Indonesia Regulator Allows Ivermectin Use For Covid Treatment

[GeoffH]

26 minutes ago, Gandang Smile said:

Again, I 100% agree on your statements that no vaccine is 100% efficient and infection/contagion are still possible.

Again, what I am up against is the political use of the vaccine, to create a two-tier society.

 

The politicians are not using the vaccine to 'create' a two-tier society though.

NB I'm not saying it might not happen... but it's not the pollies who are the root cause of the change, it's being driven by the majority views of the population (which the pollies are just implementing).

And honestly... given that the real percentage of people who cannot medically have a vaccine is miniscule I see it as mostly self inflicted and their choice.

[Gandang Smile]

4 minutes ago, GeoffH said:

The politicians are not using the vaccine to 'create' a two-tier society though.

NB I'm not saying it might not happen... but it's not the pollies who are the root cause of the change, it's being driven by the majority views of the population (which the pollies are just implementing).

And honestly... given that the real percentage of people who cannot medically have a vaccine is miniscule I see it as mostly self inflicted and their choice.

That's another big dilemma as we speak...are these politicians aware of the consequences of a Green Pass kind of system? Of the fact that the vaccine offers no evidence of protection against the virus and still allows the virus to be passed on? They're either in it, or stoopid. I like to think that the former is the case.

I don't think the majority of the population has been asking for a Green Pass kind of system. Some people are more overzealous than others in wanting to enforce rules for the sake of the "collective good". It's only human nature. However I am sure the vast majority of people are not sanctioning the idea of the economy that grinds to a halt several times a year while "Covid cases" keep spiking anyway, vaccine or not.

Again, I am myself pro-vaccination, or at least pro-choice. I guess you and I represent the majority. I am personally against the instrumental use of the vaccination as a way to limit people's personal freedoms.

 

 

[GeoffH]

1 hour ago, Gandang Smile said:

Of the fact that the vaccine offers no evidence of protection against the virus and still allows the virus to be passed on?

Well... it depends upon what you call "evidence of protection against the virus"... yes it does allow the virus to be passed on but as the figures from the UK show the R number of fully vaccinated people is significantly lower than that for unvaccinated people.  And the majority of cases being hospitalized with serious disease are unvaccinated people, people with full vaccination are not getting seriously ill at anything like the percentage of the unvaccinated.

 

As for the politicians "knowing what they're doing"... well... that's something someone else will have to have a go at responding to 

[Jollygoodfellow]

10 hours ago, Gandang Smile said:

Again, I am myself pro-vaccination, or at least pro-choice. I guess you and I represent the majority. I am personally against the instrumental use of the vaccination as a way to limit people's personal freedoms.

Better stock up on necessaries  

MANILA, PHILIPPINES

The President says he won't wait for a law penalizing persons refusing COVID-19 vaccines: 'The law of necessity is there'

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wants police and barangay captains to restrict the movement of people who refuse coronavirus vaccines, in a bid to stem the spread of the feared Delta variant of COVID-19.

"Ang mga barangay captain na lang, 'pag ayaw nila magpabakuna 'wag silang palabasin ng bahay," said Duterte on Wednesday evening, July 28, during a meeting with pandemic task force officials. (If they refuse vaccination, barangay captains should not let them leave their house.)

"'Pag lumabas kayo ng bahay, sabihin ko sa mga pulis, ibalik ka doon sa bahay mo (If you leave your house, I'll tell the police to bring you back). You’ll be escorted back to your house because you are a walking spreader," said Duterte.

The new warning harks back to remarks he made in June threatening to order the arrest of people who refuse a COVID-19 vaccine.

The President said he expects barangay captains to know who in their villages are vaccinated and unvaccinated. The local chiefs should warn the unvaccinated that they pose a danger to others, said Duterte.

Can Duterte order law enforcers to keep unvaccinated people in their houses?

