Should Employers have the right to request staff be vaccinated?

[RedLantern]

14 minutes ago, BrightonCorgi said:

Can you tell me what the side effects of this vaccine are at even one year out?  No one has had the vaccine even that long.

While it's literally true that we do not know, it is not practically true. We know how the immune system works, we know how vaccines work, we know the ingredients in the vaccine and the typical effects they have on the body. It's not as if we have no idea what will happen to people in 1,5,10, 20+ years from taking the vaccine. Again, this is a disconnect between what we "know" with scientific certainty, and what a layperson understands as what we know.

[Hammer Smokin']

Did we really go 15 pages before Godwin's Law...well done.

[BrightonCorgi]

49 minutes ago, Nino said:

 You tell me in a years time how unvaccinated people are doing.

It will be very difficult to find anyone who hasn't been vaccinated in a years time, plus.  The vaccines will be compulsory, along with whatever else the government compels their citizenry to take.

I travel internationally for work and I plan to stay employed.  You can connect the dots without my medical history being on display.

[dgixxer252525]

I think the point that most people miss is that if the un-vaccinated are freely choosing to be unvaccinated and they are the ones dying, then they made their beds. If you are vaccinated, congrats. You are 99.99% covered as far as covid goes. Why are we so worried about a group of people who are willingly not getting the vaccine, knowing full well the risks they are taking?

If you want the vaccine get it, that’s your choice and your right. You’ll be safe from all the crazies who don’t want to take it.

If you don’t want the vaccine, and are willing to take the risks then don’t get it.

Again, no entity should MAKE people do something with their bodies that they aren’t comfortable doing

 

[RedLantern]

20 minutes ago, dgixxer252525 said:

 

Again, no entity should MAKE people do something with their bodies that they aren’t comfortable doing

 

Curious to what extent people who advance this argument would do the same in a time of war if a draft were instituted? 

[inter4alia]

Has there ever been a drug approved by FDA after all the usual steps that was then later withdrawn or removed from the market because it was proved to be unsafe or dangerous after being regularly used by people for a period of time? 

[CommanderJWBond]

Curious to what extent people who advance this argument would do the same in a time of war if a draft were instituted? 

Would it be true that with both a mandated vaccine or a draft that the individual always has a choice? It’s not like you will get the death penalty for doing either.

[dgixxer252525]

We aren’t talking draft or war or anything other than mandated vaccines. I think as an American, I have the right to choose what I put in my body and if I want to assume the risk of not getting a vaccine that is proven to work, then I should be allowed to assume that risk. I’d only be killing other people who knowingly assumed the same risk.

[BrightonCorgi]

53 minutes ago, inter4alia said:

Has there ever been a drug approved by FDA after all the usual steps that was then later withdrawn or removed from the market because it was proved to be unsafe or dangerous after being regularly used by people for a period of time? 

Plenty. 

https://prescriptiondrugs.procon.org/fda-approved-prescription-drugs-later-pulled-from-the-market/

 

 

[RedLantern]

54 minutes ago, CommanderJWBond said:

Would it be true that with both a mandated vaccine or a draft that the individual always has a choice? It’s not like you will get the death penalty for doing either.

IMO, yes. I just think it's the best analogy that I can think of. There are limited circumstances, in the U.S. at least, where an individual is compelled to act primarily for the benefit of others. The draft is one historical example of this happening and I would expect that many people advancing the above argument about strict bodily autonomy would support a draft in some cases. That would be hypocritical of them though. In fact, a vaccine "mandate" would be a much less intense version of this principle as the individual costs of taking the vaccine are exceedingly low vs individual costs of compulsory military service and the penalty of refusing the vaccine (potential exclusion from certain social activities) is much less than refusing military service when drafted (incarceration).

[CaptainQuintero]

3 hours ago, dgixxer252525 said:

I think the point that most people miss is that if the un-vaccinated are freely choosing to be unvaccinated and they are the ones dying, then they made their beds. If you are vaccinated, congrats. You are 99.99% covered as far as covid goes. Why are we so worried about a group of people who are willingly not getting the vaccine, knowing full well the risks they are taking?

If you want the vaccine get it, that’s your choice and your right. You’ll be safe from all the crazies who don’t want to take it.

If you don’t want the vaccine, and are willing to take the risks then don’t get it.

