IS IT SAFE TO GO TO TOURNAMENTS YET...3?

I think even if 100% of people are vaccinated, the virus will still mutate and spread. Possibly mutate even worse because the mutations will be against the vaccine instead of just against people who acquire covid naturally. 

In our state we are seeing not only health professionals but also now first responders like firefighters and police opposing the mandate. You mentioned refusal to comply with health measures will be fined but here some sheriffs and state police are openly announcing they will refuse to enforce vaccine and mask mandates. I think the way to proceed is realize not everyone thinks the same or wants the same things. People who feel vulnerable, or suspect they come in contact with someone vulnerable should get the vaccine and wear a mask. But others who, for whatever reason, do not want those things probably shouldn't be required. Now is not the time to be forcing nurses, doctors, firefighters and police out of their jobs. 

Yes it's the time and here they will all get fired!

Is it a bluff or not i do not know but that is the plan.....maybe it's just to scare them?

And no the vaccine would die if 95% were fully vaccinated and if they all (the 95% ) follow the rules.....is it asking too much...maybe but that is the goal......here at least....

I'm not sure it's wise policy, right now at least, to fire a significant number of frontline workers. With the current covid surge, and a large number of people in hospitals, it seems counterproductive to fire doctors and nurses. Right when they are needed the most. Here it is not a bluff, one state trooper is already on leave because he refuses to get vaccinated. So others are following his lead. For a large number of people no job is worth giving up your principles and freedom. If you give up those, what point is there in even being alive?

To a lesser degree it doesn't seem like a good idea to fire police and firefighters either. What happens if someones house is on fire and the fire crews cannot respond because of lack of personnel? I guess there is always the possibility the person who has a house burning to the ground is a vaccine mandator. He may lose his house but at least he can rest comfortably knowing he got the firefighters fired. 

I'm sure any disease expert will tell you that's not true. Neither the vaccine, nor virus itself, would die if 95% were vaccinated. That's not how this particular virus works. This virus mutates, there are variations of it (often working against the vaccine). Which is why you are seeing vaccines becoming less and less effective. 

The vaccine works great, no doubt about it. But it does not and will not work 100% of the time in 100% of the people. So no, no amount of vaccination will make the virus "die". It's just not going to happen. The vaccine just buys time and lessens the severity of those who get the disease. Which is a good thing for a huge amount of people. 

There is no lost freedom or principle involved only fear of a vaccine imo.....

I believe you when you say there is no lost freedom for you. But not everyone values things equally. For other people who don't share your beliefs, freedom means something else. There are lots of reasons people don't want to take drugs, or any foreign substance. For some it's religion, for others it's health reasons, for others it's simply the principle of being forced to take medicine they don't want. 

Whatever the reason they will consider it a breach of freedom to put into their body something they don't want. So for you, you are right, there is no lost freedom. But for others, it's a line that cannot be crossed. 

The arguments about vaccines not being able to eliminate the virus are flat out wrong, and there's no links to support those claims (of course, what's new). 

That is exactly how vaccines work, not by making every single person 100% immune, but by reducing the field for the virus such that in a group of people there are not enough targets left to sustain a rate of spread that keeps the virus going.

It's not like a virus cell sits there waiting and mutating forever looking for targets.  Individual virus cells die constantly...there's 100% turnover (minus some frozen samples, I suppose) on a regular basis.  If the targets are reduced far enough, the virus as a whole slowly dies off from starvation, as individual virus cells die and there's not enough new hosts to keep the cycle going.

This is not at all hard to comprehend.  If you toss out a bunch of rotting meat, it will draw maggots and files in increasing numbers...you can let the flies continue to propagate until the bones are picked clean, or you can get rid of the rotten meat yourself and end it much faster.  Either way, the flies live and die in a short cycle, like a virus.  Once the target is gone, they will die quickly without finding a new target.

The mutations come from *errors during replication*, which happens *during new infections*.  So...vaccinated people = reduced infections = less and less chances for mutation.  The vaccines can stop the virus and the mutations.  Just like they did for polio, measles, etc.

P.S. If a population believes they will not be able to grow crops and so they will starve, unless they throw a virgin into a volcano, does that give them the right to kill/endanger the other human being(s) because they are ignorant?  No.  It does not.  Ignorance is only a form of freedom for those that are ignorant .

