Should Employers have the right to request staff be vaccinated?


Vaccination in the work place.   

231 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

12 minutes ago, porkchop said:

A bullet that is pretty close to hitting you in the head is a lot different than a bullet that hits you in the head. If the make believe has to continue for politicians to stay in power and corporate leaders to get rich(er), so be it. Plebs of either persuasion (mandate and no mandate) can play along, each in their own way. Personally, I am ok playing the game. It is childish, but whatever - the small pleasures will still be there. 

In this case it's probably worse this way. If they made it mandatory then they'd likely add a religious/sincere belief exception.

But now that there's the test option it's harder to argue you're averse to covid tests. People go to the gym 3-4 times a week. I used to when I went. Getting covid tested multiple times in a week is pretty rough.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 401
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

As a front line healthcare worker I'm absolutely sick and tired of people coming in with covid now.  We did it last year, and our hospital lost half its staff. Now we're understaffed like every h

No way should they have that right. People should not be forced to accept a medical procedure in order to work, especially not an experimental and potentially very dangerous one. And it is very much e

Exactly, it’s like the current hysteria with kids supposedly getting it in any serious numbers. Absolutely no scientific or statistical evidence behind it, pure fear propaganda. If you are vaccin

5 minutes ago, HarveyBoulevard said:

The world is not a utopia.  The greater good does not always win.  Some people expect others to take care of them, some people expect no one to help and then there are those people in the middle.  Different countries and the people that inhabit them are very different in their belief systems when it comes to personal freedoms and what they will sacrifice in order to keep those freedoms.

Yes I believe in this case there's a tradeoff between covid deaths and personal freedoms. Each country will go its own way. Being not quite so deadly but not quite so benign makes it very hard to know which way to lean. I am "pro" vaccine but my opinion is open up and let the unvaccinated suffer any consequences. Or alternatively mandate it with a religious/belief opt out. I think most people would get the vaccine in that case and maybe 10% would have serious reservations and opt out. I feel it best not to press the issue beyond that point.

It would be overreach to me to mandate it against sincerely held beliefs. Even though I think it harmless it's a precedent I wouldn't want set.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dobbs said:

well, you weren't there, but you know, that whole slavery thing in the united states, pretty good example of a return of freedoms.

and slippery-slope arguments are generally unreliable. we eat animals, but somehow haven't yet slid into cannibalism.

-dobbs

Neither one of those arguments are intellectually honest with regards to the current global public health epidemic.

We are in fact animals ourselves (just really smart ones) and your wrong about cannibalism...that is how we have a word for it...Some animals are herbivores, some are omnivores, some are carnivores.  I figure at some point we just figured out cows taste better than Uncle Bob.  Haven't you ever seen Soylent Green :)

Those that doubt the slippery slope usually end up at the bottom first.  They are easy to miss if your not looking out for them.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, teamrandr said:

That will be enough internet for me today.  

😂 i agree. I need a cigar and some mindless YouTube videos to round out the evening!!

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, HarveyBoulevard said:

Neither one of those arguments are intellectually honest with regards to the current global public health epidemic.

the point was that your argument is hyperbolic and therefore not intellectually honest (thanks for the phrase). and i'm well aware that cannibalism existed/exists, don't you think it would be difficult to make an argument with a concept that doesn't?

-dobbs

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't the question (as it's morphed through the thread) hinge on whether the vax prevents transmission?  There seems to be alot of certitude from people that don't really know.  I believe the studies so far more clearly establish whether the vax reduces severity of symptoms rather than whether they halt transmission. The rest is up in the air.  It may be that reduction of transmission is a side effect.  Hardly certain. 

If the vax isn’t shown to reduce transmission, all that follows falls prey to the usual passions and biases of any other polarizing political debate.  So we're back to the usual suspects that pervade every ethical/moral issue of bodily autonomy versus the greater good.     

In my view, it's always preferable to inform, encourage, sometimes to incentivize rather than belittle, discriminate, demonize, and forcibly interfere with any individual's autonomy through mandates and "jab for job" requirements.  But it depends on the real objective, which this thread amply demonstrates is no different than the ones from last year.     

