New Covid medicine reduces hospitalizations and death by almost half among unvaccinated!

[SKL]

8 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

It is very unnerving to be on both sides of an issue. 

There aren't two sides IMO, there are 8 billion individual risk scenarios, and you have the audacity to acknowledge that.

[Jean in Newcastle]

1 hour ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I believe I had a loved one so close to getting the vax, and then the prez's mandate with accompanying othering came along and made her dig in her heels more.  Real helpful.

I’m sorry that person is being so childish. These decisions should be made by adults capable of putting politics aside. 

[SKL]

Also must we refer to individuals as "the unvaccinated/unvaxed" and "the vaccinated/vaxed"?

[wathe]

10 minutes ago, HeartString said:

 

Anvinportant part frequenctly forgotten us thst the vaccine is not mandated.  It’s vaccine OR regular testing.  Regular testing is a valid option and not an imposition.  

I don't think that's true everywhere.  

My place of work requires vaccination or a medical or religious exemption.   There is no testing option (unless you have a medical or religious exemption - then you test.)

Many other employers and organizations are the same.  

My provincial vaccine passport system requires vaccination or formal exemption to access certain non-essential publicly accessible spaces; there is no testing option.

I think there are US orgs and employers with similar requirements (hospitals?)

Edited October 5, 2021 by wathe

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, wathe said:

I don't think that's true everywhere.  

My employer place of work requires vaccination or a medical or religious exemption.   There is no testing option (unless you have a medical or religious exemption - then you test.)

Many other employers and organizations are the same.  my provincial vaccine passport system requires vaccination or formal exemption to access certain non-essential publicly accessible spaces, no testing option.

I think there are US orgs and employers with similar requirements (hospitals?)

The Presidential mandate is for vaccine or testing. Individual employers can do what they want, but the mandate from the government includes testing as an option.  I was referring to that.  

[wathe]

Just now, HeartString said:

The Presidential mandate is for vaccine or testing. Individual employers can do what they want, but the mandate from the government includes testing as an option.  I was referring to that.  

Got it, thanks

Edited October 5, 2021 by wathe

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, SKL said:

Also must we refer to individuals as "the unvaccinated/unvaxed" and "the vaccinated/vaxed"?

I'd be willing to use other terms, but you might not like them.

Bill

 

 

 

Edited October 5, 2021 by Spy Car

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Anvinportant part frequenctly forgotten us thst the vaccine is not mandated.  It’s vaccine OR regular testing.  Regular testing is a valid option and not an imposition.  

I'm very aware that testing is an option under the government mandate (theoretically at least).  However, I would still call that a medical procedure, especially if it's one of the more invasive tests (nobody knows the details yet).  And we also don't know how difficult it is going to be to get this testing done.  I had a hard enough time getting my kid tested about a month ago, when there wasn't a requirement for numerous unsymptomatic adults to get tested weekly.  Someone needs to put a lot of thought into how this is going to be done on a massive scale without keeping employees out of work.

Edited October 5, 2021 by SKL

[HeartString]

20 minutes ago, SKL said:

I'm very aware that testing is an option under the government mandate (theoretically at least).  However, I would still call that a medical procedure, especially if it's one of the more invasive tests (nobody knows the details yet).  And we also don't know how difficult it is going to be to get this testing done.  I had a hard enough time getting my kid tested about a month ago, when there wasn't a requirement for numerous unsymptomatic adults to get tested weekly.  Someone needs to put a lot of thought into how this is going to be done on a massive scale without keeping employees out of work.

The federal mandate doesn’t start until Nov 9, so anyone losing a job right now is from a policy of a specific business.  I may or may not agree with all of it, but this is a natural progression towards stronger business rights.  If businesses have free speech rights and the religious rights to say….decide who to bake a cake for… both recent Supreme Court rulings, then it seems to naturally follow that a business also has freedom of association and can choose to employee who they wish, for whatever reason they wish.  Which, in Right to Work states is indeed the case.  
 

In a world with no Citizens United, no Masterpiece Cake Shop and stronger worker protections these mandates might not be feasible.  But we are where we are. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by HeartString

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, HeartString said:

The federal mandate doesn’t start until Nov 9, so anyone losing a job right now is from a policy of a specific business.  I may or may not agree with all of it, but this is a natural progression towards stronger business rights.  If businesses have free speech rights and the religious rights to say….decide who to bake a cake for… both recent Supreme Court rulings, then it seems to naturally follow that a business also has freedom of association and can choose to employee who they wish, for whatever reason they wish.  Which, in Right to Work states is indeed the case.  
 

In a world with no Citizens United, no Masterpiece Cake Shop and stronger worker protections these mandates wouldn’t be feasible.  But we are where we are. 

I think you are confusing issues here.

[SKL]

OK so for those who think a mandate is the way to go, why should it apply only to employees of large employers?  A pretty large % of unvaccinated adults fall outside of that mandate.

[HeartString]

Just now, SKL said:

I think you are confusing issues here.

I don’t see how.  Things effect other things.  The Butterfly effect.  The side of pro business has spent many years strengthening business at the expense of the worker.  That is the world we live in. Businesses can require vaccines because we live in a world where business can do as it pleases.  

[happi duck]

58 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

 

Dp, sorry!

Edited October 5, 2021 by happi duck

[HeartString]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

OK so for those who think a mandate is the way to go, why should it apply only to employees of large employers?  A pretty large % of unvaccinated adults fall outside of that mandate.

It’s pretty typical for government mandates to apply to employers with a certain number of employees.  FMLA only applies to businesses with 50 employees.  The rationale is to avoid burdening small businesses.  It’s an attempt at balancing competing interests.  
 

 

I’m actually not convinced that mandates are the best way. 