A person may cause evil to others not only by his actions but by his inaction, and in either case he is justly accountable to them for the injury.

— John Stuart Mill

An individual’s freedom to govern himself is absolute, until it comes into conflict with the freedoms of others.

 The virus that causes COVID-19 has crashed into an American culture that in some quarters emphasizes rights over responsibilities, individualism over community, and suspicion over trust.

That emphasis has caused social upheaval and conflict between the interests of individuals and the interests of the larger community. Governments and health care providers are trying to mitigate the impact of the pandemic, while some individuals vigorously guard their rights, believing that their personal liberties are under threat.

In negotiation, an individual’s interests need to be balanced with the interests of the group, especially when the consequences are significant. A one-sided approach inevitably leads to division and enmity. A successful outcome usually happens when winning is deemphasized and joint interests are the focus.

Epidemiologists now tell us that the virus will likely be with us for the long term, and it is our collective responsibility to minimize the harm it creates going forward.

 “Mandatory vaccination” means a legal requirement to be vaccinated, and to provide proof of vaccination. Failure to comply with the mandate could result in consequences, such as being prevented from attending events, holding certain employment, or receiving certain government benefits. 

 Current challenges include protecting the unvaccinated, understanding the impact of breakthrough infections and decreasing the opportunities for viral mutations.

During the pandemic, many have used a focus on personal freedom to justify not getting vaccinated. In doing so they have inadvertently put others in harm’s way by increasing their exposure to the virus.

Their “live and let live” attitude has led to a “live and let die” reality.

Freedom has often been used more as a sword than as the shield our founders intended. We have weaponized freedom rather than using it to defend and protect. Ironically, this hyperfocus on individual freedom impedes our ability to together defend other freedoms, such as those of our heath and economic well-being.

The number of new cases is more than double what it was a month ago, nearly twice what it was a year ago, and it is predicted to continue rising until a significant majority of us are vaccinated. Those who are dying are no longer just the elderly and infirm; most are in younger age groups.

When we value individual liberty above our moral obligations to one another, especially the most vulnerable, we aren’t able to get the virus under control and push forward toward collective prosperity. A healthy path forward is to balance rights and responsibilities and to be willing to make the small sacrifices patriotic citizenship requires.

 Only when we use our freedom to make choices that strengthen our community will our physical, mental and economic health be restored.

https://www.azcentral.com/story/opinion/op-ed/2021/08/18/freedom-not-absolute-when-comes-covid-19-pandemic-vaccine/8170286002/

I'm glad you agree experts are saying the covid will be with us for the long term. That's what I've been saying. It's pretty obvious at this point the virus mutates so quickly against vaccines that no vaccine will stop it now. What will happen is that some forms of the virus will be weaker, but some will be stronger because they are adapting and overcoming the vaccines. 

A recent ABC poll showed over 70 percent of unvaccinated Americans will quit their jobs rather than be forced to take a vaccine. I didn't expect it to be that high, but it's not that surprising. It totally agree with you about freedom to the extent it doesn't harm others. That's why taking the vaccine isn't prohibited. If someone wants to take it, they can. Nobody is stopping them. 

If on the other hand someone doesn't want to take it, for whatever reason, the same should apply to them. They should not be prohibited from refusing. An unvaccinated person doesn't affect someone else who wants to take it, or wants to wear a mask, or wants to socially distance, or anything else. The person who is vaccinated isn't having their freedom affected by an unvaccinated person.

It's no different than the seasonal flu. In years past tens of thousands (or more) people died from the flu. Yet there were very little prohibitions on taking a vaccine. If someone felt vulnerable they were allowed to take a vaccine and someone unvaccinated didn't infringe on their freedom to be vaccinated. So the unvaccinated have every reason to expect that same freedom in return. 

    I have to agree with tickler's explanation of choice. You may not have an accident for running that red light. You might be able to run it 4 out of 10 times.....or even 9 out of 10 times. But that 1 time you decide to run it and there happens to be someone coming on the opposite side.....BANG!   I pose that scenario to counter P.G's argument about your freedom not being someone else's freedom.

I'm not following your example about running a red light. When you run a red light you run the risk of hurting someone, and there is nothing they can do about it. But the vaccine is different. If someone is unvaccinated they are not infringing on the freedom of anyone else. They are not potentially hurting anyone else. That's because unlike the person at a stop light who can do nothing to protect themselves from a red light runner, a person CAN protect themselves from the covid by getting a vaccine. Or wearing a mask, or staying away form people. Etc. So it's a very different situation. 

