Jump to content

Menu

Dr. Julie Ponesse, professor of ethics, fired for refusing mandated vaccine


pinball
 Share

Recommended Posts

5 hours ago, SeaConquest said:

We are so DONE coddling these people.

As an aside, until about a month ago, I was hesitant to even use the terms anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers and anti-science in order to not offend. My young niece who is a Pediatric ICU doctor pointed out that this attitude of mine amounts to coddling of people who cause deliberate harm to others and disrupt the lives of others. That is why I decided to call a spade a spade and use the proper terms when I speak of them.

@SeaConquestthank you for your service and good luck on your job interviews for those ICU positions.

Edited by mathnerd
grammar!
  • Like 10
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think it is actually an interesting question if and when conditions of employment should be considered coercive.  Here is a good and provocative book on the subject.

That said, I also teach at a university and of all the requirements that the school imposes, the "you need to get vaccinated against a novel respiratory virus that is currently spreading exponentially before you spew aerosols for several hours every week in an enclosed room in front of hundreds of people who live in communal settings" rule seems not especially problematic. 

I personally find the vaccine requirement INFINITELY more justifiable than, say, the university's IT requirement that I change my password every six months.   Which is so, so stupid, and just means that I wind up writing the d--n thing down on a piece of paper, because who can remember a new alphanumeric password every six months?!  Just maddening.

And indeed, hundreds of universities and colleges across North America  -- including conservative ones -- have mandated vaccination for employees and students, and on the whole it has been a nothingburger.  Which makes me wonder who her intended audience is.  It certainly isn't her colleagues, and increasingly, not even the general public.  75% of adults in both the US and Canada are now at least partly vaccinated.   Vaccination against covid is really popular!

Edited by JennyD
  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, JennyD said:

And indeed, hundreds of universities and colleges across North America have mandated vaccination for employees and students, and on the whole it has been a nothingburger.  Which makes me wonder who her intended audience is.  It certainly isn't her colleagues, and increasingly, not even the general public.  75% of adults in both the US and Canada are now at least partly vaccinated.   Vaccination against covid is really popular!

Her intended audience is antivaxxers, who will be suitably "outraged" and post it all over social media. The video was published by an anti-vaxx, pro-ivermectin group called the Canadian Covid Care Alliance, which seems to be related to the US-based "Front Line" Covid Critical Care Alliance. They urge people to "stock up NOW!" on ivermectin, push the same ivermectin "protocols" as the FLCCC, and some of their pages have the FLCCC logo on them. (The FLCCC  was cofounded by the doctor who prescribed ivermectin for the patient in Ohio, that he'd never met, and supported the lawsuit to force the hospital to administer it.)

 

 

Screen Shot 2021-09-09 at 2.10.20 PM.png

Edited by Corraleno
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So she took a job at a university that mandates an MMR and meningitis vaccine for it's students, but it wasn't an ethics violation until SHE had to get a shot?  That's credible.  $1000 says if someone hired her to speak at a prestigious conference, and she needed shots to travel, she wouldn't take issue with that either.  I wonder if she's trying to get hired in Texas make bank on the conservative anti-vaxxer circuit? 

Edited by KungFuPanda
  • Like 5
  • Thanks 2
  • Sad 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm convinced we would never have come out of WWII intact if it was with our current population and was fought here as well as overseas. We'd have people refusing to draw their curtains and instead turning bright lights on to illuminate their neighborhoods, because "you can't tell me what to do."

  • Like 10
Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'm convinced we would never have come out of WWII intact if it was with our current population and was fought here as well as overseas. We'd have people refusing to draw their curtains and instead turning bright lights on to illuminate their neighborhoods, because "you can't tell me what to do."

And can you imagine the whining over rationing??? 

  • Like 7
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ktgrok said:

And can you imagine the whining over rationing??? 

I feel like people just aren't understanding that in a much less than ideal situation like a global pandemic, you don't always get to do things the way you ideally would in normal times. In some ways, I wonder if people would have done better if it had been true that this was a bioweapon sent here from China to try to annihilate us. Perhaps people would have fought back harder or had a higher drive to survive it. As it is, a shocking number of people are willing to give their lives to prove they aren't "sheep" 🤷‍♀️.