Edited October 5, 2021 by HeartString

[happi duck]

56 minutes ago, BlsdMama said:

...

     Can’t use the concept that the unvaccinated employees could spread it, which would actually be a logical argument, because we now know vaccinated persons spread it as well, but more dangerously, asymptomatic, so they don’t recognize to stay home and not spread. 
     ...

People with covid, vaxxed and unvaxxed, are contagious *before* having symptoms.  Once symptoms start one's been already spreading it.  

People with breakthrough cases are contagious for a shorter time from what I've read.

[whitestavern]

Federal employees do NOT have a testing option. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/biden-to-mandate-covid-vaccine-for-federal-workers-removes-option-to-get-tested-instead.html

 

[HeartString]

1 minute ago, whitestavern said:

Federal employees do NOT have a testing option. 

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/09/biden-to-mandate-covid-vaccine-for-federal-workers-removes-option-to-get-tested-instead.html

 

2 separate mandates.  One is for federal employees from their employer, the federal government.  One is a mandate put on private businesses of over 100 employees by the federal government.  

[RootAnn]

1 hour ago, HeartString said:

We already accept so much of that though.  

And accepting more of the same is the right thing to do?

So, China restricts the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong and they should just throw up their hands & say, "What's one more violation of our sovereignty?" when the next order comes down? Really? 

I think we are well past the slippery slope. There will be no one to speak up for me if I don't speak up now against federal government over reach. This is one more, "well, you accepted ... so why are you complaining about [...]?"

[whitestavern]

5 minutes ago, HeartString said:

2 separate mandates.  One is for federal employees from their employer, the federal government.  One is a mandate put on private businesses of over 100 employees by the federal government.  

Yes, I realize that. But several posters just used the term federal mandate. I wanted to point out that the federal mandate for federal employees did not have a testing option. Only the private employer mandate does. And employers do not have to offer it. 

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

And accepting more of the same is the right thing to do?

So, China restricts the rights of the citizens of Hong Kong and they should just throw up their hands & say, "What's one more violation of our sovereignty?" when the next order comes down? Really? 

I think we are well past the slippery slope. There will be no one to speak up for me if I don't speak up now against federal government over reach. This is one more, "well, you accepted ... so why are you complaining about [...]?"

I’m all for changing these things.  Stronger worker protections for example.  But we are where we are.  I see that most people that are against businesses requiring vaccines have a strong overlap with people that want businesses to be allowed to require drug tests and to be allowed to choose what birth control options are allowed to its employees and support a business right not to serve groups they don’t like.  

[RootAnn]

59 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Anvinportant part frequenctly forgotten us thst the vaccine is not mandated.  It’s vaccine OR regular testing.  Regular testing is a valid option and not an imposition.  

 

6 minutes ago, HeartString said:

2 separate mandates.  One is for federal employees from their employer, the federal government.  One is a mandate put on private businesses of over 100 employees by the federal government.  

Doesn't Or the federal mandate also include employers who have any contracts with the federal government? Those businesses are not employees of the federal government. The federal government is one of their clients. 

[RootAnn]

5 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I’m all for changing these things.  Stronger worker protections for example.  But we are where we are.  I see that most people that are against businesses requiring vaccines have a strong overlap with people that want businesses to be allowed to require drug tests and to be allowed to choose what birth control options are allowed to its employees and support a business right not to serve groups they don’t like.  

For what it is worth, I think businesses should be allowed to have a mandate for their own employees but that the government shouldn't be requiring them to do it (which includes requiring the vax or testing option). My position is consistent = businesses make their decision & take the consequences of those decisions without the government bailing them out or requiring something. And yes, that includes that I'm not an OSHA/FDA/etc fan.

Edited October 5, 2021 by RootAnn

[Not_a_Number]

4 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

For what it is worth, I think businesses should be allowed to have a mandate for their own employees but that the government shouldn't be requiring them to do it (which includes requiring the vax or testing option). My position is consistent = businesses make their decision & take the consequences of those decisions without the government bailing them out or requiring something. And yes, that includes that I'm not an OSHA/FDA/etc fan.

Of course, it's not really the businesses who take the consequences. It's the workers. 

We keep talking about people not having choices... well, if an employer chooses not to care whether the employees are vaccinated, where's the choice of the employees who'd rather not get sick? Is their choice to go to a place where they are likely to be exposed or lose their job? That also seems rather unfair, no? 

[kbutton]

1 hour ago, BlsdMama said:

This. I will grant I’m the outlier, but I wonder if I’d be eligible for a waiver. It’s irrelevant because I’m “too sick” to work and they can’t really punish me through social services (ineligible for disability) but so little is understood about the glycine receptor antibody that it would fall to one of my doctors. As there is no clear decision/indication, likely it wold be a personal call rather than strictly professional. I suspect one would sign off and one would not. I cannot be the only person for whom the medical exemption is not clear cut. 

I think if your doctor gave you one, you would be exempt unless your doctor happened to be giving out a lot of exemptions to the general public vs. people with the same or similar conditions.

What's happening a lot of places is that people who've never been against vaccination before suddenly want exemptions that are not consistent with their medical history or religious beliefs (as in, some denominations have gone so far as to say that the vaccine is not a problem, so pastors in their denomination shouldn't be giving out exemptions). In other cases, students are applying to medical types of programs (PT, allied health, not just doctor/nurse), and they want exceptions, often to just the Covid shot, and faculty in these programs are just shaking their heads because vaccinations/titers/TB tests have always been required; if not in the program itself, it's required at clinical sites or when credentialing for various hospital systems. A lot of these places are investigating exemptions because they are the exception for the person, not the rule. 

