Coronavirus Sars-CoV-2/Covid-19 Megathread

[Duque de Bragança]

Masks outdoor are no longer deemed necessary in Portugal. Since September 12 actually.

[Sheilbh]

I'm open to the idea where there is some bona fide religious basis.  That being said even Jehovah's Witnesses are in favour of vaccination - about the "biggest" denomination with any level of questioning about vaccination is Christian Scientist, where even though they largely believe in faith healing they leave it open to members to get vaccinated.

That being said I think there has to be some greater level of scrutiny that just some random pastor signing a "religious exemption" card in exchange for cash.

Yeah - I agree and I'd use the "religious or philosophical beliefs". So the example that springs to mind is if it wasn't halal or if it contained animal products - I don't think a Muslim or a "philosophical" vegan should be forced to get vaccinated. I don't think a religious exemption needs a pastor signing a card and certainly not for cash.

If you have vaccine passports then I think the alternative route you need for any exemptions is regular testing and a negative covid test from the last 24-48 hours.

[crazy canuck]

I'm open to the idea where there is some bona fide religious basis.  That being said even Jehovah's Witnesses are in favour of vaccination - about the "biggest" denomination with any level of questioning about vaccination is Christian Scientist, where even though they largely believe in faith healing they leave it open to members to get vaccinated.

That being said I think there has to be some greater level of scrutiny that just some random pastor signing a "religious exemption" card in exchange for cash.

Yeah - I agree and I'd use the "religious or philosophical beliefs". So the example that springs to mind is if it wasn't halal or if it contained animal products - I don't think a Muslim or a "philosophical" vegan should be forced to get vaccinated. I don't think a religious exemption needs a pastor signing a card and certainly not for cash.

If you have vaccine passports then I think the alternative route you need for any exemptions is regular testing and a negative covid test from the last 24-48 hours.

I don't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated.  And I am not aware of a vaccine mandate that does so.  But if someone chooses not to be vaccinated then they also choose not to engage in activities involving others.  The hard question is how to accommodate medical exemptions.  One way to do it would be to have a general masking mandate.  BC has chosen to have no exemptions - medical or religious and justifies the intrusion on the basis that the restriction is time limited.  There will likely be a legal challenge to the lack of an exemption and I think the strongest case is going to be the failure to accommodate medical reasons for not getting vaccinated.  I like the provinces chances of defending its decision not to provide a religious exemption given the short duration of the vaccination mandate.  I think things will get more difficult as the vaccine mandates become extended - as I think is likely inevitable.

[Berkut]

"Bona fide religious basis".

Riiiggggght.

As soon as I saw you had posted in this thread I knew what your response was going to be.

Shoo, fly.

I am consistent in my demands for equally applied religious freedom. I am surprised you find that so annoying.

Oh wait - you are a "conservative", right?

[Berkut]

I'm open to the idea where there is some bona fide religious basis.  That being said even Jehovah's Witnesses are in favour of vaccination - about the "biggest" denomination with any level of questioning about vaccination is Christian Scientist, where even though they largely believe in faith healing they leave it open to members to get vaccinated.

That being said I think there has to be some greater level of scrutiny that just some random pastor signing a "religious exemption" card in exchange for cash.

Yeah - I agree and I'd use the "religious or philosophical beliefs". So the example that springs to mind is if it wasn't halal or if it contained animal products - I don't think a Muslim or a "philosophical" vegan should be forced to get vaccinated. I don't think a religious exemption needs a pastor signing a card and certainly not for cash.

If you have vaccine passports then I think the alternative route you need for any exemptions is regular testing and a negative covid test from the last 24-48 hours.

How would you define a "bona fide" religious basis though? Who gets to decide the bona fides?

We know Beebs rules, but I am curious what yours are, especially since you've thrown in "philosophical" objections, which seem even more difficult to nail down...

[DGuller]

"Bona fide religious basis".

Riiiggggght.

As soon as I saw you had posted in this thread I knew what your response was going to be.

Shoo, fly.

Predictability is under-rated.  The whole concept of science is built upon boring predictability.  It's much easier to be wrong in many unique ways than it is to be correct in many unique ways.

[Sheilbh]

I don't think anyone should be forced to be vaccinated.  And I am not aware of a vaccine mandate that does so.  But if someone chooses not to be vaccinated then they also choose not to engage in activities involving others.  The hard question is how to accommodate medical exemptions.  One way to do it would be to have a general masking mandate.  BC has chosen to have no exemptions - medical or religious and justifies the intrusion on the basis that the restriction is time limited.  There will likely be a legal challenge to the lack of an exemption and I think the strongest case is going to be the failure to accommodate medical reasons for not getting vaccinated.  I like the provinces chances of defending its decision not to provide a religious exemption given the short duration of the vaccination mandate.  I think things will get more difficult as the vaccine mandates become extended - as I think is likely inevitable.

Sure - and as I say I think that applies to genuine medical exemptions such as people with allergies, as well as religious or philosophical belief (though I'm not sure any actually apply: it's halal, it's licit according to the Vatican, I don't think any of the vaccines include animal products etc).

I agree - I can see saying no exemptions because it's time limited and this will be in place only while it is a proportionate measure to a health emergency. But I personally don't think this is a short-term health emergency - I think covid is basically endemic now and we need to start thinking about what that looks like in the long term, which will vary from society to society. But if the vaccine mandate is necessary now, I think it is likely to be necessary in 12 months time and as that happens I think the lack of exemptions stops being proportionate.