Again, no entity should MAKE people do something with their bodies that they aren’t comfortable doing

 

  There's the issue of mutations. The longer a virus operates freely in a population, the chance that the mutations occuring will evolve to become vaccine resistant, or worse. This has happened already with Delta being both more transmissible and being less effective with the vaccines, but luckily only in single digit effectiveness. We're purely riding on luck at the moment.

  When you start to vaccinate and put a virus under pressure through population immunity, the mutation risk increases significantly. It's incredibly important to vaccinate quickly to reduce the chances of this vaccine escape as much as possible. For various reasons this is already not being done on a world-wide scale: vaccine inequality, social and cultural hesitancy, patent issues etc.

  Essentially we're at the most crucial stage and if anything we're making all the wrong decisions from a global point of view. It didn't even cross my mind that vaccines would be a political issue instead of a health one, but that's the benefit of having a wide spectrum of nations represented on here. Add that to the mix and we're giving this virus the absolute best chance at sweeping away the progress we've made so far.

  That's all before throwing anyone who is immunocompromised, on chemo etc (Those who can't take a vaccine or might not work well for them), under the bus. As awful as it seems to dismiss them, that pales in comparison to what could happen if we make all the vaccines and/or current immunity useless through a mutation that could be vaccine resistant, more lethal, more transmissible or a prize winning scoop of all three

 

 

 

[dgixxer252525]

9 minutes ago, CaptainQuintero said:

  There's the issue of mutations. The longer a virus operates freely in a population, the chance that the mutations occuring will evolve to become vaccine resistant, or worse. This has happened already with Delta being both more transmissible and being less effective with the vaccines, but luckily only in single digit effectiveness. We're purely riding on luck at the moment.

  When you start to vaccinate and put a virus under pressure through population immunity, the mutation risk increases significantly. It's incredibly important to vaccinate as quickly to reduce the chances of this vaccine escape as much as possible. For various reasons this is already not being done on a world-wide scale: vaccine inequality, social and cultural hesitancy, patent issues etc.

  Essentially we're at the most crucial stage and if anything we're making all the wrong decisions on a global point of view. It didn't even cross my mind that vaccines would be a political issue instead of a health one but that's the benefit of having a wide spectrum of nations represented on here. Add that to the mix and we're giving this virus the absolute best chance at sweeping away the progress we've made so far.

  That's all before throwing anyone who is immunocompromised, on chemo etc under the bus. As awful as it seems to dismiss them, that pales in comparison to what could happen if we make all the vaccines and/or current immunity useless through a mutation that could be vaccine resistant, more lethal, more transmissible or a prize winning scoop of all three

 

 

 

That’s a great explanation. Thanks

[Ken Gargett]

1 hour ago, dgixxer252525 said:

We aren’t talking draft or war or anything other than mandated vaccines. I think as an American, I have the right to choose what I put in my body and if I want to assume the risk of not getting a vaccine that is proven to work, then I should be allowed to assume that risk. I’d only be killing other people who knowingly assumed the same risk.

sorry to rain on the parade but not even being an american means that. meaning no disrespect, you're wrong and you can't. 

this is worth a read from one of the news sites. lost track of which one.

this 'my rights transcend those of everyone else' attitude so prevalent today is disgraceful. and to be honest, given all the laws, rules, regulations and the rest imposed in every country, makes those who claim it look like they are living in cloud cuckoo land. i wonder how many that hold to this view would maintain it if their neighbour got pissed and ran over their kid, claiming he had the right to do what he wanted, including drink drive. and if you think that is extreme, certainly far less so than ridiculous assertions that a vaccine mandate leads to internment camps. 

it also answers the question about employers and what they can do (to an extent). 

 

With the delta coronavirus variant spreading rapidly among unvaccinated people, many businesses, venues and even cities are enacting vaccine mandates to help protect people in public spaces.

The vaccine mandates have been positively received in communities with high vaccination rates, but many people who have chosen to not get vaccinated aren’t all that thrilled about the rules. Some believe vaccine mandates infringe on people’s personal liberties. Others claim they’re illegal and an unprecedented public health move.

In reality, the whole purpose of vaccine mandates is to protect the public’s health ― and they’re certainly not new measures.

