Flu vaccine mandatory at Cornell...for white students

[Metaphor]

Nonsense. Allowing people to opt out of vaccinations for non-medical reasons is a cost to them.

Unalloyed nonsense. Adults can decide for themselves whether the reduced risk of getting sick is worth the visit to the clinic and the jab for them. To be compelled to do something you would not want to do without being compelled does not benefit you.

Compelling people who are medically able to have one is a benefit to them.

It is a net negative. A lot of people would benefit, physically, from forced exercise, but being compelled to do it is negative. And if they would not have done it but for the compelling, they have measured the cost (of exercise) as too much versus the benefit.

But, I suppose if you are an authoritarian leftist, compelling people to do what you want is always a benefit, because you simply do not account for the cost.

Moreover, all students have the opportunity to opt out - so no one is having a reduced choice. .

Of course it's reduced. BIPOC students have every exemption available to them that white students have, plus an additional one based on being BIPOC. It is logically impossible for white people not to have reduced choice when they have a reduced choice by definition.

Reactionary twaddle.

Being that you are a professor in academia and you support this nonsense, you are a culpable co-conspirator.

 

[Harry Bosch]

Oy gevalt one obtuseness doth thread upon the other's heels, so quickly they follow.

Says the screeching brayer of reactionary conservative clickbait!!!!

BIPOC can be given an exemption as BIPOC.

The relevant language is

Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events, and may find this information helpful in considering an exemption.
To apply for a non-medical/religious exemption to the flu vaccination requirement, students should send us a secure message through our patient portal explaining why you believe you should receive an exemption from this requirement.

Apparently the you and the others of the reactionary SJWs interpret this language to mean a student can request an exemption by saying "I am BIPOC". However, the reading of the actual language suggests that student can request an exemption by saying "I do not trust this vaccine because of the the history (or current policy) of the government towards
black (or indigenous or latino) people."

Frankly, I think allowing anyone who does not have a valid medical reason to have a vaccination exemption is nuts.

Totally agree. I find it very condescending to think that non-whites don't want to protect our family and friends by getting the vaccine just like white people.

 

[Toni]

I've read the entire piece on the Cornell site and the only statement regarding an exemption is the following at the end, and not quoted in the OP:

We can be a resource if you need more information, an exemption, or have related questions, concerns. Please contact cornellhealth@cornell.edu.

Acknowledging the fact of history that persons of color and in particular, black persons have been subjected to medical experimentation and still do not have their medical needs adequately addressed while getting medical care is not providing students of color with an exemption. It is merely acknowledging out loud the history of exploitation that black students and other persons of color have endured.

Some persons do require an exemption, usually those with a medical condition that precludes them from receiving vaccinations. There are also religious exemptions for a few individuals. Unless I missed it, there is not a single word that indicates that black students are exempt from the expectation of vaccination. If I am wrong, please show me where it says that black students don't have to get vaccinated.

 

[Politesse]

Deeper into Woke clownworld we go. You couldn't make this stuff up.

https://www.lawenforcementtoday.com...nation-mandatory-but-only-for-white-students/

An Ivy League university is requiring that white students receive an annual flu vaccination, while providing an exemption for students belonging to any other race. Because of “historical injustices and current events,” Cornell University will grant to “people of color” an exemption from its requirement that all students get a flu vaccination.
You are forgiven if you get a migraine trying to untangle the logic behind the reasoning for this exemption.
Apparently, because of “systemic racism and health inequities” in the United States, “individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements.”
The following is from the Cornell Health website, cornell.health.edu:
“We recognize that, due to longstanding systemic racism and health inequities in this country, individuals from some marginalized communities may have concerns about needing to agree to such requirements.
For example, historically, the bodies of Black, Indigenous, and other People of Color (BIPOC) have been mistreated, and used by people in power, sometimes for profit or medical gain.
“It is understandable that the current Compact requirements may feel suspect or even exploitative to some BIPOC members of the Cornell community. Additionally, recent acts of violence against Black people by law enforcement may contribute to feelings of distrust or powerlessness.
We know this history and validate the potential concerns it may raise. At the same time, we know that long-standing social inequalities and health disparities have resulted in COVID-19 disproportionately affecting BIPOC individuals.
“Higher percentages of individuals from these communities become infected with COVID, and the health outcomes related to infection are often more serious.
Away from campus community, BIPOC individuals are not as likely to have access to preventive services or quality health care. The systems, services, and policies being implemented at Cornell seek to address these inequalities as well as the differential impacts.”

