Resist De Blasio's Vaccine Passport

De Blasio's dataless call to create a class of citizens barred from civic life is an intolerable imposition on New Yorkers' liberties.


New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio's announcement that he intends, by mayoral ukase, to make it illegal for someone without a city-approved proof of vaccination to work at or be customers of the city's gyms, entertainment venues, and indoor restaurants is a grotesquely unconstitutional tyranny, annihilating human liberty of movement, commerce, and association with a dangerously tenuous justification.

Even with de Blasio's dataless references to saving lives as the justification for this move, and the admission that it won't (yet) be extended to public transit, it is clearly a blatant attempt to harass and punish Americans who have not yet gone along with months of state and media pressure to get vaccinated, for whatever reason. That we know the vaccinated also can transmit the virus makes the purely punitive nature of his power grab all the more clear.

New York currently has 72 percent of its adult population vaccinated with at least one dose and, looking at the current rate of vaccination over the past month, is adding around 130,000 to that vaccinated number weekly—another 2 percent of the city's adult population per week. This means that by the time de Blasio begins enforcing this regulation about five weeks from now, the city would likely even absent this threat be at around 82 percent adults vaccinated.

Infectious diseases have always existed and for good reason have never, at COVID-19's demonstrated level of serious harm, been seen as a legitimate excuse to treat masses of other human beings as pure harms that must be barred from large parts of the society and market.

Right now, a bit over 3 percent of New Yorkers who get tested are testing positive for COVID. (Given what makes people decide to get tested, this number likely represents the percentage of those who actually feel ill or otherwise have testing demands made on them, not necessarily proof that even that percentage of New Yorkers overall are positive right now.) Over the past week, dozens of—but never more than 50—COVID-positive New Yorkers have been admitted daily to hospitals, out of roughly 700 daily new confirmed cases.

The daily average death numbers inspiring de Blasio's tyranny in New York have been four a day over the past week. For what it's worth, the percentage of black adult New Yorkers who will be barred from all these businesses at the current vaccination rates under de Blasio's unique approach to public accommodation law is 58 percent; of white adults, 43 percent.

De Blasio did not even give the public the respect of explaining and defending the data and risk calculations behind his vague handwaving about "lives saved" and science. He made no attempt to explain what we know (or don't know) about the risk an unvaccinated person presents of causing serious harm to a vaccinated person, or the risk that anyone will encounter someone transmitting COVID, nor did he detail the above current numbers of cases, hospitalizations and deaths associated with COVID, such that it justifies this punitive assault on the liberty of the unvaccinated.

It has never been possible to run a risk-free human society, and our current political class's attempts to pretend to do so (while failing) get darker and more insane by the week. Public policy has made flailing attempts to eradicate a virus in the past year. It cannot do so, and it definitely hurts to try.

The vaccine exists. People can mask as they will. The statistics about those who are most likely to suffer serious harm are out there. Whatever tenuous excuses any public official might have for treating the unvaccinated as a unique menace who must be driven from society get more absurd by the day. The percentage of infected in New York is small, as are the numbers hospitalized or dying. Harmful diseases are a fact of human existence that cannot reasonably, certainly not at COVID's current level of harm, be used to justify creating a second-class citizenry and normalizing the idea of having to take actions one does not want to take (as invasive as injected medical treatment without a long history or our culture's standard safety approval) and prove them via documents to exist equally in society.

Western culture has always had a justifiably bad attitude about the mark without which one can neither buy nor sell, and people with the power to stop you from going places demanding your papers. De Blasio cannot, alas, be recalled, so New Yorkers' best option is a combination of lawsuits against this power grab, mass civil disobedience of the laws, and mass protests to show de Blasio—and the government officials across the country he wants to inspire to follow along—that he has crossed a line Americans won't tolerate.

NEXT: COVID Variants Upend Our Reopening

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Why the fuck hasn't Reason banned "Brason Tay" by now? It's been spewing spam for months, and I've flagged lots of its comments over that time. Does Reason just not give a fuck about spam?

      Rhetorical question, I know.

      1. Spammers are clicks, too.

        1. Fantastic work-from-home opportunity for every0ne… Work for three t0 eight a day and start getting paid inSd the range of 17,000-19,000 dollars a month… Weekly payments Learn More details Good luck…

          See……………VISIT HERE

      2. Use the mute.

        1. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.Aqz simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing. Try now.........

          Click Below Webpage…........... VISIT HERE

      3. We had one for a while I liked. He posted stuff about interesting animals before his spam link.

      4. "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants."

        It's past time to get pissed off, folks.
        We've tolerated leftists too long.

        1. "We’ve tolerated leftists too long." - No Nardz

          Is it time to shed some Fascist Republican blood again?

          1. Where and when would you like to meet, pussy?

      5. Perhaps it's same name, different email. And no one at Reason looks all that closely.

      6. "Why the fuck hasn’t Reason banned “Brason Tay”" - Fool

        Taken your anti-freedom ranting elsewhere, Commie.

        1. Bots defending bots

    2. Instead of expecting reasonable people who are vaccinated to carry a passport, why not require the unreasonable anti-vaxers to wear orange armbands with a skull and crossbones to warn all of us that they could be contagious and to stay away. Since so many anti-vaxers are quite proud of their position, it should be easy to sell them on wearing an armbadge of "courage".

      1. maybe a hexagonal yellow star would be more to your liking. And only a totalitarian would expect either group to carry its papers.

        1. Those who are not vaccinated are the enemies of society.

          Isolate them. Deny treatment. Watch them die and laugh at their stupidity knowing that with each death the average IQ of humanity increases.

          1. We could intentionally infect them ALL with COVID, that'd show them! Except that 99.7% of them will survive, 40% of them will have no symptoms, another 40% or so will have mild flu-like symptoms that resolve on their own i a few days. A few percent (maybe as much as 8%) of the ones over 80-years-old will probably die, those bastard!

      2. How about a gold star?

      3. Don't worry about it, Ed, you're not likely to live much longer.
        Keep it up, asshole.

      4. That wouldn't have saved you in Provincetown. Vaccinated people spread Delta pretty well.

        1. "Vaccinated people spread Delta pretty well." - Impress

          Well, that is a lie. Why do you feel a need to tell it?

          Are you really that stupid?

        2. Provincetown doesn’t represent vaccinated Americans, since it attracts mostly HIV-positive homosexuals. Most of the tourists and long-term residents are on antivirus meds.

          Most Americans are not on HIV meds.

        3. About three-fourths of people infected in a Massachusetts Covid-19 outbreak were fully vaccinated against the coronavirus with four of them ending up in the hospital, according to new data published Friday by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

          The new data, published in the U.S. agency’s Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, also found that fully vaccinated people who get infected carry as much of the virus in their nose as unvaccinated people, and could spread it to other individuals.

      5. Go fuck yourself Marxist scum.

        1. "Go fuck yourself Marxist scum." - Barking Dog

          Whom are you referring to, Retard Boy?

          1. Such a poorly programmed bot they send in

      6. It will be fun going to the movies, grocery stores, polling places, etc. all by myself because everyone has seen my orange biohazard arm band and cleared out. I like this plan.

        1. I could care less what anyone does or doesn’t do. Those willing to trade their freedom for safety deserve neither oxygen or a quick death.

          I’m vaccinated, because why not. Everyone seems to think this is the hill to die on. Fucking idiots. Quit being contrarian and take the vax for the team. You dipshits are making it too easy to kill us off.

          1. You dipshits are making it too easy to kill us off.

            If your existence depends upon me what makes you think you can make impositions like 'Take one for the team'?

        2. Agreed. I would get an orange arm band just for fun honestly.

          The people on here that talk a big game are absolute pussies. Would love to see one of them come up to me and try to do something about it.

          Their Karen powers are no match for my carryin power.

      7. "why not require the unreasonable anti-vaxers to wear orange armbands with a skull and crossbones" - Big Edz a fool

        That is a damn good idea. You would look good in orange.

      8. This reads like sarcasm until your last sentence.

        You make things worse by referring to a fictional identity/political bloc you and others call "anti-vaxer."

        I suspect you would be a New Yorker putting on a mask because the mayor says so, there being no other reason to do it.

  1. Nice.

  2. They could also ask the New York governor to weigh in on this. He has his finger on the pulse of New Yorkers, amongst other places of their bodies.

  3. Fuck New York.

    They are getting what they voted for and who they deserve.

    1. Good and hard.

      ...unfortunately their ideas are pathogenic and spread. Flyover country needs some sort of left coast condom.

    2. "They are getting what they voted for and who they deserve." - tracery treason

      Yup. They are getting relatively good government compared to what the Republican party of death is giving the Southern states.

  4. So Bill Deblasio thinks one needs to "show your papers" to live in NYC? This is another small, tiny step towards total authority "for your saftey". Baby steps, you won't see it coming until it's to late.

    1. you won’t see it coming until it’s to late.

      Some of us do, the question is what will anyone do about it? My guess: nothing.

      1. Some of us have been telling everyone what's coming for years

        1. This is about transfer of federal taxpayer funds (or money printing) to bailout the subway and the public housing authority. The smart wealthiest have moved. Dried up tourism because shithole. DeBlasio is doing what all Democrats do best… manufacturing crisis for federal transfers or Covid part 2 =bailout the subway and housing.

    2. Let's all hope that the gerrymandering that helps keep the urban leftists from ruling the whole country will survive the current round of redistricting.

      1. Yes! Between that and the disproportionate representation in the Senate and Electoral College, hopefully we can get back control of the federal government without having to get the support of a majority of the country! Just like the Founders intended!

        1. Stop molesting children, jason.

        2. You jest, but majority rule was never the intention of the Founders, and for good reasons that they stated articulately. Today, majority rule would mean nothing less than totalitarian socialism.

          1. You jest, but majority rule was never the intention of the Founders, and for good reasons that they stated articulately. Today, majority rule would mean nothing less than totalitarian socialism.

            You are wrong on many levels here. First, the Founders did not want direct democracy. But their use of the word "republic" inherently meant majority rule. Protecting individual liberty from the 'tyranny of the majority' would fall to other mechanisms, but it was always the case that they expect that it would be majorities that would determine the laws, subject to those constraints. You don't need to take my word for it, either. This is Federalist No. 10 (James Madison):

            If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.

            Read the rest of that one of the Federalist papers if you need more, but it is clear that the goal was for a republic, as opposed to direct democracy, kind of filter the interests and passions of the majority and keep things aimed at the good of the whole of the people. Others of the Federalist papers went into details about how the then-proposed Constitution would divide the powers of government, limit the federal government to specific enumerated powers, and so on, in order to protect liberty. But at no point in any of that, did they ever say that it would be a good idea for a minority faction to be able to control the whole federal government. What I quoted above argued that a republic organized under the proposed Constitution would prevent that from happening.

            What you are arguing for, with your support of gerrymandering, is for the faction that gets fewer votes to still be able to rule. That isn't about protecting liberty, as much as you might like to think so. You recognize that a majority of the electorate doesn't want what you want, but you want the power to implement your preferences anyway.