“Vaccine mandates, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, are part of optimizing the health and well-being of individuals and employees,” said Faith Fletcher, an assistant professor at the Center for Medical Ethics and Health Policy at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston.

We have hard proof that the shots do a good job of this. The vaccines dramatically reduce the chance of getting infected in the first place, meaning there will be fewer infected people walking around shedding the virus to others. The shots reduce people’s odds of needing to be hospitalized and thus pushing our health care system to the brink. They also significantly reduce transmission, and even when vaccinated people get sick, the duration of how long they’re contagious is shortened.

Mandates are mainly reserved for when there is a serious threat to public health. Vaccines work best when enough people in the population receive them. A mandate can push more people to get vaccinated and drive up vaccination rates in an effort to control future outbreaks.

Yet, because the vaccines and other public health measures for COVID-19 have been highly politicized, there has been a ton of misinformation ― especially when it comes to mandates. Here are a few of the most common myths and the facts about them:

Myth 1: Vaccine Mandates Are Unprecedented

Vaccine mandates date back to the smallpox outbreak of the late 1800s. These rules aren’t unprecedented, but the pandemic is, Fletcher said. Never have we seen an infectious disease like COVID-19 spread so quickly around the globe.

Mandates are commonly used to slow the spread of other infectious diseases. Many health care systems routinely require workers to be vaccinated against the flu, hepatitis B and measles plus rubella. Schools require kids to get certain inoculations before classes begin. The military also requires vaccines ― just look at the anthrax vaccine mandated in the late 1990s, said Sharona Hoffman, a professor of health law and bioethics at Case Western Reserve University in Cleveland.

States have the authority to promote public health, and though it hasn’t been necessary for them to enact widespread vaccine mandates in our time, they did so when smallpox was rampant in the 19th century, Hoffman added.

Myth 2: Vaccine Mandates Are Illegal

The idea that vaccine mandates are illegal can be traced back to our Constitution ― the whole purpose of which is to protect our personal liberties. People generally don’t want the government to tell them what to do, but that is inherently a part of living in a civilized society.

There are all types of rules and regulations set forth by the government that are designed to protect the public.

“You can’t kill no matter how angry you are, you can’t steal no matter how much you want something, you have to abide by the traffic laws or else you get a ticket, you can’t run around naked, you can’t go into businesses without a shirt or shoes,” Hoffman said. We follow all of these mandates because we live in a civilized society.

States have very broad public health authorities, and they have the power to mandate vaccines. In 1905, in the wake of the smallpox epidemic, “the Supreme Court decided that local authorities, in fact, have a right to establish vaccine mandates,” Hoffman explained. Back then, the plaintiff made all kinds of constitutional arguments, but the high court rejected them.

Look at it this way: Local governments already regulate health practices in many establishments we visit on a regular basis, including gyms, salons, bars and restaurants, said Robert Heimer, a professor of epidemiology at the Yale School of Public Health.

Health officials inspect restaurants to ensure their kitchens are clean and not spreading foodborne illnesses. The vaccine mandates are similar with COVID-19, except instead preventing a foodborne illness, it’s an airborne one.

“In some ways, this is not a huge conceptual leap,” Heimer said. “The laws can force lots of people to obey certain rules that are imposed for the benefit of others as well.”

Hoffman said there have been constitutional arguments against vaccine mandates, but they’ve all been rejected by the U.S. Supreme Court. Employers, too, are protected and have clear justification for dismissing workers who refuse to get vaccinated (and therefore violate the mandate).

“We do have some precedents that employer vaccination mandate programs will be upheld,” Fletcher said. So, you can probably expect to see more vaccine mandates roll out in the coming weeks.

[Kitchen]

All political and rights discussions aside, there are a few issues with this many are not really talking about.  

First, it should be noted human nature is unchangeable.  If you disagree and think human nature evolves over time, then please explain why we can all relate to characters from The Odyssey, or the Iliad, or the Bible, or Beowolf, or the works of Sophocles, and so on?  Enough time has pasted where we should not be able to relate to any of those works, even if our nature changes slowly.  Point is, human nature is unchangeable and no tweaking of laws/policies will alter it, which brings me to my main point.  

