Professors: Going to Public Places Should be a “Privilege” Reserved for the Vaccinated

Do you have a right to leave your home to eat or recreate? Apparently not if you are a “non-vac.” NYU Professor Arthur Caplan and Yale Professor Sarah Hull have published an essay in MedPageToday declaring that unvaccinated people should be barred from public places from airplanes to movie theaters to restaurants. What is most striking is how the two academics (who teach bioethics) declare that appearing public is a privilege, not a right. They are not alone in such views. CNN’s Don Lemon recently called for barring unvaccinated people from offices and businesses, insisting “It has nothing to do with liberty. You don’t have the freedom and the liberty to put other people in jeopardy.”  The essay comes as New York announces mandatory proof of vaccines will be required for public places.

Caplan and Hull call for a vaccine passport system much like the government program in France and insist “Liberty does not mean you have the freedom to do whatever you want wherever you want,. Nor does it make sense to conflate the concept of individual rights, which inform our liberties, with that of privileges, which are predicated on each of us upholding certain responsibilities.”

They added:

“It is hard to argue in good faith that American citizens have an inalienable “right” to dine at restaurants, attend shows in a theater, and travel for leisure. Indeed, if these were truly protected as rights, our government would be obligated to ensure basic access to them through entitlement programs or legal protection.”

Obviously, just because something is a right does not entitle people to entitlement programs. You have a right of free speech but there are not entitlement programs for speech. They are correct that there are legal protections for such rights.

However, the argument that appearing in public is not a right but a privilege ignores how a myriad of related rights involve public interaction.  Speech, religious, and associational rights are often curtailed or denied by such restrictions. The Supreme Court has also recognized a right to movement in cases like In Paul v. Virginia, 75 U.S. 168 (1869), where it supported the “right of free ingress into other States, and egress from them.” There are also rights of due process and equal protection that can be raised in some cases depending on the public forum.

Caplan and Hull declare:

“there is ample precedent for limiting individual liberty. What you choose to do cannot impinge upon the liberty of others. Driving is a privilege that must be maintained by ongoing licensure, registration, vehicle inspection, and adherence to the rules of the road for the sake of personal and public safety so that all may drive. If you reject these responsibilities, you risk losing the privilege of driving.”

There are many liberties that can be denounced as “impinging” on others. Indeed, that is the common argument used by growing limits on free speech, the subject of my testimony last year in Congress.

Moreover, the analogy to driving is a poor one. Driving requires proficiency in operating a vehicle. No one seriously argues that there is a “right” to fly a plane or drive a car without proven ability to do so. These activities could cause serious injury or death in others in the operation of such vehicles. It would be catastrophic for individual rights if freedoms of movement and association were treated like the privilege of driving. These are rights that adhere to the basic existence of humans in their interaction and engagement with others. That is why we have licenses to drive but not licenses to speak or associate or travel. It is the inverse of China which has an actual social scoring to determine your access to privileges like travel.

Yes, being unvaccinated creates risks for others, but many protected activities can be associated with social costs. Speech can be condemned for fueling hate or intimidating others.  Indeed, CNN’s media expert Brian Stelter supported reductions of free speech as “a harm reduction model.” Likewise, there is no limiting principle to this theory. Presumably, in high transmission areas, citizens could be equally limited from even venturing out into “public places” like parks or beaches while “vacs” are given full freedom of movement. Finally, this reframing of rights invited highly biased judgments like declaring mass Black Lives Matter protests as justified (as public health causes) while supporting bans on religious gatherings or protests for other causes.

Even non-fundamental rights are protected by the need for the government to show a rational basis for such limitations. While questioning vaccination mandates are now considered threats to public health and are routinely censored on social media, there are some challenging aspects of these mandates as irrational, including failing to exempt millions of people who have natural antibodies due to their recovery from Covid-19.

What is concerning is the degree to which the Biden Administration has openly declared a preference for private companies to enforce a type of vaccine mandate. Others have explained that the effort should be to coerce people into taking the vaccine by making their lives or employment impossible unless they yield. CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen called for coercive measures making it “hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” Many have listened. The NFL, for example, has been accused making life “a living hell” for NFL players who prefer to be tested but not vaccinated.

