11-11-2021, 12:19 PM
(11-11-2021, 01:52 AM)ItsGoTime Wrote: Someone stated earlier that for those that get those problems, it's 100%. For those family and friends surrounding that 100% person, it's a bad thing to be feared. The benefit outweighs the risk, for those that risk it and come out the other side unharmed. Why in the world would we require a survivor of one of those tragic incidents to take that risk?
Where did I say that. I highlighted the the need for clearly defined exemptions in previous posts. I even mentioned this weakness when we talked about the OSHA mandate (But also think that the test option could make up for the lack of exemptions, it offers an alternative. As far as I can tell legal experts are torn when it comes to this small but important detail)
Thread has been going on for a long time. From nearly three weeks ago.
"Vaccine choice. For example. If a close family member suffered from an adverse reaction. Let´s say the first Moderna shot lead to a myocarditis case (cousin or brother). Maybe another brother/cousin should consider a different vaccine (not MRNA)."
I guess that is the scenario you are refering to. Also a great example for a medical exemption. Others would be for example an adverse reaction to other vaccines in the past or known allergies and pre existing conditions. And obviously a previous infection in the last lets say 6-12 month. Just to name a few.
The main difference is that I am not ruling out vaccine mandates as a last resort whereas other posters are strictly against any kind of mandate. I think I gave a detailed explanation for my thoughts on that matter. People can disagree but that´s not an outlandish position. We have seen situations in the past where a similar thought process lead to mandates that were upheld by the supreme court.