What is your viewpoint on Covid19 vaccine mandates?

[Risky Thicket]

View attachment 67368071​

Big Ugly Fat ****er nav, I like the meme.

A couple of months ago prepping me for a scheduled colonoscopy (what fun) a Mayo nurse went on about the idiocy of Covid vaccines and that she'd never get one. She was at least wearing a mask. Nonetheless, I was surprised to hear it.

Later in follow up with my doctor, as a sideline in conversation I asked him if Mayo had a vaccination policy. He said no and that he knew a few that refused to get vaxxed.

I guess the nurse is vaccinated now or gone.

 

[roguenuke]

I have to say Other. I support those mandates that are in place, but I don't understand the "get the pill" part of Option B and would like to get more state and local mandates in place. As someone else said, states should not be able to restrict local places from instituting mandates. It should be a "you can always choose to be more safe". If states require vaccines or masks for work or school, then that should be how it works, as it does for all other vaccines and most other safety measures. However, just like when it comes to other such things, school districts/areas should absolutely be allowed to put those more restrictive measures in place.

I can't help but think of this as radiation exposure works. The NRC puts into place radiation limits for everyone, Navy has to follow those. The Navy still is able to put in more restrictive radiation limits though.

When it comes to "get the pill", the ones we have right now should not be an "or" there. They should be if there is a breakthrough case or more, and those people need treatment or if someone simply cannot take the vaccine (which some very small group is likely not going to be able to do and should be identified through another verified means). Not saying we should restrict access to the pill to only vaccinated, but we shouldn't give states more, unfair access to such treatments when they refuse to work to get their populations vaccinated for political purposes.

 

[Overitall]

You can find another job. There are lots of job openings nowadays.

And if the employers providing those jobs are forced by government to require that their employees have to be vaccinated where do they find a job?

 

[iguanaman]

That's a loaded comment. Yes I agree with you but it depends. It can be used to justify telling a woman how to control her body or tell someone they can not choose euthenasia in certain circumstances. Its a dangerous generalization. Preventing the needless spread of an infectious disease and unnecessary use medical services that could have otherwise been used to keep someone else alive, yes has to be regulated but no there are limits.

The state should not prevent people in final stage terminal illness with no cure, the right to die. No the state has no business demanding women not get abortions but yes they might want to regulate who does them so they are not done dangerously.

Choosing life? I appreciate life but there are many variables in what we call life situations and there is no one size fits all approach. Medical ethics is an area that has unlimited variables and each fact situation requires its own considerations.

As a general rule containing contagious diseases so they do not spread is one example and on that one example arguing the need to spread contagious diseases by prohibiting contagious people from having public access I would argue is a moral responsibility of a society when protecting its citizens.

In other situations I might debate it differently. For example I am always split on the issue of whether capital punishment is necessary as a deterrent to prevent people from taking the life (choosing life) of others.

I now believe if the evidence is 100% full proof with no doubts, (which is possible) then and only then it might be necessary with terrorists or heinous crimes. That though is a slippery slope when you try argue killing a killer is justified.

I firmly believe people in final stages of terminal illnesses with full sound mind to make their decision and with no hope of recovery should be able to choose death as per the laws in Washington, State which I believe is an excellent example of managing such issues and is in practice being followed in many jurisdictions even those who do not allow it officially.

Geriatrics in final stages of life in tremendous pain from kidney failure and suffocating in their lung fluid as their heart shuts down are not resuscitated or forced to live in a prolonged state of coma or artificial means anymore. Sometimes our technology can be unintentional in prolonging unecessary pain and suffering to the patient. Quality not quantity of life becomes a crucial consideration.

You are over complicating my comment. Vaccines save lives and "choosing" not to get one is choosing death over life. Just because it is not certain death does not change the facts. Playing russian roulette is still choosing death.

 

[iguanaman]

And if the employers providing those jobs are forced by government to require that their employees have to be vaccinated where do they find a job?

The morgue?

 

[Mika-El]

And if the employers providing those jobs are forced by government to require that their employees have to be vaccinated where do they find a job?