I've read through a few articles to see if events are being misreported, given the clickbait headline. But they're not.

https://www.campusreform.org/article?id=16344

You did not "research" anything.. you didn't even read the Cornell announcement you posted a link to. It doesn't say anything about an exemption. It just acknowledges the concern and explains why compliance is nevertheless important.

 

[Harry Bosch]

We live in unique times. I know this: until we get to herd immunity: we are all at risk. And if we exempt people who have medical conditions, who are religious, and people who have been historically wronged by the US government - we will not get to herd immunity. There's a real simple solution. Make the vaccination 100% voluntary. However, the upcoming $1,200 individual stimulus that is in the works should only be paid to those who willing get the shot (exempting medical needs people). If someone has such little regard for others that they aren't willing to contribute to herd immunity, they shouldn't get any tax dollars.

 

[TomC]

We live in unique times. I know this: until we get to herd immunity: we are all at risk. And if we exempt people who have medical conditions, who are religious, and people who have been historically wronged by the US government - we will not get to herd immunity. There's a real simple solution. Make the vaccination 100% voluntary. However, the upcoming $1,200 individual stimulus that is in the works should only be paid to those who willing get the shot (exempting medical needs people). If someone has such little regard for others that they aren't willing to contribute to herd immunity, they shouldn't get any tax dollars.

I'm totally with you.
There is a small fraction of the population that do have medical issues with certain vaccines. Leaving them out of the discussion...

People who have issues with the vaccine that are entirely between their ears are the problem. We won't reach herd immunity and quell the epidemic until we reach a high level of people who are immune. And it appears that getting the virus, recovering, and getting on with things still doesn't confer much protection.

Of course, nobody really knows. It's just not been long enough for long term studies of the effects on different kinds of people. Or long term studies of the effects of a vaccine, both physical and psychological.

Somebody somewhere(I thought it was TFT, but I can't find the post. So maybe it was somewhere else) posted statistics about black American's attitude towards a vaccine. Well under 20% believe that a vaccine would be safe and effective. I found that so lacking in credibility I didn't pay attention.

Any insight into that?

Tom

 

[Toni]

We live in unique times. I know this: until we get to herd immunity: we are all at risk. And if we exempt people who have medical conditions, who are religious, and people who have been historically wronged by the US government - we will not get to herd immunity. There's a real simple solution. Make the vaccination 100% voluntary. However, the upcoming $1,200 individual stimulus that is in the works should only be paid to those who willing get the shot (exempting medical needs people). If someone has such little regard for others that they aren't willing to contribute to herd immunity, they shouldn't get any tax dollars.

Again, despite Metaphor’s claims, Cornell is NOT exempting black people.

Medical exemptions are necessary as immunization can result in serious harm to individuals who are immunocompromised, as well as the very young (young infants) and some very old people. That is why we need herd immunity by immunizing everyone who can be immunized. It protects those who are vaccinated—and those who cannot be.

Those charlatans who have perpetuated the myth of autism and niw Microsoft chips! I’m vaccines deserve full prosecution and a special place in hell.

 

[laughing dog]

Unalloyed nonsense. Adults can decide for themselves whether the reduced risk of getting sick is worth the visit to the clinic and the jab for them.

Assuming rationality, knowledge and no external costs to others, you'd have a point. Since none of that is true, your claim is wrong.

To be compelled to do something you would not want to do without being compelled does not benefit you.

So, the fact people are required to drive on a particular side of the road does not benefit them? Sorry, your position is incredibly ignorant.

It is a net negative. A lot of people would benefit, physically, from forced exercise, but being compelled to do it is negative. And if they would not have done it but for the compelling, they have measured the cost (of exercise) as too much versus the benefit.

More libertarian nonsense. Vaccinations protect the person and others which exercise does not. Nor is your assumption about measuring benefits vs costs valid.

But, I suppose if you are an authoritarian leftist, compelling people to do what you want is always a benefit, because you simply do not account for the cost.

I don't know about authoritarian leftists, but I do know that people can disagree about the costs. For example, libertarians typically do not account for possible external costs on others which is why they make the argument that vaccinations should not be compelled.

Of course it's reduced. BIPOC students have every exemption available to them that white students have, plus an additional one based on being BIPOC. It is logically impossible for white people not to have reduced choice when they have a reduced choice by definition.

By definition, if you are literally unable to choose something, your choice is not limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to get an abortion does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to have a venison put on my pizza where I live because it is not offered does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense

Being that you are a professor in academia and you support this nonsense, you are a culpable co-conspirator.

I do not support it, I think there should only be exemptions for medical reasons. I simply think your argument is an example of reactionary hysteria.

