COVID-19 (Aka China Virus)

[brabus]

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

Alright homie, let's do the math. (I always used the population value not the number of covid cases)

228.7 per 100k equals

2287 per 1M equals

22870 per 10M equals

228700 per 100M

We have 330M population in the US, that's 3.3 times the 228700, or 745710 hospitalizations in the US of A.

745710 hospitalizations divided by 12.7M = 5.9%

Seriously? Is this a Neil trap? Because if so, you totally got me. You just mixed two completely different data points (took the numerator from one and the denominator from the other) to generate a meaningless and irrelevant number. 
 

Data point 1: Rate per total population. This is all people, not just those who have/had COVID...so 330M total population is the denominator, not 12.7M cases.

228.7/100K means 0.23% of the population is/will be hospitalized for COVID over the course of the virus (and of course this is subject to change, but that’s what the data from the last 8 months shows). Go ahead and expand it out like you did, but 745,710 out of 330M is still 0.23%. Using the correct denominator for the dataset makes quite a difference.

Data point 2: Rate amongst COVID cases

74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59% of COVID cases result in hospitalization. If I did what you did, then I could have used 330M for this data point’s denominator and claimed the hospitalization rate for people who had/have COVID is 0.022%...which is clearly incorrect.

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

The actual question is "Does a 12% positive test rate and a 99.86% survival rate for those under 70 and a 10% mortality for those over 70 warrant all of the current things going on?"

I’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate.  For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back.

2 hours ago, Negatory said:

The point made by you and Brabus was that this virus isn't that big of a deal in the big scheme of things because it kills older people that are already close to their expected end of life.

You’re misunderstanding my point then. I have never said this isn’t a big deal or not important enough to deal with, but we must make data-driven, unemotional decisions when it comes to wide scale public policy. I even concurred with your idea on financially supporting 70+ to enable self-quarantine, etc. Social distance, fine. Masks when meeting close contact definition, fine. Those are reasonable solutions. Destroying people’s livelihoods, putting education on pause, exacerbating/creating more mental health problems, telling people they can’t have grandma to their house for thanksgiving, and a long list of ludicrously illogical edicts are not reasonable solutions, especially when considering the unemotional data. If this was Ebola with a 50% death rate, well maybe this crazy shit would have to happen...but we’re not there, not even in the slightest. So yeah, we should care and do what we can to help others, but it’s pure ignorance, fear/other emotion, and/or thirst for power/gov control that is driving these bigger things I mention. The data alone does not lead a rational person to conclude these things are required/OK. The data does support things like social distancing, improved hygiene, quarantine when you don’t feel well/have been in close contact with someone who’s sick, etc. 

[brwwg&b]

36 minutes ago, brabus said:

74,573 hospitalizations

Yeah, this is where you're wrong.

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, brabus said:

74,573 hospitalizations resulted from 12.7M COVID cases = 0.59%

I don't actually understand your line of reasoning, although I tried. I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it. To highlight the absurdity of 74,573 total hospitalizations over the course of COVID, there are 89,954 people hospitalized literally today, bro:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized

Also, the 228.7/100k is not the "will be hospitalized" figure. That is the current proportion of the total US population that has been hospitalized to this point. That number can and will only increase.

For example, on August 22, it was 156.8/100k. On April 25 it was 40.4/100k. Source: https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/covidview/past-reports/05012020.html

1 hour ago, brabus said:

I’m good with that. But to go one more level for full “genuine-off,” let’s add that under 70 = 90% of the population. Let’s also not leave off that 10% of 70+ isn’t going to die because 100% of them aren’t going to get COVID. I can’t find the positivity rate broken down in age groups for national data, but if the national average is 12%, well I don’t imagine the rate for 70+ is as high as you may think. Data shows the positivity rate is higher among younger age groups, which makes sense based on the difference in lifestyles, social interaction, etc. For example, the latest data from NYC shows 18-24 have a 1.5% higher positive rate than 65-74 and 2% higher than 75+ (source:https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page#perpos). I use NYC as an example because it’s on the higher end of the scale (worst? Haven’t looked at that comparison in a while). So that tells me the older groups have a lower national positivity rate than 12% because they’re not the demographic on the high end pulling the average up. So, let use 12% (generous) of the oldest 10% of the population will get COVID. Of that group, 10% will die (using your mortality rate form this post). Let’s say 30M in the 70+ group...360k deaths. But that’s likely too high due to using a 12% positivity rate.  For reference my state (which has done well) has a 0.04% death rate for 70-79 and 0.09% for 80+...so let’s not gloss over the relatively “good news” while solely highlighting the specific dumpster fires. Either way, it still sucks, but it’s certainly not the 2.2M figure you threw out for this age group a page or two back.

