Bazemore Doesn't Want to Have COVID Vaccine

[zimpy27]

Opinions are always rooted in some sort of ignorance. Otherwise they'd be facts right?

I don't have an opinion that the sky is blue - its a fact - but I do have an opinion that vaccines are mostly safe except for some one-offs, not unlike any other medication. Since I, along with everyone on this planet, doesnt have a 100% grasp on it, there is some ignorance for everyone. For some, a lot more than others, though. And for many, its willful. Willful ignorance is terrible. Ignorance in general? That's literally everyone, on almost every topic.

LOL...too true....but the sky is not blue for those who are color blind.

Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?

Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?

Our hospital systems have been setup to cater with the flu though even a bad flu season can stretch it. Society is based on consistency, it takes years of planning to decades human resources that are in balance with expectation in the work force. We can't just train a whole bunch of doctors to help with COVID right now.

So in essence, we don't have the resources to properly maintain a standard of care for people getting sick if COVID cases spike again. That's why these vaccinations are far more important. I'd argue flu vaccines are more important now relative to flu vaccines in the past for the same reasons but the factor difference is at least a factor of 10 between flu and COVID.

[FNQ]

Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?

I mean in this country, I believe its always OK. If someone doesnt want to get the jab, that's fine. However, just like with everything else, there are consequences to that. But what I'm noticing more and more is people proudly announce they arent getting the jab, and then complain when others go after them for it.. thats really not how it works. If you put your idea out there, its now subject to scrutiny. And IMO, because I worked in the industry so long and have seen literally both sides of it, the pros immeasurably outweigh the cons of getting jabbed. There's an idea out there in the world that all those jabs arent needed.. well, take the flu shot. I didnt get one for the past 5 years, so its definitely not necessary, but would it be smarter? Probably. The jab helps prevent it. But what I dont do is announce that I'm not getting the jab and get ready for online fisticuffs when someone (probably correctly so) cites statistics that indicate its smarter to do so.

Lowering associated risks from a disease is a HUGE mountain in even healthy countries. In America? oh lord, forget about it.. we're a fat, lazy, and unmotivated people as a whole. I think going that route is akin to being in traffic, and taking the far longer route just so the car keeps moving, because the sitting in traffic is unbearable (imo)

Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?

Because there's a lot more to a disease than the mortality rate. COVID has shown to have potential long-term affects to the heart, to the lungs. Without vaccinations, mutations will increase and run wilder. We have minimal natural immunity to COVID as it stands, but we have almost a century (and probably a lot more) for influenza. And more importantly, we've controlled the vectoring of influenza, as its very treatable. COVID isn't as treatable, and controlling its spread early is SUPER important to neutralizing it to the point where it becomes another influenza - a disease that sucks, can kill the very vulnerable, but is more of an inconvenience than an actual concern. What we do now echoes for quite some time.

But I do very much hate the idea that a disease's impact can be boiled down to just a mortality rate... unfortunately, like advanced metrics here, those numbers are held up as the end-all-be-all of a discussion, when they really shouldn't be. If 2% die, but 10% experience long-term lung problems.. you've really had a potentially deadly effect on 12% of cases.

Bazemore, Wiggins.. other NBA players.. there's more to it than just that for them, as mentioned earlier on in this thread. I'm not black so I can't really weigh in with any meaningful commentary there. But from a statistical and logical standpoint, and for the betterment of humans moving forward, all those who can get the jab should get the jab. Lone exceptions are people who might not have the immune system strength to even fight off inert levels of COVID.

[Old_Blue]

Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?

Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?

This guy discusses the death rate related to small pox and "terrible side effects" of those who survived small pox and then goes on to discuss the death rate related to Covid-19 and fails to mention the similarly "terrible side effects" of those who survive Covid-19.

I'm to the point where I'm ready to say "F these people who want to play stupid." Seriously, go get it. Jump in a giant vat of Covid-19 for all I care. Scar your lungs and damage your kidneys and liver to your heart's delight (actually your heart's dismay). People like this are the reason the rest of us won't be able to have nice things for a good long while.

[Sleepy51]

Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?

