11 Comments
User's avatar
⭠ Return to thread
Igor Chudov's avatar

How stupid!!!

Expand full comment
Dani Richards's avatar

It's nice to get some proof of how stupid this is. I live in one of these areas that still insists on "proof of vaccination" (i.e. papers, please) in order to attend live music and theater performances, and to be allowed to testify in person at the county council meetings. I have strongly suspected all along that I am less of a toxic threat than the quadruple-jabbed super spreaders, and the cruel irony of these policies has been maddening (still is -- but now I have proof).

Expand full comment
JMJ's avatar

Right. I enjoy going to community theater but there is one place in particular that at one time required proof of vax. Even though they no longer (currently) require it, I can't bring myself to patronize the establishment.

Expand full comment
Dani Richards's avatar

I am the same.... this whole thing has left a bad taste in my mouth. I hate feeling this way, but I no longer feel like I can associate with the crowd who shunned me.

Maybe one day they will understand. Maybe I will, too.

Expand full comment
Fast Eddy's avatar

They are protecting you from the vaxxed!

Expand full comment
Dani Richards's avatar

in fact, you are correct on that; the CDC's own website speaks of how the unvaccinated are unprotected, and therefore should be the ones to wear the mask. That is the logic my employer gave me last October/November when they changed the rules so that all jabbed employees could take off their masks, but I (the lone holdout) still had to wear mine.... because of the danger to ME. I said I'd sign a waiver. They didn't find that acceptable.

But yeah, as it turns out, I guess possibly those multiple-jabbed people ARE a danger to me, after all. Yet, isn't it interesting that all of them are getting repeatedly sick, while I am not? I hope it continues to be the case that I am not susceptible to whatever they are spreading.

The reality: everyone I know (all jabbed) who is attending weddings, group events, etc. is all coming down with something cold/flu-like, and they are all testing like mad, and many of them are testing positive.

Expand full comment
Sandra Barwick's avatar

It's time all this was challenged in the courts, especially the restrictions which have a clear political purpose of sidelining those who are of different politics.

Expand full comment
Dani Richards's avatar

surely this is already being challenged? But we have been told that "private companies can make their own (discriminatory) policies" based on vaccine status -- based on our private medical decisions and/or conditions. And this is allowed under HIPAA (even though our employer is not allowed to divulge our vaxx status to our coworkers), but discrimination by our employer based on genetic information is prohibited under Title 2 of GINA. I think this is the best protection we have, and it's not enough.

It doesn't make even a little bit of sense, anymore. The initial reasons given were that it was a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" and that jabbed people could not spread illness. The opposite was gradually shown to be true, even though we knew it in our guts all along. We were told that we spread it "asymptomatically" so we had to constantly test. There were a bunch of things we were told, which led to our office policies of social distancing and virtual meetings, not allowed to eat in the lunchroom, not allowed to use real coffee cups anymore (only disposable allowed) because -- germs? Scary "germs are everywhere!" signs were posted -- EVERYWHERE, alongside giant pump bottles of hand sanitizer. We could take off our masks while in our offices and cubicles, but the second we stepped outside, we had to slap that puppy back on our faces, because of the germs in the public areas,; cubicles and offices were "safe."

None of this made sense then, and it makes even less sense now.

The menticide of the vaccinated and the shunning and division/condemnation of unjabbed people and destruction of the social fabric has been the worst part.

Expand full comment
ME's avatar

Back in May, 2021, OSHA.gov: "“An employee who chooses not to receive the vaccine cannot suffer any repercussions from this choice.” This was under their FAQs. It was the FAQ regarding employers who "recommend" the vaccine. OSHA further stated under the FAQ regarding employers who mandated the vaccine that the employer would be responsible if the employee is injured by the vaccine. It would be considered a “work-related injury”. Then Biden Admin stepped in with not only the push for workplace mandates, but a complete change of OSHA rules/regs. I think the change occurred June, 2021. Night and day. FAQs changed to be all about being in danger of getting C19 from co-workers, and workplace rules of the employer reporting C19.

Expand full comment
Dani Richards's avatar

yes. things got progressively more hostile last summer, and hit the high point of hostility perhaps around December.... was that when Omicron hit? Just in time for Christmas....

Expand full comment
Robyn S's avatar

Yep. They did that with volunteer organisations in northern NSW (Australia) with all the floods earlier this year. My hubby offered to help out with doing outdoor fencing work, but they were demanding all 'volunteers' be injected - so needless to say he did NOT help out! There was a bit of a local backlash over their requirements, actually.

Expand full comment