The government has so far not faced any legal challenge over its year-old stay-at-home order covering kids, elderly, and persons with comorbidities. Their reasoning is that these are vulnerable groups that must stay home for their own protection.

Government health experts say unvaccinated persons are much more vulnerable to Delta variant infection than vaccinated persons.

Restricting movements fall under the constitutional right to travel, which the government through the Interagency Task Force (IATF) has done through imposition of lockdowns.

"Restricting movements may be acceptable only if it is pursuant to a reasonable and proportionate regulation in the interest of public health," said National Union of Peoples' Lawyers (NUPL) president Edre Olalia. "But the restriction must not amount to actual prohibition especially under pain of punishment."

Olalia said restricting movement of the unvaccinated people is the government's "another jab at liberties," when the could just make sure that "there is adequate and continuous supply of vaccines and that their rollouts are efficiently and equitably distributed."

Justified by 'law of necessity'
In the same meeting on Wednesday, the President also called on Congress to pass a law imposing penalties on persons refusing COVID-19 vaccines.

"We have to come up witha law punishing a guy, a person who has not been vaccinated and is going around," he said.

But a few sentences later, Duterte said he could not wait for such a law and would "assume full responsibility" should he face legal cases in the future for his order.

"Will I wait for a law when so many are going to die? That's the problem. There is no law, but the law of necessity is there," he said.

Low vaccination rate
Only 6.8 million Filipinos, or 6.2% of the population, are fully vaccinated, as of July 27. Only 10.4% of the population have received their first dose.

While daily numbers of doses administered through the local governments have been improving, this is limited to the supply of vaccines the national government is able to get from abroad. Vaccines are even scarcer in some areas outside of Metro Manila, as the government is prioritizing supply for places seeing the highest number of COVID-19 cases.

The government is also yet to open vaccinations to the general adult population, and is currently prioritizing jabs for health workers, elderly, persons with comorbidities, and economic frontliners.

However, Metro Manila mayors have asked to be allowed to vaccinate any willing adult, in a bid to stem any spread of the Delta variant.

On Wednesday, Duterte agreed on some level, saying a shot refused by someone in one of the priority groups should just be given to any willing adult. However, there is no formal directive to change the vaccine priority scheme as of writing.

Currently, persons below 18 years old and above 65 years old are told to stay home in places under general community quarantine with restrictions or higher, except for essential activities like getting food or seeking medical care.Persons 19 years old to 65 years old can go out for work and activities allowed in their areas based on quarantine classification. However, with the rise in number of vaccinated persons, the government has also allowed fully-vaccinated senior citizens to move around freely

https://www.rappler.com/nation/duterte-says-unvaccinated-people-covid-19-should-be-barred-going-out

[scott h]

7 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte wants police and barangay captains to restrict the movement of people who refuse coronavirus vaccines,

I dont know the word in British English or Ozzie English but us Yanks would call "HORSE Pucky!"  

Sound familiar? Kids under 16 stay indoors, yet we see kids in the streets every say throwing flip flops at tin cans. Face Masks and Shields worn at all times, yet we see Barangay officials wandering around with out shields and masks worn as chin warmers, if customers have shields they are used  as see through sun shields. On and On and ON!

 The only places something like this will be enforced is Malls and supermarkets where the owners have DEEP Pockets and they know the city and Barangays will target them for fines (or bribes). 

I was once told by a wise old soldier...."Son, never give an order you know will not be obeyed!"

[Gandang Smile]

12 hours ago, Jollygoodfellow said:

Better stock up on necessaries  

[...]

Duterte's presidency has definitely aged like milk. I would be shocked if anyone in his own political cabinet will ever take these kinds of tirades seriously, let alone enact them as bills, or "law of necessity".

 

@scott h if I could extend those wise soldier's words... "Never give an order if you know people behind won't respect, nor fear you".

Edited July 30, 2021 by Gandang Smile

[robert k]

11 hours ago, scott h said:

I dont know the word in British English or Ozzie English but us Yanks would call "HORSE Pucky!"  

