Ohio anti-vaxxers want the freedom that vaccination brings

Now that the numbers of people who have been vaccinated has reached more than half the US population, there are places that require proof of vaccination before you can enter. Where I live in Monterey, CA, the local bridge club opened for face-to-face play on Tuesday but you have to show proof of vaccination before you are allowed to do so. The first time you go, you show the proof and your name is entered in a register and that eliminates the need to show proof each time. Masks are not required but you can choose to wear one if you like. There are bottles of hand sanitizer at each table and players are encouraged to use it frequently, especially since they are exchanging cards. I went on Tuesday and there were about a dozen people, about half of them being those who had been starved of bridge because they either were not comfortable enough with technology to play online or they had eye issues that prevented them from looking at a screen for any length of time. It was nice to meet them again.

Everything went off smoothly but that is because this is a vaccine-supportive part of the country. If I had still been living in Ohio, things might get sticky because Republicans in the Ohio legislature have introduced a resolution that would bar such proof of vaccination requirements.

[T]he new language bars private and public entities from requiring someone to get a vaccine that hasn’t gotten full approval from the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The vaccines manufactured by Moderna, Pfeizer and Johnson & Johnson have been approved by the FDA on an emergency basis, although Moderna and Pfeizer have applied for full approval and are expected to receive it later this year.

It also bars public and private entities “to the extent allowed by federal law” and elsewhere in state law, from requiring people to “engage in or refrain from” activities based on whether or not they are vaccinated, a provision that could prevent nursing homes and other employers from preventing unvaccinated people from working near people who are medically at risk.

I have little patience with those who refuse to get vaccinated because they have some bizarre beliefs that are completely unsupported by science. If they want to hang out with like-minded people, that’s their right and their problem. But I do not think that they have the right to invade the spaces of those who like the peace of mind that comes with being vaccinated and being only around other vaccinated people.


  1. Jean says

    It’s going to be interesting to see how these people deal with the fact that almost every country in the world will require a vaccination proof to enter the country. I’m sure many won’t be interested in travelling anyway but will complain nonetheless and the republicans won’t be able to legislate this one away.

  2. flex says

    And I suspect that these are the same Republicans who say businesses can choose to refuse to serve people who are not dressed appropriately, or are LGBQ. And yet, suggesting that businesses can make their own decision to refuse people who might literally be carrying a deadly disease is an infringement on the personal liberties of their patrons.

    There will immediately be lawsuits if this legislation is passed. And probably an injunction to prevent the law from being enforced until a court decision. It’s fucking political theater, will be used to raise donations. It’s also a waste of state resources which could be used for better things. Like convincing the rest of the population that resisting vaccination is not a a hill they want to die on, literally.

  3. Bruce says

    Next thing, people will be wanting the right to go to grocery stores and restaurants without having to be right next to nude guys. Where are nude guys supposed to get food? I see no solutions, perhaps because I don’t want to look very closely.

  4. friedfish2718 says

    Again you show your totalitarian nature, Mr Singham.
    You are vaccinated against the wuhan. Good!!!
    Someone else is not vaccinated. Too bad. So what? You are vaccinated and thus this someone else cannot harm you via wuhan virus.
    Why the bitterness, resentment against the unvaccinated? You are vaccinated, right?
    The proper piece of mind comes from your being vaccinated. That is it. Wishing to be surrounded only by vaccinated is just arrogance and foolhardy.
    I am libertarian and if a store/club want to discriminate, so be it.
    Stores/clubs allowing only vaccinated will do less business than stores/clubs which do not discriminate. So be it.
    The unvaccinated are well aware that their projected healthcare costs will be higher than the costs for the vaccinated. The extra cost is on them, not you.
    But wait! You are into socialized medicine, right? So please express your resentment towards the overweight, underweight, the smokers, the drinkers, the couch potatoes, the unhygienic, and especially the UNVACCINATED!!! You do not want your taxes to pay for the health costs of such benighted, uncivilized, uncouth gents.
    But wait! Now is an excellent opportunity to do a grand-scale epidemiological study of vaccinated versus unvaccinated. How many of the vaccinated had prior wuhan immunity? How many of the unvaccinated had prior wuhan immunity? There are many more questions to address. The vaccinated have immunity over small range of wuhan proteins. The unvaccinated who recovered from wuhan has immunity against a wide spectrum of wuhan proteins. The wuhan virus does mutate.
    Japan is going through a 4th wuhan surge (who knew???). As of June 25, 2021, Australia is locking down 1M people for 2 weeks (why 2 weeks? make it 8 weeks!!!). And all for a disease with 2% overall mortality (0.5% mortality for those 50 y.o. and younger).
    But you are a theoretical scientist, not an experimental scientist. You prefer theory over pragmatism. Pity.

