Vacci-Nation [CLOSED DUE TO DISRESPECTFUL, INSULTING, POLITICAL POSTS

[soundman98]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

I recommend a bridge abutment, far less collateral damage. But only if you have an ejection seat.

Yes, but that misses the point. Not getting the vaccine has a ton of innocent collateral damage(like a wrong way driver) far and above an individual death like a bridge abutment.

[p1l0t]

Originally Posted by spike021

These days there are a lot of places that absolutely don’t allow smoking (some people sneak around it but it’s still a restriction).



I’d imagine the same should happen with the vax.



Smokers decide to smoke, that’s fine. It’s their body and they have the freedom to do whatever they wish. But they shouldn’t be allowed in enclosed spaces near people who don’t wish to inhale second-hand smoke, first as a nuisance but secondly and most importantly as a health hazard.



It’s a very similar analogy to vaxxing up/COVID imo.

Might want to wait until it's FDA approved at least first...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Might want to wait until it's FDA approved at least first...

Given the number of doses given, and the results, I'm actually surprised it hasn't done formal approval yet.

In the end, that is why employers cannot mandate it yet, unlike the flu shot. I know the hospital system I work for (which mandates other inoculations to work there) plans to make it mandatory for employees once formally approved by the FDA.

[spike021]

Originally Posted by p1l0t

Might want to wait until it's FDA approved at least first...

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

The timeline I’m considering includes whenever it will be approved, since there’s no reason to doubt that it will.

[spike021]

I am curious though. For those in here who refuse to be “tested on” with the new vaccines and make comments about whether it’ll be FDA approved, if and when it is approved will you change your mind?

[NoHaveMSG]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Given the number of doses given, and the results, I'm actually surprised it hasn't done formal approval yet.

In the end, that is why employers cannot mandate it yet, unlike the flu shot. I know the hospital system I work for (which mandates other inoculations to work there) plans to make it mandatory for employees once formally approved by the FDA.

There is a vineyard in Eugene, OR that is requiring all employees have their first shot by 5/20.

https://www.kezi.com/content/news/Ki...574163881.html

[AnalogMan]

The concept of "herd immunity" so many people keep talking about is not simple.

Regardless, if you were hoping for 'herd immunity' to be 'the answer' to the pandemic, it's time to put those delusions aside. Below are links to a couple of interesting stories on the topic. The bottom line is, the US will probably never reach the point of enough people being vaccinated to eradicate COVID from the country. Between the anti-vaxxers and the less than 100% effectiveness of any vaccine, we almost certainly won't ever reach the point of having enough people immune to eradicate the virus. We would have to vaccinate virtually every person in the country, and that obviously isn't going to happen.

The best we can hope for is some form of control, which will vary from state to state depending on immunization levels. Some areas may be relatively safe, while others will become permanent cesspools of contagion, in correlation with the levels of vaccination.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/...id/7139419002/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/coronav...h=438e264f4c1a

It's such a stupid shame, because eradication is possible. A number of countries around the world have essentially achieved it, such as Australia, New Zealand, Taiwan, China, even 'poor' countries like Vietnam and Bhutan. It was done without complex vaccines or vaccination programs, but using tried-and-proven tools that have worked for centuries: hard lockdown followed by rigorous containment measures, for a short period of time. Life has largely returned to 'normal' in those countries.

Unfortunately, too many Americans are selfish, short-sighted, lazy, stupid, and impatient. Too many people just 'couldn't deal with' those kinds of short-term limitations, and too many others are howling about their 'rights'. So, we will be stuck with the SARS-CoV-2 virus forever. We're taking a big chance that a resistant variant doesn't tear through us like a hot knife through warm butter, like the catastrophe devastating India.

When and not if that happens, people will run around with their heads in their hands despairing and decrying 'how could this have happened!', but we will only have ourselves to blame. Our actions, and those of some incompetent and/or ignorant leaders (I'm looking at you Ron DeSantis) are to blame.

Choose life. Get vaccinated.

