Best Posts in Thread: Breakthrough Covid

I'm afraid your argument is shallow and ill conceived. Long covid is real. You cannot deny long covid risk by seizing on a word, and twisting the meaning. And yes she DOES get to assess the risk for someone your age living in the UK. Her assessment as a pro is infinitely better than yours would ever be, even though different pros vary. She is interested in kids in the UK, advocating for policies to protect them.
Your use of the term "force" is false. [Coercion - the practice of persuading someone to do something by using force or threats.] You agreed to business. Travel, gatherings, dining, - any spreading event, small or large - can be limited in a contagion. There is NO RIGHT to increase the risk of harm or death to others, therefore unvaxxed folks can be limited. You chose vaxx for whatever reason, but we live on a social compact in the US. The rights of the individual do not supersede the rights of others in a pandemic. That has always been true historically . Anyone who doesn't realize that certain rights can be limited by necessity in time of war, social upheaval, and pestilence needs to read up on that. Rights don't disappear, but they can be severely limited with a showing of necessity. Here's something to look at with a link:

IV.IMPLICATIONS OF EXPANDED EXECUTIVE POWERS ON PUBLIC HEALTH EMERGENCIES

V.CONCLUSION –THE PRINCIPLE OF NECESSITY AS A GLOSS ON EXECUTIVE POWERS It is obvious and unarguable that no governmental interest is more compelling than the security of the Nation.392The authority for the President to act immediately in response to an emergency arises out of the principle of necessity.393―[A] military commander should be able to use available resources to alleviate human suffering, without first requiring a bureaucratic permission slip.‖394As stated previously, necessity is a prerequisite for presidential action.395According to Thomas Jefferson, the laws of necessity or even those of self-preservation, which necessitate the immediate action to preserve the safety of our country when in danger, are of the highest obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property and all those who are enjoying them with us; thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means. . . . The officer who is called to act on this superior ground, does indeed risk himself on the justice of the controlling powers of the Constitution, and his station makes it his duty to incur that risk. . . . The line of discrimination between cases may be difficult; but the good officer bound to draw it at his own peril, and throw himself on the justice of his country and the rectitude of his motives.396Jefferson recognized the concept of necessity as a by-product of self-preservation.397Without necessity, there is a heightened potential for the abuse of presidential authority.398Chief Justice Stone in Kahanamoku directed that ―[the] executive has broad discretion in determining when the public emergency is such as to give rise to the necessity.‖399The determination that an emergency exists is a decision exclusively resting with the President.400…

…Despite its reservations, the Court has dismissed any possibility of ―executive tyranny‖404in the existence of a showing of necessity. ―Any ambiguities in the allocation of a power that is executive in nature . . . must be resolved in favor of the executive branch.‖405Any individual who acts on the principle of necessity in an emergency scenario is presumed to act in the interest of the populace rather than in furtherance of his own ambitions.40…

https://www.law.csuohio.edu/sites/d...s/jlh/friedman_final_version_of_article-2.pdf