            1. Well reasoned response. Lots here buy into 1 party trumplican rule and try to say they're "libertarians"

    3. The same De Blasio that went after Jewish funerals.

      1. And the Catholic Church. Bad move to piss off the Jews and Catholics in NYC. You are going to get the bishop and the chief rabbi in your office and they are on the same side.

        1. They always support the Democrats in the end, anyway. Always.

          They’re the abused women of politics who ignore the black eyes and vote for their abusers, in return for financial support.

    4. It's not even baby steps. It's clear leaps and bounds and they aren't even trying to hide it. At this point, they are proudly telling us exactly what they are planning to do

    5. Although I don't think it's a bad idea to show proof of vaccine for SOME activities where close contact with strangers is inevitable (cruises, large indoor events, airflights, train travel, even mass transit) I have another idea.

      How about we all set a deadline for getting a free vaccine? Say the end of the year. Then starting in 2022, you must pay for a vaccine yourself if you want one. Insurance won't cover it. Let Moderna and Pfizer set the price. Then ship the excess vaccine we have to the countries which have none which will create limited supply in America instead of the glut of "everybody has it." That ought to get us to vaccinated herd immunity by the end of the year...

      1. A leftist suggesting fascism.
        Totes surprising.

        1. Fascist is controlling supply and distribution, which is what occurs now.

          Doctors with wealthy clients should be able to get plenty of supply. They can’t.

          Government has limited the vaccine supply to selected government-contracted agencies and pharmacies, despite excess product inventory. They’ve even required that the end-customer furnish ID and be entered in databases.

          What we have now is fascist.

      2. Right. How's 'bout we do this Fascist thing instead of this other Fascists thing?

    6. "So Bill Deblasio thinks one needs to “show your papers” to live in NYC?" - IQ 0 Bob

      Nope. That is a lie. There is no requirement that the unvaccinated leave New York.

      So why did you feel a need to tell a lie?

      Are you really that stupid?


  5. New York may lose a lot of tourist business but thats not my problem since i'm never going there

    1. It becomes your problem because you or your children’s taxes will pay to bailout this corrupt, incompetent, union mob run, stinking pile of leftist shit.

      1. And higher prices for everything are just another way of saying Tax.

        1. And idiot New Yorkers taking the idiot ideas with them with self reflection

    2. Not an issue if you are vaxxed. Mask up.

      1. Vax and you won't need the mask.
        Oops, we lied; mask up like a good boy.

        Continued compliance means it never stops.

        1. If you vax you don't need the mask. Your chances basically become on par with regular flu for health issues. I say let all the antivaxxers take their chances. No one should be forced to do it, but neither should the antivaxxers get ER unless they can show up front they can afford to pay for it.

      2. Vaccine doesn’t work moron. At best you might be a little less sick. You still transmit and get the vaccine. Actually it has been shown vaccinated people are making the unvaccinated sick! Opposite of the propaganda spewed. Not to mention some scientists are saying expect an onslaught of neurological disorders in 3-4 years. That’s ok they can play gene therapy with someone else. I’ll pass.

        1. Right. I should listen to someone making a comment on a website with a highly ideological/partisan bias about how dangerous the vaccines are, because he is citing "some scientists" and otherwise displaying tremendous ignorance. (How exactly are vaccinated people making the unvaccinated sick? Do you understand that this just isn't how these vaccines work at all?)

          I have an idea. Instead of following what conservative voices on cable TV, talk radio, or conservative media and websites have to say about vaccines, you ask your doctor? If you trust that doctor to give you accurate medical advice on all of your other health concerns, why not this?

        2. Wrong. You shouldn’t comment here because you’re an idiot.

          1. Wrong. You shouldn’t comment here because you’re an idiot.

            The one deterrent to my commenting here is that it is full of people (like you) that want it to be a right-wing echo chamber. You don't want to have to think about about anything or have your views challenged. You just want to relax, soak up the confirmation bias, and pat yourself on the back for being so much smarter than the lefties. It is sadly ironic, though not surprising, that an outlet that named itself Reason would draw so many people unwilling to use theirs. That's what ideology and partisanship tends to do to people, regardless of where they fall on the political spectrum.

            Did you reply because you agree completely with BarkingSpider, or does that not even matter? Perhaps you just saw someone on the other side posting and reflexively went on the attack. Must protect the tribe, and all.

            1. Mute User works great for those people. Often go to whole comment sections where the trolls are fighting each other grayed out lol

    3. If only it were just NY...

    4. "i’m never going there" - Ron

      Excellent. The fewer fools in NY the better.

  6. >>has crossed a line Americans won't tolerate.

    yes! thank you. now go down the halls and fire everyone else.

    1. Some of the others still remember liberty from time to time. Tucille is always good.

      1. I like hyperbole as comedic affect.

  7. Stop electing traitorous communist democrats first.

    1. But traitorous communist Democrats are the majority of voters now.

      1. On paper anyway.

        1. And in the graveyards. Cemeteries are full of them.

      2. Not if you only count the ones who can fog a mirror.

      3. "But traitorous communist Democrats are the majority of voters now." - Vernon Depner

        And that is why Republicans hate Democracy.

        1. That is why anyone who values human rights and liberal values rejects democracy.

          1. Your comments on this have been absolutely clueless. You fear the "tyranny of the majority", but instead of the kinds of protections against it that the Constitution tries to implement (federalism, separation of powers and enumerated powers for the federal government, limitations for both the federal government and states in the Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment), you simply want your side to be the one in control so that it will protect the rights you care about, in the manner that you want, while happily letting the rights of others that you don't care about or don't want them to have be violated.

            Majorities are required in the republican form of government in order because it isn't easy to obtain the support of a stable majority of the people. But, keeping the support of vocal and committed ~40%, with promises that they will be taken care of, and their "dangerous" opponents vanquished, that is easier. And that is what the Republican Party has done. They have become a faction that no longer tries to obtain majority support, instead working to maintain the loyalty of a base of voters through fearmongering, demonization of the opposition, and attacking the principles of republican government.

            Someone, like you, that openly wants gerrymandering in order for your side to keep power, is against republican government. You don't want a government that has the "consent of the governed". You just want your side to win at all costs.

    2. ....because sociopathic republican grifters are so much better?

    3. "Stop electing traitorous communist democrats first." - BucledIn

      AmeriKKKa is dying of Republican disease. The world is laughing at you.

      1. Fuck the world.

  8. New York has had one of the worst COVID death rates (if not the worst, I haven't checked in a while) in the USA.

    They never learn. They just double down.

    1. "New York has had one of the worst COVID death rate" - Low IQ Brian

      Clearly a lack of passports isn't working.

      You be a stupid boy.

  9. Excellent article! This is a refreshing viewpoint from reason.

    Mass civil disobedience in NYC!

    1. Pipe dream. They'll obey.

      1. They'll embrace it.

        1. Of course, because it proves they aren’t Republicans. It’s self preservation.

        2. "They'll embrace it." - Idaho Slob

          As all moral, thinking people will.

    2. Should they use January 6th 2021 style resistance or 2020 BLM style resistance?

      1. Let us never bring back to horror of “boots on the desk”.

        1. But wait: Halloween is coming: what do you bet hats with horns, face paint, and spears with flags will be all the rage?

          1. Will Halloween be "allowed" in your town?

      2. De Blasio should initiate a mandatory fire extinguisher and Lego buyback program.

        1. "fire extinguishes and lego buyback" - Chumby the incoherent

          Why? Are fire extinguishers and lego killing people?

          You be a stupid boy.

          1. Lol

            It's struggling mightily

      3. Some dare call it treason.

        "Should they use January 6th 2021 style resistance or 2020 BLM style resistance?" - Jim Logjam

        1. You add nothing. Delete yourself or be muted.

    3. I came to the comments to see if there was anyone from NYC commenting on how this idea is being received. What I'm seeing is a lot of angry people, but they're not mad at DiBlasio, they're making nasty usually uniformed comments. What's going on?

      1. Leftists are cancer

  10. What do you expect from a guy whose real name is Wilhelm Warren?

    New Yorkers' best option is a combination of lawsuits against this power grab, mass civil disobedience of the laws, and mass protests

    What type of protests though: "mostly peaceful," or "insurrections?" Which adjective do you think the media to describe these hypothetical protests (which probably won't happen because NYers are easily frightened pussies)?

    1. Protests will be allowed between these hours in this location provided you show you have been vaccinated. Because we respect the First Amendment.

      1. Only if you are protesting the correct things though.

    2. Funny how lighting some buildings on fire downgrades the riot from insurrection to mosly peaceful protest. That is what the mega hats did wrong, they forgot to set the building on fire.

      1. I don't think it was burning building that was the determining factor. I think it only gets downgraded from an "insurrection" to a "mosly peaceful protest" if you're protesting the death of a black drug addict at the hands of a white police officer deliberate murder of a Black King at the hands of a Klansman.

        1. The determining factor was that it was terrorizing the peasants. The excuse doesn't matter. It's only an insurrection if it threatens the aristocrats, otherwise it's all good.

          1. This response makes sense. Burn the plebes for all we care. If you scare your betters a little bit you are guilty terror.

      2. Only arsonists are criminals... not protestors. There is a distinction there.

      3. "Funny how lighting some buildings on fire downgrades the riot from insurrection to mosly peaceful protest." - Eyeore

        You are right. The businesses and homes owned by Trump Supporters should be burned to the ground.

        Sterilize with fire.

    3. Think about this logically. They'll be protesting against an authoritarian powergrab by the government, so naturally they'll be Insurrectionists Endangering Our Democracy, just like those evil Trump supporters that are responsible for the the Covid Resurgence.

    4. Mostly Jewish protest?

      As a group, the orthodox jews of NYC, seem ready to fight city hall after months of being scapegoated.

      1. Then I guess it will be time to make use of those camps the state government has been building.

      2. These Jews, the ultra orthodox and Chassidic don’t care much about what the state says. To them they follow a higher authority and pretty much do whatever they want.

        You are right. They are not intimidated by city hall.

      3. "Orthodox Jews" - Sometimes

        Orthodox Jews are hell bent on destroying Israel, why shouldn't they also plot to destroy America?

  11. No, I don't think I will.

    Go fuck yourself. While you're at it, get vaxxed.

    1. ^This is what’s wrong with America.

      1. True that. Maybe he will be infected instead of vaxxed: maybe he won't make it through - or maybe he will and be the wiser for it.

    2. "Go fuck yourself. While you’re at it, get vaxxed."

      And please carry the "approved" and "proper" government identification card at all times and be prepared to show it whenever you are asked /sarc

      1. Please note, in full disclosure, that the vaccine card cannot be used for voter id.

        1. "Please note, in full disclosure, that the vaccine card cannot be used for voter id."

          Please note, in full disclosure, that not showing the vaccine card on request can have you sent to the gulag.