Agree. It's not 2.2M unless literally every person got it and they won't. That's a more fair way to look at it that doesn't include either bias, as you have to consider that the majority of the population won't get it. Although I will say that if we had gone with the "herd immunity" strategy that was initially touted as maximizing liberty, it probably would have been closer to 50-60%. And if we go with an open everything up now strategy, it will be a significant chunk, which I think 12% is maybe in the ballpark. I'm skeptical about your state info for the death rates for older folks being that low, as well. Hawaii has the absolute lowest overall death to covid ratio out of any state in America, and theirs is at 1.32%. Maybe you meant 4% and 9%? Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

Edited November 26, 2020 by Negatory
Hawaii not Maine

[Negatory]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why is there only 1 ventilator?

First source I found said there were ~90k ventilators. Looked into it a bit more and it should likely be revised to 2-3 ventilators, as there are probably in the ballpark of 250k ventilators in America after the government bought some this year, although the exact number is unknown. https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012-3692(20)34505-0/pdf

Edited November 26, 2020 by Negatory

[Prozac]

1 hour ago, Guardian said:

Why is there only 1 ventilator?

Here’s a white paper from 2018 estimating approximately 20.5 ventilators per 100K population. 
https://www.centerforhealthsecurity.org/our-work/events/2018_clade_x_exercise/pdfs/Clade-X-ventilator-availability-fact-sheet.pdf

That equates to approximately 2/3 of a ventilator for a population of 3300 as in the example given. The point is, when you have a pandemic running unchecked, there aren’t enough ventilators. 

[arg]

Talking about the stimulus bill earlier this year. I don't how the .gov figured out who should get it, but I got it. I was, and thankfully still am , working through this whole thing. I didn't need it and I don't think millions of people that were still working needed it. I have several relatives, and I bet there were many more, who didn't get it who were not working because of the lockdowns.

P.S. I gave mine to my wife because she said that would be the right thing to do.

Edit. When I said I don't how the .gov figured it I know what the qualifications are. Just don't know why they didn't look at employed/unemployed.

Edited November 26, 2020 by arg
Bacon

[AirGuardianC141747]

Nice, gave or were taxed by your wife... hahaha, pretty much the same here but mine does the finances so I wouldn’t have known anyway had she not told me.
 

I just continent hop and see the various ways countries/governments are dealing with all this. Distance yourselves, mask up, Clampdown, freedom with just reduced clustering, bam lockdown, Mask/distance/takeout only regulations, bam lockdown again, hotel keys that work only once. Snitch on your neighbor having Thanksgiving - next pill to swallow = no sending gifts/virus. How ridiculous/draconian can we go remains to be seen. Vaccine or not it is just another way to die on the list of many others and just another learning curve to surmount.

[brabus]

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it.

Yep, I think I misunderstood a CDC chart on total hospitalizations. The math process was sound, but an input variable was not. Chart below. I still don’t understand how they’re presenting the data in this chart, but it’s clearly not 74,573 cumulative total. My bad. FWIW, the cumulative figure I could find is 555k total hospitalization,  making it 4.4% hospitalization rate amongst cases. So, 95.6% of cases aren’t hospitalized, which is still a very high number (in a good way). That also is for all ages, so rate obviously goes down significantly when you get to the under 70 bracket. 

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

Agree. It's not 2.2M unless literally every person got it and they won't. That's a more fair way to look at it that doesn't include either bias, as you have to consider that the majority of the population won't get it. Although I will say that if we had gone with the "herd immunity" strategy that was initially touted as maximizing liberty, it probably would have been closer to 50-60%. And if we go with an open everything up now strategy, it will be a significant chunk, which I think 12% is maybe in the ballpark. I'm skeptical about your state info for the death rates for older folks being that low, as well. Hawaii has the absolute lowest overall death to covid ratio out of any state in America, and theirs is at 1.32%. Maybe you meant 4% and 9%? Source: https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#cases_casesper100klast7days

Cool, I think we’re mostly on the same page. The hard part about conversations over the internet: easy to misinterpret other’s. 
 