[nextcar]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

In the end, that is why employers cannot mandate it yet, unlike the flu shot. I know the hospital system I work for (which mandates other inoculations to work there) plans to make it mandatory for employees once formally approved by the FDA.

At least in California, it is illegal to require employees to be vaccinated, since they can simply state that vaccines are against their religious beliefs (which cannot be verified by their employer). This would place them in a "protected class" that cannot be discriminated against.

This was just covered in our mandatory management training.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by nextcar

At least in California, it is illegal to require employees to be vaccinated, since they can simply state that vaccines are against their religious beliefs (which cannot be verified by their employer). This would place them in a "protected class" that cannot be discriminated against.

This was just covered in our mandatory management training.

We shall see. Suspect/protected class designations are not bullet proof. My guess is, with the current USSC, you're probably correct as far as religion goes. That seems to be a talisman for them. But note the "probably." If the government can demonstrate a "compelling interest" and make the case that the vaccine is the least intrusive way of addressing that interest I suspect those distinctions may be discarded. It will be interesting.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by nextcar

At least in California, it is illegal to require employees to be vaccinated, since they can simply state that vaccines are against their religious beliefs (which cannot be verified by their employer). This would place them in a "protected class" that cannot be discriminated against.

This was just covered in our mandatory management training.

Actually, its not, even in CA, at least based on what I've read. You have to accommodate "sincere religious beliefs" but once the employee plays that card you can request specific proof. One article on this here but I've read other similar articles when searching for information covering my personal situation.

[nextcar]

Originally Posted by Capt Spaulding

We shall see. Suspect/protected class designations are not bullet proof. My guess is, with the current USSC, you're probably correct as far as religion goes. That seems to be a talisman for them. But note the "probably." If the threat looms large enough I suspect those distinctions may be discarded.

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters... the mere threat of the lawsuit is already proven to be enough for companies to set policy against requiring vaccination. As you imply, the limits of the law are not really set until there are precedent judgements that withstand challenge (possibly up to the USSC). But who will brave the first lawsuit?

[nextcar]

Originally Posted by Dadhawk

Actually, its not, even in CA, at least based on what I've read. You have to accommodate "sincere religious beliefs" but once the employee plays that card you can request specific proof. One article on this here but I've read other similar articles when searching for information covering my personal situation.

Literally last week I went through the training. Vaccination was one of the specific issues covered, along with the religious objection and that we were not allowed to request proof. It is possible that the corporate counsel is overly conservative... I am just stating what is part of management training for large corporations in California currently. As noted, the term "sincere religious beliefs" is the new standard, it does not have to be a long established, organized, or widely recognized religion. Given this, I doubt proof of belief is even possible.

Edited: Changed "illegality of requesting proof" to "we are not allowed to request proof", since it may be corporate policy, not law.

[Capt Spaulding]

Originally Posted by nextcar

Unfortunately, I don't think it matters... the mere threat of the lawsuit is already proven to be enough for companies to set policy against requiring vaccination. As you imply, the limits of the law are not really set until there are precedent judgements that withstand challenge (possibly up to the USSC). But who will brave the first lawsuit?

I suspect there will be more than a few. It'll be interesting to see which side of this the ACLU comes down on. The zealots got a big win in Masterpiece Cake Shop. Covid is a different animal all together.

Arkansas recently passed a statute allowing medical personnel to refuse treatment to LGBTQ patients. That will start what is sure to be an interesting fight. I can think of a half dozen SC cases that should kick that to the curb. But, as I note, we shall see.

[Dadhawk]

Originally Posted by nextcar

Literally last week I went through the training. Vaccination was one of the specific issues covered, along with the religious objection and the illegality of requesting proof. It is possible that the corporate counsel is overly conservative... I am just stating what is part of management training for large corporations in California currently. As noted, the term "sincere religious beliefs" is the new standard, it does not have to be a long established, organized, or widely recognized religion. Given this, I doubt proof of belief is even possible.

Not questioning your corporate policy, sounds like they are taking the path of least resistance on it, as you say, just questioning "illegal" vs. "our policy will be".

Did they mention of unvaccinated employees would have to continue masking and other safe practices vs. vaccinated persons would not?