It shouldn't come as any surprise that being told what is "good for you" by people that don't particularly like you or your beliefs will be resisted.  Just look at those that said they wouldn't take the vax if developed/promoted by one administration that now insist it should be mandated under another.  I'd like to believe that I'm above the idiot class of politicos pushing their agendas, but I'd be lying to myself if I did.  So would everyone else.        

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

Doesn't the question (as it's morphed through the thread) hinge on whether the vax prevents transmission?  There seems to be alot of certitude from people that don't really know.  I believe the studies so far more clearly establish whether the vax reduces severity of symptoms rather than whether they halt transmission. The rest is up in the air.  It may be that reduction of transmission is a side effect.  Hardly certain. 

If the vax isn’t shown to reduce transmission, all that follows falls prey to the usual passions and biases of any other polarizing political debate.  So we're back to the usual suspects that pervade every ethical/moral issue of bodily autonomy versus the greater good.     

 

Well in most basic terms you're much less likely to test positive for covid if you take the vaccine, not just to get less sick.

As far as I know no one has done the study of looking at totally healthy vaccinated people to see if they can transmit Covid, but we should have data on people that are not vaccinated and never have any symptoms and how likely they are to be carriers.

Based on my understanding of that it would probably be the case that vaccinated people are less likely to transmit if they don't get sick, but if they do get sick even if it is weaker they may still be as contagious. So the total effect is that they'll be less likely to transmit than non-vaccinated people, since they're less likely to get Covid. Again that's my understanding of it.

The debate over whether vaccinated people are contagious or how contagious is about the people who do get sick despite the vaccine. I don't think that matters if you're 5 times less likely to get covid if you are vaccinated. That should be good enough. This is one of those the perfect is the enemy of the good situations.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

10 minutes ago, Bijan said:

As far as I know no one has done the study of looking at totally healthy vaccinated people to see if they can transmit Covid, but we should have data on people that are not vaccinated and never have any symptoms and how likely they are to be carriers.

The least we can do is admit that we don't know what we don't know before imposing social restrictions on any segment of the population.  

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, rcarlson said:

 

The least we can do is admit that we don't know what we don't know before imposing social restrictions on any segment of the population.  

Fair enough but this is data that should be clearly visible from the statistics if it was a major factor.

That is to say if vaccinated people were as infectious as non vaccinated people you'd see the incidence of covid among the unvaccinated increase rather than decrease (since they are catching it from contagious vaccinated people) while it decreased for the vaccinated (since they are infectious for covid but don't get covid).

It seems that both decreased initially with vaccination and both are increasing now due to the delta variant.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, rcarlson said:

 

The least we can do is admit that we don't know what we don't know before imposing social restrictions on any segment of the population.  

This is true, but the public is *really* bad at parsing the difference between what can be claimed as “known” by scientific standards, and what is a safe working assumption for every other context. 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Meesterjojo said:

One of our er doctors doesn't believe that covid is serious, masks, vaccines, etc. Despite seeing how we were through round 1. 

Since this physician also runs our er, no one gowns for patients there. Yes, people call us and complain frequently. 

 

You're not serious, are you? You can't imagine why people bash on big pharm?

Lobbyists, promoting drugs which cause addiction and ruin lives, buying the rights to human cells and thus subsequent therapy, over pricing of medications such that people die needlessly each year...

I can't imagine why.

 

I'm not sure you understand how selection works. If you like I'll message you privately, or anyone else curious, and explain it.

Further, employers have the right to demand whatever they want, especially as it pertains to their businesses. If my employees that come into contact with my customers spread covid, you better believe there's going to be a lawsuit. And healthcare professionals like myself are already mobilizing to support those lawsuits and grind employers to the hilt. 

It's all fun and games when a business wants to make money off off population. But when they also infect and contribute to spreading a disease to the same people they prey off of, well, that's despicable. 

 

Reading backwards is just like reading through heart of darkness. It'd a hot mess.

At this point I do not understand why folks are confusing personal rights and freedom's with not wanting to harm your neighbors. 

You do not have the right to harm other people. That's is why you need to get vaccinated,  mask up, or leave society.

