I feel so frustrated about people refusing vaccination…

[TechWife]

17 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?  

By definition, workplaces are communities and as such are part of the public health realm. Because it regulates workplace health and safety, quite a few public health measures are enforced by OSHA. other regulatory agencies develop and enforce public health policy as well - the FDA, CMS and USDA are three that immediately come to  my mind. Many of their regulations are enforced by private employers. 

You may not be aware of the scope of what is considered public health. Here’s a good starting place definition- 
 

Public health is the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities. This work is achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing and responding to infectious diseases. Overall, public health is concerned with protecting the health of entire populations. These populations can be as small as a local neighborhood, or as big as an entire country or region of the world.

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/what-public-health
 

 

[Bootsie]

50 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

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.

https://www.uchicagomedicine.org/forefront/coronavirus-disease-covid-19/vitamin-d-covid-study

Here is some information that suggests Vit D levels lower the risk of being infected.  I have not gone through all of it.  I would think it is reasonable to believe that healthier people, with healthier immune systems, are more likely to be able to fight an infection if exposed.  Also, if those with milder infections have a lower viral load, and thus, have a lower chance of spreading disease, then all of these factors that promote milder infection would then also help prevent spread.  

One thing that isn't clear to me, however, is one is actually considered "infected"--whether it is at the point of having the virus enter the body, enter into a cell, having the virus replicate, or having the virus be able to leave the cell.  I would think that would be an important definition if one is going to talk aobut preventing infection or preventing severity of infection.

[TechWife]

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

But, they increase the risk that I contract COVID if I am exposed. 

Unless I’ve missed something, which is quite possible, these “risk factors” don’t increase your risk of contracting COVID if you are exposed. Rather, they increase the risk of serious complications from the COVID virus if you do contract the virus. 

[Bootsie]

 

5 minutes ago, TechWife said:

By definition, workplaces are communities and as such are part of the public health realm. Because it regulates workplace health and safety, quite a few public health measures are enforced by OSHA. other regulatory agencies develop and enforce public health policy as well - the FDA, CMS and USDA are three that immediately come to  my mind. Many of their regulations are enforced by private employers. 

You may not be aware of the scope of what is considered public health. Here’s a good starting place definition- 
 

Public health is the science of protecting and improving the health of people and their communities. This work is achieved by promoting healthy lifestyles, researching disease and injury prevention, and detecting, preventing and responding to infectious diseases. Overall, public health is concerned with protecting the health of entire populations. These populations can be as small as a local neighborhood, or as big as an entire country or region of the world.

https://www.cdcfoundation.org/what-public-health
 

 

Yes, it helps to be clear on definitions.  With this definition of public health, OSHA is not charged with implementing public health initiatives.  OSHA does not fine employers if their employees do not follow healthy lifestyle suggestions.  Just because some of OSHA's jurisditction deals with items that can be classified as "public health" does not give OSHA the authority over any and all public health issues.  COVID is primarily a public health issue; it is not primarily a workplace issue. 

[TechWife]

16 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I woud agree that lead paint policies are related to public health if pubic health is being defined as preventing disease.  

This may be the sticking point - see my post from a few minutes ago that includes a definition of what public health actually is. Public health is a broad umbrella and most see it as such because the word “health” encompasses much more than one thing and “public” is not defined exclusively as “everyone.” 

[Moonhawk]

10 minutes 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.  

It seems that if OSHA is only allowed, in your view, to deal with making a safe work environment, then this would fall under that.

Those other scenarios I bolded from your quote seem to be either strawman or false equivalence, since not eating a healthy diet, not exercising, and not getting enough sleep are not contagious and do not put your coworkers in danger. The false equivalence comes in because they can indirectly affect your job performance, but not directly endanger your coworkers. So it's not necessary to address the cause of the lack of performance, just the performance itself. In a contagion situation, however, that IS the danger that needs to be addressed.

We are not mandating that anyone who works in a certain environment can't go clubbing or eat in a indoor restaurant, which would be a more parallel example to your healthy diet and exercise fining scenario. 

[TechWife]

6 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

 

Yes, it helps to be clear on definitions.  With this definition of public health, OSHA is not charged with implementing public health initiatives.  OSHA does not fine employers if their employees do not follow healthy lifestyle suggestions.  Just because some of OSHA's jurisditction deals with items that can be classified as "public health" does not give OSHA the authority over any and all public health issues.  COVID is primarily a public health issue; it is not primarily a workplace issue. 