1 hour ago, ScoutTN said:

I do know of one person with a severe vax reaction. He is in the icu after two open heart surgeries in a week. He is 30 and had zero health issues til the vax. So life-threatening reactions, though very rare, do happen. Pray for DJ! 

I am so sorry. Prayers for his recovery. 

1 hour ago, wathe said:

RE deaths caused by the vaccine:

I think that 8000 is likely an inflated number (assuming that's for the USA, and not the whole world)

In Canada, there have been 6 deaths attributed to vaccine-associated thrombosis (all from AZ vaccine).  All the remaining reported deaths are either unlikely linked to vaccine (74), have insufficient information (70), or are still under investigation (44).

We have administered more than 55 million doses of covid vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna mostly, some AZ).

Multiply the Canadian worst case scenario (all insufficient data plus under investigation plus AZ TTS, which USA doesn't even have) by 10 to account for population difference and you get 1200 which is certainly an overestimate.  And nowhere near 8000 

I think BlsdMama is trying to say that even if the anti-vax number based on VAERS were to turn out to be true, the risk still falls on the side of getting the vaccine. She's using the number they use to argue back, if I understand correctly. 

I wish she were right that people would do the right thing if they were being logical. That didn't happen here with masks--we had to have a mandate in our state. The governor begged people, and as a conservative, he is very committed to the idea that personal responsibility is a thing. Apparently not anymore. 

[goldberry]

5 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Of course, it's not really the businesses who take the consequences. It's the workers. 

We keep talking about people not having choices... well, if an employer chooses not to care whether the employees are vaccinated, where's the choice of the employees who'd rather not get sick? Is their choice to go to a place where they are likely to be exposed or lose their job? That also seems rather unfair, no? 

Agree strongly.  People overestimate the power of "the market" when workers still have to feed their families.  The same thing applies with Walmart for example.  If you don't like their business practices don't shop there and they will suffer.  But most families at lower incomes don't have the luxury of choosing where to shop because of moral principles.  They shop where they can buy the most for their dollar.  

That's why we have OSHA and safety regulations to being with.  The system did not work before.  Employees WILL work in unsafe situations to feed their families and pay their bills.  

[SKL]

20 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I’m all for changing these things.  Stronger worker protections for example.  But we are where we are.  I see that most people that are against businesses requiring vaccines have a strong overlap with people that want businesses to be allowed to require drug tests and to be allowed to choose what birth control options are allowed to its employees and support a business right not to serve groups they don’t like.  

Not what birth control options are allowed.  What birth control options the employer will pay for.  Big difference.

[goldberry]

1 minute ago, kbutton said:

What's happening a lot of places is that people who've never been against vaccination before suddenly want exemptions that are not consistent with their medical history or religious beliefs (as in, some denominations have gone so far as to say that the vaccine is not a problem, so pastors in their denomination shouldn't be giving out exemptions). In other cases, students are applying to medical types of programs (PT, allied health, not just doctor/nurse), and they want exceptions, often to just the Covid shot, and faculty in these programs are just shaking their heads because vaccinations/titers/TB tests have always been required; 

This should be the same as when a person had to apply for conscientious objector status during the draft.  They had to show that they had already been following those principles in their life.

[Happy2BaMom]

9 minutes ago, RootAnn said:

For what it is worth, I think businesses should be allowed to have a mandate for their own employees but that the government shouldn't be requiring them to do it (which includes requiring the vax or testing option). My position is consistent = businesses make their decision & take the consequences of those decisions without the government bailing them out or requiring something. And yes, that includes that I'm not an OSHA/FDA/etc fan.

But businesses usually don’t suffer the consequences for their inadequate decisions….their workers and communities do. 

It used to be extremely profitable for businesses to hire little children for 14 hours a day. It’s currently more profitable for businesses to not have to provide safe working conditions, for them to use or release toxic chemicals in their products and environments, to churn out drugs that don’t have to undergo any safety testing. Among many other examples. 
Government oversight programs are unwieldy and inefficient, but I have yet to see anyone offer a realistic alternative. 

The belief that an organization devoted solely to profit-making will consistently act with integrity and compassion if only the big bad government will get off its neck is not a realistic alternative. 

[HeartString]

5 minutes ago, SKL said:

Not what birth control options are allowed.  What birth control options the employer will pay for.  Big difference.

Are allowed to be covered by the employer sponsored insurance plan.  
 

Isnt part of requiring the vaccine in the businesses interest because it reduces the potential that the employer will have to pay for a COVID hospitalization?   Doesn’t feel much different to me than employers getting to pick birth control options.  Shouldn’t the choice of birth control options be between a person and their doctor, the same as people are arguing for with the Covid vaccine?  
 

 

I would LOVE for health insurance and employment to be disentangled somehow, but we aren’t there yet.  

Edited October 5, 2021 by HeartString

[kbutton]

3 minutes ago, goldberry said:

This should be the same as when a person had to apply for conscientious objector status during the draft.  They had to show that they had already been following those principles in their life.

I think we have to be careful not to put too high a bar on it, but yes. I get the impression it was harder than it should at times to be recognized as a conscientious objector--most people refuse to kill others on the regular, and not that many people go to war before going to war. 

[SKL]

11 minutes ago, Not_a_Number said:

Of course, it's not really the businesses who take the consequences. It's the workers. 

We keep talking about people not having choices... well, if an employer chooses not to care whether the employees are vaccinated, where's the choice of the employees who'd rather not get sick? Is their choice to go to a place where they are likely to be exposed or lose their job? That also seems rather unfair, no? 

Those who don't want to get sick have many personal options.  (1) get the vaccine; (2) mask and social distance to the extent possible at work; (3) keep up their individual health in ways that are known to correlate with low Covid risk; (4) find a different job or different work arrangement that involves less exposure.