I mean in this country, I believe its always OK. If someone doesnt want to get the jab, that's fine. However, just like with everything else, there are consequences to that. But what I'm noticing more and more is people proudly announce they arent getting the jab, and then complain when others go after them for it.. thats really not how it works. If you put your idea out there, its now subject to scrutiny. And IMO, because I worked in the industry so long and have seen literally both sides of it, the pros immeasurably outweigh the cons of getting jabbed. There's an idea out there in the world that all those jabs arent needed.. well, take the flu shot. I didnt get one for the past 5 years, so its definitely not necessary, but would it be smarter? Probably. The jab helps prevent it. But what I dont do is announce that I'm not getting the jab and get ready for online fisticuffs when someone (probably correctly so) cites statistics that indicate its smarter to do so.

Lowering associated risks from a disease is a HUGE mountain in even healthy countries. In America? oh lord, forget about it.. we're a fat, lazy, and unmotivated people as a whole. I think going that route is akin to being in traffic, and taking the far longer route just so the car keeps moving, because the sitting in traffic is unbearable (imo)

Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?

Because there's a lot more to a disease than the mortality rate. COVID has shown to have potential long-term affects to the heart, to the lungs. Without vaccinations, mutations will increase and run wilder. We have minimal natural immunity to COVID as it stands, but we have almost a century (and probably a lot more) for influenza. And more importantly, we've controlled the vectoring of influenza, as its very treatable. COVID isn't as treatable, and controlling its spread early is SUPER important to neutralizing it to the point where it becomes another influenza - a disease that sucks, can kill the very vulnerable, but is more of an inconvenience than an actual concern. What we do now echoes for quite some time.

But I do very much hate the idea that a disease's impact can be boiled down to just a mortality rate... unfortunately, like advanced metrics here, those numbers are held up as the end-all-be-all of a discussion, when they really shouldn't be. If 2% die, but 10% experience long-term lung problems.. you've really had a potentially deadly effect on 12% of cases.

Bazemore, Wiggins.. other NBA players.. there's more to it than just that for them, as mentioned earlier on in this thread. I'm not black so I can't really weigh in with any meaningful commentary there. But from a statistical and logical standpoint, and for the betterment of humans moving forward, all those who can get the jab should get the jab. Lone exceptions are people who might not have the immune system strength to even fight off inert levels of COVID.

This was a a really excellent post. For those who are trying to convince people in their lives who are reachable, considering echoing these statements from one of our posters with medical experience and knowledge.

[FNQ]

Let me ask you this, as I know you'll give a thoughtful response. At what point along the risk/benefit spectrum is it okay for someone to assert their own personal autonomy and say they're not interested in assuming the (unknown) risk of a vaccine vs. the known risk of the harm they seek to avoid? For diseases like small pox, the death rate was in some instances upwards of 30% of those infected and those that survived it came away with some terrible side effects. Having everyone be vaccinated to get rid of such a lethal disease makes total sense. But if you lower the risks associated with a disease, at what point does compelled vaccination (forced, browbeat or otherwise) no longer become justifiable in comparison to the risks when known? How about when unknown?

Evidence now suggests that the mortality rate of those who contracted COVID is 2% or less (we'll never know because of asymptomatic carriers), and far less in some demographics. The mortality rate for the common flu is about .1% in any given year (still a huge number when spread across large populaces), but the shaming, brow beating, etc. doesn't exist for those not taking vaccines against the common flu. So, where is the line, and why?

This guy discusses the death rate related to small pox and "terrible side effects" of those who survived small pox and then goes on to discuss the death rate related to Covid-19 and fails to mention the similarly "terrible side effects" of those who survive Covid-19.

I'm to the point where I'm ready to say "F these people who want to play stupid." Seriously, go get it. Jump in a giant vat of Covid-19 for all I care. Scar your lungs and damage your kidneys and liver to your heart's delight (actually your heart's dismay). People like this are the reason the rest of us won't be able to have nice things for a good long while.

I'll never have a problem with fielding these kind of questions because there is always some slanted view being presented to people as a whole and that happens because.. well its effective.

