That would be a violation of the NAP...

Ultimately, these mandates are a good thing because they minimize anti-vaxers from violating the NAP. If you transmit a disease where mitigation measures exist (no different than not wearing a condom when you have HIV), not only are you negligent, you're violating the NAP and infected people have grounds to bring you to court. I'm a practical man, and I believe forced isolation or forced relocation (all expenses paid for of course) is the optimal balance of everyone's liberty.

Do you intentionally use the wrong version of your/you're?

I remember when some posters here claimed that US will be the first country to resolve the issue because of its advanced healthcare & wealth. Today it's about to have more deaths / million than Belgium... Remember Belgium ? .......

This post was edited by Saucisson6000 on Oct 10 2021 01:28pm

If there’s one constant in the world it’ll be Americans blind nationalism

on this note i personally believe that regardless of a mandate all hospitals should allow some capacity for strictly not anti vax ppl. someone who gets in an accident or has a serious health issue that is either unable to be vaccinated or did get vaccinated should have a space if needed, no anti vax should ever take the hospital space of someone far more deserving

wrong on all counts

not an argument

You're wrong

Last option makes no sense cos even with a 100% global vaccination rate, virus will stay with us forever

vaccinations assist with dealing with that forever, but pandemics wont end until the world stops allowing antivax to exist