Mandating COVID-19 Vaccination

[jaeger19]

Nope, "crimes" are never (afaik) allowed in employee handbooks nor justified from an employer. Sexual harassment...and you are describing rape... are crimes... and are never an acceptable use of force by an employer. ]

Well exactly.. so when an employer says "have sex with me or its your job"... we recognize that its force.. DESPITE given the employee the choice to leave their job. SO.. again.. when you mandate a vaccine.. and say : get the vaccine or its your job"...you are again.. applying force.

A vaccination is not a medical procedure, that's drama queen desperation.

Nope.. its drama queen desperation to deny that its a medical procedure. Heck.. YOU admit that a person may not be able to have the vaccination as it may have serious consequences from them. Thats not "drama queen". Thats why there IS medical exceptions. Thats why its a medical procedure.. :doh Can you see your intellectual disconnect here?

You are not entitled to that job. You have been unable to directly refute that

Well..there is no need to. It is completely irrelevant to the topic.

Dont like the requirements of the job...leave. It's not discrimination, ignorant anti-vaccers are not a protected class. You still refuse to address this. Why??

Actually I have already addressed this..." don;t like having sex with the boss.. then leave. etc." Simply saying.. you having a choice.. doesn;t give the employer the right to force you to do whatever they want. And yes it is discrimination. Protected class is meaningless for the discussion. .

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories or things. Protected class is only a distinction for the law for special protections. Not whether there is discrimination or not.

Employers are held accountable if they try to force people do dangerous things that are not within their job descriptions

Yes.

A person getting a vaccine is not dangerous. If they are concerned, they are welcome to see their Dr for an evaluation.

Wait.. so do you see your disconnect. On one hand you say getting a vaccine is not dangerous..and then on the other hand.. you say.. "but if concerned.. see a Dr"... why? IF what you say.. is that vaccines are not dangerous... why would anyone ever worry.. ever need a doctors evaluation or ever need a medical deferment?..

When you acknowledge that some people cannot have a vaccination for medical reasons.. you are acknowledging that vaccines ARE dangerous. They have an element of danger.. and for some people.. the only way to know they are dangerous..is AFTER they have a serious reaction. Like my staff member did.

So the reality is that yes.. Vaccines need to be approached with caution.. because yes.. for some people they can be dangerous...

If you believe your health will be compromised by the vaccine (but no Dr will give you a deferment based on examination) then you would be smart to quit. Or let them fire you and get unemployment. And if it's not about endangering your health...why would you refuse?

Because its not relevant.

I have already addressed the fact that you are punishing the unvaccinated person who chooses not to be vaccinated for their beliefs..because of those beliefs.. and not because they constitute a threat to health.. (otherwise you wouldn;t allow medical exemptions.).

 

[jaeger19]

You have a choice to seek work elsewhere. There IS a choice. Its absurd to say that you do not.f my place of employment told me that either I work with a gun held to my head or look for work elsewhere, guess what my CHOICE would be.
.

I see.. so you think that women who choose to continue to work in jobs where they are being sexually harassed.. bring it on themselves.. because "they have a choice"?

You think that a poor parent has to put up with racial slurs toward his son when they are in public school... because according to you.. they have a choice to take the kid out of public school and put them into private school?"...

Yeah sorry.. I simply don;t buy the "you have a choice argument"..and frankly.. neither do you...

I am not aware of controlled double blind studies that show that mandated flu vaccines (and btw: are you aware that as of now ALL students under, I believe, age 30 in Massachusetts are REQUIRED to get a flu shot by Dec 31 or they cannot attend classes?) reduce transmission of influenza.

Okay.. so you are saying that you don't have evidence that it works... but that you should mandate it anyway... even though you know that there are potentially severe adverse reactions from the vaccination?

Please explain how you are using science and best practices in that rationale...

Are you aware of any good studies that show that if a vaccine is mandated compliance would not INCREASE?? I would submit that for people who work there compliance would be 100%. If so, by all means, let me know and I will concede the point.

Hmmm.. so if Trump mandates that you take the russian vaccine.. you think that compliance will be 100%? Would you be one of those most compliant?

Finally, while most healthcare workers (nurses, doctors, janitors etc) are not dumbasses, its clear that dumbasses are everywhere-and its exactly why we are where we are in this country, that and the jackass in the white house. All you have to do is look at the number of dumbasses refusing to wear a mask as proof.

Yep.. and those dumbasses are also the ones that will be or could be the ones rolling out that mandate for vaccination.... maybe you would like to take the Russian vaccine? I hear putin loves it.

