaccine against their will, experts said, but lawmakers may be able to create a mandate that imposes consequences for not being vaccinated. If the federal government did want to pursue mandating vaccines, the more realistic scenario is to tie it to federal funding or tax individuals who refuse to vaccinate. The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, signaling to Wilker the tax may be permissible. It's possible Congress could have the power to mandate a vaccine under the commerce clause since the virus travels across state borders, constitutional law experts told Newsweek. The question is whether that power actually includes the power to require vaccines and Steven Wilker, a partner at the law firm Tonkon Torp, told Newsweek that it would likely be a "reach." "In either case, that does not mean an individual could be vaccinated against their will if they were willing to suffer the consequences of not doing so," Wilker said. https://www.newsweek.com/coronavirus-vaccine-government-mandate-it-possible-1506548
Make the unvaccinated pay out for their deadly decisions https://www.cnn.com/2021/08/26/opin...l-costs-for-their-decision-banzhaf/index.html It's time to stop forcing the vaccinated majority of Americans to accommodate those who refuse to take this simple step -- especially now that at least one Covid-19 vaccine has been fully approved. The surge in infections caused by the coronavirus' highly contagious Delta variant has made it clear that the unvaccinated pose a deadly risk to others and themselves. Vaccinated workers, students, airline passengers and others who go out in public should not have to bear the risks and huge financial costs that the unvaccinated are imposing on society. Think of what we do with smokers. When it became clear that secondhand smoke threatened the health and very lives of blameless nonsmokers, governments and those in charge got tough on smoking in public. They made it much harder, if not impossible, for thoughtless smokers to light up in restaurants, on sidewalks, on public transportation and in other places where nonsmokers have to breathe their toxic fumes. Using the same solid reasoning, many employers, colleges, theaters, sports stadiums and other venues are beginning to insist that their workers, students, and patrons be vaccinated -- a movement hopefully to be accelerated by the full approval of the Pfizer vaccine this week by the Food and Drug Administration. The refusal of many Americans to be vaccinated has imposed financial costs on the rest of us. For example, in an analysis last week, the Kaiser Family Foundation estimated that the hospitalization cost of treating preventable Covid-19 in unvaccinated patients during June and July alone was $2.3 billion -- with the costs "borne not only by patients but also by society more broadly." And that number is dwarfed by the incalculable additional costs of lockdowns, occupancy restrictions in restaurants and elsewhere, disruption of schooling now and to come, jobs lost to layoffs and Americans struggling to pay rent and mortgages or losing their homes. We need to make sure that those financial costs at least are borne as much as possible by those who are responsible for them, and not by the majority who got their shots. People may claim that they have a right to refuse vaccination. But that does not give them the right to put the lives of others at risk, nor to force the majority to pay for their bad decision. Once the American public began to focus on the huge costs of smoking rather than simply the risks smoking posed to bystanders, many steps were taken to require smokers to bear more of their fair share of those unnecessary financial costs. One example can be found in the Affordable Care Act, which includes a 50% surcharge on health insurance rates for those who smoke, while another is the ever-increasing tax rates on cigarettes in a growing number of jurisdictions. Years ago I helped persuade our nation's insurance commissioners to agree that when people engaged in behaviors that substantially increased their health risk and related medical costs, like smoking, they should pay more for health insurance. This policy was premised on a basic principle: It's your monkey; keep him off my back. And by making smoking more expensive, it had the side benefit of helping induce many people to quit. Applying this policy to vaccination refusers should be even more effective, because getting vaccinated is quick and easy, while many people find quitting smoking difficult, if not impossible. Here is what those who have been vaccinated, and are being victimized, should be demanding: 1. Vaccine refusers should pay more for life and health insurance, just as smokers have long done. For example, Delta Air Lines announced this week that beginning in November, it will charge its unvaccinated employees up to $200 a month more for health insurance, and also limit the number of sick days unvaccinated employees may take if they contract Covid-19. 2. Where unvaccinated workers, students or others are required to be tested frequently, they and no one else should bear the cost of testing. 3. If the unvaccinated want to get hotel rooms or board cruise ships or fly on airplanes, they should have to pay more to cover the additional costs of thoroughly cleaning and sanitizing the places they may infect. They should also be charged more because of the added burdens associated with requiring all airlines, bus and train passengers to be masked. Covid-19 is now an "epidemic of the unvaccinated." But we the vaccinated are still being unnecessarily exposed to the risks -- however small -- of illness, hospitalization, "long covid," and death. We the vaccinated have to wear masks in many places like offices and airplanes where masks would probably not be required if most Americans had their shots. And the vaccinated are unfortunately also being forced to bear most of the financial costs so that some can remain refusers. Let's stop coddling the minority, and hold the unvaccinated responsible for the consequences of their own deadly decisions.