The essay by these professors shows how this approach can put all rights on a slippery slope of relative risk avoidance. They write that “the concept of requiring COVID-19 vaccination to access privileges involving social gathering similarly protects public health and prevents reckless individuals from harming others.” There are a host of ways that people engage in reckless conduct that could endanger others. Indeed, there are a host of other viruses and illness that can be spread in social settings. The essay would leave it to the government and private companies to condition social engagements and public movement on good choices. After all, “the dangers we collectively face are too great to indulge bad choices any longer.”

I agree that people should be vaccinated and my entire family was eager to participate in the program.  However, a crackdown of “bad choices” like “bad speech” can easily convert individual rights into privileges enjoyed at the discretion of the government. That is an even greater danger to citizens. Our Constitution is based on the premise that the government’s powers, not our rights, must be limited and express. The government does not “indulge” our choices on association or speech or travel. It exists in that space created by the indulgence of a free people.

142 thoughts on “Professors: Going to Public Places Should be a “Privilege” Reserved for the Vaccinated”

  1. How much you wanna bet the media and the powers-that-be will hide the *actual numbers* of Covid-positive cases that come after all the 500+ fully vaccinated VIP guests attend Barack Obama’s big birthday bash at his Marthas Vineyard summer estate this weekend?

    The media will never label it a “super-spreader” event among the fully vaccinated — even though it actually is. They will hide that info and lie like they always do.

    They will never talk about “climate crisis” and all the VIP private jets flying into that tiny island where Obama enjoys one of his many mansions – this one on 30 acres of ocean-front property. No, we won’t hear anything in the media except how wonderful it was and how well-deserved, etc. –because Democrats and Hollywood CAN do these things (big parties, private jets, celebs – in the midst of a pandemic and climate crisis).

    YOU cannot have a party, but THEY can. See how it works?

    It’s only an issue in the media when Republicans do it.

    Instead, the media will all focus their ire on Florida, Gov. Ron Desantis, the *un-vaccinated and climate-deniers.

    1. I could ask you if you could be more stupid, but you would only take that as a challenge. The party is in full compliance of CCD guidelines. All guests will need to be vaccinated and have tested negative for covid. Can the same be said when Trump held events at the height of the pandemic? A dozen people were infected including Trump himself for Amy C. Barrett.

      1. “All guests will need to be vaccinated and have tested negative for covid.”

        Yes and….you have heard that fully vaccinated people CAN still GET the virus and SPREAD the virus, right?

        Perhaps you saw that Sen. Lindsay Graham is now in isolation after testing positive for Covid after a small gathering on Sen. Manchin’s boat? He is “fully vaccinated” as were all the others at the party.

        We are seeing many of the current Covid “cases” being breakthrough cases among the fully vaxxed.

        In other words….Barack Obama hosting 500 guests and 200 servers at his ocean-front estate is almost certain to be a super-spreader “do as we say not as we do” event. Even amongst the elite fully-vaccinated holier-than-thou crowd.

        Not to mention the carbon offsets required for that ‘climate crisis private jet crowd.’

        The other point, aside from the gross hypocrisy, is that we will never hear THAT news broadcast all over the airwaves. The media WILL protect Obama and Democrats as they ALWAYS do.

        Same as it ever was.

        1. Anonymous,

          “ Yes and….you have heard that fully vaccinated people CAN still GET the virus and SPREAD the virus, right?”

          You’re not paying attention.

          Everyone in that party HAS to be tested and HAS TO BE NEGATIVE meaning no virus. If everyone is vaccinated and has tested negative there is no risk of anyone getting infected.

          Your example of using sen. Graham ignores the fact that he was present and in close contact with UNVACCINATED people who WERE INFECTED.

          There’s a stark difference between the two.

          How would 500 people who have tested negative and are vaccinated getting together for an event be a super spreader event? Think about it, hard.

          We are certainly seeing breakthrough cases, thanks to the unvaccinated spreading it and not exercising common sense precautions.