 

[Toni]

Assuming rationality, knowledge and no external costs to others, you'd have a point. Since none of that is true, your claim is wrong.
So, the fact people are required to drive on a particular side of the road does not benefit them? Sorry, your position is incredibly ignorant.

It is a net negative. A lot of people would benefit, physically, from forced exercise, but being compelled to do it is negative. And if they would not have done it but for the compelling, they have measured the cost (of exercise) as too much versus the benefit.

More libertarian nonsense. Vaccinations protect the person and others which exercise does not. Nor is your assumption about measuring benefits vs costs valid.

But, I suppose if you are an authoritarian leftist, compelling people to do what you want is always a benefit, because you simply do not account for the cost.

I don't know about authoritarian leftists, but I do know that people can disagree about the costs. For example, libertarians typically do not account for possible external costs on others which is why they make the argument that vaccinations should not be compelled.

Of course it's reduced. BIPOC students have every exemption available to them that white students have, plus an additional one based on being BIPOC. It is logically impossible for white people not to have reduced choice when they have a reduced choice by definition.

By definition, if you are literally unable to choose something, your choice is not limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to get an abortion does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to have a venison put on my pizza where I live because it is not offered does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense

Being that you are a professor in academia and you support this nonsense, you are a culpable co-conspirator.

I do not support it, I think there should only be exemptions for medical reasons. I simply think your argument is an example of reactionary hysteria.

Actually, if anyone bothered to actually read the Cornell statement, they’d see that Metaphor is dishonest on his representation and simply looking for an argument.

 

[laughing dog]

Assuming rationality, knowledge and no external costs to others, you'd have a point. Since none of that is true, your claim is wrong.
So, the fact people are required to drive on a particular side of the road does not benefit them? Sorry, your position is incredibly ignorant.


More libertarian nonsense. Vaccinations protect the person and others which exercise does not. Nor is your assumption about measuring benefits vs costs valid.
I don't know about authoritarian leftists, but I do know that people can disagree about the costs. For example, libertarians typically do not account for possible external costs on others which is why they make the argument that vaccinations should not be compelled.

Of course it's reduced. BIPOC students have every exemption available to them that white students have, plus an additional one based on being BIPOC. It is logically impossible for white people not to have reduced choice when they have a reduced choice by definition.

By definition, if you are literally unable to choose something, your choice is not limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to get an abortion does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to have a venison put on my pizza where I live because it is not offered does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense

Being that you are a professor in academia and you support this nonsense, you are a culpable co-conspirator.

I do not support it, I think there should only be exemptions for medical reasons. I simply think your argument is an example of reactionary hysteria.

Actually, if anyone bothered to actually read the Cornell statement, they’d see that Metaphor is dishonest on his representation and simply looking for an argument.

A charitable view of the presented argument in the OP is that it is the usual very harsh interpretation of the written policy which makes it less convincing on its face. Add in that it is filled with logical errors (that an unavailable option due to history and demography means a current choice is limited), poor reasoning (the omission of external costs in the internal benefit-cost analysis) and unsubstantiated/unrealistic assumptions about human behavior (that adults are rational and knowledgeable) make the argument unconvincing. Finally, sprinkle in the hyperbole rhetoric about "woke", "authoritiarian",leftist", and "conspirator" (the only thing missing is "feminist") and it becomes the usual fucking tiresome reactionary screed.

 

[Toni]

Assuming rationality, knowledge and no external costs to others, you'd have a point. Since none of that is true, your claim is wrong.
So, the fact people are required to drive on a particular side of the road does not benefit them? Sorry, your position is incredibly ignorant.


More libertarian nonsense. Vaccinations protect the person and others which exercise does not. Nor is your assumption about measuring benefits vs costs valid.
I don't know about authoritarian leftists, but I do know that people can disagree about the costs. For example, libertarians typically do not account for possible external costs on others which is why they make the argument that vaccinations should not be compelled.

By definition, if you are literally unable to choose something, your choice is not limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to get an abortion does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to have a venison put on my pizza where I live because it is not offered does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense

Being that you are a professor in academia and you support this nonsense, you are a culpable co-conspirator.

I do not support it, I think there should only be exemptions for medical reasons. I simply think your argument is an example of reactionary hysteria.

Actually, if anyone bothered to actually read the Cornell statement, they’d see that Metaphor is dishonest on his representation and simply looking for an argument.

A charitable view of the presented argument in the OP is that it is the usual very harsh interpretation of the written policy which makes it less convincing on its face. Add in that it is filled with logical errors (that an unavailable option due to history and demography means a current choice is limited), poor reasoning (the omission of external costs in the internal benefit-cost analysis) and unsubstantiated/unrealistic assumptions about human behavior (that adults are rational and knowledgeable) make the argument unconvincing. Finally, sprinkle in the hyperbole rhetoric about "woke", "authoritiarian",leftist", and "conspirator" (the only thing missing is "feminist") and it becomes the usual fucking tiresome reactionary screed.