Roughly a third of the population (in the USA) has not and will not get vaccinated even though the vaccine is widely available for free.  Do you really think if you mandate it, that population will step back and say, "well I was not getting it just out of principle, but now that it is mandated they must be really serious; I think I'll change my mind!"?  No, they will not.  Instead you will just strengthen their reserve to not get vaccinated.  Beliefs become dogma once they are challenged, and a challenge like this will only turn even mild vaccine hesitancy into a strict religious conviction.  All you can do is provide good information in a non-condescending manner, Ken, and let people make their own choices.  Short of physically holding people down and injecting them against their will, it is not going to happen any other way.  

Next point, if you are going to ban people from polite society whom are not vaccinated, this will naturally lead to unvaccinated people hanging out together en mass.  This will then drastically increase the rate of transmission among the unvaccinated along with the possibility of mutations.  

On top of that, at least here in the USA, this will create a racial political firestorm.  Minorities have the highest level of non-vaccination, especially inner city Blacks.  I was looking at the stats for NYC today and only 27% of NYC Blacks are vaccinated whereas 53% of Whites are, and if you remove Latinos, the number jumps up to the 70s.  The mayor may not know it yet, but his NYC Key is going to create a massive fisher in his own party.   Should be fun to watch; I already got the popcorn ready.  

Last, it will always be a fantasy that we will be able to get the entire world vaccinated.  Poor countries lack the logistics and infrastructure, not to mention the will to do so.  Vaccination for C-19, a not so deadly virus in the grand scheme of things, is a much less priority when you are faced with problems like not starving to death or not dying from exposure or not being mauled by a wild animal or not being without basic shelter or not being killed in a war.  On a world wide basis, natural immunity will be the end of this, not vaccination.  

[dgixxer252525]

Ken you love to prove me wrong…I said that as an American “ I think” as in, its my opinion. Didn’t say wether it was right or wrong, just an opinion. Your disdain for me and/or America didn’t allow you to read and think that sentence through fully…relax man…article from an unknown site. Tells me nothing except a lot about the person who searched for it.

You are for mandating vaccines, and I am against. Doesn’t make Me anti vaccine, just anti mandate.  Not a shocker that we are on opposite sides of this “non political” topic. You are a proponent of big government, and I am not. 

What I can’t believe is that your post calling people disgraceful and saying that people who oppose your viewpoint live in cuckoo land was allowed to be posted. I’m still being handled with kid gloves because I spoke the truth on the Cuba embargo situation. 

[El Presidente]

1 minute ago, dgixxer252525 said:

 

What I can’t believe is that your post calling people disgraceful and saying that people who oppose your viewpoint live in cuckoo land was allowed to be posted. I’m still being handled with kid gloves because I spoke the truth on the Cuba embargo situation. 

Feel free to report anything that you consider abusive or against forum rules. Mods can miss it. 

You aired your version of the "cuba embargo situation". I disagree with it but it was still "aired". 

[dgixxer252525]

No need for me to report anything. I’m a 1st amendment guy. 

[El Presidente]

Just now, dgixxer252525 said:

No need for me to report anything. I’m a 1st amendment guy. 

and I respect that unless it is US political, religious, ignorant, racist and/or abusive. 

still, the rationale is there. If we miss a post, point it out. 

[Vetteman]

We aren’t talking draft or war or anything other than mandated vaccines. I think as an American, I have the right to choose what I put in my body and if I want to assume the risk of not getting a vaccine that is proven to work, then I should be allowed to assume that risk. I’d only be killing other people who knowingly assumed the same risk.

I think I’d be more sympathetic to this argument if it was true, and sick unvaccinated stayed home to live (or die) with their choice. But they don’t. Many are showing up in hospitals where they endanger other, immuno-compromised, patients, children too young to be vaccinated, and medical workers who may be in the unlucky 5-10% for whom the vaccine is ineffective.

[Ken Gargett]

5 minutes ago, dgixxer252525 said:

Ken you love to prove me wrong…I said that as an American “ I think” as in, its my opinion. Didn’t say wether it was right or wrong, just an opinion. Your disdain for me and/or America didn’t allow you to read and think that sentence through fully…relax man…article from an unknown site. Tells me nothing except a lot about the person who searched for it.

You are for mandating vaccines, and I am against. Doesn’t make Me anti vaccine, just anti mandate.  Not a shocker that we are on opposite sides of this “non political” topic. You are a proponent of big government, and I am not. 

