I feel so frustrated about people refusing vaccination…

[TechWife]

55 minutes ago, SKL said:

If I as an employer want to influence people to vaccinate, I need more flexibility to do it in a way that makes sense.  Maybe an incentive rather than a threat.  And targeted to the occupations involving the greater risk of catching and spreading Covid.  Or if I'm gonna fire people, let me do it on my own timetable, so I have the opportunity to transition the work, continue customer care, and help employees transition to their new situation.  Or let me decide to put some people on remote duty until cases are lower.  Please don't pretend you're doing businesses a favor by tying their hands like this.

Nothing is preventing you as an employer from offering incentives to vaccinated employees. You can offer paid time off, gift certificates, a raise, whatever floats your boat. Go for it - acknowledge the fact that they are getting vaccinated in order to work for you. Do you pay taxes on your own timetable? Nope. Can you offer job transition services to your employees or former employees? You sure can. No one is stopping you from doing any of this. No one is pretending to do businesses a favor, they are actively trying to save lives, though. 

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, TechWife said:

 

Yes, the Federal government can most certainly require people to be vaccinated. In fact, they already do. In addition to the commonly cited requirements for military service, vaccine requirements been in place healthcare for decades. If a provider wants to treat Medicare and Medicaid patients, then the people that work and volunteer there must be vaccinated. No one is forcing people to vaccinate, but they are setting job requirements and it is perfectly legal to require vaccination as a condition of employment. 

Businesses enforce Federal, State & local policy every single day. That’s why work related accidents and deaths have decreased so dramatically when compared to earlier generations. It’s also why you aren’t as likely to get food poisoning when you eat at a restaurant. Business can be and are proactive in these areas, not because they want to be, but because they are made to be. If an employee refuses to wear a hard hat or steel toe shoes on a construction site or behaves irresponsibly with workplace equipment, their employer is responsible. Employers can be fined for not requiring their employees to follow the rules, their businesses can be closed and they can also held civilly liable for accidents that happen under their watch. Some have even been held criminally responsible for workplace accidents. 

Employers can’t force people to vaccinate, but they can refuse to employ or fire people who don’t, just as they can fire people for not following any other rule or condition of employment.

No vaccine? No job here. People are free to work at a smaller business  or start their own. 
 

 

The federal government can require people to be vaccinated for certain activities.  The federal government cannot have a general requirement that citizens be vaccinated.  That is a much different thing.  I think some in the government would like a way to require people to vaccinate and are looking for a backdoor way of doing so.  The OSHA requirement that an employer require an employer of more than 100 people to be vaccinated is a backdoor way (and incomplete way) of pushing the requirement on more people.  This is not an OSHA requirement that is in any way tied to specific workplace health and safety issues. 

 

[TechWife]

9 minutes ago, SKL said:

Isn't this contrary to the policy that doesn't allow employers to overtly discriminate for health reasons, such as this person is obese, uses a wheelchair, or is a female of childbearing age who might want maternity leave?  Or to even ask health questions for that matter?

So if an employer decided to really cut healthcare insurance costs, could it make a requirement to be under XX BMI and fire everyone who doesn't comply?

No it isn’t. Employers can determine conditions of employment. You must be able to do the job tasks and fulfill other job requirements, such as state licensure and being appropriately vaccinated. Health questions cannot be asked prior to employment, but the employer can extend a conditional job offer. For example, when a nurse is offered a job, their credentials must be verified and their vaccine status must be documented.  If the employer is unable to verify credentials or vaccine status, then the job offer is withdrawn and the employer faces no penalties for doing so. An employer can also ask an applicant if they can complete the requirements of the job.  For example, they can’t ask someone in a wheelchair if their arms are paralyzed, but they can ask them if they are able to lift 50 pounds in emergent situations.  Once someone is employed, they can also be required to share some information in the course of requesting disability accommodations or applying for family leave, for example. 
 

I don’t know the ins & outs of insurance discrimination, so I can’t offer any insight on your last question. 

[Idalou]

3 hours ago, Bootsie said:

I understand that OSHA does lots of stuff related to worker safety.  That's it's job.  My employer must provide me with a harness if I am doing certain types of jobs.  My employer needs to make sure that there are not cords I will trip over.  This is not about job-related worker safety.  Some employees must wear a hard hat because of their job situation; some employees must wear a harness because of their job situation.  I do not have to wear a harness and hard hat in my job.  Just because an employer has 100 workers does not mean those workers are at risk from contracting COVID from a coworker; it is not situationally based.  

What does the H in OSHA stand for?

[TechWife]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The federal government can require people to be vaccinated for certain activities.  The federal government cannot have a general requirement that citizens be vaccinated.  That is a much different thing.  I think some in the government would like a way to require people to vaccinate and are looking for a backdoor way of doing so.  The OSHA requirement that an employer require an employer of more than 100 people to be vaccinated is a backdoor way (and incomplete way) of pushing the requirement on more people.  This is not an OSHA requirement that is in any way tied to specific workplace health and safety issues. 