As an employer, I'd love for my employees to all be vaccinated if they do not have contraindications.  But the majority of my unvaxed employees are highly likely to quit if I impose a mandate.  They are all working-class and many are African-American.  Am I really doing society a favor if I fire them for not getting vaxed?  My company doesn't fall under the prez's mandate, so it's a business decision for us at the moment.  Little by little, people are coming around to deciding to vax ... or they are catching Covid, recovering, and coming back to work with antibodies.  AFAIK none of those who have been sick had the vax.

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

Those who don't want to get sick have many personal options.  (1) get the vaccine; (2) mask and social distance to the extent possible at work; (3) keep up their individual health in ways that are known to correlate with low Covid risk; (4) find a different job or different work arrangement that involves less exposure.

As an employer, I'd love for my employees to all be vaccinated if they do not have contraindications.  But the majority of my unvaxed employees are highly likely to quit if I impose a mandate.  They are all working-class and many are African-American.  Am I really doing society a favor if I fire them for not getting vaxed?  My company doesn't fall under the prez's mandate, so it's a business decision for us at the moment.  Little by little, people are coming around to deciding to vax ... or they are catching Covid, recovering, and coming back to work with antibodies.  AFAIK none of those who have been sick had the vax.

No. Those who think is is their right to spread a deadly virus can find new employment and/or stay home.

No one has the right to willfully put other people's lives at risk due to selfish decision making.

Bill

[Pam in CT]

re whether there's a need for vaccine mandates in a "pandemic of the unvaccinated"

8 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

But, and here’s the rub, because the vaccine is largely effective and because the pandemic has become a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, the unvaccinated to a large degree, are putting those at risk who have chosen to be at risk. ...

There is an extent to which this reasoning applies.

It's substantially mitigated IMO by

1. the fact that children are not eligible to be vaccinated; and
2. the fact that COVID has already mutated, as viruses do, to a form that vaccines developed in response to the original strain are ~less~ effective (as seems, with less research, also to be true of antibodies developed by prior infection); and
3. the next variant could well be even better able to evade protection by vaccine and/or prior infection.

And so while at this point there's a part of me -- not my better angel -- somewhat tempted to shrug, meh, let them eat invermectin...

There are children.

And this isn't going to be over, for anyone, until the *virus subsides.* Everywhere.  There is no Us and Them; we're all floating in the same dang canoe (jetliner), breathing the same aerosolized particles, hoping the virus subsides before a worse variant of it arises.

 

8 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

..... one side is tallying the human life toll and the price paid is incredibly high. The opposing issue is the right to determine what medical procedures can be done without permission and the scope is beyond Covid. It is an oversimplification though to say, “We can inject a body with substance X, under forced choice,” and shrug as though no liberties have been lost when that line is crossed. That decision should rest in my hands and be between myself and my doctor.

I think this is right.

And is only the more recent variant of the same dynamic that's played out throughout the other tensions that have played out in other acts of this drama so far - staying home to greatest extent possible vs re-opening the economy, masking, prophylactic testing, contact tracing (which the US never really did, at any stage of any of this, seriously or at scale).  Some folks -- I think it is largely fair to say, the same folks, throughout all these stages -- have weighed collective public health outcomes more highly, whereas others have weighed individual freedom more highly.

 

Re coercion framing choice

4 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

Choice vs Coercion - let’s not mistake one for the other.

...The “choice” to lose the ability to feed a family and losing medical care is not a choice. 

I agree with this as well.

The argument holds equally for the meatpackers back in April 2020 who faced the "choice" to continue to work in close quarters without PPE as COVID flared who faced termination if they stayed home to quarantine after co-workers became infected. Or of teachers, in September 2020 before the vaccine was available, who faced termination if they did not accept in-person teaching, regardless of medical conditions or family members of particular vulnerabilities.

For better or worse (IMO it's mostly worse, but that is a different thread) the US economy is organized around at-will employment.  Employers have nearly unbridled power to set conditions of employment.

 

39 minutes ago, HeartString said:

The federal mandate doesn’t start until Nov 9, so anyone losing a job right now is from a policy of a specific business.  I may or may not agree with all of it, but this is a natural progression towards stronger business rights.  If businesses have free speech rights and the religious rights to say….decide who to bake a cake for… both recent Supreme Court rulings, then it seems to naturally follow that a business also has freedom of association and can choose to employee who they wish, for whatever reason they wish.  Which, in Right to Work states is indeed the case.  
 

In a world with no Citizens United, no Masterpiece Cake Shop and stronger worker protections these mandates might not be feasible.  But we are where we are. 

 

[Not_a_Number]

14 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

Government oversight programs are unwieldy and inefficient, but I have yet to see anyone offer a realistic alternative. 

The belief that an organization devoted solely to profit-making will consistently act with integrity and compassion if only the big bad government will get off its neck is not a realistic alternative. 

Exactly. That's a perfect summary. It's the same way that democracy is the worst possible form of government, except for all others 😉 . It's true that government mandates are inefficient and unwieldy due to size, but it's also the case that we often don't HAVE better options. 

[SKL]

15 minutes ago, kbutton said:

What's happening a lot of places is that people who've never been against vaccination before suddenly want exemptions that are not consistent with their medical history or religious beliefs....

This is probably true, but it's also a lot of people who haven't had a vax since decades ago when it wasn't their choice to make.  And some who literally never had a vaccine, or who had one vaccine followed by a vaccine injury.

Personally I had my kiddy vaxes as a kid, about 50 years ago.  But as an educated adult, I research and decide on a case by case basis when offered a vaccine.  I don't think there is anything inconsistent about that.

I do think there may be some spillover effect from the HPV vaccine, which was/is polarizing for other reasons.  I think maybe this is a big reason why people are skeptical of brand new vaccines, and especially of having them pushed on us.