Or as I said: Cornell has NOT exempted black students from it's vaccination protocols. It's merely acknowledged history that can contribute to some persons of color being skeptical of participation. Basically, it said: This is the expectation of our students. We know that it may be upsetting to some because of deplorable actions in the past that harmed persons of color. We get it.

 

[Metaphor]

I've read the entire piece on the Cornell site and the only statement regarding an exemption is the following at the end, and not quoted in the OP:

We can be a resource if you need more information, an exemption, or have related questions, concerns. Please contact cornellhealth@cornell.edu.

Acknowledging the fact of history that persons of color and in particular, black persons have been subjected to medical experimentation and still do not have their medical needs adequately addressed while getting medical care is not providing students of color with an exemption. It is merely acknowledging out loud the history of exploitation that black students and other persons of color have endured.

Some persons do require an exemption, usually those with a medical condition that precludes them from receiving vaccinations. There are also religious exemptions for a few individuals. Unless I missed it, there is not a single word that indicates that black students are exempt from the expectation of vaccination. If I am wrong, please show me where it says that black students don't have to get vaccinated.

Exempt from the expectation? No, the default policy is "all students must get vaccinated".

But they have an additional exemption reason that white students do not have.

Under the three categories of exemption (medical, religious, other), under 'other', Cornell writes:

• Other exemption (for *FLU VACCINATION* requirement only): Ithaca students with other concerns / extenuating circumstances may request an exemption from the Fall 2020 flu vaccination requirement that is part of the university's COVID-19 Behavioral Compact. (Learn more about why Cornell is requiring flu vaccination for students.) Students who identify as Black, Indigenous, or as a Person of Color (BIPOC) may have personal concerns about fulfilling the Compact requirements based on historical injustices and current events, and may find this information helpful in considering an exemption.
  • To apply for a non-medical/religious exemption to the flu vaccination requirement, students should send us a secure message through our patient portal explaining why you believe you should receive an exemption from this requirement. Log in to myCornellHealth and select Messages & Pharmacy Services > New Message > Send a message or an attachment to Immunization Requirements.

I don't know how it could be made clearer that Cornell considers that the "personal concerns" of BIPOC to vaccination to constitute a valid exemption, since they published that sentence within the paragraph about 'other exemptions'. For goodness' sake, Cornell has a link to explain to BIPOC why they should be concerned!

 

[Metaphor]

Assuming rationality, knowledge and no external costs to others, you'd have a point. Since none of that is true, your claim is wrong.
So, the fact people are required to drive on a particular side of the road does not benefit them? Sorry, your position is incredibly ignorant.


More libertarian nonsense. Vaccinations protect the person and others which exercise does not. Nor is your assumption about measuring benefits vs costs valid.
I don't know about authoritarian leftists, but I do know that people can disagree about the costs. For example, libertarians typically do not account for possible external costs on others which is why they make the argument that vaccinations should not be compelled.

By definition, if you are literally unable to choose something, your choice is not limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to get an abortion does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense. The fact I cannot choose to have a venison put on my pizza where I live because it is not offered does not mean my choice is limited in any meaningful sense


I do not support it, I think there should only be exemptions for medical reasons. I simply think your argument is an example of reactionary hysteria.

Actually, if anyone bothered to actually read the Cornell statement, they’d see that Metaphor is dishonest on his representation and simply looking for an argument.

A charitable view of the presented argument in the OP is that it is the usual very harsh interpretation of the written policy which makes it less convincing on its face. Add in that it is filled with logical errors (that an unavailable option due to history and demography means a current choice is limited), poor reasoning (the omission of external costs in the internal benefit-cost analysis) and unsubstantiated/unrealistic assumptions about human behavior (that adults are rational and knowledgeable) make the argument unconvincing. Finally, sprinkle in the hyperbole rhetoric about "woke", "authoritiarian",leftist", and "conspirator" (the only thing missing is "feminist") and it becomes the usual fucking tiresome reactionary screed.

Or as I said: Cornell has NOT exempted black students from it's vaccination protocols. It's merely acknowledged history that can contribute to some persons of color being skeptical of participation. Basically, it said: This is the expectation of our students. We know that it may be upsetting to some because of deplorable actions in the past that harmed persons of color. We get it.

It definitely virtue-signalled its woke credentials, but it did not say 'push past your feelings of discomfort, as unfair as that is'.

