Omicron makes vaccine mandates obsolete

Amid Thursday's Supreme Court ruling, new data suggests the Omicron variant makes vaccine mandates obsolete and unnecessary. One America's Chief White House Correspondent Chanel Rion has more from Washington.

Phil Kerpen makes a clear and compelling argument on the medical futility of vaxx mandates:

First of all, vaxx mandates require a serious disease. It's a non-starter to mandate a therapy for a simple cold. Well, omicron (or Omi-Cold) is not much different from the common cold.

Second of all, vaxx mandates require that the vaccine significantly reduces the risk of infection. The COVID injections have proven to utterly fail at this criterion. Not only do they provide absolutely no protection against transmission and infection (as openly admitted by Anthony Fauci, Rochelle Walensky, Pfizer's CEO Albert Bourla and many others), but two recent studies even point to the fact that the double vaxxed form an INCREASED risk of infection and transmission.

These are the studies:
1. CANADIAN STUDY: Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines against Omicron or Delta infection
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.30.21268565v1

2. DANISH STUDY: Vaccine effectiveness against SARS-CoV-2 infection with the Omicron or Delta variants following a two-dose or booster BNT162b2 or mRNA-1273 vaccination series: A Danish cohort study
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.12.20.21267966v3

NB: Many more arguments can be made against mandates, but each of one the above should be sufficient by itself.

The above facts and arguments make a vaccine mandate medically futile regardless of the setting. It's true that health care workers may be at increased infection risk themselves and also come in frequent close contact with more frail individuals, however if the jabs don't work, they don't work. Therefore, vaxx mandates for health care workers should also be out of the question.

Choosing the injection doesn't have any SOCIAL benefit as explained above, but MIGHT have a PERSONAL benefit in term of reducing your risk of a disease. However, there is judicial precedent that it is unacceptable to mandate healthy behavior.

For example, the state does not have the authority to mandate eating broccoli, getting adequate rest or getting adequate exercise. We also don't accept it when they prohibit junk food, alcohol, smoking and other unhealthy behaviors, such as chronic stress. Therefore a vaxx mandate is completely out of the question.

Your life and your health is YOUR choice. If you choose to live unhealthily, that's YOUR prerogative since it is YOUR life. (Reasonable costs may be acceptable, however, such as high taxes on cigarettes and alcohol, and possibly even higher insurance premiums to pay for increased health care costs.) Anything else would be health dictatorship.

"If people let the government decide what foods they eat and what medicines they take, their bodies will soon be in as sorry a state as are the souls who live under tyranny." ― Thomas Jefferson

NB: Reducing the disease burden might not only have a personal benefit, but also a social benefit. Lower risk of serious disease presents a lower risk to health care capacity. However, it's clear that the COVID patients in hospital are not so much the UNVAXXED, but the IMMUNE COMPROMISED: the old, obese and comorbid.

Furthermore, COVID patients tend to be only a minority of patients. Also, you have to take into account the patients who are in hospital due to vaxx adverse events. Then of course there are the alternatives such as vitamin D and early treatment. The list of arguments against mandates could go on for many more pages.

REFERENCES
You can find the referenced amicus brief to the U.S. Supreme Court here:
https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21A244/207571/20220106153204637_220103a%20Motion%20and%20Brief%20for%20efiling.pdf