Except for international travel where I think this will be a new norm everywhere, we don't have any vaccine mandates or passports that I'm aware of (I think there is going to be one for care home and healthcare workers). But it's managed as a QR code on an app and my understanding is the alternative is regular testing which presents a different QR code on the same app. That strikes me as reasonable and the testing is inconvenient so unless you genuinely can't get the vaccine for whatever reason, the far easier option is to get jabbed.

[Sheilbh]

How would you define a "bona fide" religious basis though? Who gets to decide the bona fides?

We know Beebs rules, but I am curious what yours are, especially since you've thrown in "philosophical" objections, which seem even more difficult to nail down...

Courts make this decision all the time - it's their job. In the UK because you can't discriminate against someone on the basis of religious or philosophical belief, or lack of belief and they regularly make that assessment - mainly in the context of employment law. It's why I used the philosophical/ethical vegan example - because that is "philosophical belief" in UK law.

I think religion is relatively easy, the "philosophical belief" is more difficult. But the courts have set out what they need to decide if something is a "philosophical belief" that deserves protection under anti-discrimination legislation.

I don't know if I'd focus on bona fide - I think I'd say it should be a genuinely held belief that relates to human life/behaviour in a way that  impacts on the believer's life/behaviour (so not just an opinion). That might look different for different philosophical beliefs or religions but is something that you can't use as the basis for discriminating against someone and I basically agree with that.

Edit: It isn't a judgement on the belief system that person has - just that they have it and it's sort of sufficient to deserve protection.

[Valmy]

Well played

Really?

I am very much pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but I just rolled my eyes.

Do you think religious exemptions should be a thing?

I'm open to the idea where there is some bona fide religious basis.  That being said even Jehovah's Witnesses are in favour of vaccination - about the "biggest" denomination with any level of questioning about vaccination is Christian Scientist, where even though they largely believe in faith healing they leave it open to members to get vaccinated.

That being said I think there has to be some greater level of scrutiny that just some random pastor signing a "religious exemption" card in exchange for cash.

In this country we generally avoid scrutiny of religion to the point that clergy can not report and cover up criminal activity and religious institutions can launder money for private business and political donations. So of course we have tons of fake religions and cults and shady organizations taking advantage. We have generally tried to avoid ever having the courts review what is a religion and what isn't and religions have broad powers, independence from government oversight, and loads of over exemptions and privileges.

And despite this nutty state of affairs alarmists still claim religious freedom is under attack. Beyond allowing murder under a religious claim to human sacrifice I am not sure how much more free religious institutions can be.

[Valmy]

Courts make this decision all the time - it's their job.

They do, but at least here hardly anybody claiming to be a religion gets designated not a religion.

[crazy canuck]

I'm open to the idea where there is some bona fide religious basis.  That being said even Jehovah's Witnesses are in favour of vaccination - about the "biggest" denomination with any level of questioning about vaccination is Christian Scientist, where even though they largely believe in faith healing they leave it open to members to get vaccinated.

That being said I think there has to be some greater level of scrutiny that just some random pastor signing a "religious exemption" card in exchange for cash.

Yeah - I agree and I'd use the "religious or philosophical beliefs". So the example that springs to mind is if it wasn't halal or if it contained animal products - I don't think a Muslim or a "philosophical" vegan should be forced to get vaccinated. I don't think a religious exemption needs a pastor signing a card and certainly not for cash.

If you have vaccine passports then I think the alternative route you need for any exemptions is regular testing and a negative covid test from the last 24-48 hours.

How would you define a "bona fide" religious basis though? Who gets to decide the bona fides?

We know Beebs rules, but I am curious what yours are, especially since you've thrown in "philosophical" objections, which seem even more difficult to nail down...

The issue before the court is not the bona fides of the religion itself, but rather the bona fides of the belief in the tenants of that religion.  For example, there was a case a couple of years ago where a man sought a religious exemption based on his need to wear a turban as part of his religious observance.  Problem for him was there was evidence he told his friends it was all a scam... so not too hard to rebut the claim it was a bona fide held religious belief.  Oh, and he was white...

[Sheilbh]

Courts make this decision all the time - it's their job.

They do, but at least here hardly anybody claiming to be a religion gets designated not a religion.

Sure but that's not the issue - there's declaration that it's a "religion" or not or some register of religions. Religions are just treated like charities (except the CofE - obvs - which has some different rules/laws ) and have the same rules around tax and reporting and politics.

This is about discrimination or in this case allowing an exemption for an individual - so the questions are really does the person actually believe in something that would stop them getting vaccinated and should that be protected by law.

[Valmy]

Courts make this decision all the time - it's their job.

They do, but at least here hardly anybody claiming to be a religion gets designated not a religion.

Sure but that's not the issue - there's declaration that it's a "religion" or not or some register of religions. Religions are just treated like charities (except the CofE - obvs - which has some different rules/laws ) and have the same rules around tax and reporting and politics.

This is about discrimination or in this case allowing an exemption for an individual - so the questions are really does the person actually believe in something that would stop them getting vaccinated and should that be protected by law.

Religions are not treated like charities here, though they do have some similarities.

[Razgovory]

Well played

Really?

I am very much pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but I just rolled my eyes.

Do you think religious exemptions should be a thing?

Everyone should be able to opt out of medical procedures except in rare and extraordinary cases.  It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic human rights.  The potential for abuse is too great.

[crazy canuck]

Well played

Really?

I am very much pro-vaccine and anti-covid, but I just rolled my eyes.

Do you think religious exemptions should be a thing?

Everyone should be able to opt out of medical procedures except in rare and extraordinary cases.  It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with basic human rights.  The potential for abuse is too great.

They can, but they then also opt out of discretionary activities where they could infect others.