Yes, Employer Can Require Covid Vaccine

[TheMoonisMyLantern]

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.

Yes, your employer can require you to get a COVID-19 vaccine, the EEOC says

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Soloist said:

We can claim whatever we want. Conviction will stand regardless of if jobs are lost or not. If someone changes their mind based on not having some religious objection route, that is illustrative of no true conviction. That being said, your litmus test isn't how the government looks at it. See Title 7 of the federal code in regard to vaccines. 

When my faith group begin there was no fancy doctrinal teachings and they were killed for what they believed based on the Bible. Your words would be the same that they would have said back then too. 

 

 

The point is that mainstream, commonly held religious beliefs...more or less across the spectrum...accept vaccination as life saving.  It's evidence of man's dominion in this world. We discover the mysteries of this gift to us, we name them, we overcome them or learn to live with the other things on this globe, but we reign. In the modern world that means we overcome things like viruses so that they don't cause widespread harm and suffering.  

Praise God. 

 

[Soloist, LPN]

1 hour ago, Hannahbanana said:

Title 7 allows for religious beliefs to refuse care but vaccines do not fit the criteria. I agree that a strongly held belief is something anybody’s entitled to, and accepting the consequences are your right and prerogative.
(Most of us, including myself, come from faith heritages that made us vulnerable to persecution at one time of another in history, but we’re not talking hanging, drowning, burning at the stake, or beheading at the behest of a state-sponsored religion here). 

Oh I agree. I'm not claiming that there is persecutions at foot.

As for vaccines not fitting https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hospital-settles-claim-religious-discrimination-based-applicant-s-refusal-flu

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/bulletins/24d7ec9

the UEEOC would disagree with you. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

 

Quote

The point is that mainstream, commonly held religious beliefs...more or less across the spectrum...accept vaccination as life saving.  It's evidence of man's dominion in this world. We discover the mysteries of this gift to us, we name them, we overcome them or learn to live with the other things on this globe, but we reign. In the modern world that means we overcome things like viruses so that they don't cause widespread harm and suffering.  

I do appreciate vaccines. I have no objection to vaccines in general, only object to the use of fetal cells. Many vaccines have ethical options available. I do not give glory to God for the use of abortion for development of Monoclonal antibodies or new vaccines based on fetal cell research. 

I don't wish to argue the merits of the covid vaccines and would gladly receive the first ethical one even with risk despite the fact I already had covid.  My whole point was that there are people who for religious sake stand against the use of fetal cells in vaccine production.

[toomuchbaloney]

1 hour ago, Soloist said:

Oh I agree. I'm not claiming that there is persecutions at foot.

As for vaccines not fitting https://www.natlawreview.com/article/hospital-settles-claim-religious-discrimination-based-applicant-s-refusal-flu

https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USEEOC/bulletins/24d7ec9

the UEEOC would disagree with you. (U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission)

 

I do appreciate vaccines. I have no objection to vaccines in general, only object to the use of fetal cells. Many vaccines have ethical options available. I do not give glory to God for the use of abortion for development of Monoclonal antibodies or new vaccines based on fetal cell research. 

I don't wish to argue the merits of the covid vaccines and would gladly receive the first ethical one even with risk despite the fact I already had covid.  My whole point was that there are people who for religious sake stand against the use of fetal cells in vaccine production.

Again, only a small percentage of the religiously devout have ethical objection to these vaccines, not the majority.  Those beliefs are fringe. 

[Hannahbanana, BSN, MSN]

This link includes many others from faith groups regarding the issue of alleged fetal cells in vaccines. Hint: there are none. 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/coronavirus/COVID-19_Vaccines_and_Fetal_Cells_031921_720415_7.pdf

[Soloist, LPN]

12 hours ago, Hannahbanana said:

This link includes many others from faith groups regarding the issue of alleged fetal cells in vaccines. Hint: there are none. 
https://www.michigan.gov/documents/coronavirus/COVID-19_Vaccines_and_Fetal_Cells_031921_720415_7.pdf

And this is a helpful list that shows the majority of the vaccines produced or based on fetal research. There is no claim that fetal cells are in the vaccine itself at least from me or based in a scientific view. 

https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/vaccineListOrigFormat.pdf

Specifically Covid vaccines both current and in production

https://cogforlife.org/wp-content/uploads/CovidCompareMoralImmoral.pdf

That includes treatments as well. 