This is all assuming the vaccines work, which I'm sure they do. So if they DO work, then the unvaccinated are not at all imposing on the freedom of someone who gets vaccinated. So those who want mandates don't get to have it both ways. You can't say the vaccine works AND say they are still at risk by someone unvaccinated. You have to take your pick. 

I think we have to realize the scientists are right, the covid is here forever and the mutations today may look nothing like the mutations 10 years from now. Some people will probably get booster shots every year. Some will pick and choose which year they want one. Some people will never get one. But everyone, eventually, will get covid, vaccinated or not. Assuming they don't die of old age first.

The unvaccinated are hurting everyone around them.  The only way to not know this is if somebody doesn't understand how vaccines actually work.

The red light scenario is not my explanation.  It does hold up fairly well, though.

Your argument will be good if the vaccine gave a 100%  protection or very close and it's far from it with the Delta (an expert said it's 70%) and if everyone or almost were vaccinated (some cannot for medical reason or for psychological one ( you call that for their principle or for their freedom ).

All those are very vulnerable because of the one that Fear a very safe vaccination or because they are not convince that it's a very serious illness etc....

And that's the point. I don't believe the vaccines are 100% effective. So, that being the case it's impossible for the virus to die, even if EVERY person on earth were vaccinated. It's going to be here, forever. Which means eventually everyone, vaccinated or not, will be exposed to it. It's not a disease that can be conquered, like smallpox. The covid mutates so fast against the vaccines a new variant crops up every few months. Which is why, like you said, protection against the delta variant is only about 70% now. I read today it's about 65%. 

This is where the analogy of a red light falls apart completely. When someone runs a red light the innocent person going through the green light has no defense. Never saw it coming. The freedom to run a red light is far less than the freedom to proceed on green. 

But the covid is different. The culprit (in this case we will assume it's the unvaccinated person) is in no way impeding the freedom of the vaccinated person. Because unlike the motorist proceeding on green, a person CAN defend themselves from an unvaccinated person. They have all sorts of options. They could get a vaccine (which we are assuming is 70% effective) they could then wear a mask. They could then also choose to stay away from people. Nobody is obligated to go up to complete strangers and breathe in their air. You are perfectly free to avoid that if you choose. 

On top of all those things a person could also follow Dr. Faucis suggestion. Wear goggles. Double up on the masks. A hazmat suit could work also (lots of people have worn something similar on airplanes). Stay at home and don't leave the house for any reason other than extreme emergencies. Anyone is free to do any, all, or none of those things. The unvaccinated do not dictate ANY of those things so no freedom is infringed. 

And then there another thing to consider. The death rate for covid, even delta, is extremely low.  Today Johns Hopkins says it's about 1.6%. And that's for everyone, including those who already have one foot in the grave anyway. And that also assumes no cases go unreported, which it's fair to say many do because of mild or no symptoms. So there is going to be a large number of people who refuse the vaccine and instead opt for natural immunity. 

There is growing evidence (although it's still early) that shows natural immunity is superior to artificial immunity. Both wane over time of course, but isn't it odd that proof of vaccination is required to attend a ball game but proof of infection antibodies is NOT allowed even though it's likely to be superior protection? Hmmm. 

No vaccine has ever been 100% effective.  Again, that is not how vaccines were ever designed to work.  Nor are red lights 100% effective.  People space out and miss them every once in a while.  People are free to not drive when they travel, not take certain routes, etc. to avoid getting hit by someone running a red light...and so on and so on...the analogy RJC gave holds up as well as many.  It's only in the minds of those who cannot see or understand shades of grey in their black and white world that dubious absolutist statements and false dichotomies seem like effective arguing tools.  They are not.  The last several pages of this thread are a great example of a lot of words that have no real content.

   Several pages.?    I'm hoping at some point in time as the OP, I will be able to say......"yes, it is safe to go back to playing in Chess tournaments again" but only for those who feel comfortable going back to tournaments and really enjoy it.......lol.

Not all the posts, just many of them starting around page 59.

I would say it's absolutely safe to go back to playing chess tournaments. I personally haven't done that in over 30 years because that was a school thing that did not carry over into adult life but as far as it being safe, I would say yes, it's safe. yolo.