Maybe you would feel fine with a mandate to start taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic treatment? Trump would love it.

The point being.. the mandates are going to be coming from some of the very people.. you call dumbasses. Thats not going to increase compliance and trust.

 

[Ethel2]

I see.. so you think that women who choose to continue to work in jobs where they are being sexually harassed.. bring it on themselves.. because "they have a choice"?

You think that a poor parent has to put up with racial slurs toward his son when they are in public school... because according to you.. they have a choice to take the kid out of public school and put them into private school?"...

Yeah sorry.. I simply don;t buy the "you have a choice argument"..and frankly.. neither do you...



Okay.. so you are saying that you don't have evidence that it works... but that you should mandate it anyway... even though you know that there are potentially severe adverse reactions from the vaccination?

Please explain how you are using science and best practices in that rationale...



Hmmm.. so if Trump mandates that you take the russian vaccine.. you think that compliance will be 100%? Would you be one of those most compliant?

Yep.. and those dumbasses are also the ones that will be or could be the ones rolling out that mandate for vaccination.... maybe you would like to take the Russian vaccine? I hear putin loves it.

Maybe you would feel fine with a mandate to start taking hydroxychloroquine as a prophylactic treatment? Trump would love it.

The point being.. the mandates are going to be coming from some of the very people.. you call dumbasses. Thats not going to increase compliance and trust.

Sexual harassment is a crime. Mandating a vaccine for students, for example, is not. MA just mandated it for all students in the state. Please do not tell me what I believe. Its pompous.
Regarding the Covid vaccine of the future: unless it is effective and safe as far as is known in the short term (it will take years to know if it is safe in the long term, and we do not have years) there should be no mandate of course. The Russian vaccine was never tested so that rules it out.
Yes, it SHOULD be mandated because there will be idiots out there who value their freedom over the public good. I have no respect for them. If you use your head for a minute and look at my previous post, I said that accidents do happen even with PPE in use. The vaccine provides an extra layer of protection. Since there are a lot of dumbasses out there EVERYONE should be strongly encouraged to take the vaccine, assuming its effective and safe. Sometimes its hard to tell the dumbasses from the normal people.

 

[jaeger19]

Sexual harassment is a crime. .

Thats right..because even though the woman "has a choice"..its an unacceptable level of force.

Mandating a vaccine for students, for example, is not

Yeah.. it could be. What if a government official mandated that kids in school take the russian vaccine despite there being no good research saying its safe? Would that be a crime? Or not?

Please do not tell me what I believe. Its pompous.

Oh..I am sorry.. so do you believe then that a woman who is told by her boss that she needs to have sex with him or lose her job... isn;t being forced.. because she has a choice?

If you do believe that..well then.. I apologize for thinking that you really didn;t believe in "if there is a choice..then its not forcing".. argument.

Regarding the Covid vaccine of the future: unless it is effective and safe as far as is known in the short term (it will take years to know if it is safe in the long term, and we do not have years) there should be no mandate of course.

Bingo.. which shows the problem with having a mandate in the first place. WHO decides whats "safe and effective" and "in the short term"? Do you trust Trump? Do you trust the FDA official that just stated that 35 out of 100 people would have been saved by antibody plasma? Who grossly misread and misrepresented the science?

Would you trust the republicans governors.. who created lawsuits against mask mandates?

Thats the problem with a mandate.. particularly in this current climate. I would suggest that you do some research on the 1976 swine flu debacle. The last thing we needs is another one of those to set back vaccinations for decades.

I said that accidents do happen even with PPE in use. The vaccine provides an extra layer of protection. Since there are a lot of dumbasses out there EVERYONE should be strongly encouraged to take the vaccine, assuming its effective and safe. Sometimes its hard to tell the dumbasses from the normal people.

The question is does that vaccine provide enough level of protection in the event that there is a PPE failure.. against the risk of a serious problem for someone mandated to take the vaccine who has a reaction.?

The answer is most likely when it comes to the covid vaccine...the answer is no.

 

[Ethel2]

Thats right..because even though the woman "has a choice"..its an unacceptable level of force.

Yeah.. it could be. What if a government official mandated that kids in school take the russian vaccine despite there being no good research saying its safe? Would that be a crime? Or not?

Oh..I am sorry.. so do you believe then that a woman who is told by her boss that she needs to have sex with him or lose her job... isn;t being forced.. because she has a choice?

If you do believe that..well then.. I apologize for thinking that you really didn;t believe in "if there is a choice..then its not forcing".. argument.