If you want a job with public access you will need a vaccine. This means to answer your question guaranteeing them a job with public access with no vaccine means they have to find a non public access job and they might not be able to find one.

Its a choice we all have been making. Why do you ask? I am assuming you find that unfair. Well the person who wants public access without a vaccine may find it unfair, but so would the majority of people in public exposed by this individual to Covid and so?

Whose unfairness is greater? When it comes to health and safety issues, the conditions have always been created to protect the majority. If an individual wants an exemption to those safety regulations they can not expect to be able to be granted the right to endanger other people or even themselves. If you want to use an electric saw and insist on not using the safety and cut off your arm no one can really stop you but if you demand everyone else not use the safety feature and it be removed it won't happen.

The key to this equation is that the right the individual thinks is unfair to him is not a right in isolation. If it only impacted on his rights and no one else's we would not be having this discussion. We are because the individual who wants his right imposed, does not feel the rights of others he can get sick are equal or as important as his own. That assumption is illogical and nonsensical.

We are talking about basic risk management and occupational health and safety issues. This is not new. I am not sure why its even being discussed. I can only assume you have never worked with occupational health and safety regulations. No you do not get to negotiate those safety protocols you want to follow. That;s just how it is.

An employer is 100% legally liable for the safety of all his employees, not just the considerations of one employee. If that unvaccinated employee spreads illness, the other employees sue the employer not just that individual and the employer under law is responsible for not maintaining a safe work place by condoning what happened.

In fact that employee who spread the illness will be the first to line up to sue his employer not to mention demand excessive hospital services taken away from someone who will now die because of that and all because of something that could have been prevented by pro-active, risk management prevention practices that could have reduced/prevented the risk.

 

[Overitall]

The morgue?

Or the ovens.

 

[iguanaman]

I have to say Other. I support those mandates that are in place, but I don't understand the "get the pill" part of Option B and would like to get more state and local mandates in place. As someone else said, states should not be able to restrict local places from instituting mandates. It should be a "you can always choose to be more safe". If states require vaccines or masks for work or school, then that should be how it works, as it does for all other vaccines and most other safety measures. However, just like when it comes to other such things, school districts/areas should absolutely be allowed to put those more restrictive measures in place.

I can't help but think of this as radiation exposure works. The NRC puts into place radiation limits for everyone, Navy has to follow those. The Navy still is able to put in more restrictive radiation limits though.

When it comes to "get the pill", the ones we have right now should not be an "or" there. They should be if there is a breakthrough case or more, and those people need treatment or if someone simply cannot take the vaccine (which some very small group is likely not going to be able to do and should be identified through another verified means). Not saying we should restrict access to the pill to only vaccinated, but we shouldn't give states more, unfair access to such treatments when they refuse to work to get their populations vaccinated for political purposes.

I say send the unvaccinated home when they show up at the hospital. Let their "choice" stand. It's sad but it is the only fair way to protect the responsible. Why should their doctor and bed be taken by someone who choose to die? Let God sort it out.

 

[Overitall]

If you want a job with public access you will need a vaccine. This means to answer your question guaranteeing them a job with public access with no vaccine means they have to find a non public access job and they might not be able to find one.

Its a choice we all have been making. Why do you ask? I am assuming you find that unfair. Well the person who wants public access without a vaccine may find it unfair, but so would the majority of people in public exposed by this individual to Covid and so?

Whose unfairness is greater? When it comes to health and safety issues, the conditions have always been created to protect the majority. If an individual wants an exemption to those safety regulations they can not expect to be able to be granted the right to endanger other people or event themselves. If you want to use an electric saw and not use the safety and cut off your arm no one will stop you but if you demand everyone else not use the safety feature it aint going to happen.

The key to this equation is that the right the individual thinks is unfair to him is not a right in isolation. If it only impacted on his rights and no one else's we would not being having this discussion. We are because the individual who wants his right imposed, does not feel the rights of others he can get sick are equal or as important as his own. That assumption is illogical and nonsensical.

We are talking about basic risk management and occupational health and safety issues. This is not new. I am not sure why its even being discussed. I can only assume you have never worked with occupational health and safety regulations. No you do not get to negotiate those safety protocols you want to follow.

