How's that vaccine passport working out? (Boston: move to, restrictions, summer)
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Prove it. Or at least show us something resembling evidence of what you're claiming. If you're going to claim something this ridiculous, back it up. Otherwise it's the definition of a conspiracy theory. Burden of proof and all of that.
...
What I don't understand is why you believe the above to be true. Because the conversation drifts from one of the bulleted claims which you then follow up with memes, made up stories, and tinfoil hat definitions of "politics." There's not a whiff of evidence, and nothing that even resembles logic to back any of it up.
I'm sorry you don't like my memes (I thought you were under 40 like me, so I didn't expect you to have a stick up your ass about them). And sorry you have so much disdain for my hypotheticals that you feel the need to call them "made up stories."
You're kidding yourself if you think I need to prove that it's because of politics that a year after a Democratic presidential candidate campaigned and won on "shutting down the virus," a bunch of Democratic cities -- and no one else -- put in vaccine passports only to remove them several weeks later, all at the same time the reversal of the national Covid narrative is well into motion and Biden's polling is in the toilet.
We're only getting into it here because another poster said that the mayor's office will be ending the passports to save face. Since no one seriously thinks the passports drove better health outcomes (including you), I'm not sure why this statement would be controversial. But it offended you for some reason, and you wrote that it's "much more likely" the mayor's office was simply adapting to data. Because only a conspiracy theorist would think the mayor's office in Boston would make a calculating political decision, I guess.
Anyway, "saving face" is an apt description. What happens when the leader of a village insists the sun will only come up if everyone in the village, under penalty of job loss or other form of ostracization/punishment, performs a sun dance at 4:30 a.m. every morning, and the villagers catch wind of the fact that no other village in the area performs a sun dance, but the sun comes up anyway? The leader that mandated the sun dances gets busy saving face. That's what.
Or more likely, these efforts were never intended to be permanent and the sharp decline in those key metrics is a pretty obvious point at which to drop them. I know a handful of people are absolutely convinced that vaccine passports and mandates were a fascist, Nazi-like effort to take away freedoms and grab more power, but the general understanding among most of us was that these measures were only going to be in place until the surge receded and the strain on the hospitals was lessened.
I never really liked the vaccine mandates to enter businesses, but I'm willing to tolerate them as long as there is a clear goal. Basically, if we reach XX amount of cases, we'll lift the mandate. If that's what Wu is doing, she'll get my tepid support.
I'm sitting here in Malaysia, still with mask and vaccine mandates and the government hasn't published when they'll start lifting them. We have learned that they'll no longer be taking our temperatures in front of businesses starting on Friday and a government agency has recommended eliminating the mandatory quarantine for overseas travelers starting in March - hopefully they stick with that timeline.
I'm sorry you don't like my memes (I thought you were under 40 like me, so I didn't expect you to have a stick up your ass about them). And sorry you have so much disdain for my hypotheticals that you feel the need to call them "made up stories."
I love memes. I just understand that if I'm at a point where I'm using memes in an effort to support an argument as heavy as "covid restrictions are fascist," then I probably don't have a strong case. They're entertainment, not proof, or evidence of anything. And your "hypothetical" is a made up story... as in it never happened. You made it up. How can you possibly be bothered by someone calling your made up story what it is... made up?
Quote:
You're kidding yourself if you think I need to prove that it's because of politics that a year after a Democratic presidential candidate campaigned and won on "shutting down the virus," a bunch of Democratic cities -- and no one else -- put in vaccine passports only to remove them several weeks later, all at the same time the reversal of the national Covid narrative is well into motion and Biden's polling is in the toilet.
This is exactly what I mean when I say you're all over the place. I'm saying that if you're going to repeatedly say that "this is a coordinated international conspiracy," "fascism!," and that "Dems intended for these measures to be permanent," show some evidence. Literally anything of substance to support those claims.
Of course "politics" (and not your politics=evil tinfoil hat definition of politics) influence the implementation (or lack of implementation) of some covid policies, that does NOT mean that that your bolded claims above are true. If you believe them to be true and you want to have an intellectually honest conversation about it, show some evidence. Otherwise it's conspiracy B.S. which I'm sure you're fully aware of (or at least I hope you are).
Quote:
We're only getting into it here because another poster said that the mayor's office will be ending the passports to save face. Since no one seriously thinks the passports drove better health outcomes (including you), I'm not sure why this statement would be controversial. But it offended you for some reason, and you wrote that it's "much more likely" the mayor's office was simply adapting to data. Because only a conspiracy theorist would think the mayor's office in Boston would make a calculating political decision, I guess.