  5. consciousness razor says

    Someone else is not vaccinated. Too bad. So what? You are vaccinated and thus this someone else cannot harm you via wuhan virus.

    False. You are talking about spreading a disease which is still killing hundreds of people every day in the US — even now, far from the peak rates we had a few months ago when it was thousands per day. That’s harm. (Note: for those who aren’t glibertarians, other people actually matter. If you think differently, it’s because you’re simply wrong.)

    If it were a bunch of drunk drivers who were able to spread drunk driving to others on the road, that would be a total clusterfuck for the society and all of the people in it, no matter their level of sobriety. You would want that to be over as soon as possible.

    There is still a risk, although a significantly reduced one, of a vaccinated person being infected and spreading covid-19 to others. Of course, being fairly well protected as an individual from very serious symptoms and death is good too.

    But a higher vaccination rate (as well as the use of masks, etc.) among the population as whole does help to reduce the spread, and a lower rate doesn’t. If you want this shit to end as soon as possible, then a high vaccination rate should also be what you want. No “totalitarianism” required. (I doubt you understand the meaning of that word.)

    I am libertarian and if a store/club want to discriminate, so be it.

    Truly, you have a dizzying intellect.

  6. flex says

    Well Mr. friedfish2718 you then should be up in arms against the Republican legislature infringing on the rights of businesses to discriminate. Because that is exactly what the Republicans are doing, preventing businesses from decided for themselves. The Republicans are trying to use government power to tell businesses they cannot determine their own policies. Isn’t that what libertarians want, businesses to be allowed to choose?

    Or maybe your reading comprehension is just that poor.

  7. says

    I am libertarian and if a store/club want to discriminate, so be it.

    I love libertarians. With fava beans and bok choi. After all, if it weren’t for that overweening government you profess to dislike so much, you’d be meat on the hoof. Or perhaps you prefer some controls on others’ behaviors?

  8. Mano Singham says


    None of the vaccines are 100% effective which is why the CDC recommends hanging out with only other vaccinated people. Surely you knew that?

  9. Holms says

    #1 Jean
    I doubt these are the sort to travel outside of America. Because America is the greatest nation in earth’s history, donchaknow. USA! USA! USA!


    #3 friedfish

    I am libertarian and if a store/club want to discriminate, so be it.

    Then why complain about a bridge club that wants to exclude unvaccinated people? And there are good reasons to not want to mix with unvaccinated people. We say that vaccinations grant immunity to the virus because the vaccinated person will fight the infection off without ever showing symptoms, but it can still enter their body. A vaccinated person can still pick up a virus and communicate it to other people.

    “Totalitarian”? Idiot.

  10. mnb0 says

    “Masks are not required but you can choose to wear one if you like.”
    That doesn’t make much sense as masks not so much protect you against others, but rather others against you.

    “But I do not think that they have the right to invade the spaces of those who like the peace of mind that comes with being vaccinated and being only around other vaccinated people.”
    Doubtable (which means that I don’t necessarily disagree with you). Especially “those who like the peace of mind that comes with ….. being only around other vaccinated people” is not science based either. Yes, they may infect you. The main point of getting vaccinatied is that when you get infected the resulting illlness isn’t that bad anymore -- comparable with a normal flu. So why being so especially harsh on anti-vaccers?Any answer I can think of reeks of tribalism and spite, meaning that your favourite moral imperative doesn’t work.
    This is why I don’t worry too much about group immunity. Many anti-vaccers will change their minds as soon as they see their loved ones suffer (you may infect them too, you know, despite being vaccinatged, even when wearing masks). However banning them from your bridge club etc. may turn them into diehard fanatics. Is that what you want? If no you brush science away.