Sound familiar? Kids under 16 stay indoors, yet we see kids in the streets every say throwing flip flops at tin cans. Face Masks and Shields worn at all times, yet we see Barangay officials wandering around with out shields and masks worn as chin warmers, if customers have shields they are used  as see through sun shields. On and On and ON!

 The only places something like this will be enforced is Malls and supermarkets where the owners have DEEP Pockets and they know the city and Barangays will target them for fines (or bribes). 

I was once told by a wise old soldier...."Son, never give an order you know will not be obeyed!"

Normally I would say someone making decrees like that must think he's prepared for the revolution. 

[GeoffH]

13 hours ago, scott h said:

I dont know the word in British English or Ozzie English but us Yanks would call "HORSE Pucky!"  

 

The closest common expression amongst Aussies would be "Bull Shit" (we tend to use swear words more in normal conversation than a lot of other countries I've visited).

[Gandang Smile]

A good article I found online.

 

The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda Relies On The Lie Of The "Social Contract"
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked when examining the vaccine passport issue, and what I find is that almost no one in the mainstream is tackling it directly. The question is this:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”, or any other medical procedure for that matter?

Furthermore, who gets to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to enforce? Who gets to be the all powerful and benevolent overseer of every human being’s health path. I ask this because I don’t think many people realize the future repercussions of allowing governments or corporations (the same thing these days) to dictate covid vaccinations. It doesn’t stop there; in fact, we have no idea where this stops once the Pandora’s box is opened.

For example, the primary argument of the covid cult and the establishment in favor of vaccine passports is the “social contract” fantasy. They claim that because we “live in a society”, everything we do affects everyone else in some way, and because we are all interconnected in our “collective” we are thus beholden to the collective. In other words, the collective has the “right” to micro-manage the life of the individual because if the individual is allowed to make his/her own decisions they might potentially cause harm to the whole group.

In case you are not familiar with this philosophy it is an extension of socialism and cultural Marxism, and it stands at the very core of vaccine passport propaganda. I have actually had public debates with pro-socialist people in the past who have tried to defend the merits of socialism and every single time the argument comes down to one singular disconnect – I say that if a group of people want to go off and start their own little socialist community they have every right to…as long as it is VOLUNTARY. Then if it fails and collapses it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect me or anyone else who did not want to participate.

The problem is that these Socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists simply do not grasp the notion of voluntarism. They believe that people need to be forced into doing the right thing or helping others, and they are the people that get to decide what the right thing is and who gets the help. They are the people that get to decide what freedoms are acceptable and what freedoms are inconvenient to their agenda. When they say “We live in a society…”, what they really mean is “You live in OUR society, and WE will determine what is best for you.”

When I argue that a socialist community should be voluntary, they inevitably argue that people will not commit to such a system voluntarily so they must be forced to do what is best for the “greater good”.

In terms of vaccine passports, the collectivist social contract is a key element. They claim that being unvaxxed is not a personal freedom because the unvaxxed are a risk to the lives of everyone else. The social contract is therefore violated because by making a personal life choice you are endangering the rights of others.

It’s interesting though how the covid cult is made up of people that do not apply the same logic to other health issues like abortion. I mean, there is zero substantiated evidence to support the claim that unvaccinated people are any more of a threat to the lives of others than vaccinated people are, and we will get into that in just a moment. But, when we talk about an abortion, we are talking about a personal medical decision that leads to the direct and observable death of another innocent human being with his/her own rights. Abortions end the lives of over 800,000 unborn people per year in the US, far more than covid supposedly does.

“My body my choice” apparently only applies to killing babies, but not to people who do not want to become guinea pigs for a mRNA cocktail with no long term testing to prove its safety.