An employer is 100% legally liable for the safety of all his employees, not just the considerations of one employee. If that unvaccinated employee spreads illness, the other employees sue the employer not just that individual and the employer under law is responsible for not maintaining a safe work place by condoning what happened. In fact that employee who spread the illness will be the first to line up to sue his employer not to mention demand excessive hospital services taken away from someone who will now die because of that and all because of something that could have been prevented by pro-active, risk management prevention practices that could have reduced/prevented the risk.

Here's where your argument breaks down. No one is required to work where the employer doesn't require vaccination.

 

[Callen]

I say send the vaccinated home when they show up at the hospital.

Think you need to do a quick edit.....

 

[iguanaman]

Think you need to do a quick edit.....

Thanks. Yes I do.

 

[iguanaman]

Here's where your argument breaks down. No one is required to work where the employer doesn't require vaccination.

No one is guaranteed a job in America. It is survival of the fittest. The unvaccinated do not qualify.

 

[Mika-El]

Here's where your argument breaks down. No one is required to work where the employer doesn't require vaccination.

Sorry but it has nothing to do with what I said. In fact if an employer does NOT require a vaccine and an employee spreads Covid 19 at work to other employees, that employer is 100% liable for any damages they incur including loss of wages and wrongful death because of allowing the worker to come to work unvaccinated.

So would you like to clarify what you mean? Occupational health and safety laws, and the law of tort today absolutely make employers responsible for illnesses employees catch at work.

 

[Overitall]

Sorry but it has nothing to do with what I said. In fact if an employer does NOT require a vaccine and an employee spreads Covid 19 at work to other employees, that employer is 100% liable for any damages they incur including loss of wages and wrongful death because of allowing the worker to come to work unvaccinated.

So would you like to clarify what you mean? Occupational health and safety laws, and the law of tort today absolutely make employers responsible for illnesses employees catch at work.

I've never seen that apply to any other virus (like the flu). Do you have any lawsuit cases to support your position?

 

[Mika-El]

No one is guaranteed a job in America. It is survival of the fittest. The unvaccinated do not qualify.

Lol, well the law clearly says if you don't take reasonable steps to try reduce risk you are liable for the damages that risk causes. Its actually a tad more sensitive than your equivalent description. It does allow the unfit to remain unfit it just says, if you choose unfitness deliberately, accept the consequences and do not expect society to protect you. Now if it has to do with say obesity, our society does not turn away fat guys who eat too many twinkies. However if you are an alcoholic wanting a kidney or heart transplant, yes. Medical care is not unlimited. How much our individual choices impact on what we are entitled from hospitals as a medical ethics issue and a medical practice issue as to how available doctors and hospitals are.

Imagine if our society was so cruel all of us would be told go on a diet or you are not allowed in a hospital ever. We are not that mean, yet. You never know they may say that to Trump if he shows up. However a guy like him never dies. He rents out a wing and has the Big Macs sent in.

 

[Ethel2]

And if the employers providing those jobs are forced by government to require that their employees have to be vaccinated where do they find a job?

I can think of three options:

1. Find a job that doesn’t require vaccination
2. Get tested weekly and wear a mask at work (unless you are a healthcare worker
3. Get vaccinated

There are choices available. You can only choose from the available choices. You can’t make one up.
That’s the way it is in life-always.

 

[Overitall]

I can think of three options:

1. Find a job that doesn’t require vaccination
2. Get tested weekly and wear a mask at work (unless you are a healthcare worker
3. Get vaccinated

There are choices available

You didn't address my point.

 

[Ethel2]

You didn't address my point.

You can:

1. Find another line of work
2. Unless you are a healthcare worker you can get tested weekly and wear a mask
3. Even smarter: get vaccinated

This addresses your point.

 

[Mach]

Same reason we need laws/government in the first place. To prevent morons from ruining things for everyone else.

 

[Overitall]

You can:

1. Find another line of work

Like self employment? Once the government successfully mandates all employers must require their employees are vaccinated do you really think they will stop there?

2. Unless you are a healthcare worker you can get tested weekly and wear a mask

We're not talking about that option.