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

My aunt is Catholic and expressed concern about the fact that mRNA used fetal cell lines not for development, but for testing in the initial stages. I told her she could be certain that the actual vaccine SHE RECEIVES will not have been associated with fetal cell lines. 

She seemed satisfied with that.

[MunoRN, RN]

On 6/11/2021 at 7:55 AM, myoglobin said:

How can you hold such a position and still support people like Dr. Fauci who actually participated in the funding of "gain of function" research which likely made this virus possible?  My position is simple:

a. Vaccines have risks and benefits.

b. For some people the benefits out weight the risks for others risks may out weight the benefits.

c.  Young people are at less risk from dying from Covid than older people.

d. Most evidence also suggests that those without symptoms are unlikely to transmit Covid.

e.  Younger people who have been previously infected with Covid 19 may be at even less risk of reinfection than those who get the vaccine (but have not been infected).  Therefore the risks associated with the vaccine are a higher consideration.

f.  Even the FDA/CDC is sufficiently concerned about adverse myocarditis events that they are calling for an emergency meeting.

g.  VAERS has had more reports of "adverse events" from these Covid vaccine(s)" than every other vaccine combined even if you look at a total of five years (in about six months for the Covid vaccine). While VAERS is not definitive it is a "signal" of the level of adverse events in spite of analysis that suggest that only 1% of actual events ever get reported to VAERS.  

10.  Workers at places like Methodist in Houston are suing against these mandated vaccines. 

(MODERATOR EDIT)

 How is it that I can both believe that you are profoundly incorrect (in your beliefs about mandatory vaccination) and at the same time wish you only love and success in your every endeavor and life (except in moving society towards totalitarian control) while you seem to harbor such animosity towards me ?   In the end your hate will only hurt you and tend to rot you from the inside if indeed you actually harbor such feelings and it isn't rhetoric as I  hope it is. Peaceful and loving debate where different ideas are exchanged is superior to "name calling".  

VAERS is not a system for reporting confirmed vaccination adverse events.  It's a system for reporting all medical conditions that occur during the weeks or months following a vaccination so that they can be evaluated for whether or not they may have been related to a vaccination.  Your suggestion that VAERS is a list of known adverse events caused by immunizations is blatantly false and recklessly spread vaccine misinformation.

While those who have previous Covid infections are more likely to have non-life threatening and non-severe symptoms following vaccination, there is no evidence of increased severe adverse events or that previous infection is comparable to vaccines in terms the threat you pose to others.

It's certainly reasonable to be concerned about myocarditis related to the vaccine and Covid, and if you are concerned about myocarditis then getting vaccinated is clearly the best way to avoid myocarditis since it reduces your risk of myocarditis by around 18,000% when you consider your risk of myocarditis from a Covid infection, which is far higher than the risk related to vaccination.

And again, you're missing the most basic principles of vaccination.  While the risk to younger people of adverse events related to a Covid infection is far higher than the risks related to the vaccine, the main purpose of vaccinating younger populations is that this is how we get beyond Covid, this is how we keep the vulnerable from continuing to become infected and die at what most people would consider a concerning rate.

 

[Horseshoe, BSN, RN]

On 6/11/2021 at 9:55 AM, myoglobin said:

g.   While VAERS is not definitive it is a "signal" of the level of adverse events in spite of analysis that suggest that only 1% of actual events ever get reported to VAERS.  

 

 

No, it is not a "signal" of the level of adverse events.

VAERS can reveal patterns that need to be studied in order to determine if they have anything at all to do with the vaccine in question. That's it.