Fine by me for unvaccinated to pay our own healthcare costs. As it is, I have no health insurance and have always paid for my own healthcare. I read the cost of a Covid hospitalization, as low a chance as it is for most individuals, is about $20,000. I personally can responsibly swing that easily. There is precedent for individuals bearing financial responsibility for certain hazards that does not involve insurance companies. Just as in at least most US states, financial responsibility in case of automobile accidents does not mandate private insurance be purchased, only financial responsibility in the form of a bond or deposit be made. As far as me potentially infecting others, that is almost impossible, even if I were to take no preventive measures while I’m infected, if vaccination efficacy statistics are valid. As far as unvaccinated possibly getting infected by me, that is ok, at least in the vast majority of situations, as the unvaccinated have most likely comfortable with their decision to not get vaccinated and to bear the risks of catching Covid, as low as the risks of serious complications may be for a specific individual. The unvaccinated as “Variant factories” are not a valid concern because if the statistics on vaccinations are valid, they are overwhelmingly effective on the current, most active variant by far, known the Delta variant. The unvaccinated as risks to young children is not a valid concern as children have overwhelmingly low adverse effects to a Covid infection, but the potential short and long term adverse effects of a vaccine could affect them for a lifetime. A long lifetime, given their age. The vaccine risk to reward in young children is much lower than other age groups, assuming related statistics are valid, of course. In my reasoned opinion, Covid is not a serious enough pathogen to justify mandates. Historically, mandates were used for much more dangerous pathogens. If a seriously dangerous virus or Covid variant comes to be, and an effective vaccine against it was available, I, as well as others I suspect, who are vaccine hesitant, would get the vaccination immediately without even waiting for a mandate. The pharmaceutical companies, a certain political philosophy, and certain media companies have too much influence on public policy which suggest our economic and political system is getting deeper into Corporatocracy, at the expense of our civil rights. Or is it simply plain Communism? Again, there are situations that call for mandates, but if we lower the bar of allowing our civil rights to be imposed upon for relatively mundane events such as Covid, we have effectively given up our freedom for nothing. Further, what future events may “Require” us to give up more freedoms? A particularly large mass casualty event involving guns require us to forgo our 2nd amendment rights in the interest of “Public safety”? “Misinformation” about issues of media and government concern require limiting our 1st amendment rights are next? We have seen the beginnings of censorship in social media, as it is. There are paid social media influencers who post for the purpose of influencing public opinion against the public’s own self interest. The source behind this influencing campaign represent a small concentration of wealthy and powerful individuals, not just Soros. Perhaps the Sacklers are part of this elite group. The simple way to determine whether a issue or proposed policy is in one’s best interest is if it increases individual rights and freedoms or reduces rights and freedoms. Another test is whether proposed policies allow individuals to make their own decisions or whether the government or some entity become increasingly empowered to make decisions for individuals. Our Democracy is rapidly ebbing before our eyes. For those who believe that Democracy and individual freedoms are worth saving, the time to get off the fence is now.
Democracy is about the will of the majority. If, for example, the majority embrace forced vaccinations, well, then, it is what it is. (It can take some time for the 'will' to manifest into 'law.') You either believe that democracy should be rooted in the will of the majority, or be rooted in the will of the minority (which would not really be a democracy). If democracy ebbs, then it's because the majority is ebbing. That's how it works. __________________ No one on the planet has 100% freedom. We are a nation of laws/restrictions. Many restrictions came about do to safety concerns cause by a small percentage of idiots. Individual freedom is always subject to the safety and security of the group.
Fauci says it's a 'good idea' to mandate COVID-19 vaccines for kids going to school https://www.businessinsider.com/fauci-says-good-idea-mandate-covid-19-vaccine-students-2021-8