No one has the right to harm others. End of debate.

Selection? What are you talking about?

Employers do not have the right to demand whatever they want. Separate from this conversation about COVID, that’s a silly statement.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Jimmy_jack said:

Selection? What are you talking about?

Employers do not have the right to demand whatever they want. Separate from this conversation about COVID, that’s a silly statement.

 

Clearly you either don't live in the USA or you're not in a right to work state.

Regardless, natural selection is why there are covid variants, and subsequently why we're still in this mess and why this topic is being discussed. It's literally the reason for the season. 

But let's take this private. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, Meesterjojo said:

Further, employers have the right to demand whatever they want, especially as it pertains to their businesses.

That is so far off from reality.

So, a business can say "We don't hire blacks or women" or "We don't sell to Jews or gays"?

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
28 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

That is so far off from reality.

So, a business can say "We don't hire blacks or women" or "We don't sell to Jews or gays"?

You're taking a statement to an absurd conclusion and/or making direct equivalency with race and health. 

Plus, your statement is really in poor taste. I believe you can stay on topic. 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
54 minutes ago, Meesterjojo said:

Clearly you either don't live in the USA or you're not in a right to work state.

Regardless, natural selection is why there are covid variants, and subsequently why we're still in this mess and why this topic is being discussed. It's literally the reason for the season. 

But let's take this private. 

You must be sleepy. Some rest will likely help your posts make more sense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Meesterjojo said:

You're taking a statement to an absurd conclusion and/or making direct equivalency with race and health. 

Plus, your statement is really in poor taste. I believe you can stay on topic. 

You could fill in the blanks with whatever you want and it's not poor taste as this topic relates to the most personal topic; our personal health records & compulsory experimental drug injections. 

In the US, low vaccinate rates are highest among minorities.   There's a lot of "eggshell walking" about how do we direct our segregation (to those who do not want experimental drug injections) without sounding racist.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, BrightonCorgi said:

how do we direct our segregation (to those who do not want experimental drug injections) without sounding racist.

OK--time for my newest joke on this touchy topic.

Q.  Why are the black doctors shown on PSAs (public service announcements) failing to convince black citizens to get vaccinated.

A.  They are wearing white coats (bad optics).  😀

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, RedLantern said:

This is true, but the public is *really* bad at parsing the difference between what can be claimed as “known” by scientific standards, and what is a safe working assumption for every other context. 

Don't know if this was directed at me, but I'll try to restate what I said sticking closer to science.

The science says that vaccinated people get covid less often, that is they did double blind studies with vaccine vs placebo and tested everyone in both groups and the vaccine group had statistically significant less covid.

Second science says that to infect someone with a virus you need to be infected with the virus. This is regardless of symptoms. For example you can have HIV for years without getting AIDS the disease but you need to be HIV positive to infect anyone else with HIV.

Those two facts together mean that the vaccine almost certainly reduces transmission.

But there's no certainty not even in science. Maybe this is the one virus that defies virus logic. As far as I know no one has done a study because it doesn't seem reasonable.

Meanwhile there are anti Vax people who won't shake hands or sit in the same room as a vaccinated person because they fear vaccine cooties.

One person was evicted from their rental here in Ontario for having a vaccinated visitor against their landlords wishes. The person moved rather than deal with the courts and their crazy landlord.

Anyways the main reason I oppose a vaccine mandate without an opt out is basically due to the above. I fear the anti Vax people or their equivalent getting into power someday and banning vaccines or limiting the rights of the vaccinated. If we make vaccines an entirely political issue that is the risk we run.

  • Like 4
Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Bijan said:

Those two facts together mean that the vaccine almost certainly reduces transmission.

I agree with this logic. Thanks for the well constructed post.

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

I find it very interesting that airlines are  now considering banning anyone from flying who is not vaccinated, yet all the airlines continued to fly during the past year when no vaccine was available and there were no reports of air travel causing mass transmission or acting as super spreaders.

So it was perfectly safe for unvaccinated people to fly every day pre vaccine but now it's unacceptably dangerous to allow unvaccinated people to fly because some people are vaccinated?

  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.


Community Software by Invision Power Services, Inc.