      2. A fake vax card for a fake vaccine.

        1. Sure, maga.

    3. Come give me the vax yourself, pussy.

    4. Sit on a running chainsaw, steaming pile of lefty shit

      1. That's vulgar and all you had to do was press"'MUTE."

    5. I will. And I might just be the guy behind you in the checkout line. Stay afraid.

  12. That we know the vaccinated also can transmit the virus

    Except we don't know that...or at least don't know to what degree there's a substantive risk.

    1. From the link (paywalled):

      The connection between the Provincetown data and the CDC’s new mask guidelines has struck some scientists as obscure. The guidance applied to areas with high transmission of the virus, which tend to be parts of the U.S. with lower vaccination rates. Vaccination rates in Provincetown were high, around 69% for eligible Massachusetts residents.

      “They’re making these decisions on the basis of extremely weak and unreliable data, and at the same time not doing the necessary work to reduce uncertainty among the population,” said Vinay Prasad, a physician and professor in the Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics at the University of California, San Francisco. “When there isn’t a lot of study data, the CDC should be conducting these studies.”

      1. The fact that the Massachusetts outbreaks occurred at events for Gay men is conspicuously absent from government and news reports.

        1. That might require an official admission* that gay men are profoundly promiscuous compared to the general population, or that their particular types of promiscuity carry substantially increased health risks.

          So much easier just to pretend you don't notice the obvious.

          *Literally had a board certified psychiatrist claim that, since there were no studies establishing higher promiscuity among gay men, it must be a myth.

          1. Will jfree be along to tell us that people with aids and hiv should not be allowed in hospitals because they brought it on themselves?

          2. These particular guys are party animals. That is what they went there for. Sex is just a part of it. They were crammed together in those nightclubs.

            Nothing against it. Party on dudes. So they took some risks. Well not much to learn from it except the obvious. We know the vaccines only give you maybe 90% or so protection. Like an umbrella in the hurricane under those conditions.

            1. Not just party animals.

              HIV positive animals. On antivirals, so they can engage in extra promiscuity.

              These are the least healthy of adults. Worse than the junkies and homeless of Skid Row.

          3. What's the difference among a neurologist, a neurosurgeon, and a psychiatrist? A neurologist knows everything and does nothing. A neurosurgeon knows nothing and does everything. A psychiatrist knows nothing and does nothing.
            In addition, the summertime activities in Provincetown actually qualify as a "super-spreader" event. Huge crowds jammed indoors during hot steamy weather, crowded dark steamy dance clubs, everyone elbow to a***ole. Plus the typical pederasty. Don't ask me how I know.

            1. I read Andrew Sullivan's piece on it.

              I had no idea before that. This "Bear week" event, especially after pride week, is so NOT typical of any social event anyone I know will ever attend. But it sure is good enough to demand forced masking at the chamber music recital I'm going to attend. Because, you know, the "science".

          4. *Literally had a board certified psychiatrist claim that, since there were no studies establishing higher promiscuity among gay men, it must be a myth.

            If research into behavior consistently shows that gay men are not more promiscuous than heterosexuals of the same age groups and socioeconomic status, then that would be evidence that it is a myth. Is what this "board certified psychiatrist" said supported by such research or not? What evidence do you have to counter what he said?

            1. No social scientists would risk their careers by seeking funding for such a study.

              1. That means that you don't have any evidence to back up a claim that gay men are more promiscuous than heteros, right?

                1. Since I made no such claim, I don't need any evidence, but if I did, I wouldn't find it, because no one would dare to conduct such a study. Simply asking for permission and funding for such a study would be career-ending. Now, having said that, if you don't know that urban Gay men at big party scenes like the gatherings at Provincetown engage in promiscuous sex, you're an idiot.

    2. We don't know a lot of things, but we do what we can to keep from getting ourselves and others (including our children) sick with a potentially deadly virus.

      1. Just about any virus is potentially deadly given the right circumstances.

        1. Hell people die from chickenpox.

  13. Finally Reason is growing some balls. Better late than never.

    1. Doherty was always legit.

        1. Doherty was also never not legit.

          1. Yeah, that's a reasonable statement.

            Weak tea, but better than no tea.

            1. Nothing weak tea about it.

          2. Too legit to quit?

            1. We haven’t Hammered that out yet.

      1. Doherty has always been a heartless Ayn Randian libertarian since his days at the Independent Florida Alligator, his sole redeeming virtue was his participation in the Gainesville punk rock scene,

        1. I'm not sure the first part needs redeeming, but I met a girl who didn't know anything about libertarians--except that she one read a great book about Burning Man by a guy named Brian. She thought that was great. He not only spreads the libertarian gospel but also wrote the libertarian version of Acts of the Apostles. If someone ever writes a follow-up book to Doherty's history of libertarianism, it'll be missing something if it doesn't have a section about him, Gillespie, Sullum, and Cavanaugh.

    2. Or they found the one guy at Reason that would take the fall and put his name to something icky.

      1. Doherty has been consistently excellent since forever. Doherty is as legit as anyone has ever needed to be.

        Exhibit A: When Justin Raimondo used to eviscerate the rest of the staff for being phony libertarians, he was also asking why Doherty didn't have a higher profile. (Raimondo used to participate here in comments.)

        From a libertarian capitalist perspective, more Doherty has always been better. That doesn't mean you'll always agree with him about everything, but since when has that been a good standard?

        1. If you say so, I'll take your word for it. I'm just skeptical that there's a libertarian left at Reason.

          1. Read the article above again. We shouldn't dismiss evidence like that for failing to conform to our theories. If your theory is that the staff are all the same, pay closer attention to Doherty in the future and revise your theory (or not) accordingly.

            1. I'll admit I stopped reading Reason articles when I noticed they were just a rehash of the left-wing talking points du jour a couple years ago, but this was something I'd expect from a libertarian. Kudos to Doherty, the last libertarian left at Reason, I guess.

              1. Lots of republicans yakking it up here, though for a 'libbie' site. So why are you here?

                1. As the Democrats are becoming more authoritarian and socialist, Republicans are becoming more susceptible to libertarian and capitalist arguments. We should welcome them. That's how we grow the movement. Libertarians aren't born fully formed. They're persuaded.

                  1. As the Democrats are becoming more authoritarian and socialist, Republicans are becoming more susceptible to libertarian and capitalist arguments. We should welcome them. That’s how we grow the movement. Libertarians aren’t born fully formed. They’re persuaded.

                    Republicans are becoming more susceptible to authoritarianism and extreme nationalism, not libertarianism. You might not notice that if you only pay attention to right-wing media, though. Stay in these echo chambers, and only the Democrats are doing anything harmful to the Republic. Your side is as pure as the driven snow.

          2. "It has never been possible to run a risk-free human society, and our current political class's attempts to pretend to do so (while failing) get darker and more insane by the week. Public policy has made flailing attempts to eradicate a virus in the past year. It cannot do so, and it definitely hurts to try.

            The vaccine exists. People can mask as they will. The statistics about those who are most likely to suffer serious harm are out there. Whatever tenuous excuses any public official might have for treating the unvaccinated as a unique menace who must be driven from society get more absurd by the day."

            ----Brian Doherty

            Could that have been any better?

            1. Could that have been any better?

              Yes, he could have been brave and said something to condemn the Era of Trump. Silence is violence.

              1. Yes he imputed upon them a desire to minimize risk as the true motivation for their actions.

                While that is certainly a possible explanation it is not the only one.

                1. Nor most plausible

                  1. Agreed. Malefactors should not be afforded any benefit of doubt.

              2. Good one, pseudo-OBL. All you needed was a fake twitter.

              3. Let's move away from Trump and forward to getting a handle on damage control and pandemic mitigation.

                1. Excoriating the Democrats is a legitimate libertarian objective even if championing Trump at this point isn't. After all, the Democrats are openly advocating baldly authoritarian and socialist policies to an extent that we haven't seen since the Great Society and maybe even the New Deal. And they're doing it within the context of a one party government. If the appropriate place for libertarians is always in opposition to the government, the government right now is not bipartisan. The Democrats and the federal government at this point are one in the same thing. I'd argue that opposing the Democrats is the duty of all libertarians under these circumstances.

                  1. +1

                    They are now Public Enemy #1

                  2. After all, the Democrats are openly advocating baldly authoritarian and socialist policies to an extent that we haven’t seen since the Great Society and maybe even the New Deal.

                    Some Republicans are openly advocating legislatures being able to overturn the results of elections that don't come out the way that they want, based only on their judgement that there was fraud. Wait a minute, let me correct that. They aren't "openly advocating" for that to happen in the future, there were those that did advocate for that to happen in regards to the 2020 election. More and more evidence is coming out that Trump and his allies wanted the DoJ to weigh in on Trump's claims and call for the election results to be decertified in Georgia and elsewhere.

                    Which is really a bigger threat to the future and stability of our rights and freedoms in this country? That Democrats that actually got a majority of votes in the last election could implement policies that this majority wants, even if they are "socialist", or that Republicans would subvert elections to prevent Democrats that win the most votes from taking office?

                    I don't get why people that fear an "authoritarian" left are so determined to turn a blind eye to what has become of the Republican party and its drastically weakened commitment to a republican form of government.

                    If a faction consists of less than a majority, relief is supplied by the republican principle, which enables the majority to defeat its sinister views by regular vote. It may clog the administration, it may convulse the society; but it will be unable to execute and mask its violence under the forms of the Constitution.

                    This was James Madison writing in Federalist No. 10. He was arguing that a faction (such as a political party) with ill intent that only had the support of a minority of the people should not be too worrying, since the very nature of majority rule in a republic would prevent them from doing lasting damage. The thrust of that essay then was how to restrict a majority faction from abusing power. The argument then went on about how a larger republic, especially one with federalist structure, would be able to do this by balancing the closeness of those elected to represent the people with their ability to shield themselves from the immediate passions of their local constituents and look to the national interests of all of the people.

                    Others of the Federalist Papers went into more detail about the various structures of the proposed Constitution and how it would accomplish this, but note how Republicans are subverting the very ideas that Madison was trying to advocate for here. Republicans don't seem to care that the Republican presidential nominee has only received the most votes once in the last eight elections. And Donald Trump could have been reelected, despite being 7 million votes behind Joe Biden, had somewhere around 40,000 votes been flipped in three states. (Had Georgia, Arizona, and Wisconsin gone for Trump, the electoral college result would have been 269 each, sending the election to the House with its one vote per state delegation method. Republicans hold the majority of state delegations even though Democrats have more seats total.)

                    The structures of the Constitution that allow for a minority to win complete control of the federal government are an unfortunate quirk, but the Republic could survive that, as long as the Constitution is faithfully obeyed. What the Republic cannot survive is that minority using the levers of power to twist the Constitution into knots to make it more likely that it will obtain and keep power. That is against what the American Experiment was established to accomplish and the explicit aims of the Founders most responsible for the drafting the Constitution and getting it ratified.

            2. Yes.
              He left room for rejecting the concept of fundamental rights for "public health"

              1. I don't see that.

                I see him arguing that people should be free to reject the vaccine, that people should be free to reject masks, that people should be free to make choices for themselves based on the statistics that are available to them, and that the excuses public officials are using to justify violating these rights are absurd, dark, and insane.