Public health concerns communities of all shapes, sizes, compositions, locations and purposes. Most, if not all of us are simultaneously part of more than one community.  OSHA puts regulations into place for communities that are commonly called “the workplace.” Many of these regulations prevent injury, which is one of the areas considered, by definition, to be public health. Therefore, employers are already enforcing public health measures and are being held responsible through a fine structure as well as potentially the criminal Justice system and the civil courts.

I don’t think I can explain it more plainly than this. It is what it is. You don’t have to think that a workplace falls under or should fall under the purview of public health, but the fact of the matter is that the workplace IS the purview of public health.  Your opinion or preference doesn’t change the fact of the matter. 

[Spy Car]

1 hour 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

Our values should be to protect human life and not to act as domestic biological terrorists who fan the pandemic.

Anti-vaxxers have very skewed ethics and little understanding of human rights as far as I can tell. 

Bill

[mumof6]

Speaking as someone who has had Covid and long Covid….

I joined a Facebook group for long haulers as I wasn’t getting better after a few months of rest, etc. Many of the members of the group had been marathon runners, kindergarten teachers, flight attendants, paramedics, professional athletes. People in top physical condition - not obese or with underlying health conditions. They could no longer even walk around the block. One lady in a wheelchair, when she ran marathons before getting Covid. So many tragic stories- broken marriages, having to sell the house as they can’t work.

A lot of people in the group have expressed that they felt lied to, “Just take your vitamins.” I was spouting that too and taking vitamin C and D before I got infected. I took zinc, B complex, etc as well. What helped was silver and probiotics, but mainly the physio who helped with the inflammation in my diaphragm and lungs.

We feel we can control sickness and disease by being as healthy as possible. I think it does help. But Covid is no respecter of persons and has brought down so many. The fatigue, brain fog, heart and lung issues….. And kids are dealing with this as well! I feel blessed I am as well as I am.
 

You don’t want this. Please get vaccinated.

[LMD]

4 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Our values should be to protect human life and not to act as domestic biological terrorists who fan the pandemic.

Anti-vaxxers have very skewed ethics and little understanding of human rights as far as I can tell. 

Bill

ignoring your deliberately baiting and inflammatory language...

how far are you willing to go to do this? How many human rights violations are okay with you, what's your line in the sand? We should think very carefully before deciding we are ready to ignore the human rights charter for those *insert group of people*

Maybe your country is finding a good balance, I hope so. I wouldn't presume to think I know better than it's own citizens.

[Sneezyone]

9 minutes ago, LMD said:

ignoring your deliberately baiting and inflammatory language...

how far are you willing to go to do this? How many human rights violations are okay with you, what's your line in the sand? We should think very carefully before deciding we are ready to ignore the human rights charter for those *insert group of people*

Maybe your country is finding a good balance, I hope so. I wouldn't presume to think I know better than it's own citizens.

In general, the U.S. version of 'human rights' doesn't line up well with the rest of the world. We aren't a party to the global human rights charter either so that's irrelevant. We incarcerate children, allow corporal punishment in schools, execute the mentally ill/incapacitated, have no 'actual innocence' provision for writs of habeas corpus, and are awash in guns/homicides. We've lost nearly 700K souls to COVID. We don't have a good balance but the balance we do have is NOT in favor of human rights (as understood globally).

Edited October 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[Spy Car]

10 minutes ago, LMD said:

ignoring your deliberately baiting and inflammatory language...

how far are you willing to go to do this? How many human rights violations are okay with you, what's your line in the sand? We should think very carefully before deciding we are ready to ignore the human rights charter for those *insert group of people*

Maybe your country is finding a good balance, I hope so. I wouldn't presume to think I know better than it's own citizens.

I'm not willing to violate any human rights.

Those who refuse to vaccinate should not be allowed to enter public spaces where they can spread a deadly disease. Stay home.

People don't have the right to drive drunk. Nor do they have the right to spread a deadly disease.

Those who opt out of doing the right thing can quarantine until the threat passes. But they can't take away other people's rights by willfully spreading Covid. That's unprincipled and unethical behavior.

Simple.

Bill

 

[Bootsie]

20 minutes ago, TechWife said:

Public health concerns communities of all shapes, sizes, compositions, locations and purposes. Most, if not all of us are simultaneously part of more than one community.  OSHA puts regulations into place for communities that are commonly called “the workplace.” Many of these regulations prevent injury, which is one of the areas considered, by definition, to be public health. Therefore, employers are already enforcing public health measures and are being held responsible through a fine structure as well as potentially the criminal Justice system and the civil courts.

I don’t think I can explain it more plainly than this. It is what it is. You don’t have to think that a workplace falls under or should fall under the purview of public health, but the fact of the matter is that the workplace IS the purview of public health.  Your opinion or preference doesn’t change the fact of the matter. 

I don't think think you need to explain anything to me.  I don't think the issue is my lack of understanding.  OSHA standards are about enforcing health and safety standards in the workplace, many of which have impacts that fall under a broad umbrellla of "public health".  That does not then give OSHA regulatory power over anything and everything that is public health.  We can disagree on exactly where the line should be drawn.  

Generally, OSHA follows a standards-setting procedure.  This is not part of that standards-setting procedure.  It is part of the White House COVID action plan.  Yes, Emergeny Temporary Standards can be implemented, which this falls under.  This appears, to me, to be an issue of the White House wanting to implement public health policy through OSHA, rather than NIOSH, workers, or some other entity brining a workplace safety issue to OSHA.   

[LMD]

2 minutes ago, Sneezyone said:

In general, the U.S. version of 'human rights' doesn't line up well with the rest of the world. We aren't a party to the global human rights charter either so that's irrelevant. We incarcerate children, allow corporal punishment in schools, execute the mentally ill/incapacitated, have no 'actual innocence' provision for writs of habeas corpus, and are awash in guns/homicides. We've lost nearly 700K souls to COVID. We don't have a good balance but the balance we do have is NOT in favor of human rights (as understood globally).

okay, fair enough

And I expect that many US citizens keep watch and speak out against those issues.

My state does have a human rights charter, called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. It includes, amongst other things: "A person must not be subjected to medical treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent."

I don’t have to be, and am not, an anti-vaxxer to be keeping a concerned eye on a government that keeps extending its state of emergency powers to override the human rights charter and coerce consent. I don't think that's unreasonable.

[Sneezyone]

5 minutes ago, LMD said:

okay, fair enough

And I expect that many US citizens keep watch and speak out against those issues.

My state does have a human rights charter, called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. It includes, amongst other things: "A person must not be subjected to medical treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent."

I don’t have to be, and am not, an anti-vaxxer to be keeping a concerned eye on a government that keeps extending its state of emergency powers to override the human rights charter and coerce consent. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Unfortunately, the supremacy clause means that any state charter in the area of human rights is limited only to the residents of that state and subject to being overridden by federal action/inaction in this area. The OSHA regulations require testing **or** vaccination. That's it.  The federal government requires its employees and contractors be vaccinated too. Some private employers are choosing vaccine mandates over testing, presumably for ease of implementation *and* worker-protection/cost-savings.  That is their right.

Edited October 14, 2021 by Sneezyone

[LMD]

In my state, in my country, the mandate does not make any provision for testing, and no provision for small business. And no provision for natural immunity. 

It does make exceptions for the judiciary though...

[SeaConquest]

13 minutes ago, LMD said:

okay, fair enough

And I expect that many US citizens keep watch and speak out against those issues.

My state does have a human rights charter, called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. It includes, amongst other things: "A person must not be subjected to medical treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent."

I don’t have to be, and am not, an anti-vaxxer to be keeping a concerned eye on a government that keeps extending its state of emergency powers to override the human rights charter and coerce consent. I don't think that's unreasonable.

Bwahahahaha. We don't even care when people blow away kids in schools. 

Edited October 14, 2021 by SeaConquest

[Sneezyone]

2 minutes ago, LMD said:

In my state, in my country, the mandate does not make any provision for testing, and no provision for small business. And no provision for natural immunity. 

It does make exceptions for the judiciary though...

Yeah, I should have added that the regulations only apply to employers with more than 100 employees too. This is a whole lot of hoopla, IMO, for nothing.

[BronzeTurtle]

28 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

I'm not willing to violate any human rights.

Those who refuse to vaccinate should not be allowed to enter public spaces where they can spread a deadly disease. Stay home.

People don't have the right to drive drunk. Nor do they have the right to spread a deadly disease.

Those who opt out of doing the right thing can quarantine until the threat passes. But they can't take away other people's rights by willfully spreading Covid. That's unprincipled and unethical behavior.

Simple.

Bill

 

Let's grant the ridiculous notion that an obviously drunk person above the legal limit choosing to drive around town is the same thing as a healthy person walking around town with no symptoms of disease but is infectious. That criminalizes having a germ with no symptoms which can happen with a lot of diseases that will kill or hospitalize people like RSV and the flu. But okay, premise granted.


Why is vaccination the standard here when we know vaccinated people can still spread covid without symptoms? I know the period of contagiousness is shorter for vaccinated people, but it's still there, and I am much less likely to have noticeable symptoms as a vaccinated person to know to stay home if I'm in that period.
 

Edited October 14, 2021 by BronzeTurtle

[Spy Car]

14 minutes ago, LMD said:

okay, fair enough

And I expect that many US citizens keep watch and speak out against those issues.

My state does have a human rights charter, called the Charter of Human Rights and Responsibilities Act 2006. It includes, amongst other things: "A person must not be subjected to medical treatment without his or her full, free and informed consent."

I don’t have to be, and am not, an anti-vaxxer to be keeping a concerned eye on a government that keeps extending its state of emergency powers to override the human rights charter and coerce consent. I don't think that's unreasonable.

None of that says that people have a right to cause harm to others (including causing death).

There is no right to spread a deadly illness during a pandemic.

The pressing human rights issue is to protect individuals from these willing vectors of disease.

This pandemic is one driven my the unvaccinated at this point. Those who refuse to vaccinate are the ones who are trampling on the human rights of others.

How do you not see that?

How you also oppose mandatory mask wearing in public spaces? How far do you take enabling Covid to spread without taking reasonable counter measures?

Bill

[Melissa in Australia]

You are off your rocker Bill

 

[Spy Car]

3 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Let's grant the ridiculous notion that an obviously drunk person above the legal limit choosing to drive around town is the same thing as a healthy person walking around town with no symptoms of disease but is infectious. That criminalizes having a germ with no symptoms which can happen with a lot of diseases that will kill or hospitalize people like RSV and the flu. But okay, premise granted.


Why is vaccination the standard here when we know vaccinated people can still spread covid without symptoms? I know the period of contagiousness is shorter for vaccinated people, but it's still there, and I am much less likely to have noticeable symptoms as a vaccinated person to know to stay home if I'm in that period.
 

If antibodies are high it cuts the rate of infection and infectiousness. 

We need to take multipronged measure to tame this pandemic and to keep the healthcare system from breaking.

Right now the unvaccinated are drinking the spread of this illness and they are the ones overwhelming hospitals and those who are dying.

It is irresponsible and reckless behavior. Not behavior that's back by lofty principles or good ethics. Just the opposite.

Bill

 

 

[Spy Car]

Just now, Melissa in Australia said:

You are off your rocker Bill

 

Not at all. Those on Team Covid put lives at risk.

You have the situation entirely backwards.

Bill

[Melissa in Australia]

5 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Not at all. Those on Team Covid put lives at risk.

You have the situation entirely backwards.

Bill

You have not the slightest understanding on what is happening here. It is FULLY VACCINATED people here in Victoria who are saying the government has crossed a line. Very soon we will be amongst the HIGHET VACCINATED places in the world. 

[Melissa in Australia]

8 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

Not at all. Those on Team Covid put lives at risk.

You have the situation entirely backwards.

Bill

You have not the slightest understanding on what is happening here. It is FULLY VACCINATED people here in Victoria who are saying the government has crossed a line. Very soon we will be amongst the HIGHEST VACCINATED places in the world. 

Vaccine hesitancy was never the problem, rather supply of vaccine. But now people, mostly in the younger age groups, who have only very recently been open for getti g vaccinated will not be able to meet the tomorrow deadline. And will no longer be able to work

Edited October 14, 2021 by Melissa in Australia

[LMD]

Calling human beings 'willing vectors of disease' is unhinged.

I have never opposed masks. I don't oppose the vaccine.

I do oppose using an emergency to create a class of people to dehumanise and strip of their human rights, that is an instinct I will always oppose. Holding a government to it's own laws is surely not controversial.

[Spy Car]

Just now, Melissa in Australia said:

You have not the slightest understanding on what is happening here. It is FULLY VACCINATED people here in Victoria who are saying the government has crossed a line. Very soon we will be amongst the HIGHET VACCINATED places in the world. 

The neo-Nazis and other far-right nutters are leading the anti-vaxx protests in Victoria.

Who are you trying to fool?

You have your ethics and morality exactly backwards.

Anti-vaxxers have no "right" to willfully spread death and disease.

Bill

 

 

[Spy Car]

Just now, LMD said:

Calling human beings 'willing vectors of disease' is unhinged.

I have never opposed masks. I don't oppose the vaccine.

I do oppose using an emergency to create a class of people to dehumanise and strip of their human rights, that is an instinct I will always oppose. Holding a government to it's own laws is surely not controversial.

No. Not getting a safe and effective vaccine when millions are dying is what is unhinged.

Serious unhinged.

You are on the wrong side of morality.

Bill

[wathe]

2 hours 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

Medical exemptions are narrow here too, but they exist.  I had a look at your legislation.  The list of medical exemptions is very similar to ours.

 It's interesting that you also have exemptions for emergency situations.  We do not.

Like you, we do not have a testing option.

I'm interested to hear that there are places without religious exemptions.  Here they are very, very narrow, but they exist.  Your Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Commission (which seems to be a government agency?)seems to suggest that  exemption for religious belief (but not for personal or philosophical belief) would be defensible in court.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Though I don't think that there are any mainstream religions that formally object to this vaccine, so maybe TPTB felt that including it as an exemption wasn't necessary..

[LMD]

I have literally said, multiple time now, that I'm not against the vaccine?????

I hope all that self righteousness makes you feel safe Bill. I hope you don't ever find yourself on the wrong side of government imposed morality.

[Spy Car]

6 minutes ago, LMD said:

I have literally said, multiple time now, that I'm not against the vaccine?????

I hope all that self righteousness makes you feel safe Bill. I hope you don't ever find yourself on the wrong side of government imposed morality.

I won't. As I don't enable such behaviors. You can call that "self-righteous" if you chose, but we have a duty to our fellow humans IMO. Can't believe that's a controversial proposition in some quarters.

We need protection from those who recklessly put people in harm's way. That the role of a just government. Always has been.

Bill

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by Spy Car

[wathe]

Adding to my post above:

I should be clear that our Canadian vaccine mandates are more patchwork and less sweeping than the Australian and US examples.

In my province, we have a provincial passport system for non-essential services (movie theatres, concerts, sporting events, meeting spaces)

We have a multiple separate mandates for provincial health care workers - the one for hospital workers a separate order than the one for long-term care workers.

We have a separate mandate for federal workers that's in prgress

And a separate mandate for travel on planes and trains and marine vessels, also in progress and not yet fully implemented.  

there are probably others in other provinces that I don't know about.

 

Edited for clarity

Edited October 14, 2021 by wathe

[Sneezyone]

Just now, wathe said:

Adding to my post above:

I should be clear that our vaccine mandates are more patchwork and less sweeping than the Australian and US examples.

We have a provincial passport system for non-essential services (movie theatres, concerts, sporting events, meeting spaces)

We have a separate mandate for provincial health care workers

We have a separate mandate for federal workers that's in prgress

And a separate mandate for travel on planes and trains and marine vessels, also in progress and not yet fully implemented.

The U.S. 'system' isn't nearly as sweeping as it's been made out to be. Generally, states/localities have their own rules. When we went to NYC last week, we were required to bring our vax. ID cards for entertainment and indoor dining purposes. If we'd dined outdoors (an option everywhere we went) we wouldn't have needed the cards. Where I live, vax is only required for private employers over 100 employees *who elect that option* and fed/gov contractors/healthcare workers.

[KSera]

36 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Let's grant the ridiculous notion that an obviously drunk person above the legal limit choosing to drive around town is the same thing as a healthy person walking around town with no symptoms of disease but is infectious. That criminalizes having a germ with no symptoms which can happen with a lot of diseases that will kill or hospitalize people like RSV and the flu. But okay, premise granted.


Why is vaccination the standard here when we know vaccinated people can still spread covid without symptoms? I know the period of contagiousness is shorter for vaccinated people, but it's still there, and I am much less likely to have noticeable symptoms as a vaccinated person to know to stay home if I'm in that period.
 

Unvaccinated people are also most likely to spread while they are asymptomatic. We’ve been over that many times and it’s a red herring here. Vaccinated people are much less likely to have or spread Covid. 
 

In the case of the drunk person, more often than not, the drunk person is going to make it home without causing an accident. That doesn’t make it okay for them to take that risk. And sober people cause accidents sometimes as well, doesn’t make them as dangerous as drunk people. 
 

