planoaggie123 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Never have I. The people acting like these mandates are completely normal are off base. Never in our lifetime did people in private companies have to show vaccine records to keep a job. Healthcare and schools have always been the major exceptions but TX schools will give you an exemption easily.

---

Never in our lifetime have we lived in a pandemic. Had a vaccine existed in 1918-1919, it would have been required as well.

---

Your ability to re-create the past and know how things would have played out....at least qualify a tad vs making a factual statement about something that can never be proven.

---

AggieFrog said:

---

planoaggie123 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Never have I. The people acting like these mandates are completely normal are off base. Never in our lifetime did people in private companies have to show vaccine records to keep a job. Healthcare and schools have always been the major exceptions but TX schools will give you an exemption easily.

---

Never in our lifetime have we lived in a pandemic. Had a vaccine existed in 1918-1919, it would have been required as well.

---

Your ability to re-create the past and know how things would have played out....at least qualify a tad vs making a factual statement about something that can never be proven.

---

Given that vaccines were required prior to the Spanish Flu (including a Supreme Court case in 1905) leans to pretty clearly indicate that it would have been required had one existed.

---

planoaggie123 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

planoaggie123 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Never have I. The people acting like these mandates are completely normal are off base. Never in our lifetime did people in private companies have to show vaccine records to keep a job. Healthcare and schools have always been the major exceptions but TX schools will give you an exemption easily.

---

Never in our lifetime have we lived in a pandemic. Had a vaccine existed in 1918-1919, it would have been required as well.

---

Your ability to re-create the past and know how things would have played out....at least qualify a tad vs making a factual statement about something that can never be proven.

---

Given that vaccines were required prior to the Spanish Flu (including a Supreme Court case in 1905) leans to pretty clearly indicate that it would have been required had one existed.

---

Feel free to point to relevant and actual occurrences in history....no need to live in a make believe / pretend world.

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

What part of "near 100%" were you unable to read?

I've gone 18 months without any signs of Covid. I am
taking a calculated risk of potentially being exposed and getting it naturally vs a forced risk of a vaccine

If you are at high risk or feel more secure with the vaccine, go ahead and take it. I'm not claiming you shouldn't. I shouldn't be forced to. It's not about protecting anyone else at this point.

---

If those vaccines are "near 100%" efficacy, then you can say the same for the mRNA vaccines at preventing hospitalization.

And it is still about protecting others at this point.

---

The vaccine doesn't protect others.

---

That's just not true. It's proven the vaccine reduces likelihood of being sick. If one isn't sick, they aren't spreading it. You can argue others who want protecting are vaccinated, but it's 100% false to suggest the vaccination does not reduce transmission.

---

What about asymptomatic spread. Vaccinated individuals are less likely to have symptoms so they can be walking around with and not even know. Similar to what many were saying about young and healthy individuals spreading it last year. Also why ignore natural immunity which offers better protection than the vaccine.

---

AggiEE said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

What part of "near 100%" were you unable to read?

I've gone 18 months without any signs of Covid. I am
taking a calculated risk of potentially being exposed and getting it naturally vs a forced risk of a vaccine

If you are at high risk or feel more secure with the vaccine, go ahead and take it. I'm not claiming you shouldn't. I shouldn't be forced to. It's not about protecting anyone else at this point.

---

If those vaccines are "near 100%" efficacy, then you can say the same for the mRNA vaccines at preventing hospitalization.

And it is still about protecting others at this point.

---

That's a rich definition of efficacy - can still catch it and get sick/spread it but with less hospitalization

No, it's about forcing others to be "protected". Anyone who wants the vaccine can get one. The individual should have the right to decline and live with the consequences

---

ORAggieFan said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

AggieFrog said:

---

AggiEE said:

---

What part of "near 100%" were you unable to read?

I've gone 18 months without any signs of Covid. I am
taking a calculated risk of potentially being exposed and getting it naturally vs a forced risk of a vaccine

If you are at high risk or feel more secure with the vaccine, go ahead and take it. I'm not claiming you shouldn't. I shouldn't be forced to. It's not about protecting anyone else at this point.

---

If those vaccines are "near 100%" efficacy, then you can say the same for the mRNA vaccines at preventing hospitalization.

And it is still about protecting others at this point.

---

That's a rich definition of efficacy - can still catch it and get sick/spread it but with less hospitalization

No, it's about forcing others to be "protected". Anyone who wants the vaccine can get one. The individual should have the right to decline and live with the consequences

---

One of those consequences may be losing your job.

---