Apparently per the EEOC's guidelines employers (not just healthcare related) can mandate vaccination of workers. The exception is a "sincerely held religious belief" or a covered disability. Just found out this morning that a chain of for profit LTC/SNF's are rolling out a Covid vaccine mandate for all direct care staff or face indefinite unpaid administrative leave. I am a heavy supporter of vaccination and of the new COVID vaccine and in fact am due to get one in early January. But I am doing so of my own volition. My facility encouraged all workers to sign up for a vaccine and provided information sessions and it's been really effective at getting people to sign up.
Even though I would disagree with someone's choice to not vaccinate, I don't believe they should be mandated at this point.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
9 hours ago, myoglobin said:
No, it is a clarification that requiring vaccine passports should they come to pass would amount to "economic warfare" against those of us who choose not to use a vaccine that not even the armed forces of the United States on active duty can be forced to take. A different "modern" example would be Communist China where you can "choose" to be Falun Gong but if you "exercise" that choice at the least you will find yourself excluded from jobs, education, and public transport, and many who "choose" to practice this peaceful religion find themselves in concentration camps with their organs harvested for the elites https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organ_harvesting_from_Falun_Gong_practitioners_in_China . This is not "hyperbole" but an illustration of what can occur when basic human rights such as the ability to choose which medical treatments or vaccines that we partake of is infringed upon. We will not go quietly in the night of totalitarian rule.
You say that I will not follow the Science but I allege that what you call "science" is often little more than "politically correct perspectives". Consider that even posting on facebook and Twitter a few months ago that Covid 19 came from the Wuhan lab was enough to get you banned from facebook and Twitter (or at least "shadow banned". Now that same perspective is more "mainstream" and is deemed more "scientific" despite most of the evidence having been obvious for anyone to see (who cared to look) for over a year https://www.city-journal.org/on-covid-19-origins-elites-followed-politics-not-science?wallit_nosession=1 .
Nah.
Your vaccine reluctance represent hyperbolic fears and misinformation based upon fears. Now you want to talk about Wuhan as if that has anything to do with using sound judgement, following the science and vaccinating to end the pandemic, regardless of where it originated.
Your vaccine reluctance represent hyperbolic fears and misinformation based upon fears. Now you want to tali about Wuhan as if that has anything to do with using sound judgement, following the science and vaccinating to end the pandemic regardless of where it originated.
We can agree to disagree so long as you do not try to force your perspectives on to my life I will respect yours. I do not call your perspective "unscientific". Rather, I believe it to be heartfelt, genuine, and yet radically different from mine. That's okay and welcome so long as we live in a society that welcomes and respects a diversity of opinion.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
33 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
We can agree to disagree so long as you do not try to force your perspectives on to my life I will respect yours. I do not call your perspective "unscientific". Rather, I believe it to be heartfelt, genuine, and yet radically different from mine. That's okay and welcome so long as we live in a society that welcomes and respects a diversity of opinion.
The only people forcing their perspectives are those refusing to mitigate or vaccinate because of their ignorance and fears. They are the people endangering others because of their misguided beliefs and feelings. No, I don't have to agree to disagree with scientifically unsound thinking or recommendations...there is no "diversity" in the facts or the science of these vaccines.
You can call the perspectives whatever you prefer but that doesn't make your perspective worthy of respect nor does it make others less worthy of respect. You don't respect the science of these vaccines and you have made that fearful point over and over again using misinterpreted data and pseudoscience.
Whether you like it or not, you reportedly work in a profession where ability to discern fact from fiction is critical for safe practice and you are not representing your skill set well at all. Professionals don't ignore incorrect thinking or behavior among their peers.
Not convincing at all. No one is forced to get a vaccine. Period.
If I am required to do something to work, travel, buy and sell how is that not being "forced"? If you do not consider "economic pressure" force then what do you consider force? Why wouldn't telling an employee "have a date with me or lose your job" not be "unforced" under that definition? Or "close your private business or face daily fines not be "force" . I think we are arguing semantics here.
The only people forcing their perspectives are those refusing to mitigate or vaccinate because of their ignorance and fears. They are the people endangering others because of their misguided beliefs and feelings. No, I don't have to agree to disagree with scientifically unsound thinking or recommendations...there is no "diversity" in the facts or the science of these vaccines.
You can call the perspectives whatever you prefer but that doesn't make your perspective worthy of respect nor does it make others less worthy of respect. You don't respect the science of these vaccines and you have made that fearful point over and over again using misinterpreted data and pseudoscience.
Whether you like it or not, you reportedly work in a profession where ability to discern fact from fiction is critical for safe practice and you are not representing your skill set well at all. Professionals don't ignore incorrect thinking or behavior among their peers.