          1. “If everyone is vaccinated and has tested negative there is no risk of anyone getting infected.”

            With 200 servers, caterers, chefs, florists coming and going….plus security, Uber drivers, chauffers, valets coming and going….plus nearly 500 guests all staying in hotels, BnB’s, rentals coming and going?

            You really think ALL tested and all vaccinated = NO risk of ANYONE getting infected?

            NO risk? Sorry, but no. Not even LOW risk. A gathering that large with so many moving parts, at this time when Delta variant is surging? It is almost certain there would be “breakthrough infection” spread within that crowd.

            For Obama to even be HAVING his enormous party is “not exercising common sense”…..

          2. “Your example of using sen. Graham ignores the fact that he was present and in close contact with UNVACCINATED people who WERE INFECTED.”

            News reports suggest Graham was with other vaccinated Senators, on a boat deck, outside.

            Show us the news report that says he was “in close contact with UNVACCINATED people who WERE INFECTED.”

      2. FishWings justifies the Obama superspreader party: “The party is in full compliance of CCD guidelines.”

        Well there ya go. Party on!

        To use your own words….we could ask you if you could be more stupid, but you wouldn’t understand the point –per usual.

        1. Isn’t it fun to focus on Obama’s birthday party, rather than events like the Sturgis motorcycle rally, Iowa State Fair and other upcoming, potential “superspreader” venues.

    2. I haven’t been checking on today’s alt-right indoctrination message, but since this is about the third mention of the Obama gathering, now I don’t need to.

      1. Interesting that you had not heard about it. You DID hear about the P-town outbreak, right? You DID hear Pres Biden say they are considering implementing stronger measures again, right? But you did not hear about Obama’s 700 person “covid/CDC compliant” mega-superspreader partay? Imagine that.

  2. “ CNN medical analyst Dr. Leana Wen called for coercive measures making it “hard for people to remain unvaccinated.” Many have listened. The NFL, for example, has been accused making life “a living hell” for NFL players who prefer to be tested but not vaccinated.”

    It’s ironic that Turley seems to think this is unjustified coercion. Let’s not forget that many conservatives had no problem with this kind of tactic when it was applied to immigration. They too wanted to make it hard for immigrants to stay in the country so that they would eventually self deport.

    Apparently that strategy is only good when applied to someone other than their own.

    1. You do realize that illegal aliens are so designated, in Federal law, because they are in the country illegally — they entered our country without permission. They are neither U.S. citizens nor resident aliens (those people, citizens of other countries, here legally because they obtained permission).

      Ya’ll are funny. Hundreds of thousands of illegal aliens are crashing our southern border every month, many sick with C-19, then being transported to every corner of the nation by the Biden Admin, and yet — despite your C-19 hysteria — that’s OK.

      Yes, I want them deported. But I also want to remove the primary reason they come — by withdrawing all U.S. military, intelligence and police personnel from their countries and ending all U.S. financial support and training of those countries’ military, intelligence and police forces.

      Now you might not think much of this suggestion, but I bet Wall Street would have a sh*t fit over it…

      “All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy. They have internationalist aims, and at the same time they struggle to keep up a standard of life with which those aims are incompatible. We all live by robbing Asiatic coolies, and those of us who are ‘enlightened’ all maintain that those coolies ought to be set free; but our standard of living, and hence our ‘enlightenment,’ demands that the robbery shall continue.” — George Orwell

      1. Spanky,

        You’re missing the point. It’s the strategy used to enforce. Be it illegal immigrants or unvaccinated individuals. The point is making their current status as untenable as possible in order to change the status quo.

        Making it as inconvenient as possible to be unvaccinated is the same strategy as making it as inconvenient as possible to be here illegally. The complaining is centered on the “unfairness” of making life as inconvenient as possible for the unvaccinated in order for then to realize the consequences of their choice.

        1. No, I didn’t miss your point…

          Illegal aliens, by definition, are breaking the law by entering and remaining in the U.S., a criminal offense.