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'm convinced we would never have come out of WWII intact if it was with our current population and was fought here as well as overseas. We'd have people refusing to draw their curtains and instead turning bright lights on to illuminate their neighborhoods, because "you can't tell me what to do."

No joke! Winging, winging, winging. And they would starve. They would be unwilling to share distribution with ration coupons. They would steel from each others beat each other up for stuff, and loot and pillage. Sigh. There is zero will to work for the common good these days.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

48 minutes ago, KSera said:

I'm convinced we would never have come out of WWII intact if it was with our current population and was fought here as well as overseas. We'd have people refusing to draw their curtains and instead turning bright lights on to illuminate their neighborhoods, because "you can't tell me what to do."

 

25 minutes ago, ktgrok said:

And can you imagine the whining over rationing??? 

I said these very things to DH while we were eating dinner tonight.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, KSera said:

I feel like people just aren't understanding that in a much less than ideal situation like a global pandemic, you don't always get to do things the way you ideally would in normal times. In some ways, I wonder if people would have done better if it had been true that this was a bioweapon sent here from China to try to annihilate us. Perhaps people would have fought back harder or had a higher drive to survive it. As it is, a shocking number of people are willing to give their lives to prove they aren't "sheep" 🤷‍♀️.

my teen informs me that people who say that mandatory vaccination is Un-American (a.k.a anti-vaxxers) should be informed that the great american hero, Gen. George Washington ordered the mass inoculation of the military that was taking part in the civil war. We owe our Freedom partially to this inoculation. (apparently, his Speech and Debate group took up this topic for research as their first topic of the year)

https://www.loc.gov/rr/scitech/GW&smallpoxinoculation.html

 

  • Like 5
Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, KSera said:

I feel like people just aren't understanding that in a much less than ideal situation like a global pandemic, you don't always get to do things the way you ideally would in normal times. In some ways, I wonder if people would have done better if it had been true that this was a bioweapon sent here from China to try to annihilate us. Perhaps people would have fought back harder or had a higher drive to survive it. As it is, a shocking number of people are willing to give their lives to prove they aren't "sheep" 🤷‍♀️.

Weirdly, someone I know who is firmly in conspiracy theory camp, does believe it's a bio weapon. But don't worry, ivermectin will cure you right up! 🙄. I don't understand it.  If it's a bioweapon wouldn't you be completely motivated to avoid catching it?!?!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, JennyD said:

I think it is actually an interesting question if and when conditions of employment should be considered coercive.  Here is a good and provocative book on the subject.

That said, I also teach at a university and of all the requirements that the school imposes, the "you need to get vaccinated against a novel respiratory virus that is currently spreading exponentially before you spew aerosols for several hours every week in an enclosed room in front of hundreds of people who live in communal settings" rule seems not especially problematic. 

I personally find the vaccine requirement INFINITELY more justifiable than, say, the university's IT requirement that I change my password every six months.   Which is so, so stupid, and just means that I wind up writing the d--n thing down on a piece of paper, because who can remember a new alphanumeric password every six months?!  Just maddening.

I would think the conditions could also be ethical or unethical depending on the context and job duties. Requiring a church pastor to believe what the church does is pretty common sense. Having healthcare workers that aren't disease vectors seems pretty common sense.

That said, we've been pretty beaten up as a family with non-compete agreements (mentioned earlier in the thread, I think), and they aren't non-competes that affect our employment. They affect services we use, and it's been a problem no less than six times in about as many years, and it's been two different companies that offer services. Both are run by people who end up hating working there. Both employers are trying to force other similar businesses out. They participate in a choice program--you use funds from the state to purchase these services, so you are supposed to have choice. But they are trying to narrow the choice, and they make it difficult for both employees and families who are stuck doing business with them. It's terrible!

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

So she took a job at a university that mandates an MMR and meningitis vaccine for it's students, but it wasn't an ethics violation until SHE had to get a shot?  That's credible.  $1000 says if someone hired her to speak at a prestigious conference, and she needed shots to travel, she wouldn't take issue with that either.  I wonder if she's trying to get hired in Texas? 