                Read it again.

                1. He'd be in good shape if he hadn't followed the first paragraph you'd quoted with the second.

                  1. None of which really matters because, as I've been telling yall for years and you now see coming to fruition, we're past the point where we can get out of this peacefully.
                    The left will not stop unless they are physically stopped.

        2. Raimondo would've kicked the living shit out of the chemjeff continuum, White Mike and sarcasmic.
          That would've been glorious to see.

          1. Yep, I miss him, too.

        3. I was at a seminar for libertarian student writers in the early 1990s Brian was there, as was Jesse Walker—they knew each other. I actually got caught at the end of the breakfast table cut off from everyone else by those two—their inside conversation left me in the dust. (Virginia Postrel ran one of the workshops at theseminar, the novelist Kay Nolte Smith ran the other one.

    3. Damn straight! It's about time Reason grew some balls and stood up to Democrat ovaries! Better than them growing ovaries and standing up to Republican balls! Go balls!

      1. It's amusing to see you make a public ass of yourself on a daily basis, pile of lefty shit.

      2. The one trick pony left a grey spot. Let me guess. He's accusing me of being a southpaw. I don't know the origin of his obsession (my guess is he lost his virginity to a left-handed chick and was then let down hard) but leftie this and lefty that, it's got to be exhausting.

        1. It's hilarious how this troll boasts about muting people, but shit himself with rage when Ken muted him.

        2. The one-trick pile of lefty shit again makes a public ass of himself.
          Fuck off and die, asshole.

      3. Dude, it’s not Republicans pushing any of this authoritarian crap.

        1. No, Republicans are not restricting freedom in order to drive COVID infections down. You're right about that. They're restricting freedom in order to keep it circulating, though.

          They're also, I dunno, coming up with new ways to ban abortion, detain immigrants, punish protestors, punish companies with the wrong politics, restrict what's taught in classrooms, and so on - all of it with actual legislation, mind you. Don't let's start on what they're trying to do with executive orders.

          1. Man, lefty shit pile is really making an ass of himself. And getting flagged.

          2. “ ban abortion”

            If it saves just one life right?

            1. Not a life worthy of moral regard.

              1. Fuck off - flag

          3. "They’re also, I dunno, coming up with new ways to ban abortion, detain immigrants, punish protestors, punish companies with the wrong politics, restrict what’s taught in classrooms, and so on – all of it with actual legislation, mind you. Don’t let’s start on what they’re trying to do with executive orders.

            The Republicans aren't even in power.

            And there isn't anything unlibertarian about protecting private property from arsonists, elected politicians holding teachers' unions accountable for teaching Marxism in public schools, or insisting that the rules of naturalization be set by Congress--since that's an enumerated power of Congress like declaring war.

            1. Republicans hold plenty of state legislatures and governorships. That's where they're passing these laws.

              The rest of your comment is so detached from reality that it doesn't merit response. Quit with the doublethink, for god's sake.

              1. Boy, lying lefty shit is really piling on the bullshit. And getting flagged.

      4. Does someone pay you to post filthy commentary with copious sexual overtones and sexist innuendo? What does that serve?

        1. Aye, in ten dollar notes from the Imperial Government of Norton I.

  14. You tell 'em, Doherty!

  15. Anyone know where I can find a used woodchipper? Asking for a friend, of course.

    1. A new one won't require as much maintenance. It's likely to need quite a bit of use these days.

      1. Maybe, or maybe a nice, slow, feet first demonstration of a few will convince the rest to fall in line.

  16. Bravo, Brian. Not that it's your job to tell people what they "want to hear," but this is exactly what many hoped to hear from Reason yesterday.

  17. I must say that, as much as my heart bleeds for the lost liberties of those poor New Yorkers, I can't help but feel that they are somehow just a teensy bit responsible for the fact that their mayor is a communist. Not to mention which, their governor is a shitweasel, their senior senator is a colossal douchebag, their city council is a bunch of thieves, their city is a cesspool of corrupt crooks, and they themselves are those vilest of people - New Yorkers.

    1. Well, there's that...

    2. The DeBlasio paradox: pretty much nobody voted for the guy, but because everyone knows that the Democrat always wins anyway, nobody bothers voting against him.

      "Nobody drives in New York. Too much traffic."

    3. Well many of them are responsible for the idiots they elect, but that doesn't justify the excesses of the nanny state that currently is NYC.

    4. Yeah, you don't need to cry for us. A majority of us willingly got vaccinated and are happy to show a QR code to our restaurant servers in order to relax and live life like we used to.


      1. None are so blind as those who will not see.

        1. Go cry about it in a TGIFridays, fatty.

          1. lefty shit pile flagged

      2. One more flag for LSP.

      3. German Jews felt the same way for a short while.

      4. Amen. Don't let it bother you - it's a pandemic - rules are different until people stop spreading disease and dropping dead around us.

        1. So until the left is put in their place, and/or wiped out.

        2. Most experts are now saying it will never go away. It will circulate through the population, seasonally, ad infinitum. It's no longer a pandemic and is now an endemic. You never get out of an endemic.

  18. New York needs some fiery but mostly peaceful protests.

    1. Resistance!

    2. Honestly the whole country does.
      If the freaking French can do, who the hell are we anymore?

      1. The French love protesting and rioting, though. They're always pissed off about something.

        But agree that we should definitely be stepping up our COVID protest game.

  19. This will probably be Doherty's last article here.

    1. If he starts a new rag, I'm following.

      1. Substack is minting more than a few very well paid journalistic expats from formerly liberal outlets. Sometimes it's best to take your ball and go home if you don't like the game!

        Now that I think about it, getting kicked out for being the one who says the emperor has no clothes and then taking all your readers with you is sweet, sweet revenge as well.

  20. And he causeth all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark in their right hand, or in their foreheads:
    And that no man might buy or sell, save he that had the mark, or the name of the beast, or the number of his name.

    1. Yes. The "Beast," code for the Caesar. De Blasio does have higher aspirations, no?

      1. Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars, and unto deBlasio the things that are deBlasio's.

        1. "and unto deBlasio the things that are deBlasio’s"

          Probably the last thing deBlasio wants. Politics is what he does to other people.

          1. I think you missed the point, the response to "higher aspirations", which is in which side of that equation DeBlasio is on.

            1. Politicians abandon higher aspirations when they become politicians. All we can expect is the lesser of two evils.

              1. But you keep begging for them to have more power.

                1. And other people’s money.

  21. Whatever tenuous excuses any public official might have for treating the unvaccinated as a unique menace who must be driven from society get more absurd by the day.

    And yet the excuses not only go unchallenged by journalists but in fact are amplified and championed with the absolute credulity of an institution with its own serious credibility problem.

  22. Considering that the majority has gotten jabbed, and because of that they don't give a shit, resistance is likely futile. They're going to have the attitude of "I got jabbed, fuck you" instead of "I support you and your freedom to opt out." Being that I don't live there and nothing I can do will change a damn thing, I say fuck 'em all and feed 'em beans.

  23. I agree wholeheartedly, and thank you for the article.

    We're at the point where people can make their own decisions for themselves about this disease – i.e., effective vaccines to everyone who wants them that protect the vast majority of the public from the worst consequences of the virus.

    These "surges" and illness amongst the vaccinated shouldn't be surprising to anyone – the hell does "93% effective" mean, if it doesn't mean the vaccines won't be effective all the time? When you have a billion people getting vaccinated, you're going to have a lot of different outcomes, and if you base your policy on the outliers, you're going to make a lot of very bad policy.

    For those of you who disagree with the above, what is *your* idea about when the pandemic ends, and when we can get back to normal life?

    1. Compare surges with the normal pattern of the common cold.

    2. After the end of the year, anyone who wants a vaccine has to pay for it. Want it free? Get it now. In 2022, you're on your own to pay for it. Let Pfizer and Moderna folk set the prices...

      1. “….. when the pandemic ends….”

        Is when big pharma starts making even more money? When they price the hesitant poor out of the market?

        I’m sure that made sense in your head.

  24. The unvaccinated made their choice. Vaccines are freely available now to pretty much everyone. If they're stupid enough to go places and get sick, that should be their choice. Yeah, they might die, but it's only their own life they're risking.

    Some of these lockdowns to slow the spread might have made sense before vaccines, when there was risk of spreading the disease to innocents. But now being in danger is a choice. If some idiots want to choose to risk death or hospitalization, fine. That should be their right as a free American. The whole point of freedom is that sometimes people freely choose to be idiots, and we have to let them.

    1. The unvaccinated made their choice. Vaccines are freely available now to pretty much everyone. If they’re stupid enough to go places and get sick, that should be their choice.

      What about those that suffer under the yoke of systemic racism?

      1. too bad we probably won't get to have the "only vaccinated people should be allowed to vote" conversation

    2. Now extend that opinion to smokers, people who drive motorcycles, skydivers, alcoholics, homosexual men and water-skiers.

      1. Should read: We've extended that opinion...

      2. And the morbidly obese.

    3. What part of "stupid spreads it to others," even the vaccinated did you not get? Did you get tetanus? shingles vax? pneumonia vax? flu vax? polio inoculation? measles vax? NO DIFFERENT.

      1. Damn, dude, it's like you're a genetic invalid that wouldn't have survived past childhood even 50 years ago.
        It's cool, don't think you've got much longer left here anymore.

  25. I like how white liberal politicians use black people as 'props'. Who are the racists again?

    1. Straight white people, of course.

      I think I'm finally getting this intersectionality thing down.

      1. Straight, white, cisgendered, neurotypical, monolingual in English men, as long as all our parts work. I bet I missed some, though.

    2. Also, all of his green shirt minions appear to be high risk for serious disease.

    3. I mean, Blas is pretty much a transracial anyway. He basically ran and was elected as the black candidate in 2013, with a more black lived experience than the actual black dude he ran against.

    4. I'm not sure where you're getting that anyone is using Black people as "props." The mere fact that you see them in the same image as a liberal politician does not make them "props." It makes them, "fellow residents and workers of a racially diverse city."

      I'll wager you hail from a very white part of the country.

      1. White progressives are the most racist people in the country.

        1. You'll have to clarify your doublethink for me. I'm not sure whether you're saying that they're specifically racist against whites, or whether you're saying that they're somehow more racist against POCs than the politicians and individuals that, I dunno, try to overthrow elections when they come out and vote in large enough numbers.

          1. Much more likely to, "believe that race is a fundamental determinant of human traits and capacities and that racial differences produce an inherent superiority of a particular race." They are just seeking to implement policies to alleviate or reverse such outcomes.

            Remember: the anti- in antiracism is like antimatter, not antiwar.

            1. You believe that white progressives secretly believe that BIPOC people are inherently inferior, but want to elevate them, for reasons that are not entirely clear?

              1. flags for lefty shit pile

              2. White progressives openly believe that BIPOC are inherently inferior and pander to them to get their votes. How do you not see that?

