so when someone posts their opinion on religious topics it is being forced upon you, but when you do it is for #freedom and #balance?
hypocrite much?

Nope,  but 1st amendment still exists about retorting said statements.  Its only forced upon me/others when they want to implement rules or laws that dictate things on the non religious or people of different religions.  Like prayer in school,  abortion bans,  god in the government.  Adoption of "biblical" rules, denying service based on their own religion, etc. 

That's true hypocrisy.  If they truely were about religious freedom than https://thesatanictemple.com/ would have as much right to allow abortion (insert other laws) as other religions have the right to ban it.

Deductive reasoning example -->

What we know:

1.  Doctor is fully vaccinated, and has been for a few months.

2.  Some patients are vaccinated, and some are not.

3.  Doctor sees vaccinated patients indoors, but requires unvaccinated patients to meet outside.

4.  Doctor is unable to answer why outdoors is safer if he's vaccinated.  Safer for whom?

What can we deduce?

1.  The doctor doesn't trust the vaccine to keep him safe.  Only if meeting outdoors does he feel safe.

2.  He trusts his patients' vaccines to keep him safe, even though he doesn't trust his own vaccine to do the same.

3.  He believes meeting unvaccinated patients outside is just as effective as being vaccinated.

None of the deductions scream, "You should volunteer to be vaccinated."

The deductions do, however, highlight the incongruent beliefs surrounding COVID vaccines, including among healthcare professionals.

Check into MLS and lease agreement since you're looking into HMSA. This way the statement you made can proven.

Don't have to.  Like I've said many times.  The rule was in place for the business.  The business runs on the land makes the rules.  If they do are not allowed to run on said land its up to the land owner to evict and create their own rules. 

False statement.

Why is it false?  Where's your proof?

Why is it false?  Where's your proof?

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2774707

There are many many examples of asymptomatic spread.

Deductive reasoning example -->

What we know:

1.  Doctor is fully vaccinated, and has been for a few months.

2.  Some patients are vaccinated, and some are not.

3.  Doctor sees vaccinated patients indoors, but requires unvaccinated patients to meet outside.

4.  Doctor is unable to answer why outdoors is safer if he's vaccinated.  Safer for whom?

What can we deduce?

1.  The doctor doesn't trust the vaccine to keep him safe.  Only if meeting outdoors does he feel safe.

2.  He trusts his patients' vaccines to keep him safe, even though he doesn't trust his own vaccine to do the same.

3.  He believes meeting unvaccinated patients outside is just as effective as being vaccinated.

None of the deductions scream, "You should volunteer to be vaccinated."

The deductions do, however, highlight the incongruent beliefs surrounding COVID vaccines, including among healthcare professionals.

Vaccine is not 100% (repeated for the 100th time). Two people with vaccines is less risk than one with a vaccine.   Its his/offices rules, don't need to question them.  The CDC still recommends everyone be vaccinated and only when all parties are vaccinated that mask less gathering be allowed.

Don't have to.  Like I've said many times.  The rule was in place for the business.  The business runs on the land makes the rules.  If they do are not allowed to run on said land its up to the land owner to evict and create their own rules.

You once again missed the entire point. How do you know his SIL doesn't own said business or land until you check?  He could own HMSA and until you find their policy, you are again assuming.  How do you know he isn't the master lessor either?  Lease could be between the SIL and the doctor too.  The SIL could even be the PCP's boss.  It was never mentioned who the PCP works for.

How do you know what's in the lease?  So yes, you do have to check instead of moving goalpost and admit that you're wrong again.  Again, you are making statements based on assumption.

If you still feel that you are correct, then read this entire post again. And again slower if you still feel the same. And if you still feel the same, have a friend read this to you and use pictures if needed. By then, you should understand it.

You once again missed the entire point. How do you know his SIL doesn't own said business or land until you check?  He could own HMSA and until you find their policy, you are again assuming.  How do you know he isn't the master lessor either?  Lease could be between the SIL and the doctor too.  The SIL could even be the PCP's boss.  It was never mentioned who the PCP works for.

How do you know what's in the lease?  So yes, you do have to check instead of moving goalpost and admit that you're wrong again.  Again, you are making statements based on assumption.

If you still feel that you are correct, then read this entire post again. And again slower if you still feel the same. And if you still feel the same, have a friend read this to you and use pictures if needed. By then, you should understand it.

Inferences have been made and have not been disproven.  You are allowed to assume things....

Vaccine is not 100% (repeated for the 100th time). Two people with vaccines is less risk than one with a vaccine.   Its his/offices rules, don't need to question them.  The CDC still recommends everyone be vaccinated and only when all parties are vaccinated that mask less gathering be allowed.

Please read the story. He was not questioning the office rules. Here I'll help you since I have some down time.

 "If you're vaccinated, and you can't contract or transmit the virus, why does it matter if I am or not?"

This is what was asked. No question was asked "why do I have to meet you outside if I'm not vaxxed" or something along that line.

This entire 4 excess pages is because you assumed incorrectly and now you're trying to move the goal post or deflect to the SIL questioning the office rules.

What does Omni feel like arguing and being wrong about tomorrow?  It's the omni-pattern.

Still waiting on the HMSA rules for HMSA providers.  Like how you said the CDC states how vaxxed and unvaxxed should be treated by their doctors.

Inferences have been made and have not been disproven.  You are allowed to assume things....