Imagine though if we reversed the scenario and applied the broad social contract argument to something like children and population? A collectivist/leftist member of the global warming cult could also argue that abortion should be legally mandated, because having a child or “too many children” increases carbon emissions and this puts society “at risk” even further (again, with no proof to support the claim). By allowing the social contract narrative to go unchecked, we open the door to horrific new oppressive measures and a complete erasure of our autonomy.

I think it’s safe to say that the “social contract” ideology is highly selective and hypocritical. The covid cult does not care about saving lives, they only care about their ideological narrative and the power to make people submit to it. But let’s dig even further into the reasoning behind the social contract claim. Who is actually dying because of unvaccinated individuals, which according to state vax statistics make up around 50% of the US population?

The average Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid is a mere 0.26% according to dozens of studies and the government’s own numbers. Meaning, unvaxxed people are not even a remote threat to 99.7% of the population. Around 40% of all covid deaths are made up of people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions, which means that we do not know if they actually died of covid or due to the health problems they were already suffering from. The pool of people who might be affected by the unvaxxed grows smaller and smaller…

And what about the ridiculous contradiction that arises when we talk about the mandate narrative verses the passport narrative? If masks and vaccines actually work, then how is an unvaxxed or unmasked person a threat to a vaxxed person? If the vaccines and masks don’t work, then why use them at all, and why demand forced vaccinations through passport measures?

Mainstream propaganda asserts that the unvaxxed will somehow become petri dishes for new mutations that will harm vaccinated people. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence that suggests it is vaccinated people that will trigger mutations and variants. The media says that this is not cause for any concern, but if it’s not then neither should we be concerned about mutations that gestate in the unvaxxed population, if there are any.

The fact of the matter is that more and more scientific evidence is proving that the experimental vaccines are NOT effective and that the unvaxxed are actually safer from covid regardless of the variant or mutation.

The true infection numbers within the US are impossible to know because up to 59% of people that catch covid and spread it are asymptomatic according to the CDC. They never know that they have it so they are unlikely to test for it. That said, it is clear that many millions of Americans have dealt with the virus and now have a natural immunity to it (I happen to be one of them). Establishment elitists like Anthony Fauci refuse to acknowledge natural immunity as a factor, and they say that ONLY people who are vaccinated are qualified to receive a passport. Why?

Multiple studies are being released from countries with high vaccination rates like Israel that completely contradict Fauci’s narrative on natural immunity. Israel has a vax rate of around 63% according to government stats, but scientific evidence they have released shows that vaccinated people are 13-27 times more likely to contract covid and 8 times more likely to be hospitalized when compared with people who have natural immunity. It almost appears as if the mRNA vaccines make people MORE susceptible to the virus rather than less susceptible.

Recent data released from the state of Massachusetts supports this concern. In the month of July, MA reported at least 5100 covid infections, all people who were fully vaccinated. Over 80 of them died, which is a much higher death rate than among the unvaccinated. In my county of 20,000 people, which has a low vaccination rate and no mask mandates, there were only 17 total covid deaths in the first year year of the pandemic.

This begs the question: Why take the mRNA cocktail at all? What is there to gain? Well, there is nothing to gain in terms of health safety. Even if you happen to be part of the 0.26% of people at risk from covid, you are better off in the long run taking your chances with natural immunity than getting the jab.

The answer to the question is not about health, but about denial of access. Government’s and their corporate partners are trying to make it so you MUST take the vaccine in order to participate in normal social activities, or even to keep a job. Not only that, but the process goes on forever because every year there will be new variants and new booster shots. The only reason to take the vaccine is to keep at least a handful of your freedoms and to avoid poverty and starvation.

Here is where we must go back to the original query presented at the beginning of this article:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”?

The covid cult will say that private business rights President individual rights so companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees based on their vaccination status. But then again, what we are facing in most cases are NOT private businesses but conglomerates that are funded by government bailouts and that are colluding directing with governments to enforce the passport agenda. So I would have to say no, these businesses do not have a legal right to feed on public tax dollars and then claim they are private entities that have the freedom to invade the medical privacy of employees and customers.