                1. Uh... I don't watch FoxNews?

                  I suspect the disconnect here is largely one of projection. White progressives clearly don't openly believe that BIPOC are "inherently inferior." Whether that comes across in their messaging and political strategies is, I suppose, a question for debate. But if it's implicit there, it wouldn't be open, exactly, would it?

                  1. Lefty shit is making a lot of blanks here.

              3. You believe that white progressives secretly believe that BIPOC people are inherently inferior,

                No, they don't "secretly believe", they publicly admit it.

                1. I am not going to watch a FoxNews selectively-edited hit piece or consider it relevant evidence.

                  1. Lefty shit gets flagged

                  2. "My beliefs are perfect and any evidence to the contrary will be disregarded, so stop trying."

                    I'm sure someone could present evidence in the form of, say, the writings of various black academics or sitting Supreme Court Justices, but you have already announced that you're not operating in good faith here so why bother?

              4. It's no secret what you racist assholes believe

            2. Yup. Race is a myth in a biological sense. It does not exist. What we call race is a social convention.

              1. Yes, but it's a useful fiction, according to people like Angela Davis.

                1. Useful fiction describes the entirety of leftist beliefs.
                  And these psychotic assholes are an absolute threat to the rest of us.
                  They will not stop. They have to be stopped.

                  1. Well, I can guarantee you there's virtually no one on the left suggesting that we take up arms in order to defeat Republican fascists, lest they retake power in 2022 or 2024. For whatever reason, the only place where I find that kind of violent rhetoric is places like here.

                    1. You fucking lying piece of shit, you spent months with your pedophile militia violently waging war on private citizens, destroying their businesses and murdering dozens.
                      And you, personally, are a pussy who bids The State to do violence on your behalf.
                      Well, you reap what you sow. No justice, no peace.
                      Your life doesn't matter (and certainly has no "moral value")

                    2. @Nardz

                      Yes, this is the kind of rhetoric that I never see on the left spaces where I dwell.

                    3. They're not bothering with rhetoric because they're already out in the streets.

    5. Why isn’t the mayor wearing a mask, but all the black people are?

  26. New York currently has 72 percent of its adult population vaccinated with at least one dose and, looking at the current rate of vaccination over the past month, is adding around 130,000 to that vaccinated number weekly—another 2 percent of the city's adult population per week. This means that by the time de Blasio begins enforcing this regulation about five weeks from now, the city would likely even absent this threat be at around 82 percent adults vaccinated.

    75 comments in and nobody points out that the city has likely the largest proportion of people with naturally-acquired resistance in the country to boot. I am disappoint.

    1. So we gave it as much thought as the NYC government.

    2. We're not supposed to talk about them!

      Honestly, I think NYC will have a ton of overlap there. But lots of the anti-vax folk will have had it, though. Either during the early days or in the next month.

      Delta will wash over like a wave. It is not encountering a completely uninfected popluation anymore, regardless of its substantial infectivity, so it'll hit those it hits and subside as quickly as the winter wave did in February. More quickly, possibly.

      But, you know, since we didn't collect numbers and don't know who was previously infected, or how many of them are amongst the unvaccinated population, we're only allowed to talk about vaccinated immunity.

      1. There is no greater proof of the CDC's total incompetence. They even do this in India, whose bureaucracy normally treats kafkaesque as a complement.

        1. Exactly. I've lately come to believe the incompetence of these institutions is... astounding. Looking back, we can start with the tests at the beginning, that didn't work, had poor instructions, shoddy quality control, and that were required while all other testing was verboten.

          It has been 18 months of hit after hit after hit of seriously bad results. Not malicious, just bad. And they're arrogant enough to just double down on these bad decisions.

          1. Incompetence?
            They've gotten everything they ever wanted.

          2. “Not malicious, just bad”?

            I thought that for a while too.

    3. but if you got the worthless J&J or Sinovac, you're good to go even though it shows lower antibodies than convalescent

      or you can just lie, no one can prove it because HIPAA

      ah, government

      guess creating, releasing, and covering up this plague wasn't enough

    4. And it showed last fall and winter. Look at their death numbers since the initial outbreak. They've had pretty near herd immunity for a year.

      1. Here in NJ, the powers that be are falling over themselves to reintroduce restrictions when the rate of hospitalization growth over the past month would have us saturating the system sometime in December.

  27. Vaccination passport, Jim Eagle or Jim Crow? The public safety standard certainly is the tool to get the soft-minded and cowardly on board. The racism implied is a 'bonus,' one assumes, as left/progressive policies always end up punishing the disadvantaged and minorities -though perhaps this time it will be different.

  28. madness, for all practical purposes the US pandemic ended five months ago

    since at-risk Americans were fully immunized in March 2021, excess deaths have never exceeded those in the 2018 flu season, during which absolutely nothing was closed or mandated

    at-risk people in other countries are begging for the same vaccines they're trying to force on Americans who don't want or need them, because the Pfizer/Moderna vaccines work far better than the alternatives

    1. "for all practical purposes the US pandemic ended five months ago" Correct. But someone forgot to tell the media. Or the Democratic party. Or Dr. Fauci. Or the CDC.

      1. The CDC knew it a year ago when they lumped covid in with the flu and pneumonia. Anything over a 0.4% covid rate would bump the baseline into "pandemic" range. They had to do that because the covid rate by itself wouldn't get us there.

  29. Bonus point for using ukase in a sentence.

    1. Two points for it being about an actual Bolshevik.

      1. Real Bolshie would issue a deket.

        1. {Mentally pushes edit button....}



  30. How many more lives would be saved by bringing back the stop-and-frisk program (which is anathema to people like De Blasio) than by imposing arbitrary rules barring people from certain places? And how many of the lives saved by bringing back the stop-and-frisk program would be black lives? Just curious.

    1. How many lives by stopping abortions.

      Health privacy being the issue, no?

    2. Fun fact, New Yorkers in fact voted to bring back "stop and frisk." I guess it'll be friendlier the next time around.

      1. They can vote on that?

        Yeah, right. Haha.

        1. The presumptive next mayor campaigned on it. So...

    3. How many lives could we save by throwing all known gang members in prison?

      1. Considering that would include much of the NYPD, probably quite a few.

      2. None. Chicago tried that a while back. All it did was to fraction the gangs when the leaders left and more wars between the competing factions.

  31. Oh, get bent.

    I live in New York. The only alternative to the passport is another insane mask mandate. I'd rather show my card or a QR code and go on living my life.

    My liberty is fine. I got vaccinated willingly and have been living without fear of COVID ever since. The main things I worry about now are insurmountable political pressures to "do something" on COVID, caused by surges driven almost entirely by maskless, unvaccinated holdouts, resulting in shutdowns, mask mandates, or more burdensome restrictions on my life or the community.

    1. The alternative is voting for elected officials who respect personal libery.

      1. Like the ones who are passing laws prohibiting employers and businesses from requiring their employees and patrons to be vaccinated?

        1. Ya know, this is really tiresome. Flagging this steaming pile of lefty shit is much easier.
          Lefty shit pile flag!

          1. Nothing says "respect for personal liberty" like auto-flagging points of view you disagree with, in an attempt to silence them.

            Waitaminute - are you Ron DeSantis?

      2. The Queens or Brooklyn libery, or do you go inna da City?

        {From 60 miles outta town}

    2. Fuck you. Why should I get an-as-yet unproven vaccine for a virus that, if I get it, I'll survive with a near 100 percent certainty? And if I do get it and die, it's no skin off your nose.

      Stop vilifying your fellow innocent human beings (the presumption that the people around you are sick with ZERO proof of that is downright evil) and leave us alone.

      1. The vaccine is proven. Let's just be clearly rational about that. I don't know what further "proof" you require, at this point. We know it's effective and safe with just about the same degree of certainty that you know that COVID probably won't kill you (even if it might knock you back for a few weeks).

        And I don't actually care whether you get vaccinated. I can see you're a moron, but that doesn't rub off directly on me. I might be annoyed if I get a "breakthrough" infection because you decided to go out to eat at the same time I did. But I'll live, and I'll get over it faster and with fewer symptoms than you will. Moron.

        Like I said, this is less about forcing morons to get vaccinated than it is about forestalling more annoying government intervention in my life. I don't want to go back to wearing masks, right? But that's what I'll get, if we don't employ vaccine mandates here in NYC. You guys in chucklehead country may get to go on living your boring-ass lives in whatever way you please, hacking up a lung just to pwn the libz, but politicians in Elitopia are going to meddle, and this is what I'd rather that they do, okay? I'll show a QR code so I can work out without a KN95. That's a perfectly fine trade-off, for me.

        1. Fuck off and die, slaver.

          1. You are always welcome to leave a more substantive response.

            1. Lefty shit pile flagged

              1. I don't think you understand how the "flag comment" function works.

                1. Pile of lefty shit gets flagged

        2. 99.8 percent of people who get covid survive it. The rest die. Just like millions of people die of SOMETHING, every single day. I am under no obligation to keep you safe, either from real threats or those you cook up in your fertile neurotic mind. You scared? YOU take mitigation measures. Don't send the rest of us spinning back into the Dark Ages.

          1. If you're under no obligation to "keep me safe," as you put it, then I'm under no obligation to protect your sensibilities from seeing my naked body, masturbating in public. Agreed?

            1. No, you pedophile.
              But do keep demonstrating that you're continued life is a threat to American families.

              1. I don't know what your repeated threats of violence are supposed to accomplish. You're not going to bully me out of commenting here. You may eventually get me to stop responding to you, like Sevo has, just by virtue of being incredibly tedious in your responses. Is that the goal?

                1. I'm simply stating the truth.

        3. And if the vaccine were proven, why are you so scared of getting COVID? (And why do I know four fully vaxxed people who currently have the virus?)

    3. Lefty shit pile flags!

      1. Perhaps, but a lefty would know that this will affect more people of color than white people due to the disparity in vaccination rates. This is disenfranchising BIPOC by excluding them from participation in society. This is systemic racism in action.

        1. Systemic racism is what has led to the disparate vaccine take-up rates, sure. The vaccine mandate exacerbates that issue, but the solution is to address the core problem - i.e., vaccination rates in POC communities - rather than to let Staten Islanders hack all over their seat neighbors.

          1. flag for lefty (lying) pile of shit!

            1. And typically racist

          2. " but the solution is to address the core problem – i.e., vaccination rates in POC communities ""

            A white mayor using coercion through exclusion to force vaccinations is pretty racists by today's standards.

    4. The only alternative to the passport is another insane mask mandate. I’d rather show my card or a QR code and go on living my life.

      Here is a better idea.

      No restrictions, none at all.

  32. People now need a special kind of proof to enter restaurants, but it's considered evil to require voters to show ID before they vote?

    1. Not just evil, but RACIST which is far worse

    2. Libertarians think it's no big deal to require voters to have government-issued picture IDs in order to exercise a core right of living in a democracy, but throw a fit when people have to show a piece of paper that most people already have in order to eat in a restaurant?