Goal post moved from Aloha Stadium to Mile High Stadium in Colorado.

No one here has to prove who owns or is on what lease, only you have to prove it since you're the only one doing the assuming.  I've stated already that I do not know, so I'm not going to assume.  But since you're so sure and all knowing, pull a copy of each and post it here.

Like how you assumed what the CDC policy was or what HMSA's policy is.

Someone is confusing the goalposts.

Spreading the virus and spreading the disease are 2 different things. Amount of viral load in the host + length of time a person is exposed to them = severity of symptoms.

Chasing around the virus is idiotic and a waste of resources, treat the people who get infected, that was always  the plan, Flatten the Curve. The runaway demand for a hospital bed never happened. Now it's all just political.

Anybody else finding it pleasantly ironic that Captain Censorship is actually turning this into a great place to find the latest accurate information?

Please read the story. He was not questioning the office rules. Here I'll help you since I have some down time.

 "If you're vaccinated, and you can't contract or transmit the virus, why does it matter if I am or not?"

This is what was asked. No question was asked "why do I have to meet you outside if I'm not vaxxed" or something along that line.

This entire 4 excess pages is because you assumed incorrectly and now you're trying to move the goal post or deflect to the SIL questioning the office rules.

What does Omni feel like arguing and being wrong about tomorrow?  It's the omni-pattern.

Still waiting on the HMSA rules for HMSA providers.  Like how you said the CDC states how vaxxed and unvaxxed should be treated by their doctors.

The doctor is under no obligation to answer his question.  The rule is the rule.  No incorrect assumptions made.  Also I was citing your post that HMSA had rules. I haven't found any so appears we both are incorrect.

Someone needs to go read about medical ethics instead of just making stuff up. A doctor is 100% required to give patients as much information as possible and is also required to let them choose their level of care. And if a doctor cannot give you enough information to satisfy the patient they are required to refer them to another doctor or even a specialist who can.


Keep being stupid and ignorant.

The doctor is under no obligation to answer his question.  The rule is the rule.  No incorrect assumptions made.  Also I was citing your post that HMSA had rules. I haven't found any so appears we both are incorrect.

 "If you're vaccinated, and you can't contract or transmit the virus, why does it matter if I am or not?"

Nice way of deflecting answering my post, since you know you're wrong again.  See above question reposted again.  He was not asking why the unvaxxed has to go outside.

How are we both incorrect?  Did I state what HMSA's rules were?  Or was I asking you to prove what you claimed their rules were? 

Again, same Omni-isn. Instead of just stated that he was wrong, he is also adding me into it or other stuff.

We see 2 types of tactics used by people who refuse to admit they're wrong.

When admitting you're wrong or an apology, here is the proper format:

"I was wrong"

"I am sorry"

"I was incorrect"

There really is no need to add extra unless that extra is used to clarify what you were wrong or apologizing about, then see below examples:

"I was wrong when I said the CDC has a policy for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients"
"I was wrong when I said HMSA has a policy for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients"
" I was incorrect when I assumed that the SIL was not on the lease or is the landlord/boss"

Vaccine is not 100% (repeated for the 100th time). Two people with vaccines is less risk than one with a vaccine.   Its his/offices rules, don't need to question them.  The CDC still recommends everyone be vaccinated and only when all parties are vaccinated that mask less gathering be allowed.

goalpost moved from "cdc rules say outside for non-vaxx is correct" to "appropriate measures for distancing" to "only when alll parties are vaccinated can you be mask less"...

Inferences have been made and have not been disproven.  You are allowed to assume things....

"not proven in a court of law" --------> "consensus" -----------> "you are allowed to assume things"
those pesky goalposts...

The doctor is under no obligation to answer his question.  The rule is the rule.  No incorrect assumptions made.  Also I was citing your post that HMSA had rules. I haven't found any so appears we both are incorrect.

please show where CMO said hmsa had rules

"not proven in a court of law" --------> "consensus" -----------> "you are allowed to assume things"
those pesky goalposts...

All 3 are not related.  Some things need to proved in court.  Some need to be a consensus.  And well some things you can assume.  The world is not black and white.  Last time I checked this situation is not a court case.

"If you're vaccinated, and you can't contract or transmit the virus, why does it matter if I am or not?"

Nice way of deflecting answering my post, since you know you're wrong again.  See above question reposted again.  He was not asking why the unvaxxed has to go outside.

How are we both incorrect?  Did I state what HMSA's rules were?  Or was I asking you to prove what you claimed their rules were? 

Again, same Omni-isn. Instead of just stated that he was wrong, he is also adding me into it or other stuff.

We see 2 types of tactics used by people who refuse to admit they're wrong.

When admitting you're wrong or an apology, here is the proper format:

"I was wrong"

"I am sorry"

"I was incorrect"

There really is no need to add extra unless that extra is used to clarify what you were wrong or apologizing about, then see below examples:

"I was wrong when I said the CDC has a policy for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients"
"I was wrong when I said HMSA has a policy for vaxxed and unvaxxed patients"
" I was incorrect when I assumed that the SIL was not on the lease or is the landlord/boss"

 "If you're vaccinated, and you can't contract or transmit the virus, why does it matter if I am or not?"

This is a false statement that's why....for the 101st time.  A vaccine is not 100%. 

And for repeating myself to infinity.  The doctor does not need to explain his offices policy.  Indeed as puna wrote he can refer to another doctor.