          U.S. citizens who do not wish to be vaccinated, for whatever reason, have committed no crime and are not criminals, again by definition. What you propose is that citizens be illegally and unConstitutionally discriminated against simply on the basis of their vaccination status. That they be coerced into being vaccinated with an experimental vaccine with known short-term side effects and unknown future consequences. Moreover, the vaccine manufacturers have been indemnified by the U.S. government such that any side-effect which does occur, now or in the future, cannot be redressed in the courts.

          Your comparison is a false equivalency — illegal aliens are not protected by the Constitution, citizens are.

        2. “The point is making their current status as untenable as possible in order to change the status quo.”

          Sounds like a line from one of the Godfather movies.

  3. The world prayed for a miracle when covid first broke out. Then came the vaccines. Some would say the vaccines are the scientific miracles the world was needing. Just ignore the politicians, get the jab, accept it as our collective answered prayer.

    Or not.

  4. Have we seen a pile-up of dead bodies due to covid among the growing homeless populations that live on the streets in California, NYC and other cities? I must have missed that data.

  5. Yeah, this is going to end well in a country with 160 million people, many un-vaxxed, owning more than 300 million guns.

    1. “Yes, being unvaccinated creates risks for others”. I keep asking – where is the data supporting this??? Everyone keeps saying this as if established fact. If the vaccines work, they work. Does a vaccine require 100% usage to be effective? This will be the first one then.

      1. Rebecca,

        “ Yes, being unvaccinated creates risks for others”. I keep asking – where is the data supporting this??? Everyone keeps saying this as if established fact.”

        99% of all new covid infections come from the unvaccinated. The virus is directly affecting the UNVACCINATED who are walking among everyone else in an environment where there are little to no restrictions such as masking or social distancing. Since mask mandates have been largely removed unvaccinated people are mingling with others with a more virulent strain of COVID floating around. That’s just common sense.

        1. “with a more virulent strain of COVID floating around.”

          For the gazillionth time — it is NOT more virulent. It IS more contagious.

          1. Anonymous,

            “ For the gazillionth time — it is NOT more virulent. It IS more contagious.”

            Definition of Virulent; marked by a rapid, severe, and destructive course
            a virulent infection
            b : able to overcome bodily defensive mechanisms : markedly pathogenic.

            CDC states, “ The Delta variant is much more contagious, more likely to break through protections afforded by the vaccines and may cause more severe disease than all other known versions of the virus, according to an internal presentation circulated within the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.”

            It’s more virulent because it’s breaking thru vaccinated people and those with natural immunity. People are getting sicker faster meaning it’s more…virulent.

            It’s more contagious because it’s virulence has increased.

            1. Where do you get your misinformation? For the gazillionth time it is MORE transmissable and less virulent, meaning less DEADLY. Current stats show Delta has the same fatality rate as the FLU.

              1. Anonymous, no. It seems you’re not really getting of at all. Increased transmissibility is in congruence with increased virulence.

                The very definition of virulence IS more aggressive form of the virus and it’s ability to go around current protections.

                Pay attention, the delta variant is more transmissible because it has a higher viral load. It means it replicates at higher numbers. That makes it more virulent.

                Here’s a study from Harvard pointing it out.

                “It appears that, in comparison with the previously dominant virus, Delta produces higher viral loads earlier in infection, which may mean that it’s even more infectious during the period when people don’t yet realize they’re infected.”

                “ Delta’s greater virulence means that unvaccinated people who become infected will be sicker and the burden on the health care system will be greater. Evidence suggests, for example, that an unvaccinated person with Delta infection is roughly twice as likely to require hospital treatment than a person infected with the previously dominant variant.”

                https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/features/the-danger-of-the-delta-variant/

                I’ll emphasize the first sentence of the second paragraph, “DELTA’s GREATER VIRULENCE MEANS UNVACCINATED PEOPLE WHO BECOME INFECTED WILL BE SICKER AND THE BURDEN ON THE HEALTHCARE SYSTEM WILL BE GREATER. “

                Saying it’s less virulent is saying it’s less aggressive. It would mean it’s less transmissible because the lower viral load means it’s replicating at lower rates which in turn means it’s spreadability is lower. Obviously that’s not the case.