The overall point is 90% of the population has a 99+% survival rate (with 88% testing negative). Those numbers should be the bedrock on which we make large scale decisions, yet the media, social media, and govt officials are peddling fear to the masses built up to a point that is completely counter to those numbers. Don’t tell me there’s a CAT 5 hurricane literally hitting my house when it’s a light rain. Don’t tell me I must board up my windows and hoard supplies when all I need to do is shut the windows and wear a raincoat when I go outside. Hopefully that analogy makes sense. 

There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground. The widespread destruction of so many portions of our lives is not rationally supported by the data. Why we can’t find reasonable middle grounds in this country on anything is going to be our downfall if we don’t get our shit together.
 

 

Edited November 26, 2020 by brabus

[waveshaper]

9 hours ago, Negatory said:

I don't actually understand your line of reasoning, although I tried. I'm definitely wrong on some other parts, but on this one (total hospitalizations and units) I'm pretty sure I've got it. To highlight the absurdity of 74,573 total hospitalizations over the course of COVID, there are 89,954 people hospitalized literally today, bro:

https://covidtracking.com/data/charts/us-currently-hospitalized

Also, the 228.7/100k is not the "will be hospitalized" figure. That is the current proportion of the total US population that has been hospitalized to this point. That number can and will only increase.

Here's another site that tracks each states daily/cumulative Covid hospitalizations and the State's hospital bed capacity. Key words 'cumulative hospitalizations': New York currently leads the pack in cumulative hospitalizations - 'New York cumulative Covid hospitalizations = 89,995 (note: Texas might also be in the running for top dog but they, for some reason, don't report cumulative totals).

'COVID-19 hospitalizations by state: Nov. 24'

'Texas has the most COVID-19 patients hospitalized in the U.S., according to the COVID Tracking Project. 

'The Atlantic's COVID tracking project compiles data directly from the websites of local or state public health authorities. When data is missing from the websites, it supplements available numbers with information from official news conferences. Data was last updated Nov. 21, Nov. 22 or Nov. 23, depending on the state.'

https://www.beckershospitalreview.com/public-health/number-of-covid-19-hospitalizations-state-by-state-july-15.html

[pawnman]

12 hours ago, Guardian said:

Why is there only 1 ventilator?

Because he's taking the number of ventilators and scaling it down to his small town example.

[Negatory]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

There’s a spectrum, and no I don’t side with the “full libertarian” we should do absolutely nothing crowd, but there’s a middle ground, and many governors have gone 90 right off the tracks from the middle ground.

This is the crux of the problem in current politics. We’re made to think we have significantly different views, but that’s because we basically have to choose one of two sides:

1) Dems: We aren’t doing enough and we need to lock everything down needlessly without considering one side

2) Repubs: We are doing too much and we need to remove everything we have done without considering one side

In reality I think we probably look at the problem very similarly. We need more compromises.

Honestly, this is where the president should “make his money,” by setting a national game plan and pushing down a path that hits both. Trump certainly didn’t do that well, and it doesn’t look like Biden’s going to, either. And when Biden encourages needless lock downs in cities with almost no one at risk, the cycle will continue.

 

[Sua Sponte]

Just now, Negatory said:

This is the crux of the problem in current politics. We’re made to think we have significantly different views, but that’s because we basically have to choose one of two sides:

1) Dems: We aren’t doing enough and we need to lock everything down needlessly without considering one side

2) Repubs: We are doing too much and we need to remove everything we have done without considering one side

In reality I think we probably look at the problem very similarly. We need more compromises.

Honestly, this is where the president should “make his money,” by setting a national game plan and pushing down a path that hits both. Trump certainly didn’t do that well, and it doesn’t look like Biden’s going to, either. And when Biden encourages needless lock downs in cities with almost no one at risk, the cycle will continue.

 

Some Dems think the lock down theory applies to everyone and only applies to them when it’s convenient to do so. Denver’s mayor tweeted yesterday about staying at home for Thanksgiving due to the pandemic, help prevent spreading of the virus, etc. He then tweets that he flew from Denver to Mississippi to visit his daughter and wife for Thanksgiving because it “would’ve been safer for me to travel instead of them traveling.” Then asks for forgiveness as a “father and husband.”

Newsom did something similar a few weeks ago at a winery party since the group of 12 violated his own order of no groups to be bigger than three people.

“Rules for thee, not rules for me.”

[brabus]

5 minutes ago, Sua Sponte said:

Rules for thee, not rules for me.”