3. Even smarter: get vaccinated

This addresses your point.

No, it really doesn't.

 

[rickc]

It is really a damn shame that getting vaccinated to protect yourself and the country as a whole has become a political issue. It has never been that way in the history of our country. I have been vaccinated for polio, smallpox and probably a dozen other things. Most Americans my age have too. This one is just a little difficult to understand.

In today's political climate I believe Biden has done all he can. The vaccine is easily available to all Americans, the truthful information is available, it is up to the individual how he plays it. Hopefully private companies will realize the benefits of having a vaccinated workforce and mandate them without government intervention.



I wonder if it is time we did something about all the lies that create Americans so misinformed?

 

[Ethel2]

Like self employment? Once the government successfully mandates all employers must require their employees are vaccinated do you really think they will stop there?

We're not talking about that option.

No, it really doesn't.

Sure it does.
You want people to have the choice of remaining in their current job without getting vaccinated or getting tested weekly to protect other employees and customers as well as reducing sick time off. I don’t see that as an option if mandates are issued.
Maybe you can think of another option besides same old same old.
Maybe the employees can work from home and be exempted that way. There are lots of choices. But once a mandate is issued you won’t be able to carry on as if it was never issued. The employees at Citigroup ( for example) are finding that out.

 

[Ethel2]

It is really a damn shame that getting vaccinated to protect yourself and the country as a whole has become a political issue. It has never been that way in the history of our country. I have been vaccinated for polio, smallpox and probably a dozen other things. Most Americans my age have too. This one is just a little difficult to understand.

In today's political climate I believe Biden has done all he can. The vaccine is easily available to all Americans, the truthful information is available, it is up to the individual how he plays it. Hopefully private companies will realize the benefits of having a vaccinated workforce and mandate them without government intervention.



I wonder if it is time we did something about all the lies that create Americans so misinformed?

Something has been done. The medical board that oversees the various specialty boards like emergency medicine and otolaryngology have acted to discipline the physician morons who are spreading the crap. And social media like YouTube and twitter have suspended the accounts of the disseminators of misinformation.
More needs to be done to gag these schmucks.

 

[trixare4kids]

Yes and no. I think Biden has the right to impose mandates in FL within his jurisdiction and DeSantis should butt out. I think school boards have a right to impose mandates and DeSantis should butt out. I think companies have a right to impose mandates on their employees and DeSantis should butt out.

Conversely I think DeSantis has the right to not impose mandates on employees under his control and Biden should butt out.

Thanks for answering...
I'm going to go with the judicial, our third branch of government and if they think the executive branch has the right to override state's rights regarding the vaccine mandate, I might not like it, but I'll go with their decision if they decide go for a Biden vaccine mandate for all.

As far as school boards go, can you give me an example of where DeSantis should butt out? Are we still talking about vaccine mandates?

I, too, think private employers have the right to impose mandates or skip them, and everyone involved in government should butt out.
Biden should have the right to impose mandates on federal employees only, and governors have the right to impose vaccine mandates on public state workers. Local businesses have the right to have mask mandates and ask for Covid ID cards, but vaccine mandates are deferred to the state.

 

[Overitall]

Sure it does.
You want people to have the choice of remaining in their current job without getting vaccinated or getting tested weekly to protect other employees and customers as well as reducing sick time off. I don’t see that as an option if mandates are issued.
Maybe you can think of another option besides same old same old.
Maybe the employees can work from home and be exempted that way. There are lots of choices. But once a mandate is issued you won’t be able to carry on as if it was never issued. The employees at Citigroup ( for example) are finding that out.

You're missing the point. Other options are not on the table. It's vaccination or termination. Your response to that is -- get another job. I asked what if all employers (as a result of government threats) required vaccination. Where would those who don't want to get the jab get a job? This ignores the fact that not everyone needs a vaccine. They might have already been exposed to covid and have natural immunity. The fact that the vast majority of those infected are asymptomatic or have mild symptoms (even before vaccines) attest to that fact that no one wants to acknowledge. It's vaccine or bust for the hyperventilating vaxxers.