I'm not even slightly offended, just sort of flabbergasted by what I can only imagine is willful ignorance (or worse, just flat out stupidity). It's "controversial" because it's an assumption based on your political bias that intentionally (or hopefully intentionally, for your sake) ignores a multitude of available information that doesn't fit the narrative you're peddling. We know vaccines are effective at reducing hospitalization and death and we know that the decision on passports was made as Omicron cases were skyrocketing and hospitals were struggling with capacity issues. We also know that it's being rolled back as Omicron cases are on a rapid decline. Based on that information, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the primary driver behind those decisions was available data and an effort to prevent hospitals to being overwhelmed. The political lean of the area almost certainly enabled the implementation here, but that does not mean that the decision to require passports was solely politically motivated. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand?
If you actually believe that it's only politically motivated, then tell us to what end? What does the mayor stand to gain from vaccine mandates that put additional strain on businesses and the diverse populations that voted her into office. Let me guess... she just wanted to take away our freedoms and that's all there is to it.
Quote:
Anyway, "saving face" is an apt description. What happens when the leader of a village insists the sun will only come up if everyone in the village, under penalty of job loss or other form of ostracization/punishment, performs a sun dance at 4:30 a.m. every morning, and the villagers catch wind of the fact that no other village in the area performs a sun dance, but the sun comes up anyway? The leader that mandated the sun dances gets busy saving face. That's what.
Oh yay, more made up stories. Sorry, "hypotheticals." "Saving face" in the context it was used in this thread by you and the other poster implied that the passports were intended to be permanent, which they weren't. You actually didn't imply it, you came out and said as much (without any shred of evidence, of course). As we all know, that's flat out wrong. There was a surge in cases and strained hospitals, so the mayor implemented a policy with the intent to alleviate that strain. As the cases wane and the strain on hospitals is lessened, she laid out the criteria for eliminating those policies. That's simply a matter of using available information to inform decisions. Nothing to "save face" about.
Now, if you still think that this was intended to be permanent, or if this was all a sinister ploy to take away our freedoms, please let us know what information you have that informs that opinion.
I love memes. I just understand that if I'm at a point where I'm using memes in an effort to support an argument as heavy as "covid restrictions are fascist," then I probably don't have a strong case. They're entertainment, not proof, or evidence of anything. And your "hypothetical" is a made up story... as in it never happened. You made it up. How can you possibly be bothered by someone calling your made up story what it is... made up?
This is exactly what I mean when I say you're all over the place. I'm saying that if you're going to repeatedly say that "this is a coordinated international conspiracy," "fascism!," and that "Dems intended for these measures to be permanent," show some evidence. Literally anything of substance to support those claims.
Of course "politics" (and not your politics=evil tinfoil hat definition of politics) influence the implementation (or lack of implementation) of some covid policies, that does NOT mean that that your bolded claims above are true. If you believe them to be true and you want to have an intellectually honest conversation about it, show some evidence. Otherwise it's conspiracy B.S. which I'm sure you're fully aware of (or at least I hope you are).
I'm not even slightly offended, just sort of flabbergasted by what I can only imagine is willful ignorance (or worse, just flat out stupidity). It's "controversial" because it's an assumption based on your political bias that intentionally (or hopefully intentionally, for your sake) ignores a multitude of available information that doesn't fit the narrative you're peddling. We know vaccines are effective at reducing hospitalization and death and we know that the decision on passports was made as Omicron cases were skyrocketing and hospitals were struggling with capacity issues. We also know that it's being rolled back as Omicron cases are on a rapid decline. Based on that information, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the primary driver behind those decisions was available data and an effort to prevent hospitals to being overwhelmed. The political lean of the area almost certainly enabled the implementation here, but that does not mean that the decision to require passports was solely politically motivated. I'm not sure why that's so hard for you to understand?
If you actually believe that it's only politically motivated, then tell us to what end? What does the mayor stand to gain from vaccine mandates that put additional strain on businesses and the diverse populations that voted her into office. Let me guess... she just wanted to take away our freedoms and that's all there is to it.