It virtue-signalled in the "other exemptions" category, and provided a link to help inform BIPOC about why they are justified in being afraid.

 

[Metaphor]

A charitable view of the presented argument in the OP is that it is the usual very harsh interpretation of the written policy which makes it less convincing on its face. Add in that it is filled with logical errors (that an unavailable option due to history and demography means a current choice is limited),

Your statement is so ludicrous I can't even. You might as well say when black people were redlined in certain neighbourhoods (because of their history and demography) that that did not limit their choices.

poor reasoning (the omission of external costs in the internal benefit-cost analysis)

Pointing out that you weighed personal cost at zero in your analysis is not me omitting external costs.

and unsubstantiated/unrealistic assumptions about human behavior (that adults are rational and knowledgeable)

I didn't say it, I don't believe it, and it is not necessary for my argument.

 

[Metaphor]

You did not "research" anything.. you didn't even read the Cornell announcement you posted a link to. It doesn't say anything about an exemption. It just acknowledges the concern and explains why compliance is nevertheless important.

What the fuck? When did I use the word 'research', which you've put in scare quotes above?

Politesse, you have more than once betrayed that you don't read my OPs properly or the links contained in them. Cornell specifically says that it understands if BIPOC people have concerns, and links to an article giving BIPOC the kind of information to put in an 'other exemption' request. Within the 'other exemptions' category.

 

[Metaphor]

Again, despite Metaphor’s claims, Cornell is NOT exempting black people.

Cornell has, in its 'other exemptions' category, made it clear that it will exempt BIPOC people if they are concerned, and linked to information designed to help BIPOC justify their 'other exemption'.

 

[Toni]

Actually, if anyone bothered to actually read the Cornell statement, they’d see that Metaphor is dishonest on his representation and simply looking for an argument.

A charitable view of the presented argument in the OP is that it is the usual very harsh interpretation of the written policy which makes it less convincing on its face. Add in that it is filled with logical errors (that an unavailable option due to history and demography means a current choice is limited), poor reasoning (the omission of external costs in the internal benefit-cost analysis) and unsubstantiated/unrealistic assumptions about human behavior (that adults are rational and knowledgeable) make the argument unconvincing. Finally, sprinkle in the hyperbole rhetoric about "woke", "authoritiarian",leftist", and "conspirator" (the only thing missing is "feminist") and it becomes the usual fucking tiresome reactionary screed.

Or as I said: Cornell has NOT exempted black students from it's vaccination protocols. It's merely acknowledged history that can contribute to some persons of color being skeptical of participation. Basically, it said: This is the expectation of our students. We know that it may be upsetting to some because of deplorable actions in the past that harmed persons of color. We get it.

It definitely virtue-signalled its woke credentials, but it did not say 'push past your feelings of discomfort, as unfair as that is'.

It virtue-signalled in the "other exemptions" category, and provided a link to help inform BIPOC about why they are justified in being afraid.

Nope. Acknowledging past wrongs is not giving an exemption to any persons.

Your personal outrage at anything that acknowledges the grievous harms done and still being done to persons who reside in a different country and who happen to have a darker skin tone than you presumably do or at least trace their history to the continent of Africa is not the same thing as exempting black students. I don't care how outraged you are. It does not obliviate the fact that you are simply wrong and imo, dishonest in your representation of the facts of this 'case' you have brought before us.

 

[Toni]

You did not "research" anything.. you didn't even read the Cornell announcement you posted a link to. It doesn't say anything about an exemption. It just acknowledges the concern and explains why compliance is nevertheless important.

What the fuck? When did I use the word 'research', which you've put in scare quotes above?

Politesse, you have more than once betrayed that you don't read my OPs properly or the links contained in them. Cornell specifically says that it understands if BIPOC people have concerns, and links to an article giving BIPOC the kind of information to put in an 'other exemption' request. Within the 'other exemptions' category.

Heh. Your claims betray the fact that YOU don't read YOUR links.

 

[Toni]

But they have an additional exemption reason that white students do not have.


Exempt from the expectation? No, the default policy is "all students must get vaccinated".

Exactly.

 

[Politesse]

Politesse, you have more than once betrayed that you don't read my OPs properly or the links contained in them. Cornell specifically says that it understands if BIPOC people have concerns, and links to an article giving BIPOC the kind of information to put in an 'other exemption' request. Within the 'other exemptions' category.

I read what the articles said. Then I read what the actual page said. They did not say the same thing, and for Cornell's part they made no offer to exempt people of color from vaccination. Their sole concession to student concerns was to put up a web page on which they say they understand student concerns.