If you look at the y-axis you'll see it's scaled to "per 100,000 person-years”
…out of which statistically the majority is accounted for by the elderly. I’m not sure what you’re trying to prove.
My cohort isn't 50% of the population though, so you would need to account for proportions.
No, I wouldn’t. You’re the one who picked “a room” as the sample size. If you pulled that 50% out of your ass then that’s on you, you played yourself. In your example, odds have dropped significantly. Whether the sample size is representative is another story, but we’re operating on imaginary numbers, so it doesn’t matter.
It's beside the point though, which is that once you declare you aren't afraid of being in a room with 15 of me all day every day, you've crossed a risk threshold where you could no longer claim that you are so afraid of me to such an extreme extent that would justify abolishing my consent.
I’m not afraid of you at all. I’m generally not afraid of things I can’t control, such as lightning. I can, however, choose not to walk across an empty field during a storm, which does reduce my odds of being hit by one. That’s a choice. I’m not in control of thunderbolts, I’m in control of me, and I can take precautions because lightning bolts are bad for my health. I’m not required, by law or otherwise, to associate with you in any way.
I'm not sure if you can discriminate against people based on their medical status, unless you can prove they're a significant threat to you.
“Unvaccinated” is not a protected class. You don’t have an “unvaccinated” disease, it’s not a medical condition, people are de facto unvaccinated until they aren’t. Being unvaccinated is not a disability - I am not legally obligated to furnish my property in a manner that allows you to use it because you have some special needs through no fault of your own. You made the decision, not me.
I don’t have to prove anything to anyone - it’s my property. In fact, you have to prove to me that you fulfil the requirements listed to enter my property. The onus is on you to meet those requirements, which is why every major event in the U.S. was well-within their legal right to request proof of vaccination from event-goers, and turn them away if they could not provide said proof, even if they had a valid ticket. They were *not* entitled to a refund because the policy was plainly stated at the point of purchase.
I would *only* run afoul of anti-discrimination laws if your vaccination status was a result of disability (you physically can’t take the vaccine that I require) or religious belief (you can’t take injections in general because a book said so). It’s on you to tell me that because I can’t see it with my eyes alone. You’d also have to argue that in court, because I wouldn’t be discriminating against you specifically based on belief or disability, in this example I’m restricting access to *anyone* who’s not vaccinated, regardless of their medical status or religious beliefs. You’re not being singled out based on those factors, the rule applies to everyone. You’d be required to prove that I am selective in enforcing the rule, so good luck doing that I suppose.
Currently, you don't have to flash your COVID-19 vaccine card in most businesses in order to shop or to get a table. However, businesses are generally free to require that customers show proof of vaccination, sometimes known as a “vaccine passport.”
Legal experts have likened the requirement to a “no shirt, no shoes, no service” policy.
"A business can absolutely ask that question," whether a customer has been vaccinated, said Lindsay Wiley, director of the Health Law and Policy Program at American University Washington College of Law, during an interview with USA TODAY.
https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...ss-ask-proof-vaccination-covid-19/5251954001/
Stores generally don’t do that because they like money, that doesn’t mean that I couldn’t if such was my fancy. There’s absolutely nothing you could do about it, either.
For the record, I’m against vaccine passports and other assorted nonsense of this nature because I believe medical information is private, but the notion that I can’t remove you from the premises because you think “unvaccinated” is a medical condition is absurd, your complaint would be laughed out of court. I can “discriminate against you” because you looked at me funny, you’re not entitled to enter my property, I don’t know what led you to think otherwise.
In any case the law is not a source of morality. Do you believe that people should be forced to bake gay wedding cakes, or cakes with TRUMP 2024 written on them?
No, I don’t, because I don’t believe anyone is entitled to anybody else’s services, property or labour. I believe commerce should be based on voluntary contracts. That’s precisely why you get to stand outside of my property if I say so - you’re the one trying to bend anti-discrimination law to your advantage and force your way in. That’s government-aided trespass if it were true, but it isn’t.
You cannot force me to engage in a business transaction with you. You would force me to bake you your “I’m Unvaccinated” cake and use the long arm of the law to do so if you could, metaphorically speaking. I’m not forcing you to do anything, I don’t care what you do with your life, do whatever you want. You’re the one who’s trying to force me to let you in. I’m saying no, because it’s my bakery, my cakes, my craft and my time.
It is inherently amoral to use the instrument of force (in this case the government, which has the monopoly on violence) to thrust someone into an unwanted relationship, a business one or any other kind. If I don’t want to associate with you, you’ll just have to make peace with that. If I don’t want your money, you don’t get to shove it in my pocket and just grab stuff from my shelves. If I decide you’re not getting served, you’re not getting served. You might not like it, I’m not obligated to care about that.
My position is that essential goods and services should be protected by law. Additionally, business owners should have a good reason for refusing goods and services because I'm rational agent and rational agents don't punish others without good reason.
Nothing is stopping you from ordering delivery - goods and services are available to you. You’re no more or less restricted from grocery shopping than someone who doesn’t have a driver’s license is, and I don’t see stores dispatching taxis to accommodate. Rational agents don’t try to barge into somebody else’s property despite knowing they’re not welcome. Your reasoning is rational to you because you’re standing outside wanting to get in, it’s not rational to me because I’m running a business with a lot of footfall and I don’t have the time of day to have a nuanced argument about rights with you - I’m just putting up a notice on the door and it’s on you to follow store policy or risk being ejected from my property. I have to consider my entire customer base, I’m not necessarily worried about Mr.Nooblet standing outside and complaining about a poster I put up.