But like every statistic, behind every metric, is a ton of nuance that's needed to really give proper context to the values. The problem is 2-fold; there are people who will hear what they want to hear and then stop listening, and there will be people who do that AND try and force their viewpoint. In my experience, people who are pro-vax aren't any more reasonable than anti-vax, because even though they've landed on the correct argument, they cannot explain why. So if people are earnestly asking, in either direction, I'd rather have that than someone who's got the right answer but is goading the other side to dig their heels in deeper.

That said if a8 was saying the usual anti-vax nonsense, presenting it as fact, and then topping it off with the "do some research!" bs, then I'd be coming off the top rope myself. But asking questions to understand why, I'll never be mad at that.

But I can and have come off the top rope for people stepping outside their wheelhouses to tell me how medicine, specifically sports medicine, works. Sometimes to my own detriment (got in trouble for clearing up the Michael Porter Jr stuff), but sometimes because a reactionary fanbase is reactionary (Curry's ankle, Bogut's ankle, KD's achilles, and coming soon: Klay's ACL/Achilles)

[xdrta+]

@ #105
"people who are pro-vax aren't any more reasonable than anti-vax, because even though they've landed on the correct argument, they cannot explain why."

If you really believe that, you haven't been listening.

[FNQ]

@ #105
"people who are pro-vax aren't any more reasonable than anti-vax, because even though they've landed on the correct argument, they cannot explain why."

If you really believe that, you haven't been listening.

I do, I've been listening to this debate for quite some time, and yelling unconvincing arguments/shaming people while they can't properly explain why is absolutely unreasonable. Or egoamanical. You pick. Either way its entirely ineffective and done just for pats on the back or a feeling of superiority or whatever it is. But if trying to convince people that jabs are good is the reasonable take, then yes, they are equally if not more so unreasonable and just as big of an obstacle. Because for every time I've sat down with someone who questioned vaccination safety, I hear a ton of horror stories of how people who dont know **** ridiculed them, which of course has never convinced anyone, ever.


And if you believe otherwise, you don't understand how convincing people works.

[Old_Blue]

I don't know. This guy strikes me as kind of sketchy.

[a8bil]

Thank you, FNQ for a very good response. I anticipated your response would be thoughtful, and it was. I equally expected a response like Old_Blue's -- clearly hasn't read any of my posts disclosing that I have been vaccinated, and didn't care to think about or answer my question. Typical, but sad. Maybe he'll reconsider his approach if he understands that I graduated from Cal and studied at the School of Public Health? Nah, I doubt it. Discourse is a threat to people like old_blue, not an opportunity. Sad.

[Old_Blue]

Employers are starting to weigh in...

https://www.wsj.com/articles/want-that-job-offer-a-covid-19-vaccine-is-now-required-11619438580

[WarriorGM]

I don't know. This guy strikes me as kind of sketchy.

This is a terrible argument. Fauci dropped the ball big time. I have no idea why he is being lionized when he should instead be castigated. He was behind at every single juncture. He should be celebrated as much as Cuomo for his pandemic response—meaning not at all.

The moment Wuhan was put on lockdown by the Chinese authorities, everyone should have been in red alert emergency mode. Instead we heard assurances from this guy that everything was fine. Navarro who is criticized for being an arrogant ass from what I can gather really was FAR smarter than this idiot.

[Old_Blue]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

[WarriorGM]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I will say this they've been used as scapegoats and strawmen for the failures of the medical establishment for years. Far more people have probably died prematurely from the horrible dietary advice that came out in the 70s and 80s suggesting people switch to carbohydrates and avoid fats. None of those pushing that myth have apologized and none have been lynched. Probably for the best. At a certain point the zealousness of anti-vaxxers and their critics start looking the same.

[FNQ]

I'm not an anti-vaxxer but I will say this they've been used as scapegoats and strawmen for the failures of the medical establishment for years.

what in the word salad

[FNQ]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

For a crazy amount of reasons, this will never ever happen.