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, SKL said:

As an employer, I'd love for my employees to all be vaccinated if they do not have contraindications.  But the majority of my unvaxed employees are highly likely to quit if I impose a mandate.  They are all working-class and many are African-American.  Am I really doing society a favor if I fire them for not getting vaxed?  My company doesn't fall under the prez's mandate, so it's a business decision for us at the moment.  Little by little, people are coming around to deciding to vax ... or they are catching Covid, recovering, and coming back to work with antibodies.  AFAIK none of those who have been sick had the vax.

I agree that this puts employers in a difficult position.  It is one thing to tell businesses that they must provide hard hats for their employees or other safety conditions.  But, fining business because employees are not vaccinated when the business does not have control over that employee's decision is another issue.  The business can't hold someone down and force them to be vaccinated.  This is a situation of punishing an entity that isn't in control of the decision.  Yes, the employer can fire all of those workers, but is that what the government really wants?  The fine is not being placed upon the person whose behavior the government would like to have changed.  If so, it would be better for the government to simply say that you must have a work permit and a requirement of that work permit is vaccination.  That puts the burden on the worker and the government, not on the employer.  And, I think some employers will be much harder hit than other employers because of the demographic pool from which their typical employee comes from. 

[SKL]

18 minutes ago, HeartString said:

Are allowed to be covered by the employer sponsored insurance plan.  
 

Isnt part of requiring the vaccine in the businesses interest because it reduces the potential that the employer will have to pay for a COVID hospitalization?   Doesn’t feel much different to me than employers getting to pick birth control options.  Shouldn’t the choice of birth control options be between a person and their doctor, the same as people are arguing for with the Covid vaccine? 

I would LOVE for health insurance and employment to be disentangled somehow, but we aren’t there yet.  

Yes, the choice of birth control options should be between a person and his/her doctor, so where do we get the idea that the employer has to pay for whatever it is?

I've never had a healthcare plan that covered everything I ever wanted to do that I could arguably call a health care decision.  It has never been up to me and my doctor to decide what my insurance will pay for.

And this is not logically related to the Covid discussion.

[Bootsie]

28 minutes ago, Happy2BaMom said:

The belief that an organization devoted solely to profit-making will consistently act with integrity and compassion if only the big bad government will get off its neck is not a realistic alternative. 

But is it realistic to assume that the people who are in government act with an more integrity and compassion that people in business?  

[HeartString]

33 minutes ago, SKL said:

Yes, the choice of birth control options should be between a person and his/her doctor, so where do we get the idea that the employer has to pay for whatever it is?

I've never had a healthcare plan that covered everything I ever wanted to do that I could arguably call a health care decision.  It has never been up to me and my doctor to decide what my insurance will pay for.

And this is not logically related to the Covid discussion.

It is because of the way the court ruled in that case.  In Hobby Lobby the right of the company to dictate what birth control options where covered by the insurance company was on a religious ground.  In recent years the Supreme Court has granted business entities religious freedoms and freedom of speech, expanding the rights of a business.  In a world where a business entity is viewed to have religious and speech rights, it only follows that a business also has the freedom to require employees to have vaccines.  Businesses have been given a lot of freedom to do what they want.  Some people have been very happy with the expansion of those freedoms, but are now upset about the vaccine requirements which seems to be very similar to the other freedoms.  

I actually don’t think the connection is difficult to see.  

[HeartString]

8 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also, the people claiming that the government (which government?) doesn't have a part in this are forgetting that the premiums paid for health insurance offered by an employer is tax deductible. That, in essence, makes them a kind of government benefit. This was the root of challenging state laws forbidding same sex marriage. 

So the government is involved whether we like it or not. Just about everyone agrees that we need to find a way to divorce employment and healthcare but that's not changing for now. 

There are all kinds of government laws about insurance, e.g. what must be covered, etc. Those rules that govern when you can enroll or add people to your insurance, e.g. "life event" - they come from IRS regulations. 

Am I right in thinking the government is covering the cost for all the COVID hospitalizations right now too? 

[SKL]

7 minutes ago, Ordinary Shoes said:

Also, the people claiming that the government (which government?) doesn't have a part in this are forgetting that the premiums paid for health insurance offered by an employer is tax deductible. That, in essence, makes them a kind of government benefit. This was the root of challenging state laws forbidding same sex marriage. 

So the government is involved whether we like it or not. Just about everyone agrees that we need to find a way to divorce employment and healthcare but that's not changing for now. 

There are all kinds of government laws about insurance, e.g. what must be covered, etc. Those rules that govern when you can enroll or add people to your insurance, e.g. "life event" - they come from IRS regulations. 

I know all about why connecting health insurance to employment is not the best idea.  None of that is relevant to government vaccine mandates.  Insurance is about which of an employee's choices is covered financially by a plan.  Not about what choices the employee can or must make.  Nothing about any of those cases enabled an employer to ban or require a particular medical choice.  No employee was stopped from using BC pills or whatever by the employer in those cases.

[Pam in CT]

(slightly tangential to the vaccine mandate discussion...

... which in any event has long gone REALLY tangential to the celebration of an apparently promising new treatment discussion...)

...I think the discussion around Citizen United, Hobby Lobby, gay wedding cake and other court decisions -- while interesting and important in all kinds of realms including public accommodation, structure of the health care sector, and the transparency/accountability of our electoral processes  -- are slightly off point to the specific question of employer vaccine mandates.

The issue is : employment in the United States is, overwhelmingly, at will.

Employees can (with rare exceptions, mostly around protected classes and protections under union contracts) be terminated at the will of the employer. For any reason, or no reason at all.