  11. mnb0 says

    @1 Jean: “It’s going to be interesting to see how …..”
    Why? Do you love that much hearing irrelevant people whine? Typical.

    @2 Flex: “And I suspect that these are …..”
    I hope you enjoy your moral superiority.

    @4 Friedfish: “I am libertarian and if a store/club want to discriminate, so be it.”
    Aha. Liberty for you, no liberty for those who get discriminated. Thanks for demonstrating how nonsensical libertarianism is.

    @5 ConciousR: “False. You are talking about spreading a disease which is still killing hundreds of people every day in the US.”
    Wow, now that’s a logical fallacy. Who again are dying from corona? Those who are not vaccinated. Those who are not vaccinated yet and are afraid of dying indeed shouldn’t go to bridge clubs anyway.

    @8 MS: “None of the vaccines are 100% effective”
    Indeed. So you could possibly infect other people. Stay in quarantine, will you?

    @10 Holms: “the vaccinated person will fight the infection off without ever showing symptoms, but it can still enter their body.”
    That applies even more to all kinds of infectuous diseases, including the flu and the common cold. Still you guys don’t apply this argument to such diseases. So much for being consistent.

  12. mnb0 says

    OK, now the argument for banning anti-vaccers and especially vaccination passports (whether for entering countries or bridge clubs).
    The real problem is anti-vaccers infecting each others, resulting in putting a heavy burden on health care. Healt care is scarce and expensive. Every single anti-vaccer who ends up on the IC because of corona robs someone else from the opportunity to get badly needed surgery. In some countries surgeries have been delayed for one and a half year. At the moment it’s hard to calculate how many people exactly have died as a result, but that people have died is undeniable.
    It’s typical for libertarians like Friedfish that they a) are too stupid to realize this and/or b) lack the empathy to care.
    That doesn’t justify most commenters here mixing up their very own personal interest with general interest. Their arguments show that they are about as egocentric as libertarians like Friedfish.

  13. Jean says

    @12 mnb0: then why do you post? I could do without your whining because you definitely are irrelevant..

  14. John Morales says

    It is amusing to me how mnb0 apparently thinks they’re being snarky.

    And yes, I was gonna respond, but you know… the Gish gallop thing.

    In regards to your own first comment, I concur; the specific emergent global social dynamics effected by this situation will be interesting to observe.

  15. Holms says

    #12 mnbo
    You think covid is analogous to colds and influenza? Teehee. We treat them differently because they are different.

  16. moarscienceplz says

    Every unvaccinated person is a potential bioreactor for generating billions of human-infectious Covid viruses, thus greatly magnifying the evolution of Covid and shortening the time that current vaccines remain effective. They are NOT harming only themselves, they are threatening the whole world with a faster rate of new pandemics.

  17. flex says

    #12 mnbo,

    Why thank you, I shall.

    A little less flippantly, I know I’m a hypocrite at times. So are you. We all are. I do try to choose my hypocrisy, but I recognize that on occasion my hypocrisy is more obvious to others than myself.

    These assholes, on the other hand, claim the moral high ground. They either know they are hypocrites and don’t care, or don’t know they are hypocrites and probably shouldn’t be representatives by reason of having non-functional brains. This isn’t to slight people who have mental illness, people with mental illnesses are generally not trying to promote the day’s 2-minute hate.

    But I think they do know they are hypocrites.