To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title. 

[arg]

13 hours ago, brabus said:

To be fair, that applies to a lot of politicians from both parties. But yes, Newsom is tied for worst governor with several others...can’t decide who’s a bigger POS, but there’s several who keep trying to out-do each other for that coveted title. 

Man, the governor here is certainly competing. Covid mandates make no sense what so ever. She was handed a 1.4B surplus when she was elected and blew through that in less than a year.

[17D_guy]

11 hours ago, arg said:

Man, the governor here is certainly competing. Covid mandates make no sense what so ever. She was handed a 1.4B surplus when she was elected and blew through that in less than a year.

SD? MI?  WA?  I guess not WA...they had the first round.

[ClearedHot]

On 11/25/2020 at 10:15 AM, jazzdude said:

What are your thoughts on anti-vaxxers? On one hand, it's their right to deny receiving any vaccinations or put anything in their body they do not want there. It's their choice. The flip side is that if they get a preventable disease, a $10 vaccine costs turns into thousands of dollars of hospital bills. Pretty clear cut argument can be made for "play stupid games, win stupid prizes, pay for it yourself." Or worse, they get sick, and in turn infect someone who could not take the vaccine, maybe they were allergic to an ingredient or have another condition that medically prevents them from receiving that vaccine. Who pays there? Our decisions and acceptance of risk don't occur in a vacuum, and have impacts on others. This get exacerbated in dense population centers.

 

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

[Clark Griswold]

4 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

They'll use the nudge rather than the shove.  Oh you want to fly, let me see your vax passport; well we can't let you into the gov building without a current and up to date vax passport; every fast food joint will have signs: No Shirt No Shoes No Vax - No Service; etc.....  Public lists of those without vaccine compliance because you know it's a matter of public safety / shaming / intimidation.  The enemies of liberty and personal choices learned the wrong things in high school from the required readings of 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc..

The slow moving tyranny of a python tightening its coils vice a sudden strike.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[FLEA]

7 hours ago, ClearedHot said:

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.

At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

Review the history of the H3N2(swine flu) vaccine Gerald Ford distributed in 1976. 14 hospitalized and 1 dead before it was realized the cure was worse than the disease. The scandal lost him his reelection. 

Why people trust the government to get this right is beyond me. The government never has your personal interest at heart. It's just like the AF. At the squadron level your commander probably does care a lot about you. At the HAF level leadership doesn't give two shits. I bet politicians aren't lining up with their families first in line to get the vaccine. 

 

[jazzdude]

You do realize the government CAN FORCE EVERYONE to get the vaccine, there is clear and established case law (Supreme Court ruling in Jacobson v Massachusetts), should they choose to enforce it.  I was SHOCKED to hear this was true....what about the 14th amendment?   I was even more shocked given the the circles that were discussing so I went to two outside judges I personally know and both confirmed and referred me to the SCOTUS ruling which has not be revisited and is now viewed as stare decisis....again, I was shocked.
At very high levels the discussion has been had and I know under Trump the government was not going force the population to get the vaccine.  I would imagine there would be an almost unbearable outcry, rioting, insurrection if the government went this route, but it is legally possible.

Legal doesn't necessarily mean right or moral...

But I get your point. I also agree with Clark that it's not likely to be heavy handed (mandated vaccinations), but "highly encouraged" (aka required to participate in society/work/travel/etc).

There's also legal precedence built around typhoid mary (forced isolation/quarantine). Though this creates direct conflict between an individual's freedom against what's best for the society as a whole.

And yes, vaccines are generally good. Not debating that point. I will admit I'm a bit wary of the accelerated testing/trials though on the COVID vaccine, so I'm more willing to wait to get it vs being first in line for it

[Prozac]

11 hours ago, Clark Griswold said:

They'll use the nudge rather than the shove.  Oh you want to fly, let me see your vax passport; well we can't let you into the gov building without a current and up to date vax passport; every fast food joint will have signs: No Shirt No Shoes No Vax - No Service; etc.....  Public lists of those without vaccine compliance because you know it's a matter of public safety / shaming / intimidation.  The enemies of liberty and personal choices learned the wrong things in high school from the required readings of 1984, Brave New World, Fahrenheit 451, etc..

The slow moving tyranny of a python tightening its coils vice a sudden strike.

Agree that this will be the likely situation, but how is this tyranny and not just market forces? Think about it. If you’re Delta, Carnival, Ticketmaster, or even a restaurant owner, why would you risk the optics of an outbreak at your venue? That could be absolutely devastating to your business. Of course you are going to try and mitigate that scenario by all means possible. So no, not so much tyranny as it’s the free market at work here. Related: if you’d like to travel to a foreign country, guess what? Sovereign nations get to decide their own entry requirements. Expect to dust off that old yellow vaccination card or have your vaccination status tied to your passport number. Like it or not, most of us will be getting this vaccine. I see it as a good thing as nothing short of this will get the global economy back up and moving. 

[Clark Griswold]

1 hour ago, Prozac said:

Agree that this will be the likely situation, but how is this tyranny and not just market forces? Think about it. If you’re Delta, Carnival, Ticketmaster, or even a restaurant owner, why would you risk the optics of an outbreak at your venue? That could be absolutely devastating to your business. Of course you are going to try and mitigate that scenario by all means possible. So no, not so much tyranny as it’s the free market at work here. Related: if you’d like to travel to a foreign country, guess what? Sovereign nations get to decide their own entry requirements. Expect to dust off that old yellow vaccination card or have your vaccination status tied to your passport number. Like it or not, most of us will be getting this vaccine. I see it as a good thing as nothing short of this will get the global economy back up and moving. 

It is a growing tyranny rebranded in some ways.  NR had a good article on what I believe is the growing threat:

Davos Great Reset: The Culmination of Corporatism | National Review

A collusion of economic, government, media and cultural interests not particularly interested in the maddening inefficiency of representative democracy with minority rights.

I see your point as to private property and businesses having mask or vax policies, the current corollary of no firearms allowed in restaurant/store X doesn't drive me nuts as to some degree we are allowed to discriminate in our society and professional interactions but like pornography vs. art, you know the difference when you see it.  When the government or private institutions/establishments have intruded too far onto the personal freedom & autonomy of the individual citizen. 

It's a free market only if choices are different or there is an alternative, with the coordination and monopolizing of the last 20 or so years you really can't say it is a truly free market.  You can choose not to participate but that is not really different than being banned from the desired or essential service for the person who doesn't ascribe to policy or choice X.

Freedom is not the anti-thesis of smartly, fairly administered societies but it is getting to be viewed that way I fear.

Edited November 28, 2020 by Clark Griswold

[FLEA]

2 hours ago, Prozac said:

Agree that this will be the likely situation, but how is this tyranny and not just market forces? Think about it. If you’re Delta, Carnival, Ticketmaster, or even a restaurant owner, why would you risk the optics of an outbreak at your venue? That could be absolutely devastating to your business. Of course you are going to try and mitigate that scenario by all means possible. So no, not so much tyranny as it’s the free market at work here. Related: if you’d like to travel to a foreign country, guess what? Sovereign nations get to decide their own entry requirements. Expect to dust off that old yellow vaccination card or have your vaccination status tied to your passport number. Like it or not, most of us will be getting this vaccine. I see it as a good thing as nothing short of this will get the global economy back up and moving. 

It's still a tyranny. It's just who is holding the reigns our power is changed. State sovereignty is slowly being overcome by market forces and human networks. The modern state has not always been the status quo. Only the last 370 years. It's unsurprising a new status quo is begging to emerge. 

[Prozac]

Cool. So if you’re in charge at Carnival, your plan is no vax required, it is what it is? Something like that? If not, how would you elect to protect your business? 

[FLEA]

Just now, Prozac said:

Cool. So if you’re in charge at Carnival, your plan is no vax required, it is what it is? Something like that? If not, how would you elect to protect your business? 

Oh no. I'd absolutely mandate it. And I'd be sure to give myself as much liability protection as possible in case that vax does cause a poor reaction in the future and somehow I'm agent to it's administration. I'm not going to let some ass hole jeapordize my billions of dollars. But I myself am probably not going to get the vax and I have enough money that I can afford a lifestyle where I won't have to. (Private air travel, exclusive vacation rentals, etc....) If in 3-4 years, noone has issues, then I'll very publicly get the vax to show that people who are hold outs have nothing to be afraid of and simoltaneosualy promote my business. 

[Prozac]

Fair ‘nuff. I just don’t get the tyranny part. SevenEleven doesn’t let you walk through their store with your junk hanging out. That’s not tyranny, that’s just them trying to protect their business from what most would consider antisocial and unhygienic behavior.