                1. Look into what “immune escape” means.

                  If re-infection WAS occuring in previously infected and recovered, but unvaccinated, don’t you think this would be talked about all over CNN day and night? It’s not. Why not? Because to date, there have been no documented cases of REINFECTION, with any variant, once someone has previously had and recovered from Covd19.

                  If you have come across data that suggests otherwise, please share it here.

                  1. Anonymous,

                    “ Kentucky officials are starting to see higher reinfection rates of COVID-19 as the unvaccinated populations continues “driving” a “significant surge” of Delta variant cases, Gov. Andy Beshear said Monday.

                    The Delta variant, Stack said, has a viral load 1,000 times more potent than other strains, calling it “a thoroughly weaponized pathogen.” It is two and a half times more transmissible, he said, and is more likely to cause reinfection.

                    “All those who think you have natural immunity, you don’t,” Stack said. “If you got infected and it was six months ago and you think you’re bulletproof, you’re not. This virus is reinfecting people at a much higher rate than the previous versions. Even if you’ve had COVID, you should get vaccinated.”

                    https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.courier-journal.com/amp/8090806002

                2. “Increased transmissibility is in congruence with increased virulence.”

                  You’re clueless. But it’s hopeless to keep pointing that out, because you revel in ignorance.

                  And you keep misreading that Harvard quote — which means that you are not innocently mistaken. You are willfully dishonest.

                  1. No Sam, what IS evident is that those arguing that the delta variant is less virulent don’t understand what the word “virulent” means.

                    Here’s a simple way to prove that.

                    If what you say it’s true. That the delta variant is less virulent, but more transmissible you should be able to post a link or an excerpt from a study pointing that out.

                    I provided proof of the opposite of what you claim, it was very easy to find. You should have no problem showing your evidence showing the delta variant is less virulent.

                    1. Nice try.

                      I’m not claiming that Delta is less virulent. I’ve already noted that based on the scientific sources I’ve read, the jury’s still out — but tilting toward *less* virulent.

                      It’s you (and the other panic-mongers) who keep claiming — in absence of evidence — that Delta is more virulent. So, where’s your proof?

                      You keep flaunting your ignorance by conflating “transmissible” and “virulent.”

                      Now the Chicken Littles are squawking about “viral load” (as if they actually understand what that means). And claiming, falsely, that higher viral load means more virulent.

                      This is the futility of playing whack-a-mole against those who traffic in arbitrary claims. Their whimsical allegation is shot down. They drop it (as if it never existed.) Then they concoct ten new ones.

            2. It is “breaking thru vaccinated people” = TRUE

              It is “breaking thru…those with natural immunity” = FALSE

              Meaning: the vaccines do NOT protect the vaccinated from GETTING the virus or SPREADING the virus.

              Meaning: natural immunity provides better protection against the virus and its variants than the vaccines.

              1. Anonymous,

                “ It is “breaking thru vaccinated people” = TRUE

                It is “breaking thru…those with natural immunity” = FALSE

                Meaning: the vaccines do NOT protect the vaccinated from GETTING the virus or SPREADING the virus.

                Meaning: natural immunity provides better protection against the virus and its variants than the vaccines.”

                No. Cases of breakthrough on vaccinated individuals is RARE. Keep in mind that only a few people, less than 1% of millions have had breakthrough infection. Remember, the vaccine is only 80% effective against the delta virus when it was 95% effective against the original strain.

                Those with natural immunity only have immunity for 6 months. They don’t have natural immunity from the new variant. You have to realize that the majority of people who have “natural immunity” got it at the very beginning of the pandemic with the original virus strain. That natural immunity weakens over time. Which is why it is still a good idea to take the vaccine.

                What has been proven is the vaccine lessens the severity of the virus and effectively keeping people from getting hospitalized.

                99% of those being hospitalized are unvaccinated. Every hospital is reporting this. The only ones getting seriously sick and spreading of the most are the unvaccinated. This is why they are calling on those who haven’t to get vaccinated.

                1. “Those with natural immunity only have immunity for 6 months. They don’t have natural immunity from the new variant.”

