Who didn't see this coming?

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

From the standpoint of public health it is certainly not ideal to allow people to opt out of vaccines.

The university should understand that and do the right thing. In this instance, Cornell is not helping people of color.

[Dondilion]

Originally Posted by Waggs098

Notice how there is now talk about another stimulus package that is lower cost then the stimulus packages right before the election and pelosi said they weren't enough but may now settle for one thats even less dollars still. Talk about playing politics.

The whole second stimulus play is a disgrace. However, at least before the election, Nancy was in one instance honest enough to say to the public: It ain't gonna happen.

What was stunning: the elected progressives kept a low profile. I guess they recognized Nancy as the powerful bag lady and it was in their personal interest to play ball.

[nailer]

Originally Posted by Dondilion

The university should understand that and do the right thing. In this instance, Cornell is not helping people of color.

I'd be more comfotable if rural whites could also opt out due to moral issues many may have with vaccines.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

I would think the reason for this is obvious, even without reading the article. Our country has not been kind to people of "color" (as you put it), inflicting unrequested medical procedures, providing substandard medical care based on race, doing medical testing without consent, introducing diseases, etc.

From the standpoint of public health it is certainly not ideal to allow people to opt out of vaccines. But people have to trust the government first. This is just another unfortunate challenge from the legacy of racism that we have to contend with.

Ummm ok, make another excuse for people of opposite races to be treated differently. That really helps doesn't it. Were not talking about the 1930's.

And just to clarify Cornell is the one who said people of color.

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Yggdrasill

I would think the reason for this is obvious, even without reading the article. Our country has not been kind to people of "color" (as you put it), inflicting unrequested medical procedures, providing substandard medical care based on race, doing medical testing without consent, introducing diseases, etc.

From the standpoint of public health it is certainly not ideal to allow people to opt out of vaccines. But people have to trust the government first. This is just another unfortunate challenge from the legacy of racism that we have to contend with.

Pragmatic rule making. The point of making flue shots mandatory is not to punish non-compilers. It is to get people to comply. This strategy works quite well with typical well-socialized white kids without authority issues. It works much less reliably with black kids with sharp suspicion of authority based on long cultural experience. So you'd just wind up punishing a bunch of black non-compilers. This is viewed as pointless and non-desirable.

[bobabode]

Originally Posted by Waggs098

Ummm ok, make another excuse for people of opposite races to be treated differently. That really helps doesn't it. Were not talking about the 1930's.

"Opposite races"? Well, there's a tell.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by bobabode

"Opposite races"? Well, there's a tell.

How is that a tell?

[Waggs098]

Also on the media coverage of the vaccine I find it convenient how there was no sign of having one right before the election and a lot of dems were saying "I'm not taking a vaccine developed under trump". One week after election news completely changed and the vaccine was almost out and ready for use. Even Dr faucis outlook completely changed from we won't see a vaccine till February, to, it's pretty much here yea.

[Waggs098]

Originally Posted by donquixote99

Pragmatic rule making. The point of making flue shots mandatory is not to punish non-compilers. It is to get people to comply. This strategy works quite well with typical well-socialized white kids without authority issues. It works much less reliably with black kids with sharp suspicion of authority based on long cultural experience. So you'd just wind up punishing a bunch of black non-compilers. This is viewed as pointless and non-desirable.

So just wondering are you for or against what Cornell decided?

[donquixote99]

Originally Posted by Waggs098

So just wondering are you for or against what Cornell decided?

Against. Eliminate the penalties for all, not just some. Coercive is always authoritarian.

The fact that non-compliance results from alienation from authority, alienation with deep cultural roots going back to slavery, will have a lot of power to explain higher black crime rates, it occurs to me. That, and selective enforcement, and structural racism.