Yankee Stadium and Citi Field to seat fans in vaccinated and unvaccinated sections
- The Facts:
Fully vaccinated spectators will also be able to attend Yankees and Mets games in sections designated for 100% capacity starting this month. Unvaccinated people will have to sit in a separate section and maintain social distancing.
- Reflect On:
How safe and effective is the vaccine? Is mass vaccination justified? Are mandatory measures like this scientifically sound and justified? If so, why censor so many doctors and scientists who say otherwise? What's really going on here?
What Happened: New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo has announced that Mets and Yankees games will allow full capacity in some areas of their ballparks. Starting May 19th, both fields will have separate sections set aside for those who are vaccinated and those who are not. In the vaccinated sections, social distancing restrictions will be no more, however fans will be required to wear a mask. Full capacity seating will be available for vaccinated people while 33 percent of seats will be available to the unvaccinated but they will have to social distance. In the future, tickets will be marked vaccinated or unvaccinated.
Why This Is Important: We are creeping into a world that seems to be pushing hard for the loss of certain rights and freedoms for people who choose not to be vaccinated for COVID. It’s still uncertain how things will rollout, but many countries are already starting to implement, or have announced that they will implement vaccine passports, like Canada for example.
It’s still unclear whether or not the unvaccinated will have the option to travel to certain places, and if they are allowed, it seems they will most likely be subjected to test requirements and/or a mandatory quarantining period.
Scientists and doctors who oppose these measures, as well as oppose lockdowns and mandatory mask measures, have been ignored, ridiculed and in many cases censored during this pandemic, no matter how much research and evidence they present. Scientific critique seems to have been halted, and any discussion that discourages or points out scientific flaws in the mandatory measures that are being put in place is not allowed on big tech platforms like social meida. Furthermore, mainstream media has gone so far as to call anything that opposes the mainstream narrative a “conspiracy theory.”
An article in The Spectator provides one of countless examples of how important discussion is being shut down:
This week representatives from Facebook and Twitter were brought before parliament to discuss their firms’ censorship of discussion around Covid. Two particularly pertinent cases were raised — though there are many more. The first was a statement by Martin Kulldorff, a professor at the Harvard Medical School and one of the key authors of the anti-lockdown Great Barrington Declaration. His tweet last month, suggesting that not everyone needed to be vaccinated, particularly those who had previously been infected, was labelled ‘misleading’ by Twitter. Tweeters were rendered unable to interact with it and were instructed that ‘health officials recommend a vaccine for most people’. Similarly, in November, Facebook labelled a Spectator article on the efficacy of masks, penned by Carl Heneghan and Tom Jefferson of Oxford University’s Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine, as ‘false information’.
Here we have two social-media giants effectively intervening in scientific debate. Kulldorff, Heneghan and Jefferson are not snarling conspiracy theorists or bluffers wading into things they don’t understand. They are dissenting scientists and medics who hold positions at esteemed institutions. On what basis could Facebook or Twitter simply declare their arguments null and void?
The point is, many people do not agree with the mainstream narrative around COVID that is being force fed to the public. There is a lot of evidence out there supporting the idea that those who want to get vaccinated should, and those who don’t shouldn’t be required to, and that vaccinated individuals who are not susceptible and vulnerable to COVID may not make much of a difference when it comes to the transmission of the virus. This perspective is, according to many, completely false, ridiculous and has no backing when in fact, that’s not true at all.
I recently published an article going into detail as to why so many people are hesitant to get vaccinated. You can access that here.
Whether the COVID-19 vaccine will be effective is something we’ll know in time. A recent consensus statement from a group of renowned infectious disease clinicians observed that vaccine programs have proven ill-suited to the fast-changing viruses underlying these illnesses, with efficacy ranging from 19% to 54% in the past few years. (source) Given COVID appears to be a fast changing virus, this may be something to consider.
In a 2014 analysis in the Oregon Law Review by New York University (NYU) legal scholars Mary Holland and Chase E. Zachary (who also has a Princeton-conferred doctorate in chemistry), the authors claim that 60 years of compulsory vaccine policies “have not attained herd immunity for any childhood disease.” This is one of multiple reasons why so many suggest voluntary choice as opposed to vaccine mandates.
Further, many experts in the field have argued that the clinical trials for COVID vaccines did not actually show a 95% efficacy rate.
Below is a screen shot from a presentation by Viral immunologist, Professor at the University of Guelph, and vaccine expert Dr. Bryan Bridle, who has explained several concerns regarding the rollout of COVID vaccines. You can read more about that in detail here.
Final thoughts: People are extremely polarized in their beliefs right now, so much so that even talking about this subject is hard to do with family and friends who have an opposite point of view. Sometimes I wonder if those who support mandating vaccines for schools, sporting events, travel and more would support mandatory vaccines for going outside.
Is it strange to imagine that one day large support could gather for isolating the unvaccinated in lockdown facilities for life? I doubt that would happen, but how far can mandates be pushed and supported by the people? This is why it’s important to look at and consider evidence that contradicts what you believe in.
At the end of the day, more important than being right and wrong is to see from the perspective of another and be able to understand why they have come to the conclusions they have. In many cases, it is in fact based on evidence. When things are so controversial and are not as black and white as mainstream media makes them out to be, should freedom of choice not always remain? Why is one perspective being heard and marketed to the masses, while the other is being completely ridiculed and censored? What is going on here?
For the rest of this article please go to source link below.