 

I dunno, Bootsie. Making someone ill from a preventable, potentially fatal,  disease in a workplace certainly seems like a workplace health issue to me. 

[TechWife]

4 minutes ago, Idalou said:

What does the H in OSHA stand for?

Occupational Safety & Health Administration. It is part of the US Department of Labor. 
https://www.osha.gov/aboutosha

Edited October 13, 2021 by TechWife

[Idalou]

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Occupational Safety & Health Administration. It is part of the US Department of Labor. 
https://www.osha.gov/aboutosha

I was being snarky. Sorry. Seems like people keep mentioning safety and forget the H part of it. 

[Bootsie]

8 minutes ago, TechWife said:

I dunno, Bootsie. Making someone ill from a preventable, potentially fatal,  disease in a workplace certainly seems like a workplace health issue to me. 

But that is not what this policy addresses.  

[LMD]

5 hours ago, Quill said:

Both are reasonable, however one side is trying to force the vaccine with coercion (some people on this thread have advocated for that).  I’m not trying to prevent anyone from getting the mRNA if they want it. 
 

What annoys me when people say “vaccine coercion” related to the COVID vax is that being required to be vaccinated to go certain places, participate in certain activities, or even have certain jobs (like military service, for example) is this: there is *nothing new whatsoever* about that dictate. Unless you were raised Amish or Orthodox Jew, I’m willing to bet you have already yourself submitted and/or submitted your kid(s) to numerous vaccines since they were weeks, if not hours, old. There is precedent of a hundred years of mandatory public health measures. My MIL’s sister was quarantined for many months as a child because she had TB. Nobody, AFAIK, screamed she was falsely imprisoned and her liberties were besmirched because she was shut up in a room with a red X on the door. 
 

I personally am in favor of government agencies and personal businesses being able to *require* vaccination for employment unless one can produce a legitimate waiver. If you don’t like them apples, you can change employment; it’s a robust job market right now; if one is such a valuable employee they should have no problem finding a job where they can work unvaxed. Where I live, employment is “at will” so - and I don’t personally like this but it’s true - your boss can order you to wear a beige jumpsuit to work every day and, if you refuse because jumpsuits suck for bathroom breaks or beige is not in your color palette, they are perfectly at liberty to fire your ass and hire someone willing to wear an ugly and inconvenient uniform. 
 

I have trouble understanding why *anybody* thinks they have, up until now, enjoyed *TOTAL* freedom to do *whatever* they want and not have to comply with a ton of arbitrary rules for their jobs, schools, colleges or even neighborhoods. If you live where there’s an HOA, you can’t paint your house purple or have a pet panther, even though you own the house. I know neighborhoods where your dog cannot be a Pit Bull or a German Shepherd. At my kid’s school, students can’t wear a hat or sunglasses inside. The point is, in society, we *almost all* capitulate to tons of rules and concessions in order to participate in bunches of stuff. Really, only an off-grid prepper living on a South Dakota homestead is relatively free from those demands. 
 

If you can explain why this is different from all that, I will listen. It hasn’t made sense to me so far, though. 

I'm not sure if it's wise for me to try and answer, and I'm not interested in a pile on at all.

Your MIL's sister had TB. Quarantine for the sick is very different to quarantining everyone. My state has had 250+ days (and counting) of lockdown now, more than any other in the world. 

Childhood vaccination schedules have been developed over a long time, gardasil was the most recent addition and it's been nearly 15 years now since it was added to the schedule. I remember well discussions on this board about how hesitant people were,  due to it's fast tracked testing and reported side effects. fwiw, my dd had it and I was happy to do it. I will get it for my sons too. Here, a child is not excluded from school if they are not vaccinated according to the schedule - unless they have an illness or are a close contact. 

The problem I have is that my government has made such a wide mandate that you can't just start your own business or find another job. Even if you work alone in your own business and do non contact interactions with a Covid safe plan - you are still mandated to have a vaccine or not be allowed to work. 

Following rules is very different to mandating something be put inside your body at the threat of your livelihood. Wearing a uniform or having to take off a hat or paint certain colours is not the same, at all. I capitulate, happily, to plenty of socially conscious requirements. I draw the line at coercion to cross the threshold of my body. I wouldn't object so much to certain industry mandates, or even certain public events, but here in my state we are way beyond that point. 

And I am concerned with government overreach in this. I don't have enough hubris to assume that our government (literally being investigated for corruption as we speak) is wise and benevolent, or that 'it could never happen here.' Rules and concessions that violate our human rights charter are something that concerns me.

[Bootsie]

13 minutes ago, Idalou said:

What does the H in OSHA stand for?

Yes, OSHA is for safety and health issues that are related to the work environment.  It covers work-related exposures to health risks.  But, in this instance, I do not see that there is a significant tie between a work-related risk and the sweeping nature of the requirement.  If an employer has 100 workers who are all working in different locations, there is zero risk of being infected by another worker.  If a worker is coming into contact with 100s of customers or suppliers every day, the worker may have significant expoure to COVID, but this requirement does not require the employer to prevent that.  

[TechWife]

53 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I understand this.  And this is specifically to me what is wrong with using OSHA to try to get people to vaccinate.  It penalizes FIRMS for someone not doing something that the government wants them to do.

Yes, this is what OSHA generally does. It holds companies responsible for the conduct of their employees. Wear the right thing, use the right equipment, use the equipment in a safe way. Why? So that you don’t endanger your health and that of your co-workers or the general public. Why do they hold employers responsible? To prevent employers from requiring employees to use inappropriate equipment, work without basic safety measures or doing something that endangers their lives, the lives of their coworkers or the general public. 

[TechWife]

7 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But that is not what this policy addresses.  

Seriously? At this point I think you’re trolling the thread. 

[Bootsie]

Just now, TechWife said:

Yes, this is what OSHA generally does. It holds companies responsible for the conduct of their employees. Wear the right thing, use the right equipment, use the equipment in a safe way. Why? So that you don’t endanger your health and that of your co-workers or the general public. Why do they hold employers responsible? To prevent employers from requiring employees to use inappropriate equipment, work without basic safety measures or doing something that endangers their lives, the lives of their coworkers or the general public. 

But, I do not know of any employer REQUIRING employees to not get a vaccine.  This mandate is NOT about the employer not REQUIRING someone to do something unsafe, it is about REQUIRING an employee to do something which is not necesarily work-related.   This is exactly why I have problems with it.

[Bootsie]

1 minute ago, TechWife said:

Seriously? At this point I think you’re trolling the thread. 

Yes I was very serious.  If you read my posts, I develop my argument.  I think this comment is unecessary and is not conducive to a respectful conversation.  If you would like to discuss how this mandate does this, I will read it and comment on it if I have any comments to make.   

[TechWife]

25 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I do not know of any employer REQUIRING employees to not get a vaccine.  This mandate is NOT about the employer not REQUIRING someone to do something unsafe, it is about REQUIRING an employee to do something which is not necesarily work-related.   This is exactly why I have problems with it.

You missed the first part. OSHA also requires that employers make sure their employees are doing things that enhance safety AND health. I think being able to breathe freely and not causing respiratory problems for others while on the job is work-related. I just do. FWIW, I wouldn’t have a problem if employers or OSHA required vaccines for all illness that could be transmitted in the workplace. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by TechWife

[SKL]

10 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Yes, this is what OSHA generally does. It holds companies responsible for the conduct of their employees. Wear the right thing, use the right equipment, use the equipment in a safe way. Why? So that you don’t endanger your health and that of your co-workers or the general public. Why do they hold employers responsible? To prevent employers from requiring employees to use inappropriate equipment, work without basic safety measures or doing something that endangers their lives, the lives of their coworkers or the general public. 

 

OSHA generally makes rules about things the employer has control over in the workplace.  The health side would be things like asbestos.

 

Fining employers for not firing unvaccinated workers would be like fining teachers for not expelling students who didn't take vitamins at home.  Or fining hospitals for not discharging people who didn't exercise at home.

[TechWife]

3 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

Yes I was very serious.  If you read my posts, I develop my argument.  I think this comment is unecessary and is not conducive to a respectful conversation.  If you would like to discuss how this mandate does this, I will read it and comment on it if I have any comments to make.   

Vaccines are known to reduce and prevent the transmission of illness between members of the workforce and the general public that they may come in contact with in the course of their work day and on their way to and from the workplace. 

[Spy Car]

1 minute ago, SKL said:

 

OSHA generally makes rules about things the employer has control over in the workplace.  The health side would be things like asbestos.

 

Fining employers for not firing unvaccinated workers would be like fining teachers for not expelling students who didn't take vitamins at home.  Or fining hospitals for not discharging people who didn't exercise at home.

Are you joking?

Delta has a RO6 infection rate. It is an extraordinarily infectious illness.

Good grief.

Bill 

 

 

[Spy Car]

12 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, I do not know of any employer REQUIRING employees to not get a vaccine.  This mandate is NOT about the employer not REQUIRING someone to do something unsafe, it is about REQUIRING an employee to do something which is not necesarily work-related.   This is exactly why I have problems with it.

It is work related and a matter of workplace safety.

Your premise is a false one.

Bill

 

[TechWife]

8 minutes ago, SKL said:

 

OSHA generally makes rules about things the employer has control over in the workplace.  The health side would be things like asbestos.

 

Fining employers for not firing unvaccinated workers would be like fining teachers for not expelling students who didn't take vitamins at home.  Or fining hospitals for not discharging people who didn't exercise at home.

Employers can control whether or not their employees are vaccinated while in the workplace. In doing so, there is the added benefit of having employees that are vaccinated while they are outside the workplace as well. In addition to asbestos, things like appropriate equipment and vaccines contribute to health as well. 
 

And no, it is not like that at all. 

Edited October 13, 2021 by TechWife

[TechWife]

27 minutes ago, Idalou said:

I was being snarky. Sorry. Seems like people keep mentioning safety and forget the H part of it. 

I thought maybe you lived in a country other than the US! But yes - snark can be good at times! 

[Idalou]

5 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

Wow.  That's a frame, isn't it.

 

True Story:

In the early stages of this horror show, whose darkness happened to first descend upon us just as Passover began back in March 2020, I received it through the frame of a plague, that God sent upon us, to teach us.  (This is metaphor, I am not a literalist, but I take my metaphors quite seriously.)  And I spent a fair amount of time -- suddenly, I *had* a lot of unexpected time -- trying to work out what lessons we were meant to learn

I expected the vaccine development to take 2-3 YEARS.  (Based on my husband's biotech experience) I expected any vaccine to be only ~50+% effective, as the regular flu vaccines often are and as the FDA's initially announced benchmarks were; which would, still, dampen spread but would, still, enable the plague to persist for years.  When the mRNA vaccines came through at Warp Speed, less than a year from the plague's descent, hitting 90+% benchmarks, I received that as miraculous.  (Within my tradition, miracles are, often, a partnership between God and humans.) 

Deliverance.

Except, as it turned out: Not.  Because we are a stiff-necked people.  Because we quarrel on how to read the signs.  Because we spurn the manna meant to sustain us.  Because when times are fraught with hardship and uncertainty we turn on each other.  

Thank you, @Pam in CT  I want to think about this much more tonight once I'm finished with everything. I know next to nothing of Judaism and Islam, and I needed to start with baby steps so I got Bruce Feiler's book, Abraham. Your talk of metaphor plays well with his views.  Yes, it seems we have always turned on each other, even though we have so much to offer and recieve.

 

[Moonhawk]

Wait wait wait. Did I miss something? Everyone here that is against this "mandate" keeps saying it's forcing employees to be vaccinated, "forcing them to put something into their body" etc. But it's vaccinate or weekly test. (I know federal rules/contractors are different, but we are talking about the OSHA requirements so I don't think that's the situation being discussed here)

That OR keeps getting left out of conversations and when the news first came out I thought it was just unfamiliarity with a new mandate. But at this point, when that "or" gets dropped off, I don't know what to think. Do people think it doesn't matter? Or does it just steal thunder from the objections?

[SKL]

6 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Wait wait wait. Did I miss something? Everyone here that is against this "mandate" keeps saying it's forcing employees to be vaccinated, "forcing them to put something into their body" etc. But it's vaccinate or weekly test. (I know federal rules/contractors are different, but we are talking about the OSHA requirements so I don't think that's the situation being discussed here)

That OR keeps getting left out of conversations and when the news first came out I thought it was just unfamiliarity with a new mandate. But at this point, when that "or" gets dropped off, I don't know what to think. Do people think it doesn't matter? Or does it just steal thunder from the objections?

You're right.  I don't know how it's going to play out though.  Will it be logistically feasible for employees to get a Covid test every week?

They should have also allowed an antibody test or proof of past Covid infection.

And the test option still doesn't address the issue that this mandate ignores actual risk-at-work factors such as whether the individual employee is ever close enough to share germs with another employee.  In fact, the weekly testing is even more illogical (as a work requirement) for people who go for months or longer without ever being in the same room with a co-worker.

Edited October 13, 2021 by SKL

[Corraleno]

56 minutes ago, SKL said:

Fining employers for not firing unvaccinated workers would be like fining teachers for not expelling students who didn't take vitamins at home.  Or fining hospitals for not discharging people who didn't exercise at home.

If vitamin deficiencies and general flabbiness were contagious, maybe you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.

[LMD]

20 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Wait wait wait. Did I miss something? Everyone here that is against this "mandate" keeps saying it's forcing employees to be vaccinated, "forcing them to put something into their body" etc. But it's vaccinate or weekly test. (I know federal rules/contractors are different, but we are talking about the OSHA requirements so I don't think that's the situation being discussed here)

That OR keeps getting left out of conversations and when the news first came out I thought it was just unfamiliarity with a new mandate. But at this point, when that "or" gets dropped off, I don't know what to think. Do people think it doesn't matter? Or does it just steal thunder from the objections?

No. I am the one who said put something into their body and I am not in the US. There is no provision for a testing alternative in our mandate. 

[Corraleno]

I believe the distinction between companies with >100 employees vs <100 employees has to do with the overall size and resource level of the business, not how many of those employees happen to work in the same space. It's designed to avoid over-burdening small businesses and is a somewhat arbitrary cut off. But they either have to draw the line somewhere or the mandate has to apply to all businesses of every size, even a mom & pop operation with 1 or 2 part-time employees. So they drew the line at 100 employees.

Last year my son's university required weekly testing from all students who lived within a certain radius of the university, even if all their classes were online and they had no intention of being on campus. For such a large organization, it's just too difficult to try to assess thousands of individual students' circumstances on a case by case basis, so it was simpler to just mandate it for everyone who lives within a somewhat arbitrarily-chosen distance, since some students within that radius were likely to be on campus at some point for some reason. It was inconvenient for the students who never did go on campus, but it helped protect those who lived, worked, or attended classes there, and who were tested regularly, from being infected by untested people from off campus.

[KSera]

2 hours ago, Bootsie said:

The federal government can require people to be vaccinated for certain activities.  The federal government cannot have a general requirement that citizens be vaccinated.  That is a much different thing.  I think some in the government would like a way to require people to vaccinate and are looking for a backdoor way of doing so.

I feel like this whole conversation keeps taking place as if we weren't in the middle of a public health emergency. I wouldn't support or see a reason for this level of regulation in usual times, but we're not in usual times, and that does call for different decision making. We don't expect that in war time the government is going to govern the same way as in peace (draft, rationing, curfews), and I don't expect it during this emergency either. This pandemic has had a grave impact on our country, and it is in our country's interest to do what we need to to get things back to normal as soon as we can, which means that's part of the responsibility of our government. Getting as many people vaccinated as possible is in the national interest. They are doing that within the bounds of the law.

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Secondly- immunity should be considered just as good if it is just as good or better.  My dd2 has been vacced, was thinking she would get the third vaccine, but got sick.  Whether she had COVID this last time (she was tested 4 times all negative) or some previous time (she did have it in Dec), our doctor tested her for antibodies and she had super high antibodies last month.  She is not getting a third vaccine.  If someone never was vaccinated but had super high antibodies like my dd, they really should not be getting vaccinated and are as protected as the rest of us.

I do think we need to figure out how to have past infection figure into all this. I think this has been complicated by the fact that it's a harder to thing to figure out, but if people could meet the requirement by having a certain antibody level, I would be all for that (though I disagree that there would be a harm in someone with high antibodies getting a vaccine--we haven't seen any indication that is the case).

Edited October 13, 2021 by KSera
ridiculous typo

[KSera]

8 hours ago, Spy Car said:

Bruce Patterson is a quack who is ripping people off. He did the same with HIV and cancer.

Please stop pushing his bogus (and expensive) fake long-haul treatments. This is a con-job. More Ivermectin nonsense.

Bill

 

2 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

But she didn't mention Ivermectin.  Was it the cytokine thing that made you think of that person?

I kept being thrown how we went from HBOT to Ivermectin and Bruce Patterson as well, so finally had to go back to see where that came from. I thought SpyCar's above post was about HBOT, since that was the main topic of the post it was in reply to, but reading it again, I think he's replying to the mention of a covid longhaulers group and that's what the jumping off point was. I would guess Bruce Patterson must have something to do with that group, maybe?

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, TechWife said:

Vaccines are known to reduce and prevent the transmission of illness between members of the workforce and the general public that they may come in contact with in the course of their work day and on their way to and from the workplace. 

But this regulation is not based upon preventing the transmission of illness between members of a workforce who are working together or working with the general public.  It is regulating workers, even if they do not come into contact with any other human in the workplace.  It also does nothing to protect the health of employees who do not come into contact with co-workers but come into contact with suppliers and customers.  And I am not aware of OSHA extending to protection of the general public of someone traveling to and from the workplace.  Is that part of OSHAs responsibility?

[Bootsie]

48 minutes ago, Moonhawk said:

Wait wait wait. Did I miss something? Everyone here that is against this "mandate" keeps saying it's forcing employees to be vaccinated, "forcing them to put something into their body" etc. But it's vaccinate or weekly test. (I know federal rules/contractors are different, but we are talking about the OSHA requirements so I don't think that's the situation being discussed here)

That OR keeps getting left out of conversations and when the news first came out I thought it was just unfamiliarity with a new mandate. But at this point, when that "or" gets dropped off, I don't know what to think. Do people think it doesn't matter? Or does it just steal thunder from the objections?

To me,it doesn't change the conversation becuase it is putting a burden on employers that is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  OSHA is about workplace safety and should be limited to workplace issues, with any regulation tied to workplace risk and exposure.  OSHA should not be used for public health policy.  Employers should not be responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government.  

 

[fairfarmhand]

3 hours ago, SKL said:

If I as an employer want to influence people to vaccinate, I need more flexibility to do it in a way that makes sense.  Maybe an incentive rather than a threat.  And targeted to the occupations involving the greater risk of catching and spreading Covid.  Or if I'm gonna fire people, let me do it on my own timetable, so I have the opportunity to transition the work, continue customer care, and help employees transition to their new situation.  Or let me decide to put some people on remote duty until cases are lower.  Please don't pretend you're doing businesses a favor by tying their hands like this.

I know of employers who are handling it like this:

anyone exposed has to either be vaccinated, in which case they can stay at work.

if not vaccinated, employees can have proof of negative covid test 3 days after exposure. They have to use their own vacation days for this 3 days. If positive they stay home for 10 days or negative covid test. 
 

employees who do not have vacation days keep their jobs but don’t get paid.

this has incentivized vaccination. Nobody wants to use all their leave for this. It’s a large organization with several hundred people. They WILL be exposed at work, many already have. 
 

eta: it’s not perfect. But it’s a decent alternative.

Edited October 13, 2021 by fairfarmhand

[LMD]

16 minutes ago, KSera said:

I feel like this whole conversation keeps taking place as if we weren't in the middle of a public health emergency. I wouldn't support or see a reason for this level of regulation in usual times, but we're not in usual times, and that does call for different decision making. We don't expect that in war time the government is going to govern the same way as in peace (draft, rationing, curfews), and I don't expect it during this emergency either. This pandemic has had a grave impact on our country, and it is in our country's interest to do what we need to to get things back to normal as soon as I can, which means that's part of the responsibility of our government. Getting as many people vaccinated as possible is in the national interest. They are doing that within the bounds of the law.

I do think we need to figure out how to have past infection figure into all this. I think this has been complicated by the fact that it's a harder to thing to figure out, but if people could meet the requirement by having a certain antibody level, I would be all for that (though I disagree that there would be a harm in someone with high antibodies getting a vaccine--we haven't seen any indication that is the case).

My bold. I don't disagree. But our values,  as enshrined in the human rights charter, should be especially important in an emergency, I feel like we should have learned by now that that's an unambiguous line. 

eta - I think I'll bow out now because the us situation atm seems different to ours

Edited October 13, 2021 by LMD

[Spy Car]

7 minutes ago, KSera said:

 

I kept being thrown how we went from HBOT to Ivermectin and Bruce Patterson as well, so finally had to go back to see where that came from. I thought SpyCar's above post was about HBOT, since that was the main topic of the post it was in reply to, but reading it again, I think he's replying to the mention of a covid longhaulers group and that's what the jumping off point was. I would guess Bruce Patterson must have something to do with that group, maybe?

Yes, Bruce Patterson monetizes and heads up the so-called long haulers group that was alluded to earlier. He's gotten many direct links here already.

It is a scam.

Bill

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

To me,it doesn't change the conversation becuase it is putting a burden on employers that is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  OSHA is about workplace safety and should be limited to workplace issues, with any regulation tied to workplace risk and exposure.  OSHA should not be used for public health policy.  Employers should not be responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government.  

 

So OSHA shouldn't have lead paint rules?

[Bootsie]

41 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If vitamin deficiencies and general flabbiness were contagious, maybe you'd have a point. But they're not, so you don't.

But, they increase the risk that I contract COVID if I am exposed.  Thus, they increase the risk that I am a vector for the virus.  The vaccine reduces the risk that I am contagious.  Eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, getting enough rest, exercise, and other things also reduce the risk that I am contagious.  

If we want to penalize someone for an individual not being vaccinated, fine that individual--make them pay the cost you want to impose.  It makes no sense to fine someone who is not the decision-maker.  I think that is the poster's point. 

[Bootsie]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

So OSHA shouldn't have lead paint rules?

OSHA should not fine an employer if an employee has lead paint in their home.  If there is lead paint in the employer-provided workplace, the employer has control over the decision to remove the lead paint.  

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

OSHA should not fine an employer if an employee has lead paint in their home.  If there is lead paint in the employer-provided workplace, the employer has control over the decision to remove the lead paint.  

This isn't about lead paint (or the equivalent) in the employee's home but in the workplace. If they KNOW employees are contaminated and do nothing to prevent it being sprinkled around their other employees (for example, with remediation work). We've seen the data about transmission through workplace ventilation systems. That's a known hazard/risk. We mandate disclosure of lead paint risks. We mandate remediation when it's disturbed (both for the home's residents and any workers involved in remediation). This seems more like the remediation work to me.

Edited October 13, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Corraleno]

8 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But, they increase the risk that I contract COVID if I am exposed.  Thus, they increase the risk that I am a vector for the virus.  The vaccine reduces the risk that I am contagious.  Eating a healthy diet, maintaining a healthy weight, getting enough rest, exercise, and other things also reduce the risk that I am contagious.  

I'm aware that those factors reduce the risk of severe illness once an individual is infected, but I have not seen studies indicating that they actually prevent infection if exposed. I would love to see the data, if you can link that.

[Spy Car]

21 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

To me,it doesn't change the conversation becuase it is putting a burden on employers that is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  OSHA is about workplace safety and should be limited to workplace issues, with any regulation tied to workplace risk and exposure.  OSHA should not be used for public health policy.  Employers should not be responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government.  

 

Covid is in the workplace.

Bill

 

[TechWife]

17 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

To me,it doesn't change the conversation becuase it is putting a burden on employers that is, in my opinion, inappropriate.  OSHA is about workplace safety and should be limited to workplace issues, with any regulation tied to workplace risk and exposure.  OSHA should not be used for public health policy.  Employers should not be responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government.  

 

At its core, our disagreement is whether or not Covid is a workplace safety issue. It may include a misunderstanding on your part as to the purpose of vaccination as a whole, I am not sure. If presence in the workplace increases risk of illness or injury at any level, then it is a workplace issue. The number of people who works for companies of over 100 employees that never, ever see another living soul during their work day is likely minuscule. 