Bingo.. which shows the problem with having a mandate in the first place. WHO decides whats "safe and effective" and "in the short term"? Do you trust Trump? Do you trust the FDA official that just stated that 35 out of 100 people would have been saved by antibody plasma? Who grossly misread and misrepresented the science?

Would you trust the republicans governors.. who created lawsuits against mask mandates?

Thats the problem with a mandate.. particularly in this current climate. I would suggest that you do some research on the 1976 swine flu debacle. The last thing we needs is another one of those to set back vaccinations for decades.



The question is does that vaccine provide enough level of protection in the event that there is a PPE failure.. against the risk of a serious problem for someone mandated to take the vaccine who has a reaction.?

The answer is most likely when it comes to the covid vaccine...the answer is no.

I am not going to bother refuting every paragraph in your post.
Sexual harassment is illegal. Being mandated to accept a vaccine is legal when those in charge decide its legal. Thats the way it works. They make the rules; we follow them or are prepared to suffer the consequences.
Your suggestion that we should be forced to take an untested vaccine is absurd. We can stipulate that vaccines that are either unproven or untested should not be administered at all. I think we can dismiss that argument.

 

[Lursa]

Well exactly.. so when an employer says "have sex with me or its your job"... we recognize that its force.. DESPITE given the employee the choice to leave their job. SO.. again.. when you mandate a vaccine.. and say : get the vaccine or its your job"...you are again.. applying force.

No, it's a crime. Illegal.

A mandatory vaccine is not a crime. They are not remotely the same.

And you are not entitled to that job if you dont follow the rules. You are 'forced' to follow a dress code. I am forced to follow the rules on my firearm...even if I believe it's detrimental to my health. I either accept the employer's rules or I leave. I have a choice, I am not entitled to that job.

Nope.. its drama queen desperation to deny that its a medical procedure. Heck.. YOU admit that a person may not be able to have the vaccination as it may have serious consequences from them. Thats not "drama queen". Thats why there IS medical exceptions. Thats why its a medical procedure.. :doh Can you see your intellectual disconnect here?

No, I said, 'if they BELIEVE it is a danger to them' and many stupid anti-vaccers may. Or people with medical concerns. But they still have the option to see their Dr to evaluate that risk.

And no, that's not the definition of a medical procedure...because there are 'medical exceptions.' I have a broken leg, it's a medical exception for gym class...it's not a medical procedure :doh

Well..there is no need to. It is completely irrelevant to the topic.

That's also wrong. It's all about if you are entitled to that job or not. Because you are claiming you get to dismiss your employer's rules and keep the job. You are not. You arent entitled to keep the job if you wear torn blue jeans everyday. I am not entitled to keep the job if I
carry my firearm. Esp. in 'at will' employment states...the employer can fire you for any legal reason. And the only reasons I can think of that dont allow firing all involved discrimination. We've already covered that ignorant anti-vaccers are not a protected class.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

Actually I have already addressed this..." don;t like having sex with the boss.. then leave. etc." Simply saying.. you having a choice.. doesn;t give the employer the right to force you to do whatever they want. And yes it is discrimination. Protected class is meaningless for the discussion. .

The employer cant force a crime on you or force you to commit to a crime. Otherwise, you comply with the employer's rules. The employer already has to be in compliance with OSHA and their insurance company, etc.

As for you dismissing the actual meaning of protected class and its relevance to discrimination...you are just plain wrong. There is a legal foundation here...and ignorant anti-vaccers that arent concerned with overall welfare of their workplace or society certainly neednt be catered to.

Discrimination is the unjust or prejudicial treatment of different categories or things. Protected class is only a distinction for the law for special protections. Not whether there is discrimination or not.

This is made up garbage. Discrimination and protected classes are well-defined in the US.

Wait.. so do you see your disconnect. On one hand you say getting a vaccine is not dangerous..and then on the other hand.. you say.. "but if concerned.. see a Dr"... why? IF what you say.. is that vaccines are not dangerous... why would anyone ever worry.. ever need a doctors evaluation or ever need a medical deferment?..

Anyone has the right to be concerned. That's why we have medical experts, the FDA, etc etc etc. If someone disagrees, they can get a '2nd opinion' personally from their Dr. Anti-vaccers dont realize they're in more danger driving to work everyday than an approved vaccine. :shrug: Or, they choose to ignore that fact, like many other facts.

Vaccines are not dangerous for whatever the general population they're indicated for. If there are side effects or sensitive populations, those are made known so people can consult their Drs.

Some medications also have side effects for a rare few people and warnings are placed on bottles/described by their Drs. Those medications are still considered safe.