Is that last sentence really necessary, or relevant, though?  😞

Otherwise, completely agree with you. Saddened by the dig at my state, though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheReader said:

Is that last sentence really necessary, or relevant, though?  😞

Otherwise, completely agree with you. Saddened by the dig at my state, though. 

You're right.  I'll edit but leave the original so the conversation makes sense.  I'm from a state that takes constant flack.  It can be painful, especially when there's truth in it.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, KungFuPanda said:

You're right.  I'll edit but leave the original so the conversation makes sense.  I'm from a state that takes constant flack.  It can be painful, especially when there's truth in it.

thank you; I do appreciate it. 

I think it's the truth in it that makes it the most hurtful. I'm just so not used to feeling this way about my state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

So she took a job at a university that mandates an MMR and meningitis vaccine for it's students, but it wasn't an ethics violation until SHE had to get a shot?  That's credible.  $1000 says if someone hired her to speak at a prestigious conference, and she needed shots to travel, she wouldn't take issue with that either.  I wonder if she's trying to get hired in Texas make bank on the conservative anti-vaxxer circuit? 

LOL! 

Okay, your edit made me laugh. Thank you!  (somehow, even though I know, and you know, and everyone knows, this is still referencing my state, it feels less punch-in-the-gut-ish this way). 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, JennyD said:

I personally find the vaccine requirement INFINITELY more justifiable than, say, the university's IT requirement that I change my password every six months.   Which is so, so stupid, and just means that I wind up writing the d--n thing down on a piece of paper, because who can remember a new alphanumeric password every six months?!  Just maddening.

At the risk of going on a tangent... ...you'll be pleased to know that lots of IT security people now agree with you. Forcing people to change their password after an arbitary amount of time is deprecated practise, although it has only become so in the last 5-10 years. Current best practise (which you may wish to pass onto your IT department) is:

- use a high-quality digital password manager (there are plenty out there, and the university IT team will probably prefer to pick their own favourite manager once they realise this), which means people only need to remember one password (for their own safety) in most situations

- stick all your other passwords into it as and when you get them

- make the password for the password manager long, memorable and not entirely consisting of words in the dictionary (for example, the first letter of each word in a favourite sentence - that isn't one you've called such on the internet). Putting in letters and symbols is still good practice, but not at the expense of memorability. If you must write down clues, make them ones that don't give the exact wording away to other people, and keep them secure.

- then keep the password manager's password the same for as long as you like - unless there's a specific reason to change it (either because the password store is compromised in some way - or because you've forgotten the password for the password manager)

- if you use a site that you feel needs more security than usual, use two-factor authentication of some sort (ideally not using your usual mobile phone, though outside IT security, that's not always practical).

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, ieta_cassiopeia said:

At the risk of going on a tangent... ...you'll be pleased to know that lots of IT security people now agree with you. Forcing people to change their password after an arbitary amount of time is deprecated practise, although it has only become so in the last 5-10 years. Current best practise (which you may wish to pass onto your IT department) is:

- use a high-quality digital password manager (there are plenty out there, and the university IT team will probably prefer to pick their own favourite manager once they realise this), which means people only need to remember one password (for their own safety) in most situations

- stick all your other passwords into it as and when you get them

- make the password for the password manager long, memorable and not entirely consisting of words in the dictionary (for example, the first letter of each word in a favourite sentence - that isn't one you've called such on the internet). Putting in letters and symbols is still good practice, but not at the expense of memorability. If you must write down clues, make them ones that don't give the exact wording away to other people, and keep them secure.

- then keep the password manager's password the same for as long as you like - unless there's a specific reason to change it (either because the password store is compromised in some way - or because you've forgotten the password for the password manager)

- if you use a site that you feel needs more security than usual, use two-factor authentication of some sort (ideally not using your usual mobile phone, though outside IT security, that's not always practical).

Yup. DH is a cyber security professional and we use 1password. 

I tend to use phrases as my main password for that, at one point I had just a string of insults (not swear words but funny insults) as my password, lol. I generally purposely spell one word wrong or replace it with a number. 

Edited by ktgrok
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...