    It takes money, lots of money, to run a political campaign at the state or federal level. At the state level hundreds of thousands of dollars, and easily into the millions at the federal level. The Republicans have learned that there are lots of potential donors to their campaigns if they grandstand on the issue-of-the-day. It doesn’t matter to them who their proposals will hurt, it doesn’t matter than some of their legislation will be thrown out by the courts. In fact, in both cases it can help. Get the people to feel strongly enough about a culture war issue, hint that it was better in the olden days (1950’s, 1850’s, 1650’s, take your pick), wrap yourself around the flag and the donations will roll in. If the legislation passes hurts the enemy-of-the-day, you get rewarded with more donations for defending freedom. If the legislation fails, or the courts declare it unconstitutional, you get rewarded with more donations to keep up the fight. And there is a whole media empire dedicated to creating issues of the day. Plug the same things they are, and you can stay in power for decades.

    Of course, I know what you are thinking. And have been thinking for the last few minutes. The Democratic Party does that too! Sure, I acknowledge that, but because someone else is doing the same thing doesn’t make it right. I’m happy to call out democrats who use the crisis-of-the-moment to fundraise. I don’t donate to any political causes who try that tactic, which means I ignore a lot of pleas from democrats for money. And I’m certain you can find republicans who feel like I do, I don’t claim to be morally superior to anyone.

    Let’s examine these legislative proposals again for a moment. These proposals from republicans. The purpose of a representative government is to promote the public good. That can include a lot of things, from regulating working conditions, to providing defense from foreign attacks or internal insurrection. It can include building and maintaining public roads. It can include providing education and ensuring educational standards are met. It can establish regulations on businesses to ensure the goods and services they sell do not cause injury or disease.

    This legislative proposal is saying that businesses cannot make their own decisions on how to run their business to avoid disease. In fact, these proposals are saying that businesses must allow possible contagious disease carriers into contact with the businesses employees and other customers. What pubic good does that serve?

    I suggest that even among the republicans in Ohio there is probably not enough support to pass these restrictions on businesses. And I also suspect that if, by some chance, they do pass there are lawsuits already being prepared to challenge the law. I further suspect that all the people involved, republicans and democrats, know this.

    So why is the legislation even being proposed? The only reason I can see is to keep the base riled up enough to send them money. Both the republicans and the democrats benefit from this republican proposal. The republicans can fund-raise on the issue of personal freedom (for everyone aside from business owners and the new victims of COVID), and the democrats can fund-raise on the issue of republican hypocrisy and intentionally creating a public health crisis. From a fund-raising standpoint, it’s a win-win for both parties. So I refuse to donate to anyone who uses these tactics.

    On the other hand, only one party is proposing exasperate a public health crisis in order to fund their campaigns. If it hadn’t been for the Republican party’s willingness to embrace, and encourage, people to believe that liberty is equivalent to unregulated individualism, or that freedom means privilege, or that lies are worth fighting for, we probably would have approached our response to COVID a little differently.

    You, on the other hand, know that the only important thing is that people who are suffering from COVID, a disease from which many of the people in hospital will die a painful death from, are consuming hospital resources which other patients could use.

    What a selfish attitude.

    Yes, there are undoubtedly people dying of other issues because the hospitals are full of COVID patients. There are probably also plenty of people who’s non-critical surgeries have been delayed because the can be delayed. Hospitals are generally pretty good about determining when surgery or a treatment is needed today or it can wait a year or two until a world-threatening pandemic is over. They will not be perfect, but they do their best. And this is a problem which governments could address if they were willing to build temporary hospitals, provide funds to hire doctors out of retirement, or provide training for people to do more of the menial tasks in hospitals. But if governments are unwilling to allocate that money, and spend their time trying to spread the epidemic by forbidding business to exceed the minimum laws on public health, your specific concern will not be addressed.

    However, let it be said that your concern is noted.

  18. billseymour says

    friedfish2718 @4:

    You are into socialized medicine, right?

    I can’t speak for Dr. Singham, but I have no theoretical objection to what you call socialized medicine any more than I object to socialized bridges and highways.  Even Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations asserted that one proper function of government is to provide common goods in those special cases when competition doesn’t work well.  The questions are whether community health is a common good (I think it is) and whether competition in health care works well (we have one the most expensive health care systems in the developed world and one with the least desirable outcomes).

    And don’t conflate health care with health insurance if you were thinking of doing that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *