What if your job requires all employees to be vaccinated?

Mutations or new attacks/weapon testing?

In September 2020 Kamala Harris said that she did not trust the efficacy of the vaccines being developed, the same vaccines being administered today. We should follow the words of the now Vice President, correct?

How are unvaccinated people passing on risk to others? I don't see the logic. If you have been vaccinated, you should have absolutely nothing to fear, correct? If you have been vaccinated and you lack confidence that the vaccine is effective, why did you get vaccinated in the first place?

Jamin and Unkle said not to. Haha yo

Just curious-What is your company's position regarding religious exemptions for the vaccine?

I hope in the future the doctors and nurses who were pushed to their limits during this pandemic see your religious exemption to the vaccine and give you the treatment you deserve

Arrhenius wrote:

How are unvaccinated people passing on risk to others? I don't see the logic. If you have been vaccinated, you should have absolutely nothing to fear, correct? If you have been vaccinated and you lack confidence that the vaccine is effective, why did you get vaccinated in the first place?

No, this vaccine will only work if everyone gets the vaccine. Only then will it be a vaccine.

CrispyChicken wrote:

"Many workers don’t feel comfortable with them around maskless."

So, many workers don't trust the effectiveness of the vaccine?

Apparently Xiden also doesn't trust it.

They don't trust it against a subgroup of people who are keeping it alive with possible variants emerging that may be more resistant to the vaccine. This anti-vax subgroup is really scared, though so I guess we have to be considerate of their irrational fears and beliefs in conspiracies. Maybe we should sing them lullabies and tell them everything will be ok and the big bad needle isn't going to hurt them? Unclear.

The one group that the government can mandate be vaccinated is the military, but it hasn't done so. Makes you want to say Hmmmm.

Not everyone is eligible to receive the vaccine. Those with small children for example cannot have them vaccinated and they are therefore still susceptible to getting the virus. Those who choose not to vaccinate might not be of concern to those who do vaccinate themselves, but the non-vaxers would still present an exposure risk for this other group.

Arrhenius wrote:

How are unvaccinated people passing on risk to others? I don't see the logic. If you have been vaccinated, you should have absolutely nothing to fear, correct? If you have been vaccinated and you lack confidence that the vaccine is effective, why did you get vaccinated in the first place?

Let's say you have a handful of unvaccinated workers and reduce restrictions, like masks in the facility.

Then maybe a worker unknowingly contracts covid outside of work and infects a couple other workers on the job.

Then they all have to quarantine and the business is down on production for that time.

Or you have have to keep restrictions in place (masks on) just because a few refuse to get the shot(s).

CrispyChicken wrote:

The one group that the government can mandate be vaccinated is the military, but it hasn't done so. Makes you want to say Hmmmm.

No. Realistically that is a complicated decision with tons of potential challenges. The White House is on record in saying that they'd like to do it.

The only workers that an unvaccinated worker should be able to infect would be another unvaccinated worker. Again, if the vaccine works, a vaccinated person should have no worries. I believe that catching the virus is a risk all unvaccinated people understand and fully accept. Furthermore, they should not expect folks that have been vaccinated to be inconvenienced and take additional safeguards that they otherwise wouldn't have to, such as masking, social distancing, etc. At least I certainly don't expect any special treatment because I am choosing not to be vaccinated.

You do bring up a good point-If you have a bunch of unvaccinated folks working together in close proximity, then it is probably wise (from a productivity standpoint) to somehow stagger workers, or ensure masking, etc. like you would have prior to the vaccine EUA. You would want to mitigate the risk of a complete factory line, dept., etc. being shut down and everyone having to quarantine for 10 days, etc.

Most people who refuse the vaccine end up managing covid infections quite well. If they spread it, that's unfortunate, but ultimately better for the population as a whole. I'm not pro-eugenics, I'm simply anti-dysgenics. I have no problem with those who elect to get vaccinated either. Ultimately, we should respect most of those decisions, as these individuals know their individual bodies better than we do.

Collectively, we need to start thinning the herd sooner than later, and in many ways, the diametrically opposed anti-vaxxers and pro-vaxxers paradigm is an integral part of our collective special evolution. The species depends on it.

As for a corporate environment, I think you're propagating more problems than it's worth. The legalese is vague at best, and it serves no real purpose but furthering a hegelian dialectic. We need to come together in this country more than ever, and creating an insularity complex through x vs y is simply counterproductive to any real, true, concerted effort to return to normal.

Just my two cents

Arrhenius wrote:

The only workers that an unvaccinated worker should be able to infect would be another unvaccinated worker.

Well, they may be able to infect a vaccinated worker but not get them sick.

Point is, the more unvaccinated workers you have on site, the more risk you have to losing productivity through infected workers, especially if your goal with vaccinations is to reduce restrictions.

Having unvaxxed workers wear masks while vaxxed workers get to freely show their smiles is a bit of a Scarlet Letter.

And if a business decides to make disclosure optional, then everyone must continue to wear masks for confidentiality reasons if the vaxxed numbers are low.

Back to my original thought, I'd like to start off making disclosure optional.

If the vaxxed level is high enough, risk would be low enough to ease restrictions.

But it still comes down to the anti-vaxxers holding everyone up.

Arrhenius wrote:

. Again, if the vaccine works, a vaccinated person should have no worries.

The vaccine does not give some "magical complete immunity," but rather primes your immune system to handle the virus better. If you're sucking face with a covid positive Trump supporter, you're still going to be infected. The chances of serious illness is reduced, and more importantly, lingering symptoms are far less likely with the vax.

By that logic the lockdowns will never end then since there will always be a chance for someone to get sick.

ShoeMan wrote:

What state are you in? If you have religious morals that prevent you from getting the vaccines like your personal faith won't allow you to use medical treatment that uses embryo chain research from 1985 lineage or whatever they're using, then your company might have to allow you to be unvaccinated, assuming it doesn't cause an overburden on your job performance. This is where the vaccine will never be mandated. It wouldnt pass the high court.

There is precedent. The Supreme Court ruled that health departments have the right to require smallpox vaccinations back in 1905. As far as proof, many colleges will require it to attend class this fall. Anyone familiar with how that will work?

wombatpig wrote:

ShoeMan wrote:

What state are you in? If you have religious morals that prevent you from getting the vaccines like your personal faith won't allow you to use medical treatment that uses embryo chain research from 1985 lineage or whatever they're using, then your company might have to allow you to be unvaccinated, assuming it doesn't cause an overburden on your job performance. This is where the vaccine will never be mandated. It wouldnt pass the high court.

There is precedent. The Supreme Court ruled that health departments have the right to require smallpox vaccinations back in 1905. As far as proof, many colleges will require it to attend class this fall. Anyone familiar with how that will work?

Pretty sure the small pox vaccine in 1905 didn’t use embryonic cells for testing.

Supreme Court also said slaves were not people. In other words, the Supreme Court’s opinions can change.