No matter what you think about it, employers are responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government. It’s been that way for quite a long time and it isn’t likely to change anytime soon. if you’d like to spearhead a court challenge to that, go right ahead, but my common sense tells me that if such a challenge hasn’t already failed, then a current one is sure to do so. 

[Bootsie]

3 minutes ago, TechWife said:

At its core, our disagreement is whether or not Covid is a workplace safety issue. It may include a misunderstanding on your part as to the purpose of vaccination as a whole, I am not sure. If presence in the workplace increases risk of illness or injury at any level, then it is a workplace issue. The number of people who works for companies of over 100 employees that never, ever see another living soul during their work day is likely minuscule. 

No matter what you think about it, employers are responsible for implementing public health policies for the federal government. It’s been that way for quite a long time and it isn’t likely to change anytime soon. if you’d like to spearhead a court challenge to that, go right ahead, but my common sense tells me that if such a challenge hasn’t already failed, then a current one is sure to do so. 

What public health policy--a policy that is really meant for public health--curently comes under OSHA and employer have a fine imposed upon them?  Perhaps I am unaware of any OSHA enforced regulations which are primarily in place for public health rather than workplace related.  I would be happy to learn more about any that you are aware of.  

This regulation has NOTHING to do with presence in the workplace.  I know a number of people who work for employers ranging form education providers, publishers, marketing firms, and other types of companies who have never been in the same building as other employees of the company despite the fact that the company has over 100 employees.  Would it be reasonable for a company to face an OSHA fine because a worker sitting at their computer in their own home has lead paint on an old piece of furniture?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine because an employee working from home had an extension cord acrross the room that was not secured?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine becaue an employee did not have a fireproof door in their home?  

[Sneezyone]

4 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What public health policy--a policy that is really meant for public health--curently comes under OSHA and employer have a fine imposed upon them?  Perhaps I am unaware of any OSHA enforced regulations which are primarily in place for public health rather than workplace related.  I would be happy to learn more about any that you are aware of.  

This regulation has NOTHING to do with presence in the workplace.  I know a number of people who work for employers ranging form education providers, publishers, marketing firms, and other types of companies who have never been in the same building as other employees of the company despite the fact that the company has over 100 employees.  Would it be reasonable for a company to face an OSHA fine because a worker sitting at their computer in their own home has lead paint on an old piece of furniture?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine because an employee working from home had an extension cord acrross the room that was not secured?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine becaue an employee did not have a fireproof door in their home?  

The lead paint rules advance public health policy. They are connected. The OSHA rules on air quality (respirator use) advance public health policy. They are connected. It's impossible to separate public health goals from workplace safety regulation just as you cannot separate public health goals from transportation safety rules (seatbelts anyone?). This whole conversation is bonkers tho because OSHA is *****NOT***** requiring vaccination. Employers are. OSHA rules ONLY require mitigation (either testing or vaccination).

Edited October 13, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Spy Car]

2 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What public health policy--a policy that is really meant for public health--curently comes under OSHA and employer have a fine imposed upon them?  Perhaps I am unaware of any OSHA enforced regulations which are primarily in place for public health rather than workplace related.  I would be happy to learn more about any that you are aware of.  

This regulation has NOTHING to do with presence in the workplace.  I know a number of people who work for employers ranging form education providers, publishers, marketing firms, and other types of companies who have never been in the same building as other employees of the company despite the fact that the company has over 100 employees.  Would it be reasonable for a company to face an OSHA fine because a worker sitting at their computer in their own home has lead paint on an old piece of furniture?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine because an employee working from home had an extension cord acrross the room that was not secured?  Would it be reasonable for a firm to face an OSHA fine becaue an employee did not have a fireproof door in their home?  

The regulation has everything to do with Covid being in the workplace.

We are in a public health emergency.

If people automatically did the right thing we would not need laws, rules, and regulations.

Bill

[Melissa in Australia]

5 hours ago, wathe said:

Using to jump off:

And that vaccine passport programs and government employee mandates and other mandates that have been discussed in this thread and elsewhere on the board all have exemptions for those with legit medical or religious contraindications to the vaccine.  I haven't seen one that doesn't.

Edited for word choice

Victoria, Australia doesn't. 

People with religious reasons can go on unpaid leave. The medical reasons are extremely limited. 

No jab, not allowed to work, unless strangely you are federally employed. They are exempted from the mandated vax

[Guest]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

Oh lucky him, he has a virtual option.  My work-at-home friend does not.  It's inject or eject.

Actually, he doesn’t this year, due to certain lab classes required for his major. The larger point holds, though; there are 100% online colleges, which someone could take if they were committed to not getting this vaccine. 
 

What I am saying (though the point doesn’t seem to get much notice) is that that was already true for a *bunch* of vaccines in the past. Freshmen year: couldn’t live in the dorms unless you had meningitis vaccine. Not to mention high school, summer camp, places he worked and sports teams he could not be on until he had all his scheduled vaxes. 
 