                  Show us the evidence for this statement.

                  Everything I have read suggests natural immunity is broad, robust and enduring protection EVEN against the variants.

                  1. Anonymous,

                    “ Everything I have read suggests natural immunity is broad, robust and enduring protection EVEN against the variants.”

                    What exactly have you been reading? Opinion pieces on right wing media are not credible sources, not even left wing media.

                    Find me a study saying natural symptoms immunity is broad and robust against all variants.

                    “ Those with natural immunity only have immunity for 6 months. They don’t have natural immunity from the new variant.”

                    Show us the evidence for this statement.”

                    “ One study, partially funded by the National Institutes of Health, concluded immunity may last as long as eight months after infection. Dr. Abinash Virk with the Mayo Clinic said recent studies show natural immunity may last for at least a year. But she said the COVID-19 vaccines boost immunity for people who already had COVID-19 and provide protection against variants of concern”

                    https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.10tv.com/amp/article/news/verify/coronavirus-verify/covid-immune-infection-vaccination/536-53e547a9-2f30-4fcf-acf7-89cae3bec08c

                    From that study,

                    “ Although ~70% of individuals possessed detectable CD8+ T cell memory at 1 month after infection, that proportion declined to ~50% by 6 to 8 months after infection. For CD4+ T cell memory, 93% of subjects had detectable SARS-CoV-2 memory at 1 month after infection, and the proportion of subjects positive for CD4+ T cells (92%) remained high at 6 to 8 months after infection.”

                    https://science.sciencemag.org/content/371/6529/eabf4063

                    Keep in mind this study was done in February. Long before delta variant became dominant.

        2. Rebecca said, “… 99% of all new covid infections come from the unvaccinated. ”

          There is no possible way they could know that as a fact, and it would even be weak as a statistical inference. The vaxxed are just as likely to catch Delta strain from others vaxxed and infected, so they would likely be the source of far more than 1% of the infections amng the vaxxed.

          You should stop unquestioningly parroting the narrative talking points without more fully thinking through their plausibility in the real world.

          1. Every state health department collects data on new COVID infections as well as data on whether the victims were or were not vaccinated. That is the basis for the claim that of the current uptick in COVID hospitalizations, 99% of them are due to unvaccinated, as are 100% of the deaths. So, you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about by claiming there’s “no possible way they could know that as a fact”. In truth, there’s no possible way for you to reliably refute these statistics. It’s not a “statistical inference”, either. It’s based on hard data–collected by state health authorities and reported to the CDC. The “vaxxed” can spread the Delta variant, and while there are breakthrough infections, they are mild. Just as Senator Lindsey Graham. These are not “talking points”–they are hard, scientific real-world facts. There’s nothing to “think through”

            1. “… 99% of them are due to unvaccinated, as are 100% of the deaths.” — Natacha

              According to the CDC’s own data, you are mistaken. Or just lying.

              1. Spanky,

                “ While information on breakthrough events is still limited and incomplete, this analysis of available state-level data indicates that COVID-19 breakthrough cases, and especially hospitalizations and deaths, among those who are fully vaccinated are rare occurrences in the United States. Moreover, this data indicate the vast majority of reported COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths in U.S. are among those who are unvaccinated or not fully vaccinated. These findings echo the abundance of data demonstrating the effectiveness of currently authorized COVID-19 vaccines. Moving forward, particularly as the more transmissible Delta variant is now the dominant strain of COVID-19 circulating in the U.S., more robust state-level data will help to monitor ongoing vaccine effectiveness and inform discussions about booster vaccinations.”

                https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

            2. “Every state health department collects data on new COVID infections as well as data on whether the victims were or were not vaccinated”

              Do they? Do they release data daily? Or do they withhold it long enough to manipulate?