I believe that the vaccines are "probably" reasonably safe. However, I also believe that that aborted fetal tissues have been utilized in their research and development (or in the case of the J and J vaccine in their production). I also believe that previous infection confers essentially equivalent or superior protection. I also believe that some of the thousands of deaths shortly after vaccination reported to VAERS are in fact related to the vaccination. I also believe that VAERS if anything undercounts adverse events as indicated in a previously posted analysis to the HHS somewhere above. I also believe that telling someone "do this or lose your job" whether that involves sexual favors or forced vaccination is a form of economic force. I also believe that a vaccine authorized under emergency use provisions that even the active duty personnel of the armed forces of the United States cannot be forced to take and according to Dr Fauci indicated that at least 30% of NIH/CHC staff and researchers have declined should certainly not be "forced". I also believe that Covid was at least accidently leaked and may have been an act of war by the Chinese government deliberately leaked to wreck havoc (only time will tell and the intelligence analysis investigation recently ordered by President Biden). This represents a different opinion from yours and one which I have a constitutional right to hold and speak. At least for now.
I believe that the vaccines are "probably" reasonably safe. However, I also believe that that aborted fetal tissues have been utilized in their research and development (or in the case of the J and J vaccine in their production). I also believe that previous infection confers essentially equivalent or superior protection. I also believe that some of the thousands of deaths shortly after vaccination reported to VAERS are in fact related to the vaccination. I also believe that VAERS if anything undercounts adverse events as indicated in a previously posted analysis to the HHS somewhere above. I also believe that telling someone "do this or lose your job" whether that involves sexual favors or forced vaccination is a form of economic force. I also believe that a vaccine authorized under emergency use provisions that even the active duty personnel of the armed forces of the United States cannot be forced to take and according to Dr Fauci indicated that at least 30% of NIH/CHC staff and researchers have declined should certainly not be "forced". I also believe that Covid was at least accidently leaked and may have been an act of war by the Chinese government deliberately leaked to wreck havoc (only time will tell and the intelligence analysis investigation recently ordered by President Biden). This represents a different opinion from yours and one which I have a constitutional right to hold and speak. At least for now.
This just doesn't "represent a different opinion from yours," it represents a total absence of truth, an absence of sense and is a complete and utter fabrication.
Not one part of what you wrote is happening in the real world. Your anti-vaxx credentials are apparent for everyone to see. You are lying and you are deliberately misrepresenting science.
Please stop writing this nonsense, your beliefs have no basis in fact and are complete and utter lies.
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
40 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
If I am required to do something to work, travel, buy and sell how is that not being "forced"? If you do not consider "economic pressure" force then what do you consider force? Why wouldn't telling an employee "have a date with me or lose your job" not be "unforced" under that definition? Or "close your private business or face daily fines not be "force" . I think we are arguing semantics here.
Yeah...the overly emotional want to use words like "force" when discussing recommendations for vaccination. You are trying to argue semantics because you have no scientific argument against vaccination, only emotional argument based in fear and bad science.
Semantics always come into play when facts aren't supportive of an opinion or when propaganda is at odds with common meaning or definitions.
I also believe that previous infection confers essentially equivalent or superior protection.
So your belief is you do not need to wear a mask as a previous infection confers that you are not a carrier? Is this grounded in science at all (a real science....not political science)
Specializes in NICU, PICU, Transport, L&D, Hospice.
48 minutes ago, myoglobin said:
I believe that the vaccines are "probably" reasonably safe. However, I also believe that that aborted fetal tissues have been utilized in their research and development (or in the case of the J and J vaccine in their production). I also believe that previous infection confers essentially equivalent or superior protection. I also believe that some of the thousands of deaths shortly after vaccination reported to VAERS are in fact related to the vaccination. I also believe that VAERS if anything undercounts adverse events as indicated in a previously posted analysis to the HHS somewhere above. I also believe that telling someone "do this or lose your job" whether that involves sexual favors or forced vaccination is a form of economic force. I also believe that a vaccine authorized under emergency use provisions that even the active duty personnel of the armed forces of the United States cannot be forced to take and according to Dr Fauci indicated that at least 30% of NIH/CHC staff and researchers have declined should certainly not be "forced". I also believe that Covid was at least accidently leaked and may have been an act of war by the Chinese government deliberately leaked to wreck havoc (only time will tell and the intelligence analysis investigation recently ordered by President Biden). This represents a different opinion from yours and one which I have a constitutional right to hold and speak. At least for now.
Yep. You confirm over and over that you "believe" things even though provided data and evidence to the contrary. Believing things which have no evidence or proof is nothing more than faith. Faith is emotionally based.
So your belief is you do not need to wear a mask as a previous infection confers that you are not a carrier? Is this grounded in science at all (a real science....not political science)
Yep. You confirm over and over that you "believe" things even though provided data and evidence to the contrary. Believing things which have no evidence or proof is nothing more than faith. Faith is emotionally based.
Yes we live in a free nation where we are free to live by our beliefs and that right is Constitutionally protected. I and tens of millions like me will jealously oppose infringement upon those rights. Indeed, it a central premise of the government upon which we were found that we are "endowed by our Creator" with those rights that they in essence emanate from an "act of faith" (the existence of a Creator, I would argue is also testified to by Science but that is a different matter). So much angst directed at people who are reticent to vaccinate and so little directed at a government (China) that likely either accidently via gross negligence or perhaps deliberately via an act of war or terrorism unleased this upon the world.
toomuchbaloney
16,040 Posts
Nah.
Your vaccine reluctance represent hyperbolic fears and misinformation based upon fears. Now you want to talk about Wuhan as if that has anything to do with using sound judgement, following the science and vaccinating to end the pandemic, regardless of where it originated.