And since when do collectivists actually care about private business rights, anyway? More hypocrisy…

If we are talking about small and medium business with no government stimulus then the issue gets more tricky. In many states and other countries the businesses are only enforcing passports because if they don’t they will be punished by the government. In this case the private business rights argument goes out the window. The covid cult respects business independence only when it suits them.

Frankly, it is small businesses that are being hurt the most by the covid mandates and the extra costs involved just in enforcing the passports in their own establishments is going to bury them. Any small business owner that voluntarily supports the passport rules must have a financial death wish.

In terms of government, the covid cult will claim that there are Supreme Court precedents for legal enforcement of vaccinations. Honestly, I don’t care, and neither do millions of other Americans. A bunch of high priests in black robes do not get to dictate my independent health decisions; I make those decisions and there’s nothing that they can do about it. This is where we have to come to terms with the morals and principles involved – The lives of others are in no way affected by my decision to refuse to comply with vaccine passports. And just because a group of people have irrational fears about the threat of covid does not mean people with more discernment about the facts should be required to make them “feel better” or feel safer.

The bottom line is this: Our freedoms are more important than your paranoid fears, and we will not comply. We do not subscribe to your false social contract, and you are in no position to dictate the terms of our “society”. Don’t like it? You are more than welcome to leave the country and start a vaccinated Utopia somewhere else. We’ll see how that works out for you in the long run.

[Snowy79]

19 hours ago, Gandang Smile said:

A good article I found online.

 

The Orwellian Vaccine Passport Agenda Relies On The Lie Of The "Social Contract"
Authored by Brandon Smith via Alt-Market.us,

There is a fundamental question that needs to be asked when examining the vaccine passport issue, and what I find is that almost no one in the mainstream is tackling it directly. The question is this:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”, or any other medical procedure for that matter?

Furthermore, who gets to decide what medical procedures are acceptable to enforce? Who gets to be the all powerful and benevolent overseer of every human being’s health path. I ask this because I don’t think many people realize the future repercussions of allowing governments or corporations (the same thing these days) to dictate covid vaccinations. It doesn’t stop there; in fact, we have no idea where this stops once the Pandora’s box is opened.

For example, the primary argument of the covid cult and the establishment in favor of vaccine passports is the “social contract” fantasy. They claim that because we “live in a society”, everything we do affects everyone else in some way, and because we are all interconnected in our “collective” we are thus beholden to the collective. In other words, the collective has the “right” to micro-manage the life of the individual because if the individual is allowed to make his/her own decisions they might potentially cause harm to the whole group.

In case you are not familiar with this philosophy it is an extension of socialism and cultural Marxism, and it stands at the very core of vaccine passport propaganda. I have actually had public debates with pro-socialist people in the past who have tried to defend the merits of socialism and every single time the argument comes down to one singular disconnect – I say that if a group of people want to go off and start their own little socialist community they have every right to…as long as it is VOLUNTARY. Then if it fails and collapses it doesn’t matter because it doesn’t affect me or anyone else who did not want to participate.

The problem is that these Socialists/communists/Marxists/collectivists simply do not grasp the notion of voluntarism. They believe that people need to be forced into doing the right thing or helping others, and they are the people that get to decide what the right thing is and who gets the help. They are the people that get to decide what freedoms are acceptable and what freedoms are inconvenient to their agenda. When they say “We live in a society…”, what they really mean is “You live in OUR society, and WE will determine what is best for you.”

When I argue that a socialist community should be voluntary, they inevitably argue that people will not commit to such a system voluntarily so they must be forced to do what is best for the “greater good”.

In terms of vaccine passports, the collectivist social contract is a key element. They claim that being unvaxxed is not a personal freedom because the unvaxxed are a risk to the lives of everyone else. The social contract is therefore violated because by making a personal life choice you are endangering the rights of others.