              1. Anonymous, yes they do. Here’s data on every state on hospitalizations and deaths.

                https://www.kff.org/policy-watch/covid-19-vaccine-breakthrough-cases-data-from-the-states/

                “ Almost all (more than 9 in 10) COVID-19 cases, hospitalizations, and deaths have occurred among people who are unvaccinated or not yet fully vaccinated, in those states reporting breakthrough data (see Figure 2).
                The reported share of COVID-19 cases among those not fully vaccinated ranged from 94.1% in Arizona to 99.85% Connecticut.
                The share of hospitalizations among those with COVID-19 who are not fully vaccinated ranged from in 95.02% in Alaska to 99.93% in New Jersey. (Note: Hospitalization may or may not have been due to COVID-19.)
                The share of deaths among people with COVID-19 who are not fully vaccinated ranged from to 96.91% in Montana to 99.91% in New Jersey. (Note: Deaths may or may not have been due to COVID-19.)”

                “ The data reported from these states indicate that breakthrough cases, hospitalizations, and deaths are extremely rare events among those who are fully vaccinated against COVID-19 (see Figure 1). The rate of breakthrough cases reported among those fully vaccinated is well below 1% in all reporting states, ranging from 0.01% in Connecticut to 0.29% in Alaska.
                The hospitalization rate among fully vaccinated people with COVID-19 ranged from effectively zero (0.00%) in California, Delaware, D.C., Indiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont, and Virginia to 0.06% in Arkansas. (Note: Hospitalization may or may not have been due to COVID-19.)
                The rates of death among fully vaccinated people with COVID-19 were even lower, effectively zero (0.00%) in all but two reporting states, Arkansas and Michigan where they were 0.01%. (Note: Deaths may or may not have been due to COVID-19.)”

              2. The state where I live reports daily. Presidential candidate wannabe, Ron DeSantis, reports weekly, which helps conceal how fast the Delta variant is spreading in Florida. This is to help the tourism and cruise line industries.

                What is there to “manipulate” about the virus? People have a right to know.

    2. Cato,

      “ Yeah, this is going to end well in a country with 160 million people, many un-vaxxed, owning more than 300 million guns.”

      It would be very hard for the unvaccinated to use their guns when they are struggling to breathe or are hooked up to a ventilator. Just sayin.

  6. These profs are absolute racists. They are clearly educated enough to know that the lowest vax rates are for Blacks and Hispanics. It is those populations who they want to exclude … ergo the profs are racists.

    They are probably homophobic, xenophobic, sexists as well !!!

  7. We are indeed on the road to fascism with only a few classical liberals like Turley and Dershowitz in opposition. The collusion between the Executive branch and the large tech corporations to suppress freedoms is not unlike what transpired in the 1930s. Propagandists working for CNN and the rest of the MSM are nothing but amplifiers for the party in power. The accusations of authoritarianism against Trump are simply projection. Progressives are determined to insidiously degrade our constitutional rights until they are essentially eliminated. Only a rather somewhat spineless supreme court is the last gate left to stop these barbarians. I would not count on Roberts to take a strong stand.

    1. Please add Glen Greenwald to your list of the few remaining liberals arguing for the rights of us all.
      Ahh, remember a certain group with a 4 letter name that used to fight these fascist wannabe tyrants? It began with an A, ended with a U and had a CL in the middle.

      1. hullbobby:

        In my uninformed days, I supported the ACLU; then I realized that they did not support the entire Bill of Rights (eg no 2nd Amendment cases). Now they have become a Lefty organization.

  8. Are the vaccinated clean? Do you have a right to leave your home to eat or recreate?

    And when they come from the market, except they wash, they eat not. And many other things there be, which they have received to hold, as the washing of cups, and pots, brasen vessels, and of tables.

    Jeremiah 35:5
    Then I set pitchers full of wine and some cups before the men of the house of the Rechabites, and I said to them, “Drink some wine.”

    Matthew 23:25
    Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You clean the outside of the cup and dish, but inside they are full of greed and self-indulgence.

    Matthew 23:26
    Blind Pharisee! First clean the inside of the cup and dish, so that the outside may become clean as well.

  9. The “vaccine” is an experimental technology with Emergency Use Authorization. The long-term effects are not known, nor can they be known in the absence of a long term in which to test them. To claim that people who would rather risk catching the flu than injecting something into their bodies that can never be removed are making “bad choices” is simply breathtaking. Only time will tell who made the bad choices if, indeed, we are to be allowed to make any choices at all, something that is seeming more and more unlikely with every day that passes. You cannot address the legal aspects of a vaccine mandate without addressing the fact that this product is not even FDA approved, something you seem to be very careful to avoid mentioning.

