Broadway is reopening in New York, but you’ll need to have received a vaccine approved by the country’s Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in order to go to a show. Bruce Springsteen will shortly be opening in a one-man show on Broadway, but audience members will be forced to show proof of vaccination to attend – and the AstraZeneca vaccine won’t count! The Telegraph has the story.
The show, billed as “an intimate night with Bruce, his guitar, a piano, and his stories” will run five nights a week at the St James theatre.
“At the direction of New York State, Springsteen on Broadway and the St James Theatre will only be accepting proof of FDA-approved Covid vaccines,” the website says.
Anyone who has received another jab, or is unwilling or unable to have a vaccine will not be allowed to attend.
The news has been met with disappointment just hours north, across the Canadian border, where more than 1.7 million people have had the AstraZeneca vaccine.
Only those who have had a Moderna, Pfizer or Johnson & Johnson vaccine will be allowed to go to the theatre.
Worth reading in full.
The nyc.com website says young children will be exempt from the vaccine rule, but no one else.
The only exception to the above will be for children under the age of 16, who must be accompanied by a vaccinated adult and also must provide proof of at least one of the following:
~ negative antigen Covid test taken within six hours of the performance start time, or
~ negative PCR Covid test taken within 72 hours of the performance start time.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Dr Dimitrios Psaroudakis
A Welsh or Anglo Saxon name?
But did he question medical orthodoxy?
We know that this is the main concern of the medical establishment.
For what it’s worth, I’m glad he kept his job. He should be allowed to have his opinion, gross as it is.
I agree. I did write the FSU a while back suggesting they could draft a model “freedom of speech at work” policy and try to get employers to adopt it. I never heard back – perhaps it doesn’t seem like a very feasible idea.
I suppose there’s a distinction to be made between what this bloke seems to have done which is be rude about people behind their backs, and insulting your colleagues directly. I guess if you continually offend your colleagues deliberately by calling them names they don’t like, it’s not very helpful for workplace harmony and arguably it’s justified to take action.
You wrote TO the FSU. Or are you American?
Ah yes, not American, just typing in too much of a hurry.
Yet Sunak was challenged and asked to apologise on the trans issue comments he made about Starmer. —–So is to be Free Speech for us all only if it is on an issue we have no problem with but not with issues we do have a problem with? ie Selective Free Speech
I disagree. Given the level of hate he feels for Jewish people do we have to wait for a “lessons will be learned” event before deciding that he is a risk to Jewish patients.
He is clearly not fit to practice.
I could see the same argument being made against someone who thinks that transexuality is a mental disorder and gender a made up concept.
No doubt someone out there could chose to see “hate” in that and consider the person dangerous.
I think the odds are that doctor will never be violent towards a Jewish person.
Even then I don’t want to live in “Minority Report” world of pre-crime intervention.
The article singles out comments about Jews for sensationalism while more-or-less reporting that this guy was such remarks about pretty much everyone. And making grossly offensive statements about all kinds of people is a case of tactlessness and bad manners and not a crime. Even Jews will have to wait until people they really don’t like actually commit crimes before they can get them punished. That’s how the system works and is supposed to work.
It’s a tricky one. I fully support people’s freedom of expression, even when they express vile opinions. However in the case of someone who’s job involves dealing with the public, whether a health professional police constable etc. they need to treat every member of the public equally. If someone in one of these roles expresses racist, or sexist, homophobic etc. views it could be argued that they aren’t going to be professional and treat all sections of society the same.
This is about private communication in the workplace and this guy didn’t express any opinion, he was just making jokes some people consider tasteless (but would nevertheless laugh about on tele, eg, the one about the guy who committed suicide). He has been reprimanded for that by a three month suspension and the people supposed to decide such matters are convinced that the issue has been dealth with. What the future may bring remains to be determined.
People should certainly be allowed to make jokes someone considers tasteless without being forced in front of a firing squad. They’re doing this with me all the time, actually, they’re being significantly more vitriolic than just making tasteless jokes. But I’m a nobody and hence, nobody cares.
Seconded
Is the FSU open to trying to overturn his suspension?