When you acknowledge that some people cannot have a vaccination for medical reasons.. you are acknowledging that vaccines ARE dangerous. They have an element of danger.. and for some people.. the only way to know they are dangerous..is AFTER they have a serious reaction. Like my staff member did.

See above. The drama is just silly. That's no different than any prescribed medication. Side effect warnings are provided and people are supposed to contact their Dr if they occur.

So the reality is that yes.. Vaccines need to be approached with caution.. because yes.. for some people they can be dangerous...

See above.

Because its not relevant.

Wait...you are going on and on and on about how dangerous vaccines are, but the bold is not relevant? You've got to be kidding. Try again:

If you believe your health will be compromised by the vaccine (but no Dr will give you a deferment based on examination) then you would be smart to quit. Or let them fire you and get unemployment. And if it's not about endangering your health...why would you refuse?​

So how can my question be irrelevant? If danger to your health isnt your concern...what is?

I have already addressed the fact that you are punishing the unvaccinated person who chooses not to be vaccinated for their beliefs..because of those beliefs.. and not because they constitute a threat to health.. (otherwise you wouldn;t allow medical exemptions.).

Stupid/ignorant people that dont believe in evolution dont want it taught in science classes either. Should we listen to them at the detriment of our kid's educations? Not every 'belief' is equal, sorry. And if you truly believe your belief is more important *to you* then find another job...your belief doenst give you the right to put others at risk.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[jaeger19]

I am not going to bother refuting every paragraph in your post.
.

Basically because you can't. You have had a number of posts to give it a try... but the reality is that I have logic and science behind me.

Sexual harassment is illegal.

Yep.. despite the "woman having a choice to leave". Thus the argument.. that force isn;t involved if an employee has a choice to work.. has been disproved.

Being mandated to accept a vaccine is legal when those in charge decide its legal. Thats the way it works. They make the rules; we follow them or are prepared to suffer the consequences.

Thats true.. we can say the same of all the prior laws in which the law violated peoples rights. Like slave codes, black codes, segregation.. jim crow laws, japanese internment, etc.

Your suggestion that we should be forced to take an untested vaccine is absurd.

Not at all. Look at the furor around hydroxychloroquine and Trump and his Trumpets? You apparently have way more trust in Trump and republican governors.. than I do. I see that they don;t follow the science now....

We can stipulate that vaccines that are either unproven or untested should not be administered at all

Wait.. who is this "we"? You just stated that

Being mandated to accept a vaccine is legal when those in charge decide its legal. Thats the way it works. They make the rules; we follow them or are prepared to suffer the consequences.

So.. if Trump and company wish.. or a republican governor..or a right leaning school board... they are the ones in charge.

So no..you can't dismiss that argument.

 

[jaeger19]

No, it's a crime. Illegal.

.

Exactly.. yet again you prove my point. Its illegal.. because though a woman "has a choice".. and "isn't guaranteed a job"... its still force on the woman..and its illegal because its unacceptable force.

A mandatory vaccine is not a crime. They are not remotely the same.

They are definitely the same. They are both examples of force being applied. One is not acceptable currently (is used to be acceptable),, and one is currently acceptable (but may be seen as illegal and unacceptable in the future).

And you are not entitled to that job if you dont follow the rules. You are 'forced' to follow a dress code. I am forced to follow the rules on my firearm...even if I believe it's detrimental to my health. I either accept the employer's rules or I leave. I have a choice, I am not entitled to that job.

Thats nice. Still is force.. as you say.. you are forced to follow the rules on your firearm.. but the fact that you are not entitled to that job.. does not mean it gives employers carte blanch to force people to do things that are dangerous.. etc... Vaccination.. is inherently dangerous as it can harm.. seriously harm.. some people. thats simply fact.

And no, that's not the definition of a medical procedure...because there are 'medical exceptions.' I have a broken leg, it's a medical exception for gym class...it's not a medical procedure

Right..and who decides you have a broken leg? A medical practioner.. and who provides the treatment for that broken leg? A medical practitioner performing a medical procedure.

Who decides a vaccine is beneficial for you and is safe for you? You would hope a medical practitioner...and who provides that injection? A medical practitioner who performs that medical procedure.

That's also wrong. It's all about if you are entitled to that job or not.

Nope.. if it was truly.. "all about if your entitled to that job or not"... then an employer would be within their legal rights to demand sex from an employee or they need to leave the job.

Yes yes.. you are going to say "but but but its ILLEGAL"... well exactly.. its illegal.. because its NOT all about whether the woman is entitled to that job or not. You and the rest of society.. do not buy into the argument that "its about whether you are entitled to the job or not".

