Welcome to the new normal, in San Francisco at least.
"The upside of mandates, they definitely work," said Annette Regan, an expert in vaccine epidemiology at the University of California, Los Angeles. "The downside of the mandates is they can definitely polarize individuals."
Watch out, we've got a sharp one here! Would we expect compulsion to yield a different outcome? Glad the big brains are diffusing the complex analysis for us retards.
Compelling people to get a jab (by restricting their economic and geographic liberty) results in many of them getting a jab, whoopee.
Regardless of the phenomenon of compulsion, the "vaccine" is really genetic therapy marketed as a "vaccine" to gain public trust (per Stefan Oelrich, President of Bayer's Pharmaceuticals Division), to shield manufacturers from liability, and to provide the legal-precedent cover for states (not the federal government, by the way) wishing to use their police power to compel "vaccination" in the interest of public health.
The key difference between a "real" vaccine and genetic therapy using mRNA delivery in the context of government authority to compel inoculation is the issue of positive externality.
A "real" vaccine, which significantly curtails (or eliminates) transmission of disease, clearly has a public benefit. Given acceptable levels of risk for and minimal occurrences of adverse reactions, as demonstrated through the typical R&D cycle and trial periods, most people would probably agree that inoculation compelled by the state is not an overreach of government power. However, genetic therapy lacks the positive externality of significantly reducing transmission. The primary beneficiary of genetic therapy is the recipient, not society by way of reduced disease transmission. Public benefit, public decision. Private benefit, private decision.
Actually, the generally accepted value of a human life is $10,000,000 per the United States federal government.
Regan said that across the US, including north of LA in San Francisco, mandates have proven effective at pushing many who were unsure about the vaccine to get inoculated, and she expects that the mandates in LA, too, will help boost immunization rates.
No shit! "...pushing many who were unsure about the vaccine to get inoculated..."--I'm sure they're likely still unsure, but when it's the jab for your job most working Americans don't have the luxury of being ostracized from the labor market, which is precisely what President *'s slick legalistic machination intends to achieve by way of the OSHA COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing Emergency Temporary Standard (which as of November 12, 2021 has been stayed by the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals).
Still, significant parts of the population are turning to religion and philosophy to shield themselves and their children from the requirements they distrust.
"This is certainly a misuse of the religious exemptions," said Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California Hastings. "The religious exemption was not designed to give cover to people who are scared of vaccines. It was designed to protect people from real discrimination."
What Reiss fails to mention here is that the religious exemption was also designed to be used for "real" vaccines that have demonstrable upside for public health...not genetic therapy that primarily benefits the individual receiving treatment, has dubious upside for public health, and has not endured the rigors of conventional research, development, and trial periods.
Fear of vaccines has nothing to do with the use of religious exemptions in our current situation. Taking an unknown risk (getting the jab, which leverages a poorly understood delivery mechanism and has the possibility to alter one's DNA) in hopes of preventing a known risk (infection and serious illness and/or death) is not rational.
There's also that pesky issue of fetal cells obtained from aborted babies used in development and testing of the COVID-19 genetic therapy. Complicity in abortion is certainly not a trivial matter when it comes to an individual's sincerely held religious or philosophical belief.
In short, the authority to mandate (rather, the attempt to mandate under the guise of proper authority) is being misused, so "misuse of the religious exemptions" is a non-issue. When government misuses its power then individuals "misuse" of their protections is a perfectly acceptable response.
"Mandates like this are really about protecting these workers and their communities," because one unvaccinated customer bringing the disease to a bartender would be all it took to not only infect that worker, but also their immunocompromised grandmother, their pregnant spouse or their young child. "Workers are shouldering a heavy burden," she said.
Bullshit. We know for a fact that "vaccinated" people transmit the disease. One "vaccinated" customer can bring the disease to a bartender just as one "unvaccinated" customer can. But if the genetic therapy is effective at minimizing the chance of serious illness and/or death then it doesn't matter who is transmitting the disease. All that matters is an individual's choice to either take an unknown risk to mitigate a known risk or not. If anybody can transmit the disease, regardless of "vaccination" status, then forcing others to take an unknown risk is wrong as well as futile.
A short clip (~8 minutes) covering covid-19 vaccine injury disparities from The Last American Vagabond's latest cast, @TLAVagabond Banned From Twitter Again & As Science Exposes The COVID Jab THE SCIENCE Disagrees.