I’m not for anyone being forced to be vaccinated against their will. In a pandemic, that will require some limits on what one can do if not vaccinated though. Why would the decision be to set the rules to favor those who aren’t vaccinated over those who are? There isn’t a neutral decision to be made. One group or the other will be unhappy, and I can’t think of an argument that would make sense for it to be people unvaccinated (by choice) who should be the ones catered to, especially since that decision would be to the detriment of public health as well. 

[LMD]

7 minutes ago, wathe said:

Medical exemptions are narrow here too, but they exist.  I had a look at your legislation.  The list of medical exemptions is very similar to ours.

 It's interesting that you also have exemptions for emergency situations.  We do not.

Like you, we do not have a testing option.

I'm interested to hear that there are places without religious exemptions.  Here they are very, very narrow, but they exist.  Your Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Commission (which seems to be a government agency?)seems to suggest that  exemption for religious belief (but not for personal or philosophical belief) would be defensible in court.  It will be interesting to see how this plays out.  Though I don't think that there are any mainstream religions that formally object to this vaccine, so maybe TPTB felt that including it as an exemption wasn't necessary..

I'm not sure where you are wathe, is your mandate as wide as ours re authorised worker list?

are you talking about the exceptional circumstances exceptions? So far it looks like businesses are very reluctant to make use of them. A lot will depend on legal and political challenges.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human rights commission has had mixed reviews about how effective they have been, but fyi their covid info page has not been updated since the mandates and they also only talk about the Equal Opportunity act rather than the Human Rights act. Unfortunately, since a lot of this is new and unprecedented, it will probably only be sorted out through legal challenges.

[BronzeTurtle]

48 minutes ago, Spy Car said:

If antibodies are high it cuts the rate of infection and infectiousness. 

We need to take multipronged measure to tame this pandemic and to keep the healthcare system from breaking.

Right now the unvaccinated are drinking the spread of this illness and they are the ones overwhelming hospitals and those who are dying.

It is irresponsible and reckless behavior. Not behavior that's back by lofty principles or good ethics. Just the opposite.

Bill

 

 

When I look at studies like the one out of Provincetown it doesn't seem clear to me at all that the unvaccinated are the ones driving spread. Especially in crowded public spaces with high vaccination rates.

In any case, it's still not clear to me how an asymptomatic vaccinated person in a period of infectiousness isn't just as dangerous as an unvaccinated person, even if that period is shorter in a vaccinated person. But you were saying unvaccinated people should stay home and not be in public spaces. It seems that would go for everyone who could possibly spread the virus, including the vaccinated. Unless one is at a peak period of antibody production at whatever timeframe that would be, it seems like we'd all be at risk of possibly spreading the disease.

And I'm not sure that continually inducing antibodies via vaccine is the way I could go, personally, because that's a long term, indefinite prospect given global vaccine access, travel, and animal reseviors of sars2.

Oh, oops I missed a lot of other odd posts. I'm fully vaccinated, I think all who are eligible should be fully vaccinated, I'm not against masks, and not Australian, or a neo-nazi, or rightwing nutter. Hope that clears up possible issues.

Edited October 14, 2021 by BronzeTurtle

[SlowRiver]

9 minutes ago, wathe said:

Adding to my post above:

I should be clear that our Canadian vaccine mandates are more patchwork and less sweeping than the Australian and US examples.

In my province, we have a provincial passport system for non-essential services (movie theatres, concerts, sporting events, meeting spaces)

We have a multiple separate mandates for provincial health care workers - the one for hospital workers a separate order than the one for long-term care workers.

We have a separate mandate for federal workers that's in prgress

And a separate mandate for travel on planes and trains and marine vessels, also in progress and not yet fully implemented.  

there are probably others in other provinces that I don't know about.

 

Edited for clarity

 

Workplaces are also being really encouraged to have requirements across the country. Though I notice that the federal civil servants union is not quite so keen as they seemed initially. I think the penny dropped that it was potentially setting a bad precedent not to push back.

What's worth noting though is that spread doesn't seem to have been clearly averted even where vaccination rates are high, and that vaccinated people are more effective spreaders than they had hoped. It's increasingly looking like they are going to have to move to an endemic model. Once kids are vaccinated it will be more clear but at the moment that seems the most likely outcome. And so they need to be looking ahead to the end of emergency measures, when the legality of a lot of the mandates like masks and proof of vaccination will be on much shakier ground.