It’s interesting though how the covid cult is made up of people that do not apply the same logic to other health issues like abortion. I mean, there is zero substantiated evidence to support the claim that unvaccinated people are any more of a threat to the lives of others than vaccinated people are, and we will get into that in just a moment. But, when we talk about an abortion, we are talking about a personal medical decision that leads to the direct and observable death of another innocent human being with his/her own rights. Abortions end the lives of over 800,000 unborn people per year in the US, far more than covid supposedly does.

“My body my choice” apparently only applies to killing babies, but not to people who do not want to become guinea pigs for a mRNA cocktail with no long term testing to prove its safety.

Imagine though if we reversed the scenario and applied the broad social contract argument to something like children and population? A collectivist/leftist member of the global warming cult could also argue that abortion should be legally mandated, because having a child or “too many children” increases carbon emissions and this puts society “at risk” even further (again, with no proof to support the claim). By allowing the social contract narrative to go unchecked, we open the door to horrific new oppressive measures and a complete erasure of our autonomy.

I think it’s safe to say that the “social contract” ideology is highly selective and hypocritical. The covid cult does not care about saving lives, they only care about their ideological narrative and the power to make people submit to it. But let’s dig even further into the reasoning behind the social contract claim. Who is actually dying because of unvaccinated individuals, which according to state vax statistics make up around 50% of the US population?

The average Infection Fatality Rate (IFR) of covid is a mere 0.26% according to dozens of studies and the government’s own numbers. Meaning, unvaxxed people are not even a remote threat to 99.7% of the population. Around 40% of all covid deaths are made up of people in nursing homes with preexisting conditions, which means that we do not know if they actually died of covid or due to the health problems they were already suffering from. The pool of people who might be affected by the unvaxxed grows smaller and smaller…

And what about the ridiculous contradiction that arises when we talk about the mandate narrative verses the passport narrative? If masks and vaccines actually work, then how is an unvaxxed or unmasked person a threat to a vaxxed person? If the vaccines and masks don’t work, then why use them at all, and why demand forced vaccinations through passport measures?

Mainstream propaganda asserts that the unvaxxed will somehow become petri dishes for new mutations that will harm vaccinated people. There is no evidence to support this claim. In fact, there is more evidence that suggests it is vaccinated people that will trigger mutations and variants. The media says that this is not cause for any concern, but if it’s not then neither should we be concerned about mutations that gestate in the unvaxxed population, if there are any.

The fact of the matter is that more and more scientific evidence is proving that the experimental vaccines are NOT effective and that the unvaxxed are actually safer from covid regardless of the variant or mutation.

The true infection numbers within the US are impossible to know because up to 59% of people that catch covid and spread it are asymptomatic according to the CDC. They never know that they have it so they are unlikely to test for it. That said, it is clear that many millions of Americans have dealt with the virus and now have a natural immunity to it (I happen to be one of them). Establishment elitists like Anthony Fauci refuse to acknowledge natural immunity as a factor, and they say that ONLY people who are vaccinated are qualified to receive a passport. Why?

Multiple studies are being released from countries with high vaccination rates like Israel that completely contradict Fauci’s narrative on natural immunity. Israel has a vax rate of around 63% according to government stats, but scientific evidence they have released shows that vaccinated people are 13-27 times more likely to contract covid and 8 times more likely to be hospitalized when compared with people who have natural immunity. It almost appears as if the mRNA vaccines make people MORE susceptible to the virus rather than less susceptible.

Recent data released from the state of Massachusetts supports this concern. In the month of July, MA reported at least 5100 covid infections, all people who were fully vaccinated. Over 80 of them died, which is a much higher death rate than among the unvaccinated. In my county of 20,000 people, which has a low vaccination rate and no mask mandates, there were only 17 total covid deaths in the first year year of the pandemic.