What I can’t believe is that your post calling people disgraceful and saying that people who oppose your viewpoint live in cuckoo land was allowed to be posted. I’m still being handled with kid gloves because I spoke the truth on the Cuba embargo situation. 

first and perhaps most importantly, i do not have disdain for you or america. i don't mean this disrespectfully but all i know about you is that we share at least one hobby/interest and possibly many more, and we disagree on this. i would be delighted, if the opportunity ever arises, to sit and enjoy a cigar and a drink with yourself and a great many of the members. hell, if i am to restrict my friends to those i agree with all the time, it will be a very small circle. how many members can honestly say that they agree with their friends on all things? 

i most certainly do not hold disdain for america. as i have posted before, i lived there some time ago and was seriously a coin toss from making it permanent. had circumstances been marginally different, i would have been there for the last 30 plus years. i love the place. always have. there are individuals i might "disdain" but every country has those and best we do not go down that route. you won't find any disdain from me in relation to america itself. just certain issues/individuals. but i can say that about here and anywhere i've been. who can't? 

i have no intention of bothering to dignify the 'i am a proponent of big government' comment. i simply couldn't muster the energy but if you are going to make such a sweeping statement without having any idea of what you are really talking about, try doing a bit more reading yourself. staggers me how many people on this forum read a para or two posted by someone and suddenly think they know that person. 

it is not an unknown site. it is simply that i have so many of these articles copied and filed that occasionally i lose track of where one might have come from. they are quoting professors from entities such as yale so you can take that for what it is worth. i try and avoid the ratbag press from both ends so if i do find it, i'm hoping/assuming it was a creditible source. 

what you actually said was "i think as an american". subtle difference perhaps. what i was doing with posting the piece i did was not suggesting you can't have an opinion. it was trying to show that mandating vaccines has been around for 170 years. and it is legal. and that therefore, you don't actually have the rights you seem to think you do.

my para incorporating the cloud cuckoo comment was obviously more generally aimed, than specifically at yourself, and that should be obvious from the reference to items from another post (from someone else with whom i agree on much but not this and with whom i very much hope to enjoy a cigar and a drink one day). i would have thought this clear from any reading of it? 

what i said was disgraceful was the 'my rights transcend those of everyone else' attitude so prevalent today. can i assume, as you have attacked me for that, that you support that attitude? 

finally, the cloud cuckoo comment was not my "viewpoint". it was pointing out the reality of the facts that we live in a society where there are already a great many rules and regulations. i realise that today, if someone doesn't like a law then they seem to believe they have the right to ignore it but that is simply not how society works. it is cloud cuckoo land to think otherwise. 

and as for being censored, with the greatest respect to my fellow mods, all of whom i deeply respect, no one has copped more unfairly deleted posts and iniquitous suspensions than myself (and yes, i know that some of my deeply respected fellow mods may not feel that is true). 

[El Presidente]

Just now, Ken Gargett said:

and as for being censored, with the greatest respect to my fellow mods, all of whom i deeply respect, no one has copped more unfairly deleted posts and iniquitous suspensions than myself (and yes, i know that some of my deeply respected fellow mods may not feel that is true). 

.....if God exists you should be struck down by a bolt of lightning about ....now. 

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, El Presidente said:

.....if God exists you should be struck down by a bolt of lightning about ....now. 

that took even less time than i expected. 

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, El Presidente said:

.....if God exists you should be struck down by a bolt of lightning about ....now. 

and does it mean we can now move on to the 'does god exist?' debate? some days just keep giving. 

[El Presidente]

Just now, Ken Gargett said:

and does it mean we can now move on to the 'does god exist?' debate? some days just keep giving. 

I am more in the camp of  "In what form does God exist" as opposed to your atheist stance. 

I have told you before that I intend to send food and drink down to you  when circumstances permit. I just need to work out the lay of the land when I get there. 

[Ken Gargett]

Just now, El Presidente said:

I am more in the camp of  "In what form does God exist" as opposed to your atheist stance. 

I have told you before that I intend to send food and drink down to you  when circumstances permit. I just need to work out the lay of the land when I get there. 

at least you won't have to worry about me being vaccinated!

and congrats on your 2021 Optimist of the Year award.