Christ, can you imagine letting that massive PoS anywhere near your nether regions?? Well I hope now his ‘reputation’ proceeds him and nobody will want to touch him with a barge pole after reading this. His insults don’t sound antisemitic because they could be aimed at anyone but who would wish to have an egomaniac with such a nasty personality as a work colleague or as your doctor? Reminds me of a few old-school surgeons I used to work with, who had a hugely inflated opinion of themselves and looked down on everybody else as their minions, to revolve around them like they were the centre of the universe, including being totally condescending to patients.
As an aside, I’ve always wondered why a man would want to specialise in gynaecology. I mean, you’re obviously very intelligent and can have your pick of various specialities in which to train but you choose, out of all of them, womens’ reproduction. I should’ve really asked one of them when I had the chance.
I presume then that somebody referring to South Indian interlopers as “pakis” would also simply be referred to as someone who was…”comfortable with using discriminatory language”.
I’m glad we have cleared that up.
Yikes, I totally didn’t even notice the title of the article when I wrote my comment. I just went on the nasty remarks featured in the excerpt.
But as long as he doesn’t misgender anyone, eh?
Yes I would say announcing you want a “Jew free” borough can’t be construed as anything other than antisemitic. Imagine if he’d declared he wants a Muslim or black free borough? He’d be toast.
So now he’s not just an arrogant, unpleasant nob but an arrogant, unpleasant, Jew-hating nob!
This claim is contained in the headline and in the first line of the text and then silently dropped without bringing an actual quote. Even assuming it is genuine (may or may not be the case) people should have every right to state privately that they wouldn’t want to live in the vicinity of members of group X, whatever that group happens to be. One can regard them as intolerant and narrow-minded because of this but for as long as that’s everything they are, it should be their business.
People of Indian descent are perfectly allowed to state that they would prefer to live in a Poles-free neighbourhood even in newspaper articles in the Guardian. I’ve read some in the past.
Sadly this just shows how, according to the woke mob, there’s a hierarchy of oppression and racism and black or brown people are always victims and can’t possibly be racist.
Yes. But the sensible way (IMHO) to deal with this is to accept that people are principally prejudiced against those they regard as strangers because they are. For as long as they’re not committing or openly soliciting any real crimes, ie not just the ‘hate crime’ of talking about other people in a way yet other people don’t like, that should be it. Ie, someone stating he’d really like to live in a ‘jew-free borough’ would be ok. Someone holding a public rally calling for the expulsion of all Jews from it decidedly not.
Exactly.
nod——–There are certain people who you can discriminate against or make disparaging remarks about but Muslims are not one of them. ——-People don’t want to risk having their head being lopped off.
Chances are this guy is just a complete dork and thought he was having funny, informal chats with his colleagues. The article doesn’t claim anything regarding him acting improperly towards patients.
And what, I wonder, would happen if he said the same thing about blacks? It doesn’t take much imagination…
A doctor insulting colleagues doesn’t seem like much of a story. Treating patients with disdain comes easy to some of them so no surprise staff are on the pointy end.
The pending Rafah offensive is newsworthy but not here. High civilian casualties are of no concern but we should run ashriek at a room full of servers, a tiled tunnel and a hostage cage with no hostage. How many terrorists were found down there?
Stop Being an anti semite DHJ.
“Endanger” being any perceived risk, possibly no actual threat. Which states are believed to operate like this?
If this was “normal”, the Med and English Channel would be awash with bullet-ridden corpses and the anti-Russian hype would have created a perpetual conflict all along the Eastern European border.
There is such a vengeful, bloodthirsty mindset that I wonder if our government supports the regime out of fear.
https://m.jpost.com/israel-hamas-war/article-786342
Fear certainly. Anything but total compliance to the Zionists results in loss of revenue, loss of job prospects and the potential for the press and the rest of the monolith to brand you an antisemite and beyond the pale.
I think fear is in order, yes.
Try taking the p..s out of Muslims and your feet won’t touch the ground. ——This is why no one does it because they want to keep their heed on their shoulders.
So when it’s something ‘they’ agree with it’s “Comfortable with using discriminatory language”
When someone even discusses the immigration influx, or mentions someone’s ethnicity it’s ‘irretrievably racist’
Cognitive dissonance overload
“Cognitive dissonance overload”
Call it what is is – lies and hypocrisy.
Of course it is, but I was referring specifically to the blatant double standards.