If you did..well then..you would argue that its not harassment since the women has the CHOICE to leave the job rather than follow their employers demands.

 

[Lursa]

Exactly.. yet again you prove my point. Its illegal.. because though a woman "has a choice".. and "isn't guaranteed a job"... its still force on the woman..and its illegal because its unacceptable force.

There's no point in continuing this conversation unless you admit there is a difference in an employer committing a crime on an employee or demanding they commit one and the general policies and guidelines that employees MUST follow to retain their employment.

If you honestly cant see the difference between rape/sexual harassment (your example) crime and demanding a dress code, my not carrying my firearm on the property, etc...then IMO there's no common ground here at all.

Requiring a vaccine to retain employment is not a crime.

This part doesnt even make sense:

Nope.. if it was truly.. "all about if your entitled to that job or not"... then an employer would be within their legal rights to demand sex from an employee or they need to leave the job.

Yes yes.. you are going to say "but but but its ILLEGAL"... well exactly.. its illegal.. because its NOT all about whether the woman is entitled to that job or not. You and the rest of society.. do not buy into the argument that "its about whether you are entitled to the job or not".

:doh

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

Right..and who decides you have a broken leg? A medical practioner.. and who provides the treatment for that broken leg? A medical practitioner performing a medical procedure.

More pure lies. It doesnt take a Dr to diagnose many broken legs and such a diagnosis is not a medical procedure. (Discussing a clearly broken leg, as are many deformations.) And I didnt discuss treating it.

Such comments show a depth of desperation and dishonesty that, again, make this conversation useless.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[jaeger19]

The employer cant force a crime on you or force you to commit to a crime..

You got it.. and they can;t do that DESPITE..your contention that the employee has the choice.. to leave.. and despite your contention that "but but they aren;t entitled to that job". You can keep making my point for me lursa as long as you want.

As for you dismissing the actual meaning of protected class and its relevance to discrimination...you are just plain wrong. There is a legal foundation here.

Not a legal foundation for the definition of discrimination. If you refuse to hire blondes because you think they are dumb.. then BY DEFINITION you are discriminating against blondes. Despite being blonde.. not being a member of a "protected class".

This is made up garbage. Discrimination and protected classes are well-defined in the US.

Yes they are.. they are just not mutually inclusive as you would claim. You can be discriminated against.by definition.. and not be a member of a protected class.

Vaccines are not dangerous for whatever the general population they're indicated for

Actually thats not true scientifically. Some vaccines are quite dangerous for the general population. Which is why you probably have never heard of them. ONLY if you were to travel to certain areas of the world..where the risk of infection and harm..is greater than the potential harm from the vaccine.. would you be given the vaccine.

Some medications also have side effects for a rare few people and warnings are placed on bottles/described by their Drs. Those medications are still considered safe.

Define "safe".. exactly? You mean.. safe when prescribed by a medical practitioner... You don;t mean "safe when prescribed by your politician"... I bet. Now hey.. if you trust your politician to give you the right medications and their dosage for you... well..you might have a point.

But I doubt you trust your politician by virtue of their experience as a politician with your medical needs. .

T

hat's no different than any prescribed medication

Exactly.. prescribed medication.. between you and your provider. And why? Because its not safe to simply take medication.

Wait...you are going on and on and on about how dangerous vaccines are, but the bold is not relevant?

Well yes.

And if it's not about endangering your health...why would you refuse?

The reason for the refusal is irrelevant.

For the discussion.. the argument was made that a person not vaccinated posed a dire threat to others..and thats why if they failed to vaccinate..they should lose their job.. not be able to go to school.. etc.

THEN.. you and others went ON..to say "but there are medical exemptions"...so in other words.. IF the person failed to vaccinate.. THOUGH THEY POSED THE SAME RISK as other unvaccinated people".. they would be allowed to work.

That means that the risk they posed.. really didn;t matter... you were only making the decision based on their beliefs.. not on the risk they posed. Thats why its not relevant.

Stupid/ignorant people that dont believe in evolution dont want it taught in science classes either. Should we listen to them at the detriment of our kid's educations? Not every 'belief' is equal, sorry.

Oh I absolutely agree. Kind of the irony. Stupid/ignorant people.. also say "vaccines are safe". No..some vaccines are safe for most people. Some vaccines are dangerous for some people.. some vaccines are relatively dangerous for most people and should only be given if the benefit outweighs the risk.. (like traveling to another country or a weaponized biologic).

Stupid ignorant people.. also permeate the government. We have one right now who is the HEAD of the executive branch. Who is influencing people in the CDC and HHS and now the FDA to say and do things that are also against science.