In the absence of specific contract or legislative protections, employers can choose -- as with meatpackers and teachers back before the vaccine existed -- to "force" employees into workplaces even against some employees' strongly held beliefs that the workplace is newly unsafe due to a newly rampaging highly transmissible virus. Also to "force" employees into mandatory vaccine and/or testing even against some employees' strongly held beliefs against such intrusions.

In both cases, employers are (again excepting specific union contract terms or specific legislation) free to fire without cause or termination benefits. And in both cases employees are "free" to find another job.

 

Of course in both cases that is, de facto, coercive. What it isn't, is specific to vaccine mandates.

 

 

[brehon]

11 hours ago, wathe said:

Regarding HCW private attitudes toward anti-vaxxers, my experience is the polar opposite.

My emergency dept colleagues and I have kept our dept running 24/7/365.  We were all first in line when the vax came out.  Now we are all just.so.done with the unvaxxed who keep coming through our ED sick with covid and exposing us again and again and again and again.  Our workplace exposure comes from unvaccinated people.  That's a slap in the face. If people would just get vaxxed already, I wouldn't still be being exposed every shift.   The compassion well for the unvaxxed is pretty dry around here.

My experience mirrors yours — front line HCW, NO PPE (except gloves and some “surgical masks”) for months, 1/4 of my colleagues out with Covid at one point, ambulances kept running 24/7/365, paramedics working multiple 24 hour shifts in a row to keep those ambulances running, no time off allowed except sick time.

Although I have had some patients who had breakthrough cases post-vaccination, they were not severe. ALL the patients I’ve had lately who have been seriously ill with Covid have been unvaccinated. ALL of them. I’ve also run a couple of codes of people who adamantly refused vaccines in favor of taking ivermectin, one was prescribed it and one rather memorable one was a tube off the shelves of TSC. (And can I say that the smell when that person lost control of their bowels was worse than c-diff.)

Maybe I’m a bad person, but I and my colleagues are just exhausted and at this point our compassion level for the willfully unvaccinated sits on empty. 

[Faith-manor]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

But is it realistic to assume that the people who are in government act with an more integrity and compassion that people in business?  

Having lived through all the things my employers and Dh's have put us through, I can say with certainty I have never been abused by the government like I have by bosses! Never. Unrestricted capitalism is pure evil. Dollars above people, always.

[KSera]

12 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

But, and here’s the rub, because the vaccine is largely effective and because the pandemic has become a “pandemic of the unvaccinated”, the unvaccinated to a large degree, are putting those at risk who have chosen to be at risk.

This is untrue on a number of levels. Vaccinated elderly people are the ones who are being affected the most severely by breakthrough cases. An elderly person is still at significant risk, even if vaccinated. I'm super relieved that my parents have now had their boosters, because they are old enough to have been at high risk as their shot effectiveness declined. Then there are children, there are people with valid medical exemptions (such as yourself) and there is the risk of long covid, even among the vaccinated.

9 hours ago, KeriJ said:

No. Not off base. I know personally numerous healthcare workers exactly as Fritz described.  Some relatives,  some friends.  Far more than I would have imagined. 

There is a small, but vocal minority of healthcare workers who are influenced much more strongly by the prevalent opinions in their communities and their own beliefs that there is some political litmus test surrounding their vaccination decision than by any science, facts or data about the vaccine. This can be seen pretty clearly by looking at the percent of health care workers vaccinated in different areas of the country. Reluctance among HCW is very closely tied to the general level of reluctance in the rest of their community.

6 hours ago, Fritz said:

 Nope I am not antivax. I am antimandate. There is no shame here in taking the vaccine. These coworkers have already been given exemptions. I think they would likely not share with our employer that they had taken the vax if indeed they decide to be vaccinated. Additionally I hope they will not share that information with me. Many of these HCW have already had covid before the vaccines were available. 

That's such a different way of thinking than what I encounter that it's interesting. It's just a courtesy fact that people tend to share where I am, so that people can better gauge risk levels in various situations.

6 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

 I’m not anti vaccine. I have never been anti vaccine. But I have always selectively vaccinated my kids, choosing an alternative schedule and delaying others until they make their own adult decision. That was my choice as a parent and respecting their rights as well. I am anti mandate, but on a far deeper level, I’m against government making decisions that require a big step over medical boundaries... for example, forced sterilization and mandatory vaccines.

I did the same with my kids, delaying and reducing the number of vaccines at any one appointment and skipping a couple at the time. But that was during normal times and not a pandemic or even an outbreak of any of those diseases. The situation is not the same right now. Had there been an outbreak of Hep B before my kids were vaccinated for it, I would have fully expected that they would have been barred from school or extra curriculars. That's part of what you accept when you do follow an alternate vaccination schedule. This is no different. Not being vaccinated for an illness that is having a pandemic level outbreak means one may need to be barred from some public places. In some scenarios, I think everyone would agree that it would be appropriate for people to be barred from public entirely (say an ebola outbreak where there is a vaccine--would everyone still argue that those not vaccinated should not have any more constraints than those who aren't? I think in this case it's related to the minimizing of the illness itself--to acknowledge these are reasonable requirements for current circumstances would be to acknowledge this is a serious illness).

6 hours ago, Dmmetler said:

 But honestly, I can't see why this guy can't continue to work from home since he's doing so effectively now. Not approving the excemption feels more like punishing him for not getting vaccinated than anything related to public health.

My brother's company is one that wants people in office and not working from home. People are trying to use the vaccine exemptions as a way to be allowed to continue to work from home when vaccinated employees are not being allowed to. Now, I think their insistence on in office employees right now is ridiculous considering they have not lost productivity during the pandemic, but I can see that for the business who wants employees there, it causes them a problem if they allow exemptions for at home employees.

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Yeah, I believe I had a loved one so close to getting the vax, and then the prez's mandate with accompanying othering came along and made her dig in her heels more.  Real helpful.

That's pretty juvenile. What on earth happened to the party of personal responsibility? This is not on someone else. I can't believe how many people are willing to lose their very life as their way of sticking out their tongue and putting their fingers in their ears.

5 hours ago, SKL said:

Believe it or not, there are still valid reasons to be vax hesitant.  One person I know is suffering from shingles, and the research shows that the vax aggravates shingles.  (Have you had shingles?  It's not pleasant!)  She is being as careful as can be, as she has a whole list of other health issues that make her high risk should she get Covid.  That's just one of several real life examples with my loved ones. 

Whether you like to believe it or not, getting this vaccine is a hard decision for some decent people.  It does not make them creeps, and it doesn't make me a creep for acknowledging it.

There are these situations, but it is absolutely not a large portion of the hesitant, and an even smaller portion of the outright anti-vax. Most people give reasons that are based on false information.

5 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

Peeing in a cup is external. Injecting someone against their will that carries risk is markedly different. 

I think the inflammatory "injecting someone against their will" is not helpful to discussion. No one is forcibly injecting anyone with covid vaccine.

4 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

Do I admit what my adamantly anti-vaccine FB friends post? 😉

 

I’m using their figure because I assume this is the number they are using to base their choice/reasoning on. My understanding this has to do with VAERS and I have not personally researched how true that number is because it has no bearing on my choice. 

Since reading this post of yours this morning, which was on my quote list (but others have responded to), I saw a report that the US has just had its 4th death from the Johnson and Johnson vaccine. Those situations are SO awful to me, and I absolutely hate that it can happen. It is incredibly, incredibly rare though, and the numbers in the VAERS bare little to no relationship to the actual vaccine side effects (some of those reported "vaccine deaths" include people being hit by lightening and one says a two year old committed suicide by gun after being given the covid vaccine. Just to give you an idea how reliable VAERS is. Anyone can enter a report.) As you clearly understand, the risk of serious illness or death is astronomically higher with the disease. What we can never know, is if the people who tragically died from a severe vaccine reaction are also people who would have had the same response to contracting Covid (particularly with these blood clot reactions, which is the reaction that has proved fatal in most vaccine deaths, since blood clots are such a common factor in severe covid illness).

4 hours ago, BlsdMama said:

 Can’t use the concept that the unvaccinated employees could spread it, which would actually be a logical argument, because we now know vaccinated persons spread it as well, but more dangerously, asymptomatic, so they don’t recognize to stay home and not spread. 
  

I think this might be the same Facebook factor you indicated above about the VAERS factor at work, without you even being aware. This is a favorite anti Covid vax trope, but is not a valid argument. Unvaccinated people are far more likely to spread it, and just as or more likely to spread it while asymptomatic (when you take into account they are much more likely to be infected, then it's definitely true they are responsible for far more spread than people who are vaccinated. There was also a recent study indicating that vaccinated people seem to not actually spread to many people when they do get infected, in comparison to unvaccinated people, who have a high R0 number).

 

4 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Must disagree about death not being the worst thing. Anti-vaxxers don't have the right to make that decision for others.
 

While I agree that people don't have the right to decide for others that death isn't something they should fear, I think your first sentence is very insensitive to post to someone with a terminal illness.

4 hours ago, SKL said:

There aren't two sides IMO, there are 8 billion individual risk scenarios, and you have the audacity to acknowledge that.

Well, it's not actually as complicated as that. For all but a very tiny percentage of people, being vaccinated against covid is clearly a much lower risk than the risk of contracting covid and having serious sequelae.

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Also must we refer to individuals as "the unvaccinated/unvaxed" and "the vaccinated/vaxed"?

What else would we say when discussing the difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated people? Or do you mean like people-first type language?

 

3 hours ago, RootAnn said:

My position is consistent = businesses make their decision & take the consequences of those decisions without the government bailing them out or requiring something. And yes, that includes that I'm not an OSHA/FDA/etc fan.

I used to think that way, but have come to realize that businesses make the decisions that are best for them, regardless of what is best for the general public, and the marketplace frequently doesn't sort that stuff out. Without some regulation, the public would constantly be at risk due to businesses cutting corners to improve their profits. Think there are many businesses that wouldn't dump all kinds of toxic crud in your drinking water if there weren't regulations against it? And spray toxic stuff on your food to make it look prettier (still working on this one) and sell dangerous drugs OTC, etc, etc.

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Not what birth control options are allowed.  What birth control options the employer will pay for.  Big difference.

Quoting messed up: In this case, that actually sounds pretty equivalent: what preventative medications are required in order for the employer to pay you?

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Those who don't want to get sick have many personal options.  (1) get the vaccine; (2) mask and social distance to the extent possible at work; (3) keep up their individual health in ways that are known to correlate with low Covid risk; (4) find a different job or different work arrangement that involves less exposure.

Why is it okay to say those that don't want to get sick may need to find a different job but not that those who don't care if they get sick or get other sick may need to find a different job?

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Faith-manor said:

Having lived through all the things my employers and Dh's have put us through, I can say with certainty I have never been abused by the government like I have by bosses! Never. Unrestricted capitalism is pure evil. Dollars above people, always.

I am sorry that you have had negative experiences with bosses.  Unfortunately, I know people who have been abused by bosses in their government jobs.  I have worked in both government and non-government jobs and I was no less compassionate or ethical when I was in a non-government job and I did not notice a difference in the ethics or compassion of my coworkers.  DH has worked in both government and non-government jobs, as has one of my children, both of my siblings, and both of my parents.  They were the same people, with the same compassion and ethical leanings in both types of jobs.  I just can't believe that that the government attracts people with integrity and compassionate people to work in it and the private sector does not. Both are run by people, who, unfortunately, can be movtivated by greed, power, sex, and other corrupt motives.