Oh yay, more made up stories. Sorry, "hypotheticals." "Saving face" in the context it was used in this thread by you and the other poster implied that the passports were intended to be permanent, which they weren't. You actually didn't imply it, you came out and said as much (without any shred of evidence, of course). As we all know, that's flat out wrong. There was a surge in cases and strained hospitals, so the mayor implemented a policy with the intent to alleviate that strain. As the cases wane and the strain on hospitals is lessened, she laid out the criteria for eliminating those policies. That's simply a matter of using available information to inform decisions. Nothing to "save face" about.
Now, if you still think that this was intended to be permanent, or if this was all a sinister ploy to take away our freedoms, please let us know what information you have that informs that opinion.
Are you asking why politicians do politically motivated things? To get reelected or pay back favors (or both at the same time). Pretty basic.
So Wu was pandering to her base and/or repaying a favor (to whom, I don't know -- that would be for journalists in Boston to find out) and so she went through the motions with the vaccine passports for a few weeks. If she actually thought vaccine passports would drive better health outcomes (you didn't even think that), then I'm sorry, the chief executive of your city is an imbecile.
Again, everyone else saw Omicron for what it was -- a less virulent variant that could serve as an offramp from Covid insanity -- but not Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco, et al. -- you guys instead signed up for the six-week free trial of totally-not-fascism-why-would-you-call-it-that and put up with City Hall forcing private businesses to make customers show medical papers to gain entry.
Are you asking why politicians do politically motivated things? To get reelected or pay back favors (or both at the same time). Pretty basic.
So Wu was pandering to her base and/or repaying a favor (to whom, I don't know -- that would be for journalists in Boston to find out) and so she went through the motions with the vaccine passports for a few weeks. If she actually thought vaccine passports would drive better health outcomes (you didn't even think that), then I'm sorry, the chief executive of your city is an imbecile.
Again, everyone else saw Omicron for what it was -- a less virulent variant that could serve as an offramp from Covid insanity -- but not Boston, Minneapolis, San Francisco, et al. -- you guys instead signed up for the six-week free trial of totally-not-fascism-why-would-you-call-it-that and put up with City Hall forcing private businesses to make customers show medical papers to gain entry.
So it really is just conspiracy garbage with you... no evidence, just the vague notion of tin foil "politics" and wrongdoing ("repaying a favor.... but I don't now to whom" - lol). Thanks for clarifying.
Out of morbid curiosity, I'd still love to hear your explanation for what reason you have to believe that COVID measures are a coordinated global conspiracy to take away our freedoms. You dropped that little gem on us a while back and like the trailer for a really bad reality show, I want to know more even though I shouldn't.
Pandering to the base and/or repaying a favor. Could have been either, or both -- I don't know. But it was at least one. It wasn't some pure-as-the-driven-snow decision based on science and data. I mean, I guess you think it was, but it wasn't.
Where are the metrics for reinstituting the passports? Where is the concern about exposing the community to risk by removing them? Nowhere (except among a handful of neurotics). Because the vaccine passports don't work, and they're no longer politically tenable. Officials are rushing to hide them in a closet, like a Kyrie Celtics jersey.
I'm glad you enjoy my "little gems." My favorite one I dropped was when I predicted on this thread that the vaccine passports would be lifted on or around March 1st, when Biden is scheduled to make his State of the Union address. Looks to be on target so far.
Last edited by tribecavsbrowns; 02-10-2022 at 08:00 AM..
know that the decision on passports was made as Omicron cases were skyrocketing and hospitals were struggling with capacity issues. We also know that it's being rolled back as Omicron cases are on a rapid decline. Based on that information, it's perfectly reasonable to believe that the primary driver behind those decisions was available data and an effort to prevent hospitals to being overwhelmed. The political lean of the area almost certainly enabled the implementation here...
If you actually believe that it's only politically motivated, then tell us to what end? What does the mayor stand to gain from vaccine mandates that put additional strain on businesses and the diverse populations that voted her into office.
The passports were discussed/adopted long before Omicron was even a thing. In fact many communities failed to follow Boston later since the vaccines proved to not be effective at stopping omicron transmission and spread, the primary public health goal. (specifically cited by Amherst and Northampton Boards of Health as a reason to reject, Somerville too I think.)
As to motivation, it has become clear that there is something about progressives/democrats/the left that everything has to be either prohibited or mandated by government. They can't help it, it's in their DNA like some kind of instinct. That and keeping up with other Dem cities (NYC). Not sure why. It's just how they see the world.