Which has been happening to a certain extent where I live, they are trying to begin to switch models, for example with testing or reporting on exposures, to something sustainable long term. They have had so much of their testing capacity tied up in covid other things have been going by the wayside, they are now years behind in some cancer testing. While melanoma patients are not appearing until they are far advanced and the attempts to save them are much less successful than normal. So there is a need to switch modes. But significant sectors of the public is not necessarily responding well. They've been so scared by the messaging up until now they can't deal with the idea that we are going to have to accept that covid exposures will happen and most people will be exposed over time. 

[KSera]

9 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

When I look at studies like the one out of Provincetown it doesn't seem clear to me at all that the unvaccinated are the ones driving spread. Especially in crowded public spaces with high vaccination rates.

The Provincetown case study is a very specific set of circumstances that is very unlike what is happening in most of the country. It gave interesting information, but it's almost too bad that that is where our information about vaccinated breakthrough came from originally, because that is not going to generalize to most situations.

9 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

Unless one is at a peak period of antibody production at whatever timeframe that would be, it seems like we'd all be at risk of possibly spreading the disease.

Yes, and that's why everyone should do everything they can to decrease that risk. Masking, avoiding unnecessary indoor exposures, vaccinating, etc, etc.

eta: I've seen a couple studies now indicating vaccinated people who are infected are less likely to spread than unvaccinated. I don't have time to track them all down right now, but here's a link about one that I was able to find quickly (this is good news, remember):

Vaccinated people are less likely to spread Covid, new research finds

Quote

When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine.

 

Edited October 14, 2021 by KSera

[ktgrok]

I'm sure it was said upthread, but as a reminder, in the US the main mandate is vaccine OR test, last I looked. 

 

[wathe]

30 minutes ago, LMD said:

I'm not sure where you are wathe, is your mandate as wide as ours re authorised worker list?

are you talking about the exceptional circumstances exceptions? So far it looks like businesses are very reluctant to make use of them. A lot will depend on legal and political challenges.

The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human rights commission has had mixed reviews about how effective they have been, but fyi their covid info page has not been updated since the mandates and they also only talk about the Equal Opportunity act rather than the Human Rights act. Unfortunately, since a lot of this is new and unprecedented, it will probably only be sorted out through legal challenges.

No, it's not.  Yet.  But I think it's coming - just a matter of time.

Yes, exceptional circumstances.  We do not have such an option here.

Edited October 14, 2021 by wathe

[Danae]

4 hours ago, SKL said:

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.

My BIL’s company provides every employee with two at-home test kits per week. It’s feasible if there is the will to do it.

[SlowRiver]

Schools are sending them home here soon, apparently.

The costs of it all are going to be staggering when they do the sums.

[KSera]

4 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

Schools are sending them home here soon, apparently.

The costs of it all are going to be staggering when they do the sums.

That would be fantastic. The costs have already been staggering and continuing to allow people to get sick at the current rate is far more costly than simple measures to avert illness. 

[AbcdeDooDah]

5 hours 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.   

The old “call ‘em a troll to shut ‘em up.”

Social media abounds with business owners laying people off to maintain fewer than 100 employees.  How does that help? They’re still not vaccinated and more people are out of a job. Maybe even vaccinated people.

[KSera]

40 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

When I look at studies like the one out of Provincetown it doesn't seem clear to me at all that the unvaccinated are the ones driving spread. Especially in crowded public spaces with high vaccination rates.

In any case, it's still not clear to me how an asymptomatic vaccinated person in a period of infectiousness isn't just as dangerous as an unvaccinated person, even if that period is shorter in a vaccinated person.

Well, this is coincidental timing! A new NPR article from yesterday just showed up for me about this very subject, and more encouraging news:

Breakthrough infections might not be a big transmission risk. Here's the evidence

Quote

More studies are emerging that suggest there's something different about the virus coming from a vaccinated person, something that may help prevent transmission.

Whatever it is, the University of Colorado's Kedl says it's one more reason that getting vaccinated is a good idea.

"Because you're going to be even more protected yourself. And you're going to be better off protecting other people."

Kedl says that's what you call a win-win situation.

A number of interesting research findings in the article. I hope they find this definitively. That would be super good news indeed.

[Ausmumof3]

47 minutes ago, BronzeTurtle said:

When I look at studies like the one out of Provincetown it doesn't seem clear to me at all that the unvaccinated are the ones driving spread. Especially in crowded public spaces with high vaccination rates.