      1. I wouldn't throw a fit if it was the restaurant asking me to show that piece of paper.

        Elections ARE the government's business.

        What people do in restaurants IS NOT the government's business.

        1. Elections are the government's business, as in, the government is responsible for administering them. The government has no business in deciding that certain so-and-so's shouldn't be voting despite being legally entitled to do so.

          1. Lefty shit pile flag

          2. Simon here isn't intelligent enough to notice that it contradicts itself in the very same sentence:
            "The government has no business in deciding that certain so-and-so’s shouldn’t be voting despite being legally entitled to do so."
            So and sos...legally entitled.

            1. The contradiction being...?

              Having a voter ID is not what entitles me, legally, to vote. Being a registered voter is. Turning me away from the polls just because I cannot prove, by some arbitrary standard, that I am who I say I am, denies me the vote to which I am legally entitled.

              A political community is defined by who is a member. It is not defined by which of those members have filled out the right forms and gotten the right forms of identification.

              1. The government has no say in legal qualifications?

                Your whole philosophy just crumbled.

      2. So you're saying that it's a big deal to have to bring a card that most people already have every other year in order to exercise a core responsibility of living in a republic, but it's no big deal to be required to have the appropriate internal passport on you at all times so that the police can identify you when they demand your papers?

        1. I care less about voter ID, per se, than I do using voter ID requirements specifically to restrict access to the polls. Which is the point.

          Similarly, the point of the passports is to create spaces where people can mix maskless without concern that they'll become infected by an unmasked, unvaccinated, and unidentified carrier, and possibly convey the infection on to the children or immunocompromised people they live with. It's not to monitor us or restrict movement.

          1. Okay, so let me get this straight. Verifying identification at the polls has nothing to do with reducing fraud, and internal passports have nothing to do with monitoring or restricting movement.

            I know you're a troll, but can you give an example, just one single example, where internal passports weren't used to restrict movement?

            1. Okay, so let me get this straight.

              Happy to get it straight, but don't start by getting it twisted.

              Verifying identification at the polls has nothing to do with reducing fraud

              Now hold on a minute there, bub. No one objects to "verifying identification" at the polls. That's how you get your ballot. People object only to the identification requirements being progressively narrowed in order to make it more difficult to "verify identification" at the polls.

              Second, you and I both know it's not about "fraud," because neither of us has much information on how much in-person voter fraud is or could be occurring (which is the only kind of voter fraud that can conceivably be fought through stricter ID requirements). No one knows what the problem is, no one knows if there's a problem, but yet somehow one side of the debate is certain that stricter voter ID requirements will help. No, that's not rational; one side of the debate is lying about their purposes.

              and internal passports have nothing to do with monitoring or restricting movement.

              Since passports are by definition documents used to monitor, restrict, or allow movement, surely you must grasp that you've strung up a strawman here, right? Of course a vaccine "passport" is intended to restrict movement - it's supposed to prevent unvaccinated chuckleheads from huffing and puffing next to me at the gym.

              The question isn't whether an "internal" passport is intended to... function as a passport, but whether it's part of some broader scheme to control how we live our lives, with some people comparing it to wearing yellow Stars of David. Again, this is just something that doesn't seem to be in evidence, but you're caterwauling about it anyway.

              We've been dealing with COVID for a year and a half now. We've fumbled our way through various policy steps and missteps, and we have a path out of it, through widespread vaccine uptake. But some recalcitrant minority of people don't want to take the vaccine, thereby prolonging and exacerbating the pandemic. The rest of us shouldn't be held prisoner by those few. We're ready to move on. The rest of you can suck a bag of dicks.

              1. Little Eichmann has spoken. Stay in New York.

                1. Your Nazi hyperbole is almost as amusing as your apparently believing that I have any interest in living anywhere else.

                  1. Your steaming piles of lefty bullshit are tiresome.
                    Fuck off and die, slaver.

                  2. Great. Don’t tell the rest of your population to stop fucking up the other states and moving there.

                    1. Sentences are not your forte.

                      Anyway, I am certainly not telling anyone else to relocate from the greatest city in the U.S., I am in fact adamantly opposed to anyone doing so - but the problem is that places like Texas and Florida have such sweet tax policies that many people and businesses accustomed to public services and big-city infrastructure just can't resist relocating to those onshore tax havens. Gosh, it sure is a kicker! I'm afraid y'all will have to lie in the bed y'all've made!

                      Womp womp!

              2. Grim as it is you may have a path out of this sooner if you didn't lock people up. You may have path out of this if you don't live in fear. You may have a path out of it through your statement above. The problem is that you brush away other viewpoints and solutions with attempts at strawmen arguments or logical fallacies rejections. News flash to you and others that write these debate rules people don't care about you calling strawman - can you influence someone is all that matters your witticisms are wasted in this manner. You do touch on some reply points and I'll give you that but you waste any chance at debate with your attempts at trigger words. I hate to break to you but your vaccine passport will be an attempt but it won't cover the true disease its feeding.

                1. Gosh, mamaw! This guy hurt my feelings and I don't know what to say about it!

                2. Simon is a totalitarian collectivist.
                  The only thing that will stop it is inflicting kinetic force directly upon it.

              3. because neither of us has much information on how much in-person voter fraud is or could be occurring

                This would be some useful information to have. If only one side of the debate wasn't certain that there could be no fraud and yet are blocking every attempted audit and investigation of suspected election fraud for some reason...

                one side of the debate is lying about their purposes.

                I have come to this conclusion.

                Since passports are by definition documents used to monitor, restrict, or allow movement...

                Yes, and that's exactly what New York's internal passports are intended to do. Your entire argument is that these internal passports don't count as internal passports because you personally approve of them.

                this is just something that doesn’t seem to be in evidence, but you’re caterwauling about it anyway.

                The evidence is right in the law. The government of New York is literally requiring people to have their papers on them at all times and is using the information therein to restrict legal movement and activities. This is literal fascism and you're welcoming it with an open anus.

                1. So let's start simple.

                  How can an after-the-fact audit uncover an instance of in-person voter fraud that would have been prevented, had the fraudulent voter been required to provide a government-issued, picture ID?

                  You are mashing conspiracy theories together, and it's left you a bit confused.

                  Your entire argument is that these internal passports don’t count as internal passports because you personally approve of them.

                  No, my argument is that they are "internal" passports, but that I don't see why that's a problem.

                  See what you're doing here? The scare-phrase "internal passport" is doing all of the work, for you. You're just taking it for granted that "internal passports" are some kind of problem, by definition, without really connecting it to some larger regulatory issue.

                  DeBlasio resisted re-imposing a mask mandate, even when LA and DC went forward with them. Do you understand what that signals? He understands that people (and businesses) don't want to go back to that level of interference in their lives. Vaccine passports are being pursued because that's already what a lot of employers and businesses have been doing, and he thinks it'll push up vaccine rates (which it will).

                  There's not some broader push to control our lives in evidence. No one wants that, and de Blasio (on his way out as mayor) doesn't have some secret, nefarious plan to... I don't know, what? Round up the unvaccinated and put them on Governor's Island? What is the "papers, please" scenario, here?

                  You all discredit yourselves by being so hyperbolic about it.

                  1. Lefty shit gets flagged.

                  2. What's the purpose of elections other than to have a representative on your behalf having say about rules being passed.

                    The mandate you support is the King making a proclamation. Did city council have a vote? No, this was not a democratic process. Even if you support rule, you should be against it because it was not done democratically.

                    1. I'll admit that I have no idea what the mayor's putative legal authority to impose this "mandate" is. It may be patched together from other... "authorities." Earlier in the pandemic, that's what they did to try to get people to self-quarantine, if they were traced to an outbreak. The paper they had you sign was not an order to quarantine; but if you signed it, you were agreeing to self-quarantine. It was weaselly and misleading. Fortunately, the incompetence of the contact tracing effort in New York meant that it didn't seem to get around much.

                      Which is a long way of saying that, if the mayor acted without proper authority, I absolutely agree with rejecting the vaccine mandate, such as it is. But just because the council doesn't weigh in on every major mayoral decision, doesn't mean that it's a "king"-like diktat. I do care more about the rule of law than I do, doing the "right" thing on the pandemic.

                    2. Simon is what happens when every talentless and lazy little kid gets a participation trophy.
                      It thinks it has value.

                    3. "" I do care more about the rule of law than I do, doing the “right” thing on the pandemic.""

                      Rule of law comes from the legislative branch. Not the executive.
                      You obviously do not care about the rule of law.

                    4. Nor do you seem to care that people's elected representatives have a say or not. Your stance is shut up and do what the Mayor demands.

              4. “…..identification requirements being progressively narrowed….”

                How so?

                You’re just a grievance pimp.

            2. "...I know you’re a troll,.."

              No. He's just your average steaming pile of lefty shit.

  33. I don't know of any reason why someone might not want to get vaccinated. In any case, I don't think others should suffer from this.

    1. All reasons are valid reasons and no one GAF why you don't see the reason for them. It's enough that for many of us, who otherwise do agree to proven vaccinations, simply do not feel safe at this time having an unproven "treatment" for covid injected into our bodies when we have a near zero chance of dying from covid regardless of being vaxxed.

      1. Nobody forces you to do it. But people have the right to choose, and cannot force them to deal with the unvaccinated in the same way as with the vaccinated.

        1. "...But people have the right to choose, and cannot force them to deal with the unvaccinated in the same way as with the vaccinated."

          No one is "forcing" you to do anything. Stay home if you don't feel safe; not my concern.

    2. "...In any case, I don’t think others should suffer from this..."

      None of your business and if you're worried, crawl under a rock and stay there until you feels safe.
      Your health is your concern.

      1. Health is not always a private matter. There are sanitary standards. You cannot have rats in a restaurant and say that this is your private business.

        1. Stupidity seems to be contagious; you caught it.

  34. LOL, too late Confederate KKKlowns. NY has had a vaccine passport since April.

  35. Yes, we the unvaccinated, should absolutely have the right to make others sick, some of whom will die. We should absolutely have the right to get sick and provide more opportunities for the virus to mutate into a even more dangerous virus. Hell, maybe soon it will even kill our children. Won't that be great, because we have these rights.

    1. "Yes, we the unvaccinated, should absolutely have the right to make others sick, some of whom will die."

      Lefty shits terrified of getting sick have the absolute right to stay under whatever rock they desire.
      Fuck off and die, slaver.

    2. so I assume you stay out of all public spaces during cold and flu season? that you don't drive? or engage in frequent, casual sex with multiple partners? that you don't eat fats or sugars? that your BMI is within a healthy range and you exercise daily?

      And, if you do not, you're okay with the government mandating that you should refrain from all these activities, and more, as they deem them to be dangerous, with or without evidence?

    3. North Korea wants more eunuchs like you.

    4. We should absolutely have the right to get sick and provide more opportunities for the virus to mutate into a even more dangerous virus.