This begs the question: Why take the mRNA cocktail at all? What is there to gain? Well, there is nothing to gain in terms of health safety. Even if you happen to be part of the 0.26% of people at risk from covid, you are better off in the long run taking your chances with natural immunity than getting the jab.

The answer to the question is not about health, but about denial of access. Government’s and their corporate partners are trying to make it so you MUST take the vaccine in order to participate in normal social activities, or even to keep a job. Not only that, but the process goes on forever because every year there will be new variants and new booster shots. The only reason to take the vaccine is to keep at least a handful of your freedoms and to avoid poverty and starvation.

Here is where we must go back to the original query presented at the beginning of this article:

Is it legally and morally acceptable to constrict the rights and economic access of people in order to force them to submit to an experimental “vaccine”?

The covid cult will say that private business rights President individual rights so companies should be allowed to discriminate against employees based on their vaccination status. But then again, what we are facing in most cases are NOT private businesses but conglomerates that are funded by government bailouts and that are colluding directing with governments to enforce the passport agenda. So I would have to say no, these businesses do not have a legal right to feed on public tax dollars and then claim they are private entities that have the freedom to invade the medical privacy of employees and customers.

And since when do collectivists actually care about private business rights, anyway? More hypocrisy…

If we are talking about small and medium business with no government stimulus then the issue gets more tricky. In many states and other countries the businesses are only enforcing passports because if they don’t they will be punished by the government. In this case the private business rights argument goes out the window. The covid cult respects business independence only when it suits them.

Frankly, it is small businesses that are being hurt the most by the covid mandates and the extra costs involved just in enforcing the passports in their own establishments is going to bury them. Any small business owner that voluntarily supports the passport rules must have a financial death wish.

In terms of government, the covid cult will claim that there are Supreme Court precedents for legal enforcement of vaccinations. Honestly, I don’t care, and neither do millions of other Americans. A bunch of high priests in black robes do not get to dictate my independent health decisions; I make those decisions and there’s nothing that they can do about it. This is where we have to come to terms with the morals and principles involved – The lives of others are in no way affected by my decision to refuse to comply with vaccine passports. And just because a group of people have irrational fears about the threat of covid does not mean people with more discernment about the facts should be required to make them “feel better” or feel safer.

The bottom line is this: Our freedoms are more important than your paranoid fears, and we will not comply. We do not subscribe to your false social contract, and you are in no position to dictate the terms of our “society”. Don’t like it? You are more than welcome to leave the country and start a vaccinated Utopia somewhere else. We’ll see how that works out for you in the long run.

I would double check the source of the data on Massachusetts as it's incorrect and they also miss out critical data.  Just little things like selecting data to make it look like vaccination doesn't work but failing to highlight the State opened up to some major sporting events and festivals with large crowds of vaccinated people. As the vaccine isn't 100% efficient you will obviously get some breakthrough infections. The actual data even highlights that the majority of breakthroughs were due to the Delta variant which again the vaccines are not as efficient against but still multiple times more efficient than not being vaccinate. The other minor point is no one died that was vaccinated. Only 5 fully vaccinated were hospitalised. 

During July 2021, 469 cases of COVID-19 associated with multiple summer events and large public gatherings in a town in Barnstable County, Massachusetts, were identified among Massachusetts residents; vaccination coverage among eligible Massachusetts residents was 69%. Approximately three quarters (346; 74%) of cases occurred in fully vaccinated persons (those who had completed a 2-dose course of mRNA vaccine [Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna] or had received a single dose of Janssen [Johnson & Johnson] vaccine ≥14 days before exposure). Genomic sequencing of specimens from 133 patients identified the B.1.617.2 (Delta) variant of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, in 119 (89%) and the Delta AY.3 sublineage in one (1%). Overall, 274 (79%) vaccinated patients with breakthrough infection were symptomatic. Among five COVID-19 patients who were hospitalized, four were fully vaccinated; no deaths were reported.  https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7031e2.htm