    1. A medical treatment or medication is “experimental” when scientists discover a compound or come up with a vaccine that they don’t know whether it works or whether it is safe until it is put to real-world use. The COVID vaccines have passed both tests. The reason they are on emergency use authorization is because there’s no immediate evidence of harm and the risks of going unvaccinated are far worse than the side-effects of the vaccine. Allowing Americans to continue contracting COVID in the face of scientific evidence of safety and efficacy of a vaccine would have been unthinkable. COVID is not “the flu”–another alt-right lie. It is several times more deadly. The FDA DID approve the vaccines for emergency use, and full approval is anticipated shortly. You are just making excuses based on information obtained someplace other than mainstream medical science, the CDC, the WHO and all medical professional societies.

      1. Just a reminder.

        A genuinely deadly pandemic doesn’t require 24/7 advertising to remind you it exists. Real pandemics don’t need marketing campaigns and endless propaganda, but psychological operations DO.

  10. The media has cranked the panic porn up to 11.
    I poked around on the internet last night and found a site that had detail Iowa data for covid, Most I had seen.
    One fact, all the way to bottom of the page. ~6000 Deaths. ~470 deaths with no preexisting conditions. This is the total since the first death in March. 16 months, ~470 deaths vs the banner of ~6000 deaths

    We know exactly who is vulnerable. Those people are the ones that need ID’s We still are focusing on cases and not deaths.

    1. “We still are focusing on cases and not deaths.”

      Not only that, bit we are focused on cases using bad PCR testing with high CT counts. Anyone I know who has tested positive, I ask, “What was the CT count for the test they did?” and they never know and most don’t even know about the CT issue.

  11. Academics are wannabe dictators. Remember the Puritan preachers of New England and all of their pronouncements that turned out to be lies. Guess who founded Harvard.

  12. Professionals a lot smarter than the dolts in government (remember who goes into government – people who can’t hack it in the real world), believe that those who got the VAX are the spreaders. Just like the soldiers who got the Rockefeller meningitis VAX in 1917 and created the “Spanish Flu.”

  13. If you choose not to be vaccinated then you must accept the consequences of that. The vaccinated and those medically unable to be vaccinated do not and should not have to accept increases risk from a deadly virus for your choice.

    1. You are falling right into the trap. The same traps set in the 1930s Germany’s tyranny. Restricting movements of certainly classes of people. The vaxed may be indeed become incubators of variants far worse than the natural variants of viruses. This is starting to become evident and will be fully known in the coming months. Shall we apply the same standards to the vaxed and restrict their daily lives? It was your choice to be vaxed by an unrested sudstance, was it not? I’ve had the disease, I spent a week in the hospital with a severe case. I am now of the class that has zero chance of any transmission since natural immunity has proven 100 percent effective for eons of human existence. I am superior to you now under your logic. Shall I now lord over your future movements?

    2. No. Every individual must and does make their own risk assessment every single time they leave their home. It is your responsibility to take whatever measures you think are necessary to protect yourself. It is nobody else’s to protect themselves from you.

  14. Academics looking for attention.

    Academia is a competitive field; you can win fame through hard work (Turley), or by saying stupid things in a public forum (these clowns).

  15. What is amazing is if you are mostly peacefully protesting for social justice you cannot catch or spread the virus. Now if you are protesting for something nefarious or want to attend church, that’s another matter.

    Why does this occur? Is the virus is an intelligent form of life.

    I need my highly moral leftist bettors to explain this since I am a simple yayhoo (albeit one with advanced degrees.)

    antonio

      1. It allowed the invalided, the least like politician in America and China to finish what Clinton, Bushes and the guy who had zero accomplishments in his life started by stealing the 2020 election.

      1. We are long past that fake argument. It is well known that covid can lead to long term chronic health problems in a much higher rate.

Leave a Reply