      Again, you dumb fucks, this is absolute bullshit. Entirely setting aside the issue of mutations rates in vaccinated vs. unvaccinated, there are virtually only 2 scenarios for the virus's origin: 1. It mutated in some other mammalian vector or 2. It was engineered in a lab. So the "We need to prevent mutashunz!" bullshit either needs to be burning holds in the lab in China with a microscope or needs to get on with the "We need to vaccinate every last (land?) mammal on the face of the Earth." idiocy so people can recognize how abjectly fucking stupid they are.

  36. What's intolerable is fucking idiots crying "Freedom!" while insisting on their right to sicken and kill other citizens during a pandemic. Libertarianism is great in concept, but that ideal crosses a bright line when you endanger my life and the lives of my family.

    1. I can't infect you if you stay home.

      1. You also can't punch someone if they stay locked in their house.


        1. Which is true, steaming pile of lefty shit. Worried about getting punched in the nose?
          Stay home.

          1. Curious as to how you think the non-aggression principle applies to invitees, then.

            1. Not curious about your mental gymnastics.
              Get flagged.

              1. I am pretty sure you're not flagging a single comment.

                1. flag for the PoLS

    2. "What’s intolerable is fucking idiots crying “Freedom!”..."

      What's intolerable is steaming piles of lefty shit assuming their health is my concern.
      Worried about getting sick? Stay under a rock. Nobody owes you a risk-free existence.

      1. Freedom is slavery.

        Get with the program sevo or it's room 101 for you.

      2. But their gender studies professor said otherwise.

    3. no one should be forced to try and guarantee you a safe existence, free from fear or potential harm

    4. see renad's reply/comment above do you subscribe to it?

  37. Participating in a civil society comes with responsibilities as well as privilege. Your right to throw a punch *ends* at the beginning of my nose.

    People are free to choose whether or not to get vaccinated, just like they are free to choose to drive drunk... but civil society is also within its rights to impose penalties when that choice creates an avoidable risk to other citizens.

    As for the other arguments, the fact that vaccinated people with breakthrough infections can spread the virus is actually the most compelling reason available for a vaccine passport.

    If there were no breakthrough infections, then the only argument for a vaccine passport would be to allow people who are medically unable to get the vaccine to participate in civil society - and we all know how certain groups of self-style libertarians feel about people who are stupid enough to be born with, or acquire a disability - and THEIR right to participate in civil society.

    However, since break through infections are a thing, that means that unvaccinated people at an event create a serious public health risk, in both the short AND long term. In the short term, breakthrough infections are statistically still extremely uncommon. An event of only vaccinated individuals is orders of magnitude safer than a mixed one.

    In the medium and long term, unvaccinated people spread the disease like wildfire - with new studies showing that Delta is at least as communicable as Chicken Pox. It has also shown a greater than expected penchant for mutation - with each new variant being more virulent, and more dangerous, and eroding the protections provided by the vaccine. Unvaccinated people are dangerous to everyone - and I'm afraid that being inconvenienced, and unable to attend cultural and sporting events because of your personal choice to put other people at risk is no worse than not being allowed to drive drunk. You make a choice, you deal with the consequences.

    In short, if you want to earn yourself a Darwin Award, more power to you. But you live with the consequences when that choice puts everyone else in immediate danger.

    1. Fuck off and die, slaver.

      1. No Sevo, that is what the willfully unvaccinated are telling the vaccinated majority to do. The willfully unvaccinated are enslaving every perfect stranger that they go around breathing all over.

        1. How are they enslaving? Fear or some omnipotent power?

          1. They're imposing their higher risk exhalation upon others they encounter in indoor spaces when they could easily have taken action to make their exhalation less of an imposition.

            1. I also see that the term "enslaving" is a mystery to slavers.

        2. No Doug. Cowardly pieces of shit can crawl under a rock and stay there.
          Fuck off and die, slaver.

          1. We agree. But the willfully unvaccinated are the cowardly POS.

            1. This sort of willful idiocy is the reason you get nothing other than insults, asshole.

            2. Where do you live, Doug?
              Wouldn't want to be a coward

            3. West Nile virus is real. You might get that if you go out of doors.

    2. AbEeyore nailed it.

      The instance of the willfully unvaccinated that they be free to breathe all over everybody else is a much more intolerable imposition on New Yorkers' liberties than the one that the doherty guy lays out in this piece.

      The willfully unvaccinated are free to be as stupid as they are being, but not while breathing all over everybody else. Full stop, end of story.

      1. Hey Doug you are then never free to breathe on me or anyone else for maladies you may have and not know, know, or may in the future have and not know. You don't get to pick and choose when it's convenient for you if you head down this road.

        1. The state of knowledge is the distinguishing factor that makes the difference in this particular case. Everyone in the country knows, or should know.

          1. If people don't have the right to breath on you, thus increasing your risk to get literally any disease, then I hate to break this to you but you should stop breathing immediately because there is a greater than zero chance you're going to give some disease to someone thus violating your own carefully constructed moral framework.

            In essence, you've invented a post hoc argument that doesn't even pass a basic logic test. You only bring it up now because you are afraid of COVID, whereas you were not afraid of all those other communicable diseases that would have killed you had you contracted them in all the prior years of your life.

            In short, there is no absolute moral reasoning that would limit such an argument to only COVID and yet that is precisely what you are trying to do. I'm curious to find out why SARS didn't cause you to demand an end to human society, or why you haven't demanded that all HIV positive people be put into concentration camps.

            Not that I really care about what fallacious reasoning you can come up with to rationalize your fear-created position. One can always justify or rationalize their fear, in fact I'd say that's the norm of human existence and it's led to a whole plethora of evil policies just like this one.

            1. "...You only bring it up now because you are afraid of COVID,.."

              Not sure it the motivation isn't simply additional control over those people who are not knee-crawlers and boot-lickers; the sort of people who frighten such.

        2. What about me, a person who already recovered from a symptomatic COVID infection? Statistically my immunity is superior to vaccine induced immunity. Why should I be punished and shunned? I have a smaller chance of spreading COVID than you vaccinated elites. Explain to me how the government treating those with naturally acquired immunity and vaccine induced immunity doesn't violate the 14th Amendment? Or a state constitution's equal protection clause? The distinction has no rational basis.

          1. Treating them differently. Differently.

      2. "Full stop, end of story."

        Full of shit, end of story.
        Crawl under your favorite rock, cowardly piece of shit.

        1. Your die/rock/slaver lines are your typical meaningless responses. You hardly ever respond with any substance. Just insults.

          1. You actually fantasize that the lefty shit you and Simon put out is worth other than insults?
            Damn, lefty shits are STUPID!

            1. Well then, at least you seem to enjoy your life's work of insulting those with which you disagree. Hopefully you really do enjoy it, because it serves no other purpose.

              1. "...those with which you disagree..."

                I see you also can't spell "slaver".

              2. Sevo is apparently just deranged.

                1. Flag for lefty shit!

      3. You want to feel safe? That's on you. I owe you nothing. Polite society does not exist. The common good does not exist. You are mentally ill if you believe they do, evil if you want to use the government as your strong arm to enforce your neurotic interpretation of what said society and good should look like.

        1. I don't want to feel anything necessarily. This is about rights. Where do yours and mine (any every other individual or other) begin and end? Does the ownership of property change the calculation? Can a private business (say, for example, a dentist) refuse to associate with you because you refuse to disclose medical information about yourself that could disrupt their business and cause harm to their other clients?

          1. "...This is about rights..."

            Yes it is, and you don't get to infringe mine because YOU might get sick, lefty shit.

          2. Your rights do not come about by forcing another human being into an action. They are not ensured by enslaving another, by stealing their labor or intellectual capital. A private business can do what it wants—it can discriminate to its heart's content, as much as that might make them anywhere from idiotic to evil. A government is another matter. The government CANNOT discriminate (which is why the Bill of Rights is a CHECK on government), as uncomfortable as that fact might make medical neurotics like you. You have zero right to request the government act as your strong arm, and if you applaud their draconian COVID mandates, you are evil. The WORLD is unsafe. Get used to it.

      4. We're all living in the same universe.

        Every single time I drive a car I risk killing another human being.

        There is no possible way to live life with zero risk of killing another human being.

        A few back of the envelope calculations and research show that the chances of a vaccinated person killing another vaccinated person in the USA is pretty damn small, compared to, say, the chances of killing another person in a car collision.

        Since we're (so far) reasonable enough to not ban driving on the basis that there's a small chance killing another person nobody should be freaking out over the much smaller chance that a vaccinated person could kill another vaccinated person (hell, even the odds of killing an unvaccinated person) from COVID - mask or no mask.

    3. But you live with the consequences when that choice puts everyone else in immediate danger.

      Except, your choice doesn't put everyone else in immediate danger.

      1. Terrified? Go crawl under a rock and stay there.
        Your health is your concern.

    4. It's disappointing you seem to be about forceful control. By your first statement you don't believe that at all, what you believe is my punch only stops if you can stop me.

    5. .. everyone else in immediate danger.
      So, the vaccines don’t work?

    6. What's with the wave of $.50ers?

      1. Prolly a link on salon or some such.

    7. you're pathetically scared and weak

    8. > when that choice creates an avoidable risk to other citizens.
      What is the penalty for Biden voters, who as a consequence of their votes, let unvaccinated and possibly Covid carrying immigrants in illegally? According to you, their votes have literally caused harm, even death.

    9. Are all these fucktards the same asshole, or have we had an unexpected influx of the totalitarian stupid?

      1. .50 cent brigade has been sent out full force this week

        1. This is how I felt on the 538 boards it just kept coming in waves until there was no more diversity of thought I get worried sometimes they'll do the same thing. They remind me of the borg or zerg don't stop until assimilation or destruction.

    10. Participating in a civil society comes with responsibilities as well as privilege. Your right to throw a punch *ends* at the beginning of my nose.

      You don't have a right to jab people with needles or any other object and even if you did, by your own claims, it ends before reaching my arm. Any further discussion means your arguing against your own convictions. Something you should be inflicting on a spouse or a paid psychological professional somewhere not on innocent bystanders.

      Since you couldn't even think that far in front of your own nose, I'm not going to bother reading the rest of your comment.

  38. Wouldn't it be nice if an ostensibly libertarian magazine made a distinction between "the [local] government" and "the [federal] government"?

  39. Of course they will. These covidiots have resisted every public health measure so far. Why would they stop now?

    1. While lefty shits have blown a minor illness into a wonderful opportunity to drop the mask from the authoritarian face.
      Fuck off and die, slaver.

      1. I minor illness that has killed 1 in 500 Americans.

        1. And you see a fatality rate of 1/5 of 1% as a serious illness? As serious as your stupidty?

          1. Yes. That 1 in 500 is of all Americans, not just those who got covid. And it does not count those who have long term chronic covid. And this was all in about a 16 month period. So yes, very serious.

            1. How do you get yourself to leave your place during the day? I sort of imagine you like bob from what about bob.

        2. Only if you assume that anyone who died with COVID-19 died from COVID-19, which is highly dubious.


          1. Current estimates are that the true covid deaths could be almost twice as high. No one (who is not a moron) thinks the true number is lower.