Those laws are for people knowingly spreading around a disease. The proof would need to be that the defendant had COVID, knew they had COVID, and intentionally tried to infect people with it. You cannot forcibly administer medications or treatment to coherent adults. Doing so would violate the law. And thats just the legal aspect. Forced vaccinations would obviously go over like a lead balloon and undermine the ultimate cause.

[xdrta+]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

For a crazy amount of reasons, this will never ever happen.

Those laws are for people knowingly spreading around a disease. The proof would need to be that the defendant had COVID, knew they had COVID, and intentionally tried to infect people with it. You cannot forcibly administer medications or treatment to coherent adults. Doing so would violate the law. And thats just the legal aspect. Forced vaccinations would obviously go over like a lead balloon and undermine the ultimate cause.

When smallpox was ravaging New England, early in the 20th century, Massachusetts reacted by requiring all adults receive smallpox inoculations with those who refused subject to fines. The Supreme Court upheld the levying of fines, saying, "... a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

Twenty years later, when the subject of mandatory vaccines for children in order to attend public schools came before it, a unanimous Supreme Court held that it was, “...settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”

So, while "forced" vaccination will certainly never happen, there can definitely be penalties enacted. Cities could legally require vaccine passports to attend large gatherings (like basketball games), for instance, and states could require such passports to travel into their state. Many activities could be so regulated.

[FNQ]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

For a crazy amount of reasons, this will never ever happen.

Those laws are for people knowingly spreading around a disease. The proof would need to be that the defendant had COVID, knew they had COVID, and intentionally tried to infect people with it. You cannot forcibly administer medications or treatment to coherent adults. Doing so would violate the law. And thats just the legal aspect. Forced vaccinations would obviously go over like a lead balloon and undermine the ultimate cause.

When smallpox was ravaging New England, early in the 20th century, Massachusetts reacted by requiring all adults receive smallpox inoculations with those who refused subject to fines. The Supreme Court upheld the levying of fines, saying, "... a community has the right to protect itself against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its members.”

Twenty years later, when the subject of mandatory vaccines for children in order to attend public schools came before it, a unanimous Supreme Court held that it was, “...settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination.”

So, while "forced" vaccination will certainly never happen, there can definitely be penalties enacted. Cities could legally require vaccine passports to attend large gatherings (like basketball games), for instance, and states could require such passports to travel into their state. Many activities could be so regulated.

Regulation is different than legal punitive measures. And this leaves out a ton of context, including that smallpox was far more deadly, contagious, and at a far different point in the pandemic. I'll say it again - there is no way this will ever happen, and ever should happen. The way that compulsory jabs were done was an entire violation of American rights and was done because they had deemed the situation an active emergency. They had virus squads (police) and allowed the police to act with less supervision than previously allowed. They forcibly took children. That same law allowed eugenics to be legal.

The Jacobson ruling also was shot down for far lesser issues during a more crucial point of the lockdown. Additionally since the vaccines in this case have not gone through anywhere near the same testing, so it would not be a reasonable action to have legal actions taken against those who don't get them.

None of this is at all related to the HIV/AIDS statutes which were cited, as those statutes are specifically about the willful spread of a disease.

There is no chance of this happening in today's climate, and its the correct call.

[Old_Blue]

Anti-vaxxers think they've faced pressure to date. They haven't faced anything yet. Even businesses pressuring employees to get vaccinated is going to pale in comparison to what will come next. The real stragglers will get to face existing statutes that impose criminal and civil liability for exposing others to communicable diseases. These statutes have previously been applied to persons who spread HIV/AIDS. That being said, I don't expect to see these cases until most people have been vaccinated. At that point though, I'd expect to see a number of morons who infect someone in their workplace or elsewhere. Presumably, it'll either be a breakthrough event involving the plaintiff or the plaintiff will be an individual who had a legitimate medical reason for themselves not being vaccinated. The defendants in these cases will garner as much sympathy as Derek Chauvin.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/policies/law/states/exposure.html

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=HSC&sectionNum=120290.

For a crazy amount of reasons, this will never ever happen.