BUT.. you think its fine that the government and those uneducated people.. make decisions for your when it comes to your health.

And if you truly believe your belief is more important *to you* then find another job...your belief doenst give you the right to put others at risk.

Ahhh... but you proved THAT ITS NOT ABOUT RISK. Two unvaccinated people.. one because they are unwilling to get the vaccine because they think Bill gates put a chip in it... the other one because they have a severe allergy to the substrate in the vaccine. BOTH pose the same risk to others.

But according to you.. the person who isn;t vaccinated for a reason you believe in.. they are okay to work
The person who isn't vaccinated.. for a reason you don;t believe in.. they may not work.

ITs not about the risk they pose..its about the value you place on their reasons to not be vaccinated. You aren;t following science..or logic either.

 

[jaeger19]

More pure lies. It doesnt take a Dr to diagnose many broken legs and such a diagnosis is not a medical procedure. (Discussing a clearly broken leg, as are many deformations.) And I didnt discuss treating it.

Such comments show a depth of desperation and dishonesty that, again, make this conversation useless.

Oh stop.. because we all know.. when you suspect you have a broken leg.. and need to know whether it needs to be fixed.. the FIRST person that you run to is your politician and not a medical provider. :roll: .

Come now.. You are the one thats being desperate.. trying to claim a vaccination.. which is done on the recommendation of your physician.. which is done by a medical providers who injects you. A vaccination which CAN have serious medical ramifications...

Isn;t a medical procedure... please.

 

[Lursa]

Actually thats not true scientifically. Some vaccines are quite dangerous for the general population. Which is why you probably have never heard of them. ONLY if you were to travel to certain areas of the world..where the risk of infection and harm..is greater than the potential harm from the vaccine.. would you be given the vaccine.

I wrote "as indicated." You ignored that at your convenience.

Well yes. The reason for the refusal is irrelevant.

The reason for the refusal is you cant answer it honestly and remain 'right.'

Just skimming, 2 more blatantly dishonest posts. The rest seems like it's all been answered...you're just saying 'na huh.'

There's no point in wasting more time with such blatant lying and avoidance.

More than one of us has proven you wrong over and over in this thread...your continued 'na huh' doesnt change that.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Lursa]

Oh stop.. because we all know.. when you suspect you have a broken leg.. and need to know whether it needs to be fixed.. the FIRST person that you run to is your politician and not a medical provider. :roll: .

Come now.. You are the one thats being desperate.. trying to claim a vaccination.. which is done on the recommendation of your physician.. which is done by a medical providers who injects you. A vaccination which CAN have serious medical ramifications...

Isn;t a medical procedure... please.

No...it's accurate. You dont get to move the goal posts and expand on it.

And people inject themselves all the time at home. It's also still not a medical procedure. Your desperation continues.

No one denied vaccination can have serious medical ramifications. And that's all been successfully argued in the risk/benefit that's been provided by myself and the others. You cannot deny the benefits to 'all' and cannot justify the individual's refusal on 'non-risk' reasons. Meanwhile, anyone can refuse the vaccine...and assume other risks, like losing their jobs. :shrug: They weigh the consequences, just like the employer and medical community.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[jaeger19]

I wrote "as indicated." You ignored that at your convenience.

Nope.. I didn;t ignore anything. You are just floundering around. I corrected the statement.. "vaccines are safe".

The reason for the refusal is you cant answer it honestly and remain 'right.'

No.. because its irrelevant.

but.. why could someone refuse to get a vaccination for things other than medical reasons? Their religion. Some religions don;t allow certain medical procedures. Some will refuse if there is a limited stock of the vaccine.. I did that when flu vaccines were limited as I am young and healthy (thought not as young as I used to be).. and yes.. some will refuse because they think that they are going to get a chip tracker or other crazy conspiracy theory.

Okay.. there you go. I answered it.. now you go ahead and try to explain how my answer refutes any points I have made.

Just skimming, 2 more blatantly dishonest posts.

Pooh. now you are the one being dishonest.
Cripes.. why do you feel its necessary to do such behavior?

No...it's accurate. You dont get to move the goal posts and expand on it.

And people inject themselves all the time at home. It's also still not a medical procedure.

Oh please. What's next? getting staples, or stitches isn;t a medical procedure because people do it at home. Wait wait.. amputations have been done by people in the field..like diagnosing fracture legs right.. so those aren;t medical procedures. Cuz we all know.. that the vast majority of people inoculate themselves with their home vaccination kits!! :roll:

Its a medical procedure.. its BILLED as a medical procedure.. get over yourself.