In any case, it's still not clear to me how an asymptomatic vaccinated person in a period of infectiousness isn't just as dangerous as an unvaccinated person, even if that period is shorter in a vaccinated person. But you were saying unvaccinated people should stay home and not be in public spaces. It seems that would go for everyone who could possibly spread the virus, including the vaccinated. Unless one is at a peak period of antibody production at whatever timeframe that would be, it seems like we'd all be at risk of possibly spreading the disease.

And I'm not sure that continually inducing antibodies via vaccine is the way I could go, personally, because that's a long term, indefinite prospect given global vaccine access, travel, and animal reseviors of sars2.

Oh, oops I missed a lot of other odd posts. I'm fully vaccinated, I think all who are eligible should be fully vaccinated, I'm not against masks, and not Australian, or a neo-nazi, or rightwing nutter. Hope that clears up possible issues.

You are significantly less likely to be infected if vaccinated though at least in the first six months meaning there’s much less chance you are an infected carrier.  I have pretty mixed feelings about mandates especially as they’re happening in Vic right now but vaccination definitely reduces spread and reduces individuals chance of spreading. 

[Frances]

12 hours ago, Janeway said:

Although I did vaccinate, it did ruffle my feathers big-time that the government would have the nerve to step in and try to force the vaccinations to such an extreme that our tax dollars are paying for the National Guard to do jobs for nurses who probably already contracted it because they’ve been doing the job for so long. It’s so ruffled my feathers about the mandated vaccinations, that I probably would not of gotten vaccinated because of that. And I know there are a lot of people not getting vaccinated because they feel shoved in the corner and like somebody’s trying to control them. It has nothing to do with this Carlson guy that I don’t even know who he is I don’t watch him I’m not into watching talk shows or listening to them. But when the government steps in and tries to take peoples rights away from controlling their own bodies, it leaves me feeling like I need to stand up all the more for my rights. And I know that there are a lot of people that feel this way. I am not saying this to start an argument I’m just saying this to hopefully invite and some people that the forced militant damaging behaviors from the government have lead a lot of people who otherwise would’ve been vaccinated to not get vaccinated. 

The National Guard, Army, Navy, and Air Force were working at hospitals in my state well before the vaccine mandate deadlines. And the reason they were here? Overwhelm due to unvaccinated people during the Delta surge. The military presence here had nothing to do with vaccine mandates and everything to do with unvaccinated individuals needing extensive hospital care.

If you want to be upset about wasted government money, why not be upset by comparing the cost of two or three shots of the vaccine to an extensive ICU hospital stay often followed by extensive rehab and therapy? Many of the hospital bills are being paid by our tax dollars. Then add in the cost of the military presence because again, at least here, it was not due to unvaccinated healthcare workers quitting or getting fired. It was due to unvaccinated people overwhelming the healthcare system.

And I don’t even know what to say about the immaturity level it takes to say that you would not have gotten vaccinated had the mandates, that don’t even apply to you, been in effect. Not to mention the fact that everyone is still in control of their own bodies. They just have to live with the consequences of refusing to vaccinate.

[Frances]

9 hours ago, MEmama said:

My state doesn’t accept so-called religious exemptions for any vaccination, since it’s not a valid excuse (no religions are actually opposed to vaccines). But medical exemptions, yes, of course. 

And my state is the opposite. Pretty much anything goes for a moral or religious exemption. But private employers can be stricter and actually examine religious exemptions if they choose to.

[SlowRiver]

Quote

They just have to live with the consequences of refusing to vaccinate.

This kind of argument gets used for a lot of things, many of which make the idea of autonomy or rights pretty meaningless. If we aren't willing to force people to vaccinate, why? If we are going to try and force them indirectly, by making it so uncomfortable for them they can't function in society, or can't work, I'd suggest we don't really believe in the principle at all.

People have been quite open that mandates aren't just about directly protecting people, they are about applying pressure. That's a problematic mindset.

[KSera]

18 minutes ago, SlowRiver said:

If we aren't willing to force people to vaccinate, why? If we are going to try and force them indirectly, by making it so uncomfortable for them they can't function in society, or can't work, I'd suggest we don't really believe in the principle at all.

Again, there is no neutral choice. By not requiring vaccination, those that are vaccinated (or have medical contraindications) are being restricted in what they can do. Why should the decision making be in the favor of the people who are making a public health emergency worse?