It's actually already happening because the laws to address it are already on the books...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-it-a-crime-to-intentionally-get-someone-sick.html

https://www.southerncaliforniaemploymentlaw.com/covid-19-in-the-workplace/

In California, it is a crime to knowingly go to work with COVID-19. Under Health & Safety Code section 120290, any person afflicted with a contagious disease who willfully exposes himself or herself, and any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with a contagious disease in any public place is guilty of a misdemeanor except when such exposure is made in the process of moving an afflicted person in a manner least dangerous to the public.

https://www.laattorney.com/intentional-exposure-to-an-infectious-disease.html

It is a crime in California to intentionally spread an infectious disease. An infectious disease often refers to sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes, HIV, or AIDS. But the law can be applied to any infectious disease. The most relevant example of an infectious disease at the moment is the coronavirus (COVID-19), and the intentional spread of it can result in criminal charges. Intentionally coughing or spitting on another person while having, or claiming to have, the virus can result in potential jail time as well as fines. It may even be considered a terrorist threat, depending on the circumstances.

These were just a few Page 1 Google search hits. On the civil side, there are going to be plenty of attorneys willing to represent clients exposed to Covid by anti-vaxxers.

Watch on YouTube

[FNQ]

It's actually already happening because the laws to address it are already on the books...

https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/is-it-a-crime-to-intentionally-get-someone-sick.html

https://www.southerncaliforniaemploymentlaw.com/covid-19-in-the-workplace/

In California, it is a crime to knowingly go to work with COVID-19. Under Health & Safety Code section 120290, any person afflicted with a contagious disease who willfully exposes himself or herself, and any person who willfully exposes another person afflicted with a contagious disease in any public place is guilty of a misdemeanor except when such exposure is made in the process of moving an afflicted person in a manner least dangerous to the public.

https://www.laattorney.com/intentional-exposure-to-an-infectious-disease.html

It is a crime in California to intentionally spread an infectious disease. An infectious disease often refers to sexually transmitted diseases such as herpes, HIV, or AIDS. But the law can be applied to any infectious disease. The most relevant example of an infectious disease at the moment is the coronavirus (COVID-19), and the intentional spread of it can result in criminal charges. Intentionally coughing or spitting on another person while having, or claiming to have, the virus can result in potential jail time as well as fines. It may even be considered a terrorist threat, depending on the circumstances.

These were just a few Page 1 Google search hits. On the civil side, there are going to be plenty of attorneys willing to represent clients exposed to Covid by anti-vaxxers.

Watch on YouTube

So.. literally exactly what I said?

Those laws are for people knowingly spreading around a disease. The proof would need to be that the defendant had COVID, knew they had COVID, and intentionally tried to infect people with it. You cannot forcibly administer medications or treatment to coherent adults. Doing so would violate the law. And thats just the legal aspect. Forced vaccinations would obviously go over like a lead balloon and undermine the ultimate cause.

How many legal cases of this have occured?

Those ambulance chasers you're referencing will not get far at all. And if that were actually the case, there'd be a lot of those cases right now, which there aren't, because you'd have to literally prove that the defendant was the exact reason they got COVID.

This has nothing to do with compulsory vaccinations or punishments for people not getting jabbed. You are literally talking about people, who know they have COVID, going out neglectfully and trying to spread the disease. That was an illegal thing to do even before COVID, but was extremely hard to prove except in cases like HIV, where the intent is far more obvious.

[Old_Blue]

How many legal cases of this have occured?

Those ambulance chasers you're referencing will not get far at all. And if that were actually the case, there'd be a lot of those cases right now, which there aren't, because you'd have to literally prove that the defendant was the exact reason they got COVID.

This has nothing to do with compulsory vaccinations or punishments for people not getting jabbed. You are literally talking about people, who know they have COVID, going out neglectfully and trying to spread the disease. That was an illegal thing to do even before COVID, but was extremely hard to prove except in cases like HIV, where the intent is far more obvious.

You've reached your allotment of free legal advice for the day. Do as you will. If, in the future, summons in hand, you find yourself looking back on this day thinking "I wish I had listened" you wouldn't be the first to do so. I sincerely wish you luck.