No one denied vaccination can have serious medical ramifications. And that's all been successfully argued in the risk/benefit that's been provided by myself and the others.

Actually.. you don;t deny it only when you get called back to the facts. And no..you and others have not successfully argued the risk benefit of a MANDATE. In fact.. I actually provided evidence that there is little evidence supporting a mandate for the flu vaccine for medical workers.

 

[Lursa]

Nope.. I didn;t ignore anything. You are just floundering around. I corrected the statement.. "vaccines are safe".

See, that's just dishonest then. Because I had the qualification in my statement, which you ignored or missed, then attempted to use to prove me wrong.

I wasnt wrong. And you just tried to lie and say I was.

We're done here. All you do is lie and go in circles.

Everything I need to counter every one of your arguments is clear and in my posts. As are Ethel's and Jasper's. It's here for anyone else to read and consider...you have failed and now are reduced to only lies and obfuscation. I had respect for you before...and that is just gone.

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[Ethel2]

See, that's just dishonest then. Because I had the qualification in my statement, which you ignored or missed, then attempted to use to prove me wrong.

I wasnt wrong. And you just tried to lie and say I was.

We're done here. All you do is lie and go in circles.

Everything I need to counter every one of your arguments is clear and in my posts. As are Ethel's and Jasper's. It's here for anyone else to read and consider...you have failed and now are reduced to only lies and obfuscation. I had respect for you before...and that is just gone.

Seems he is one of THOSE guys who value individual freedom over the common good.

Look, he is entitle to his opinion, obviously, and like so many issues in politics nothing our side can say is going to change his mind. He values his free choice. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. I disagree with him and nothing HE is going to say will change my mind. Vaccines are generally very safe, especially if they have a long track record. Unfortunately any potential Covid vaccine will not have a track record. That does not mean that people who interact with the public should not be strongly encouraged to take it, at least until the pandemic ends, which it will one day.

 

[Lursa]

Seems he is one of THOSE guys who value individual freedom over the common good.

Look, he is entitle to his opinion, obviously, and like so many issues in politics nothing our side can say is going to change his mind. He values his free choice. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. I disagree with him and nothing HE is going to say will change my mind. Vaccines are generally very safe, especially if they have a long track record. Unfortunately any potential Covid vaccine will not have a track record. That does not mean that people who interact with the public should not be strongly encouraged to take it, at least until the pandemic ends, which it will one day.

Yeah, I noticed that. Except that he couldnt support his perspective honestly or even openly. He tried to dispute actual law and reality in employee/employer law/regulations and much honored discrimination and sacrifice public safety, while never honestly articulating his own position. That's moral cowardice.

He chose to try and excoriate our positions while never making his own transparent or validating it. :roll:

This is the barely coherent and grammatically inept speech of a man who desperately wants to be able to claim that he "cured coronavirus."

That's it, in a nutshell. When we do get a handle on this crisis, he wants to be able to pull out footage and declare "I called it! I said use this! I said try this! I told them to do this, it was my idea!" He's just doing it with lots of stupid stuff because he doesnt want to miss an opportunity. He's afraid 'the big one' will be mentioned and he wont get credit for it.

It's all about declaring himself the savior of the cv crisis and we'll hear all about it, esp in his campaign. (Which is basically each of his press briefings these days) --- Lursa

 

[jaeger19]

See, that's just dishonest then. Because I had the qualification in my statement, which you ignored or missed, then attempted to use to prove me wrong.

I.

No its not. First.. you stated it in support of your premise..which is mandating it to everyone. And you probably don;t realize.. but you keep doubling down on it. You even stated .."IF you feel worried about the vaccination.. THEN you can go to your doctor".

Because of the potential danger of a new vaccination... you should go to your doctor FIRST.. and make sure its appropriate for you or WHICH of probably a number of vaccines will be available. . Frankly.. you don;t have enough medical knowledge.. to KNOW if you should be worried about the vaccine.. You most likely won;t know the various vaccines that may be available and what substrates were used to make those vaccines.. and how they may interact with your body.. the medications you take..various allergies.. etc.

Your qualification.. was reminiscent of The TRUMP.. saying "immigrants from mexico are rapists murders and thieves...... some of them I guess are good people..

 

[jaeger19]

Seems he is one of THOSE guys who value individual freedom over the common good.

Look, he is entitle to his opinion, obviously, and like so many issues in politics nothing our side can say is going to change his mind. He values his free choice. Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead. I disagree with him and nothing HE is going to say will change my mind. Vaccines are generally very safe, especially if they have a long track record. Unfortunately any potential Covid vaccine will not have a track record. That does not mean that people who interact with the public should not be strongly encouraged to take it, at least until the pandemic ends, which it will one day.