Was there any discussion that the passports would be Temporary at the time they were imposed? Were any benchmarks or parameters given then? No. It is all coming now as a way to get out from under this failed idea and "save face."
Pandering to the base and/or repaying a favor. Could have been either, or both -- I don't know. But it was at least one. It wasn't some pure-as-the-driven-snow decision based on science and data. I mean, I guess you think it was, but it wasn't.
Where are the metrics for reinstituting the passports? Where is the concern about exposing the community to risk by removing them? Nowhere (except among a handful of neurotics). Because they don't work, and they're no longer politically tenable. Officials are rushing to hide the vaccine passports in a closet, like a Kyrie Celtics jersey.
I'm glad you enjoy my "little gems." My favorite one I dropped was when I predicted on this thread that the vaccine passports would be lifted on or around March 1st, when Biden is scheduled to make his State of the Union address. Looks to be on target so far.
Again, no evidence of the bold means this is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory.
I predicted they'd be lifted by early March, possibly even Mid-Feb back in post 74. As I said before, it was obvious that this was not intended to be permanent and the prediction was pretty easy to make based on the trajectory of the curve. But I know, I know... PANDERING! FAVORS! GLOBAL CONSPIRACY! Fighting Bullies! All of that is much more likely, right?
Oh, and any time you want to explain how this is all a coordinated international conspiracy to take away our freedoms, I'd love to hear it. You've continued to duck that one.
Quote:
Originally Posted by wmass
The passports were discussed long before Omicron was even a thing. In fact many communities failed to follow Boston later since the vaccines proved to not be effective at stopping transmission and spread, the primary public health goal. (specifically cited by Amherst and Northampton Boards of Health as a reason to reject, Somerville too I think.)
As to motivation, it has become clear that there is something about progressives/democrats/the left that everything has to be either prohibited or mandated by government. They can't help it, it's in their DNA like some kind of instinct. That and keeping up with other Dem cities (NYC). Not sure why. It's just how they see the world.
Was there any discussion that the passports would be Temporary at the time they were imposed? Were any benchmarks or parameters given then? No. It is all coming now as a way to get out from under this failed idea and "save face."
Oh good. More conspiracies and generalizations about half the country.
I think the better question is when has anyone implementing COVID passports ever said that they'd be permanent? Of course not. The assumption from the start was always that the pandemic would eventually end (or at least become a manageable endemic). So any measure put in place during the pandemic phase is temporary by definition. Most claims to the contrary seem to be rooted in paranoia.
Again, no evidence of the bold means this is literally the definition of a conspiracy theory.
I predicted they'd be lifted by early March, possibly even Mid-Feb back in post 74. As I said before, it was obvious that this was not intended to be permanent and the prediction was pretty easy to make based on the trajectory of the curve. But I know, I know... PANDERING! FAVORS! Fighting Bullies! All of that is much more likely, right?
Oh, and any time you want to explain how this is all a coordinated international conspiracy to take away our freedoms, I'd love to hear it. You've continued to duck that one.
Oh good. More conspiracies and generalizations about half the country.
I think the better question is when has anyone implementing COVID passports ever said that they'd be permanent? Of course not. The assumption from the start was always that the pandemic would eventually end (or at least become a manageable endemic). So any measure put in place during the pandemic phase is temporary by definition. Most claims to the contrary seem to be rooted in paranoia.
That's a stupid question. No one would ever come out and say "we're making you show medical papers to get a slice of pizza for the rest of your life."
That, by itself, does not mean the measures were going to be rescinded without political pushback.
The passports were discussed/adopted long before Omicron was even a thing. In fact many communities failed to follow Boston later since the vaccines proved to not be effective at stopping omicron transmission and spread, the primary public health goal. (specifically cited by Amherst and Northampton Boards of Health as a reason to reject, Somerville too I think.)
As to motivation, it has become clear that there is something about progressives/democrats/the left that everything has to be either prohibited or mandated by government. They can't help it, it's in their DNA like some kind of instinct. That and keeping up with other Dem cities (NYC). Not sure why. It's just how they see the world.
Was there any discussion that the passports would be Temporary at the time they were imposed? Were any benchmarks or parameters given then? No. It is all coming now as a way to get out from under this failed idea and "save face."
No, but it's common sense that these are public health measures, and therefore temporary. I never assumed otherwise. As for metrics, are you expecting politicians or the CDC to be all-knowing soothsayers for the progression of a disease which is all of 2 years old?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