 

On 6/23/2021 at 9:47 PM, MunoRN said:

VAERS is not a system for reporting confirmed vaccination adverse events.  It's a system for reporting all medical conditions that occur during the weeks or months following a vaccination so that they can be evaluated for whether or not they may have been related to a vaccination.  Your suggestion that VAERS is a list of known adverse events caused by immunizations is blatantly false and recklessly spread vaccine misinformation.

 

Yep!

[MeganMN]

1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

In terms of religion, and exemptions, it is based on  Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This legislation requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance. Court rulings have often taken a broad definition of religion as including “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” that are held by the believer with the same sincerity as that of traditional religions.

As for formal, organized religious organizations, the Dutch Reformed Church is the only one that I could find that presents any formal statement against vaccination. As it stands, in my state, a religious exemption can come down to my personally held religious beliefs, and not the beliefs of "The Church".  

 

[MunoRN, RN]

32 minutes ago, MeganMN said:

1 Corinthians 6:19-20, “Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies.”

In terms of religion, and exemptions, it is based on  Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This legislation requires employers to reasonably accommodate an employee’s sincerely held religious belief, practice or observance. Court rulings have often taken a broad definition of religion as including “moral or ethical beliefs as to what is right and wrong” that are held by the believer with the same sincerity as that of traditional religions.

As for formal, organized religious organizations, the Dutch Reformed Church is the only one that I could find that presents any formal statement against vaccination. As it stands, in my state, a religious exemption can come down to my personally held religious beliefs, and not the beliefs of "The Church".  

 

What defines a protected religious belief isn't really a gray area, and 'personally held religious beliefs' are not protected, which isn't a state-by-state issue if you're referring to the Civil Rights Act.  In order for a view to be protected as a Religious view under the Civil Rights Act it must be held as view of the denomination, sect, etc to which you are a religious follower of.  A personal view doesn't become a view of your religion just because you're religious.

I'm 'officially' Quaker, aka Friends church, but since Friends churches aren't all that common I was raised in UCC and Presbyterian churches as well.  My wife is Catholic.  Regardless of which faction we're talking about, If you claim to be Christian, of any sect, and don't see the point of protecting the vulnerable then you clearly weren't paying attention in church.

[NRSKarenRN, BSN, RN]

What the world's religions teach, applied to vaccines and immune globulins 

John Grabenstein, Senior Medical Director for Adult Vaccines for Merck Vaccines (located in my SE PA area),  published a paper on religious beliefs surrounding immunization in the peer-reviewed medical journal Vaccine in 2013.  He found that only two religious groups ― Christian Scientists and the Dutch Reformed Church ― have demonstrated a precedent of widely rejecting vaccinations, but even these are not explicitly laid out in their doctrine.

 

Immunizations and Religion | Vanderbilt

Quote

Immunizations and Religion. Most religions have no prohibition against vaccinations, however some have considerations, concerns or restrictions regarding vaccination in general, particular reasons for vaccination, or specific vaccine ingredients. Below is a list of the current position of some of the more common religious faiths...

...

The following denominations do have a theological objection to vaccination:

• Dutch Reformed Congregations - This denomination has a tradition of declining immunizations. Some members decline vaccination on the basis that it interferes with divine providence. However, others within the faith accept immunization as a gift from God to be used with gratitude.

Faith healing denominations including:

• Faith Tabernacle
• Church of the First Born
• Faith Assembly
• End Time Ministrie
• Church of Christ, Scientist -  One of the basic teachings of this denomination is that disease can be cured or prevented by focused prayer and members will often request exemptions when available. However, there are not strict rules against vaccination and members can receive required vaccinations....

 

...

[PMFB-RN, RN]

If I had my way nurse employers would send out a survey to nurses with three possible responses.

1) I have been vaccinated or intend to be at the earliest opportunity

2) I have not been vaccinated and do not intend to be and I will surrender my ID badge and my resignation before my next scheduled shift.

3) I have one of the very few legitimate medical contraindications to receiving the vaccine and  have included a singed & notarized letter from a physician to that effect. 

      Before anyone gets upset realize that I'm not in charge of anything and nobody is going to ask for my advice when setting policy.