There is nothing new about this requirement. If you have a dog as a pet in my state, you MUST get the dog vaccinated for rabies. Even if you have a five-pound chihuahua who never goes more than four feet from your door for ten minutes, that dog is legally required to be vaccinated for rabies. And if you ever need to board your dog at a facility, they will not let them in the door without an up to date bordatella (kennel cough) vax. 
 

So that’s what I really don’t understand. Vaccination requirements are nothing new *at all*. And the weird part is, for political persuasion, I think more of the anti-vax sentiment through the nineties and early 2000s was held much more on the left; it was the Republican constituency who largely did not resist or question vaccines. 

[Spy Car]

8 minutes ago, Melissa in Australia said:

Victoria, Australia doesn't. 

People with religious reasons can go on unpaid leave. The medical reasons are extremely limited. 

No jab, not allowed to work, unless strangely you are federally employed. They are exempted from the mandated vax

Sounds like they have it right in Victoria.

There are almost no legitimate medical grounds for not vaccinating and nearly all the "pre-existing conditions" that people claim as a reason not to vaccinate actually put those people at a huge risk from getting Covid (and almost none from the vaccines).

And religious exemptions are completely bogus.

Even Christian Science embraces vaccinations as being part of the commandment to love one's neighbor as one's self.

No major religion opposes vaccinations on theological grounds. On the contrary, there is a duty to protect life.

No jab, no job is the right way to go. Those people can stay home and not spread this deadly illness to others.

Bill

Edited October 13, 2021 by Spy Car

[Melissa in Australia]

59 minutes ago, LMD said:

My bold. I don't disagree. But our values,  as enshrined in the human rights charter, should be especially important in an emergency, I feel like we should have learned by now that that's an unambiguous line. 

eta - I think I'll bow out now because the us situation atm seems different to ours

Thank you

[Bootsie]

5 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

The lead paint rules advance public health policy. They are connected. The OSHA rules on air quality (respirator use) advance public health policy. They are connected. It's impossible to separate public health goals from workplace safety regulation just as you cannot separate public health goals from transportation safety rules (seatbelts anyone?). This whole conversation is bonkers tho because OSHA is *****NOT***** requiring vaccination. Employers are. OSHA rules ONLY require mitigation (either testing or vaccination).

I woud agree that lead paint policies are related to public health if pubic health is being defined as preventing disease.  In this discussion, it has sounded to me as people are using this term to refer to contagious disease and the public health concerns over one person infecting another person.  I think that OSHA protecting workers from the health risk of lead paint in the work place is reasonable.  I think the starting place for that is much different than "We want to reduce COVID in society, to do that we want people vaccinated, to do that we fine employers if their workers aren't vaccinated".  That is not fining firms for exposure that stems from the workplace.  That would be the same as fining employers for workers who do not eat a healthy diet, who do not exercise, or who do not get enough sleep because there are disease related issue with those worker behaviors.  

I would also say that it would be inappropriate for the Department of Transportation to have authority over fining drivers who are not vaccinated (or have not tested).  Although the Department of Transportation his concerned about traffic safety (and public health) that responsibility does not extend to vaccination status for the public health issue.  The person driving may stop and get gasoline; they may need to call a wrecker, they may need to go into a tire shop, or they may be driving to a place where they will be around other humans.  But, the Dept of Transportation shouldn't be charged with enforcing vaccine and COVID testing on drivers (and especially not on a third party such as the gas station)

[Sneezyone]

1 minute ago, Bootsie said:

I woud agree that lead paint policies are related to public health if pubic health is being defined as preventing disease.  In this discussion, it has sounded to me as people are using this term to refer to contagious disease and the public health concerns over one person infecting another person.  I think that OSHA protecting workers from the health risk of lead paint in the work place is reasonable.  I think the starting place for that is much different than "We want to reduce COVID in society, to do that we want people vaccinated, to do that we fine employers if their workers aren't vaccinated".  That is not fining firms for exposure that stems from the workplace.  That would be the same as fining employers for workers who do not eat a healthy diet, who do not exercise, or who do not get enough sleep because there are disease related issue with those worker behaviors.  

I would also say that it would be inappropriate for the Department of Transportation to have authority over fining drivers who are not vaccinated (or have not tested).  Although the Department of Transportation his concerned about traffic safety (and public health) that responsibility does not extend to vaccination status for the public health issue.  The person driving may stop and get gasoline; they may need to call a wrecker, they may need to go into a tire shop, or they may be driving to a place where they will be around other humans.  But, the Dept of Transportation shouldn't be charged with enforcing vaccine and COVID testing on drivers (and especially not on a third party such as the gas station)

I don't think the bolded is the sense through which decision-makers are working tho. You can also reach the conclusion that 'encourage vaccine or routine testing' is the right approach by adopting a 'protecting workers' lens. DOT cares about public health in so far as it effects transportation (for example, alcohol use and speed limits). So too is OSHA concerned with transmission in the workplace. The alternative testing regime provides employers and out. That they are choosing not to go that route is THEIR choice, not OSHA's and not the feds.