I am curious to see how this goes, because it will also be a clear indicator where our society and civilization is heading if there is no legal recourse against illegitimate authoritarian dictates that simply alter established practices to follow form over function.
There is of course also the issue that "mandates" come with legal liability for consequences that the manufacturers are seemingly not liable for. However, when you mandate or even pressure your employees, you are violating several laws, let alone fundamental human rights, and you are also not just taking responsibility for the effects/impacts but you are unnecessarily snatching that liability when it is not at all necessary. It's actually kind of mind boggling how we are looking at a situation where people, companies, and organizations are demanding to increase their legal risks by purposefully taking on legal liabilities they would have inherent protection from just by doing nothing.
I know someone with a totally inexplicable, possibly neurological issue (but no one can tell her) that started with the injection. She chose to submit herself to the experimental treatment, so she is personally liable even if it kills her because the corporations have been given immunity, but that outcome would be quite different if her employer had mandated/coerced her into taking the injections.
I don't think people, organizations, and corporations are taking that into account adequately and are rather mind bogglingly rushing to snatch the bag of all the legal liability the manufacturers were exempt from, where if they just did nothing they would be no legal liability at all.
It's rather irrational and actually quite insane, and I just can't make sense of why it is happening, let that there is apparently no one saying this. The only thing I can guess is that it's the effects of moral hazard after decades of nearly zero consequences, let alone of any substance, for the administrative and ruling class. Why would you not jump in head long if you have not only never suffered any consequences, but it has made you insanely wealthy too. Of course you would sycophantically rush to be the most obsequious to the system.
I work for a company that I consider pro-vax, but they are not requiring vaccination. My guess it is for liability reasons, and they will probably defer to local regulations.
I'm vaccinated and everyone I know is, but I cringe a bit at the tolerance of what seems authoritarian to me. If I were to wager, things get better once antiviral treatments improve and when data analysis gets better, not when "full compliance" happens. To me it's clear that there is a seasonal nature, but it varies based on latitude/climate/time of year. For whatever reason it seems taboo to mention this. Anyone wanting to prove a point about masks/vaccines working or not working often compares one region/climate to another.
There is of course also the issue that "mandates" come with legal liability for consequences that the manufacturers are seemingly not liable for. However, when you mandate or even pressure your employees, you are violating several laws, let alone fundamental human rights, and you are also not just taking responsibility for the effects/impacts but you are unnecessarily snatching that liability when it is not at all necessary. It's actually kind of mind boggling how we are looking at a situation where people, companies, and organizations are demanding to increase their legal risks by purposefully taking on legal liabilities they would have inherent protection from just by doing nothing.
I know someone with a totally inexplicable, possibly neurological issue (but no one can tell her) that started with the injection. She chose to submit herself to the experimental treatment, so she is personally liable even if it kills her because the corporations have been given immunity, but that outcome would be quite different if her employer had mandated/coerced her into taking the injections.
I don't think people, organizations, and corporations are taking that into account adequately and are rather mind bogglingly rushing to snatch the bag of all the legal liability the manufacturers were exempt from, where if they just did nothing they would be no legal liability at all.
It's rather irrational and actually quite insane, and I just can't make sense of why it is happening, let that there is apparently no one saying this. The only thing I can guess is that it's the effects of moral hazard after decades of nearly zero consequences, let alone of any substance, for the administrative and ruling class. Why would you not jump in head long if you have not only never suffered any consequences, but it has made you insanely wealthy too. Of course you would sycophantically rush to be the most obsequious to the system.
Nothing else makes any sober sense to me.
reply