Well.. except that you cannot prove that a mandate is for the common good. You have offered no evidence that a mandate is either necessary.. nor will be effective. In fact.. you have no idea of whether the vaccine that is mandated will even be safe in fact especially long term. . You tried to use evidence that "but but but..we mandate flu vaccines for some providers...and I offered the research that shows that there is little evidence to support a mandate.

I get that you feel the way you do.. despite the science. But that is a scary position.

 

[jaeger19]

Yeah, I noticed that. Except that he couldnt support his perspective honestly or even openly. He tried to dispute actual law and reality in employee/employer law/regulations and much honored discrimination and sacrifice public safety, while never honestly articulating his own position. That's moral cowardice.

He chose to try and excoriate our positions while never making his own transparent or validating it. :roll:

Naw.. you are the one thats not being honest. or even openly. I didn;t dispute the law.. And I didn;t dispute reality...

I actually proved that YOU were not dealing with reality in employer relationships.. nor in the definition of discrimination.

But whatever makes you feel better Lursa... its too bad that you cannot simply be intellectually honest.. and admit that your premise didn;t have a leg to stand on..and that you could not refute any of my points.

 

[Ethel2]

Well.. except that you cannot prove that a mandate is for the common good. You have offered no evidence that a mandate is either necessary.. nor will be effective. In fact.. you have no idea of whether the vaccine that is mandated will even be safe in fact especially long term. . You tried to use evidence that "but but but..we mandate flu vaccines for some providers...and I offered the research that shows that there is little evidence to support a mandate.

I get that you feel the way you do.. despite the science. But that is a scary position.

I am not aware of a study that proves that, but sometimes you just have to use your head. Accidents happen. Even if healthcare workers use PPE properly sometimes it fails. A flu vaccine (or a Covid vaccine) is an extra layer of protection that should be mandated in order to protect innocent patients and staff:

Did You Know?
CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recommend that all U.S. health care workers get vaccinated annually against influenza.
Health care workers include (but are not limited to) physicians, nurses, nursing assistants, therapists, technicians, emergency medical service personnel, dental personnel, pharmacists, laboratory personnel, autopsy personnel, students and trainees, contractual staff not employed by the health-care facility, and persons (e.g., clerical, dietary, housekeeping, laundry, security, maintenance, administrative, billing, and volunteers) not directly involved in patient care but potentially exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted to and from health care workers and patients.

You have to use your head. You object solely because its being mandated, which is foolish. There are few significant side effects to the flu vaccine. Yes, occasionally they happen, but they are very very rare. We will not know the long term side effects (and there will be some) of approved Covid vaccines. We DO know that Covid infections are deadly to certain groups of vulnerable individuals. Therefore, they must be protected in every way possible.

 

[jaeger19]

I am not aware of a study that proves that, but sometimes you just have to use your head. Accidents happen. Even if healthcare workers use PPE properly sometimes it fails. A flu vaccine (or a Covid vaccine) is an extra layer of protection that should be mandated in order to protect innocent patients and staff:

Did You Know?
CDC, the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), and the Healthcare Infection Control Practices Advisory Committee (HICPAC) recommend that all U.S. health care workers get vaccinated annually against influenza.
Health care workers include (but are not limited to) physicians, nurses, nursing assistants, therapists, technicians, emergency medical service personnel, dental personnel, pharmacists, laboratory personnel, autopsy personnel, students and trainees, contractual staff not employed by the health-care facility, and persons (e.g., clerical, dietary, housekeeping, laundry, security, maintenance, administrative, billing, and volunteers) not directly involved in patient care but potentially exposed to infectious agents that can be transmitted to and from health care workers and patients.

You have to use your head. You object solely because its being mandated, which is foolish. There are few significant side effects to the flu vaccine. Yes, occasionally they happen, but they are very very rare. We will not know the long term side effects (and there will be some) of approved Covid vaccines. We DO know that Covid infections are deadly to certain groups of vulnerable individuals. Therefore, they must be protected in every way possible.

Umm.. I object to the vaccine being mandated.. because its going to lower compliance if its mandated.

And I already linked to the study that shows that mandating flu vaccines for healthcare workers has little positive effect.

 

[HumblePi]

I believe if the vaccine(s) isn't free, easily available, and efficacious, there will be a challenge in encouraging near-total compliance.

It's solid Nazism to mandate anyone to be injected with anything if they don't agree to it. That's absolutely absurd and people will not go for it.