[historically accurate]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

Those who don't want to get sick have many personal options.  (1) get the vaccine; (2) mask and social distance to the extent possible at work; (3) keep up their individual health in ways that are known to correlate with low Covid risk; (4) find a different job or different work arrangement that involves less exposure.

As an employer, I'd love for my employees to all be vaccinated if they do not have contraindications.  But the majority of my unvaxed employees are highly likely to quit if I impose a mandate.  They are all working-class and many are African-American.  Am I really doing society a favor if I fire them for not getting vaxed?  My company doesn't fall under the prez's mandate, so it's a business decision for us at the moment.  Little by little, people are coming around to deciding to vax ... or they are catching Covid, recovering, and coming back to work with antibodies.  AFAIK none of those who have been sick had the vax.

I'm actually in this situation - I share an office with an unvaccinated woman who also refuses to mask while in the office. 

1) I have the vaccine. It's not 100%, so I limit what I do and who I see in non-office hours. It infuriates me at times and at other times, I shrug and power through. But, yes, my actions are severely curtailed because of this one person's actions. If it was one of my loved ones who was high-risk, I wouldn't resent it so. I don't even particularly like this woman, so I feel stuck, resentful, and sometimes downright angry at her actions here.

2) I mask. She refuses. Socially distanced? Well, considering our desks are literally butted up against each other, that's not possible. I estimate she is 3 feet away from me 4 hours a day. 

3) Yes, I'll get right on losing weight - I've only been obese for 22 years. I'm sure it'll come right off despite multiple personal attempts as well as doctor prescribed diets over 36 years. I can show you my food diary for the past 18 months - I've never eaten more than 2000 calories in a day, and average close to 1300. You wanna see my exercise diary too? After all that, I'm still fat - in fact, I'm a whole 2 pounds lighter than 18 months ago. I actually have had dreams that I died of Covid, and everyone nodded and said sadly, "Well, she was obese. She might've had a chance if she was a size 6." I've tried, I've done everything but start slicing the fat off of me over the years. I don't think I should get a death sentence for working because I'm too poor to quit and too fat for covid. 

4) Even if I could change jobs, and this is my first back-to-work job in 15ish years so it's unlikely another employer will take a risk on me, why should I be the one who has to switch jobs because she feels the need to not take the vaccine or wear a mask?

[Spy Car]

39 minutes ago, KSera said:

While I agree that people don't have the right to decide for others that death isn't something they should fear, I think your first sentence is very insensitive to post to someone with a terminal illness.

 

I don't need or desire your ongoing commentary on my posts. You worry about you. OK?

If you think death is no big deal and/or that death is something another can impose on a person as part of one's individual freedom, then we are miles apart.

Bill

Edited October 5, 2021 by Spy Car

[KSera]

20 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If you think death is no big deal and/or that death is something another can impose on a person as part of one's individual freedom, then we are miles apart.

Did you read my post? I said right in the post that you quoted, "I agree that people don't have the right to decide for others that death isn't something they should fear," so your reply makes no sense. I'm pretty sure there's not anyone else here who reads my posts who has ever gotten the idea that I think death is no big deal and that imposing it on someone else is part of one's individual freedom. That's pretty much diametrically opposed to all my covid posts (many of which you have "liked" fwiw).

 

24 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I don't need or desire your ongoing commentary on my posts. You worry about you. OK?

Honestly, this comment really is funny 🤣.

[Happy2BaMom]

4 hours ago, Bootsie said:

But is it realistic to assume that the people who are in government act with an more integrity and compassion that people in business?  

Huh? That isn't what I stated, but thanks for attempting to shift the argument.

The government is the only force capable of constraining the massive power of corporations for the average citizen. The fact that deregulation in the US has allowed corporations to increase their control of government doesn't change that fact, it merely renders the gov't less effective in any kind of oversight role. Which was the entire point of planting the narrative that government is always bad and can never be trusted (but businesses can).

I could go into the various chemicals and substances that are banned from many other countries (including China & Russia, BTW...not exactly hotbeds of liberalism) that are currently allowed to be used freely in the US, etc, as just one example of what a weak government allows, but it doesn't matter, because I'm tired of arguing.

Part of my frustration is that I've seen this shift in narrative (the rising veneration of corporations & corresponding denigration of all things gov't) firsthand. DH worked for the federal gov't for years, doing his best to ensure that the work completed was protecting the public on the projects he directed. Yes, there were some problem employees (there's just as many in the corporate world, BTW) and he watched as more and more got "privatized" and he lived through the "cutting for efficiency" and "justifying every expenditure" until he burnt out & his department was eliminated due to "outsourcing" (cuz corporations can do the gov't's job, only better!).

Now he works for a gov't contractor, making ~3 times (not including bonuses) what he did, doing pretty much the same job he did, with the contractor charging the gov't roughly umpteen times what it cost the gov't to originally do with it's own employees, while completing less work (everything has to "pencil" you see, so cutbacks are necessary in the scope of the project, lost benefits to the public be damned). The entire executive branch of this contractor are all billionaires, with annual bonuses in the millions (each), even when performance targets are missed. They have a huge fund for lobbying, which helps to ensure that the gov't money is always flowing.

But somehow the narrative hasn't changed. Government is still seen as bad (always), and corporations are still seen as more efficient and doing more for 'Murica. (Oh - and the "small gov't" politicians are always beating the drum of privatization....but they have zero understanding that the long-term effects of much of that are exactly what I detail here.

 

Edited for clarity.

Edited October 5, 2021 by Happy2BaMom