            1. you're kidding me on that statment right? So out of the 3 million people who died last year 1.2 million were covid and yet we still only had aroudn 3 million deaths since these are people who would not have died that year. If your statement and underlying premise which you don't come out and say fully; shouldn't we have like 4 or million 5 people dead in the us last year?

        3. I pray you never see someone running with scissors.

  40. There are a number of alternatives to the vaccinations, which, if based on spike proteins, are dangerous and cannot work: "An analysis of more than 50,000 real-life SARS-CoV-2 genomes isolated from patient samples further showed that most of these virus mutations were already circulating, albeit at very low levels in the infected human populations. These results show that SARS-CoV-2 can mutate its spike proteins to evade antibodies, and that these mutations are already present in some virus mutants circulating in the human population."
    It doesn't matter if you're vaccinated or not, if you don't have natural T-cell immunity, you're not going to be immune to new variants. The vaccines all focus on the spike protein, and there are - as of three months ago - over 1400 variants in the US alone which can evade the vaccines. What the vaccines do is filter out the variants for which they're made, so if you get infected with a soup of alpha, wild type, and delta variants as the major components, plus hundreds of other mutations as minor components, the vaccines will filter out the alpha and wild type viruses, and leave the Delta and the rest alone - and *those* will reproduce. The dominant strain will then, by natural selection, be the Delta strain, accompanied by the rest, and those will be spread to others. So let's say we get a Delta booster shot. That filters out the Delta variant, and leaves the rest, including (say) the Lambda variant alone to reproduce, and be spread. So we get a Lambda booster shot, and that takes care of the Lambda, but the Epsilon variant isn't touched, so we need another booster. And this could continue on for 20 years, until the variant names fill the page. And the vaccinated population is the pool of contagion.

    There are effective things which can be done, cheaply and effectively, from a public health standpoint: Michael Mina's antigen tests stop the spread - - and using Vitamin D3, per Roger Seheult, MD, to prevent and treat the infection -

    But none of this touches on what should be the central point of this article - the deprivation of civil liberties under color of law. There's not a single mention of the 14th Amendment, which was enacted precisely in order to prevent creation of second class citizens - "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." The vaccination passports do precisely this, they deny to those citizens who refuse an experimental vaccine the same liberties as those who take the vaccine. If allowed to stand, this would overturn Roe v Wade, and Cruzan, amongst others. It would make citizens the property of the State, to be subjected to whatever medical procedure the State decided was in its best interests. It could be used to justify mandatory euthanasia, on grounds that the elderly and disabled, physically or developmentally, were too great of a burden on the State to justify their continued existence. It could be used to justify mandatory sterilization for the developmentally disabled and mentally ill - "three generations of imbeciles are enough" - on the same grounds, of burden to the State and by extension, other citizens. This law and others like it are inimical to American liberty, and deserve defiance and revolution, if need be.

    1. "This law and others like it are inimical to American liberty, and deserve defiance and revolution, if need be." Thank you. Sometimes I let the shamers get to me and I feel guilty for not wearing a mask. Now I remember why it's important.

    2. Thank you. I have been screaming "14th Amendment" for months on deaf ears. Vaccine passports also violate the Nuremburg Code. "Voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential." Consent through coercion is not voluntary. The vaccine passport issue transcends US liberty implications. This is a basic human rights issue--the right of human beings to decide whether to accept or refuse medical treatment.

    3. Thank you.

    4. There are effective things which can be done,

      I very much agree with the rest of your post and would only add that there are actually a myriad of things that can be done. Generally being in shape and getting some physical activity, especially outdoors, has demonstrated significant improvements in contraction, morbidity, and transmission of/from COVID (as well as other health benefits). The focus and expenditure on vaccinations narrows the scope and the lockdowns specifically prevent the exploration/understanding of these options, many of which work on a wide variety of diseases protractedly rather than just COVID until a variant pops up.

  41. I hear the Biden Vaccine is taking a hit in the polls.

    1. Hence the fifty cent brigade sent out in full force.

  42. I have not seen any article questioning the legality of DeShithead's order.

    Any who believes in democracy should be appalled. If you believe in the mandate and you believe in democracy then you should believe the city council should be the ones to decide. Not the Mayor.

    It's sad to see people applaud mandates by the executive that usurps the democratic process. It seems some people only give lip service to democracy and will gladly support the king's decree when they like it.

  43. Progressives *are* fascists. There is no doubt.

  44. Yeah, but what if businesses (in cooperation with blasio) enact vaccine mandates of their own? Private businesses, game over?

    What’s at stake doesn’t change, right? In a mostly libertarian society this is less Ivan issue. But we don’t live in one. The libs who suddenly support private companies right to their own rules when it comes to vaccination actively impose regulations on them in all other cases - wages, benefits, diversity, etc,

    If companies can turn away unvaccinated people, then they should be able to turn away illegals, dope smokers, republicans and (gasp) black people. That’s a libertarian society. Otherwise, I’m not interested being submitted to selective standard of corporate freedom.

    1. All or nothing fallacy: Epistemic / Evidential Fallacy. Definition. Example. When it is suggested or implied that one must believe all or nothing of a particular set of beliefs. Saint Nicholas clearly existed, so why are you suggesting he does not descend chimneys in a red suit Christmas eve?

      1. That doesn't matter did XM make a point or not that people liked better than yours? I've said this before calling out debate tactics like logic traps only matters if the other person cares about those rules. It doesn't persuasiveness wins no matter if it's fair or not the response many times to this virus shows some great examples.

      2. I don't understand your point.

        Companies have the right to discriminate against Asians, but not blacks? A uniform standard violates some logic test?

    2. Yeah, but what if businesses (in cooperation with blasio) enact vaccine mandates of their own? Private businesses, game over?

      As San Francisco and New York are discovering (apparently they haven't learned any lessons from failing at gun registries and/or preventing felons from owning guns), you need a centralized and standardized passport system in order for even businesses to effectively enact these policies.

      This was brought up in the transgender debate as well. No business has or had official gender checkers hanging out in front of restrooms checking people's junk, but creating a protected class of people who are entitled to using whichever restroom they please would require the government to inspect everyone's junk, either directly or by proxy.

      Agreed that businesses should be able to turn people away as they see fit but a vaccine passport requires increasing degrees of collective oppression in order to be effective.

  45. This is an obvious ploy. If New Yorkers are brain dead enough to re-elect this ignoramus, then he should be a shoe-in to replace the cereal murderer /philander in Albany. Scarlet letters to get in a restaurant should insure the straight line voter again regardless of how crooked it is...

    1. He murdered cereal? I thought it was old people...

    2. He's out. He lost the Democrat primary to Eric Adams, who is a former cop calling for a return to law and order in NYC.


      1. NYC mayor is limited by statute to two terms. City Council can waive that restriction, but they're not doing it for the least competent man in America.

  46. We can make this very, very simple.
    The wave of slavers recently arrived wants to have a 'conversation' about the issue. OK:
    They: "We want to tell you where you may go because we feel sacred".
    We: "No".
    End of conversation. See how easy that is?

  47. Now that Deblabbermouth got the shit kicked out of him by Eric Adams, I hope that Adams might have the modicum of integrity needed to get that son of a bitch audited and busted for corruption.


  48. As I go further and further right in my views I’m more and more sympathetic to a competent authoritarian response by trustworthy authorities to public emergencies like Covid - with emphasis on competent and trustworthy. If the mayor were a true patriot and the government composed of the public spirited, it would make sense to give them the authority to do whatever it took to break the pandemic, including mandatory vaccines, masks, lockdowns, you name it. If any time calls for common sacrifice, it is during outbreaks of deadly infectious disease. As it is, the mayor is an enemy of civilization and I don’t blame people for not trusting him to do the right thing, even if his policies on the face of it make sense from perspective of public health.

    Trust in authority requires unity of spirit in the community, however. That in turn requires cultural unity, which depends on ethnic and racial unity. New York is the opposite of that. The mayor joins protests against rule of law and then expects obedience.

    1. Covid was never really an emergency

      1. 600k deaths isn’t an emergency? If this really were a Chinese bio attack would you say the same thing or are you stick stuck on the “just the flu” narrative?

        1. 600K deaths is not an emergency, it's an eventuality. Hospitals overcrowded due to the emergence of a pandemic is an emergency, for which a more forceful response might be helpful.

          But rightfully such an emergency would have a clear set of guidelines for when the period was over, and at the end of the period all emergency measures must be rescinded and all officials involved with implementing them must be removed as a matter of statute. As we are learning once again, the temptation for abuse is simply too great, bureaucratic inertia too strong, and a large segment of the population too easily panicked to simply allow these to be open-ended.

    2. You could just kill the old, weak, and infirm with this one right? You know a good old competent and efficient response? Get this thing to insignificant levels right?! We could really have a spirit of community we could bond over.

      1. Also the blacks and Mexicans. They're the ones that are crowding out the hospitals, amiright?

    3. "As I go further and further right in my views I’m more and more sympathetic to a competent authoritarian response by trustworthy authorities to public emergencies like Covid..."

      Goody for you. Fuck off.

  49. Nice Blog, keep it up for more information like this.california online liquor store

  50. online courses uk, Best course choice for your better future with distance learning ? online courses uk

  51. Impfstoffe machen Sie frei
    Sieg Heil!

  52. Given the general political affiliations of this lot, I wonder why the people who are applauding Mayor deBlasio's newest edict and similar propositions across the country are not screaming at the top of their lungs about how patently racist these new rules are. Practically Jim Crow 3.0!
    > "The vaccine requirement, announced by Mayor Bill de Blasio on Aug. 3, would apply to both staff and customers at restaurants, bars, gyms, and entertainment venues. It may be expanded to other establishments too, a New York City Department of Health official [said].
    > "Businesses will have to ask customers for their vaccination card issued by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) or vaccination confirmation on the city or state phone app. The rule goes into effect on Aug. 16 and enforcement through inspections will start Sept. 13.
    First, the whole notion of "papers please" is anti-American and smacks of other dictatorial regimes, especially certain WW2-era governments.
    But if we follow today's woke world logic:
    * Black people are lagging in vaccination status and are therefore disproportionately going to be impacted by this new rule.
    * To get a vaccination, one must show a valid photo ID, but we know now that being asked to show an ID is inherently racist.
    * Businesses owned by and/or frequented by black people will be impacted more than mega-companies owned and frequented by rich white people, so the rules are racist on the level as well.
    * There is a phone app associated with this "vaccine passport", but poor people might not have smart-phones or the education needed to work them properly to comply. Hence racist, because something that impacts poor people of all colors also affects poor black people.
    * This rule is demanding MORE police presence, because if someone doesn't comply, the police will eventually be called, resulting ultimately in unarmed black men being gunned down by cops...unless the police are somehow defunded or something. Anyway, police are racist by woke definition, so using them to enforce this new rule must also be racist.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.