Should employers require their workers be COVID vaccinated or be fired? (1 Viewer)

[KarmaPolice]

Well if your healthcare provider tells you one thing and your job mandates you do another, I think that crosses some major lines.

Thats fair, but I highly doubt that is a significant % of the situations.  

 

[pmedina]

There are very FEW true medical reasons not to get the vaccine. One could always doctor shop to find one who confirms their belief. 
 

Religious exemptions should not be allowed. 
 

 

[skol asylum]

Not anti vax, pro practicing medicine. 

Not sure what that means. Even so, most of the mandates we're talking about have exceptions, including for specific health reasons. If you're doctor gave your employer a valid reason I'm sure an exception could be made in exchange for masking and routine testing.

 

[Max Power]

Thats fair, but I highly doubt that is a significant % of the situations.  

And we could get past so much of this hassle if we just acknowledged natural immunity as an exemption from the mandate. Allow a test showing antibodies to suffice for now. 

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I am just curious what other things some employers require are "forcing" their employess for people around here.   Drug tests?  non-covid vaccinations?  no posting on SM?  

Like I said today, there are some really weird lines people are drawing in the sand over this, but were silent up to this point for other things.   So sad and annoying how political a pandemic became in the last couple years.  

To be fair thirty five years ago there was  a debate about this kind of stuff.  And I was pro employee freedom, none of the employer's business.  I was on the losing side of that debate as the era was all about being "pro business".   That me should have voted "no", but the guy that is admitting defeat voted "yes" based on the text of the opening post, specifically the part about "what if it impacts the business".   It would be cool if the tide has turned and employee rights were gaining some momentum, but I'm not ready to get my hopes up.

 

[Max Power]

Not sure what that means. Even so, most of the mandates we're talking about have exceptions, including for specific health reasons. If you're doctor gave your employer a valid reason I'm sure an exception could be made in exchange for masking and routine testing.

That was the original plan for the federal workforce. Instead it has morphed into a choose your own adventure mandate with plenty of exemptions for positions they cant afford to lose. 

Not a lot of the medical waivers are being approved within government right now. 

 

[KarmaPolice]

And we could get past so much of this hassle if we just acknowledged natural immunity as an exemption from the mandate. Allow a test showing antibodies to suffice for now. 

It's been shown in here several times that even with the above adding the vax is  more beneficial than natural alone, and it's safe so I still think it's good policy to do both to get out of this situation.   

That said, yes - I would be fine if we could agree on a medically acceptable level of antibodies and be able to use that as an exception too.   I would prefer that as an option, as I am sure there are drs out there that will hand out notes saying patients are exempt for no great reason.  

 

[parasaurolophus]

It's been shown in here several times that even with the above adding the vax is  more beneficial than natural alone, and it's safe so I still think it's good policy to do both to get out of this situation.   

If somebody believes the ranking of immunity is... 

1. Vaxxed and prior infection.

2. Prior infection and unvaxxed.

3. Vaxxed, no prior infection.

4. Unvaxxed, no prior infection.

Then they think it is really silly to allow people from group 3 to do things that group 2 is banned from. Pointing out that group 2 could be as good as group 1 if they would get vaxxed is not a valid counterargument. 

 

[Joe Schmo]

If somebody believes the ranking of immunity is... 

1. Vaxxed and prior infection.

2. Prior infection and unvaxxed.

3. Vaxxed, no prior infection.

4. Unvaxxed, no prior infection.

Then they think it is really silly to allow people from group 3 to do things that group 2 is banned from. Pointing out that group 2 could be as good as group 1 if they would get vaxxed is not a valid counterargument. 

Switching 2 and 3 really is where the disagreement is and why many, but not all, folks have a hard time finding a kumbaya moment.

What is the factual truth?

 

[LawFitz]

I am just curious what other things some employers require are "forcing" their employess for people around here.   Drug tests?  non-covid vaccinations?  no posting on SM?  

Like I said today, there are some really weird lines people are drawing in the sand over this, but were silent up to this point for other things.   So sad and annoying how political a pandemic became in the last couple years.  

One of these things is not like the other.

 

[LawFitz]

This and other threads reveal your thirst to stab me for not letting you jab me.

Forgive them, Father, for they know not what they do.

 

[The Commish]

Thats fair, but I highly doubt that is a significant % of the situations.  

people equate "dont need to" and " shouldnt"

 

[KarmaPolice]

One of these things is not like the other.

I know.  Drug testing for weed is really stupid, isn't it? 

 

[KarmaPolice]

If somebody believes the ranking of immunity is... 

1. Vaxxed and prior infection.

2. Prior infection and unvaxxed.

3. Vaxxed, no prior infection.

4. Unvaxxed, no prior infection.

Then they think it is really silly to allow people from group 3 to do things that group 2 is banned from. Pointing out that group 2 could be as good as group 1 if they would get vaxxed is not a valid counterargument. 

Ok?   I've already said that I don't think all employers should do this for employment.  I've also said with Max that I don't have a problem with any of 1-3 if we have a baseline that #2 needs to be at to be equal to #3 (like Joe said above - your ranking of 2 and 3 is another core disagreement around here, isn't it?)    I don't think many are having that nuanced of a discussion, I see a lot of Group 4 stomping their feet because they might be asked to get a vaccination.  

 

[glvsav37]

I know.  Drug testing for weed is really stupid, isn't it? 

I love how everyone conveniently forgets that the stance against this is about physically putting something inside your body that once in, cannot be removed. 

Using drug testing as a parallel mandate is not accurate. Those types of mandates requiring you NOT to do something (which in most states is illegal anyway), or do it and risk getting caught. 

How about the gov't lifts the laws on smoking indoors. Offices, restaurants, theaters....all fair game. No more smoking laws. How many of you would loses your #### and scream "I'm not letting anyone poison my body with 2nd hand smoke!!!" 

 

[glvsav37]

Ok?   I've already said that I don't think all employers should do this for employment.  I've also said with Max that I don't have a problem with any of 1-3 if we have a baseline that #2 needs to be at to be equal to #3 (like Joe said above - your ranking of 2 and 3 is another core disagreement around here, isn't it?)    I don't think many are having that nuanced of a discussion, I see a lot of Group 4 stomping their feet because they might be asked to get a vaccination.  

I agree, and I wish this was part of the discussion, but its not. My wife gets blood drawn every few months, according to her doctor her antibodies are very high. So much so, that her doctor is fine with her not having the vax as long as its not required. 

I got my bloodwork done a few weeks ago and turns out I had a asymptomatic case of Covid at some point and my antibodies are also high. 

Here is where the mistrust from anti-this-vax'ers feeds in, as there is no profit in natural immunity so thats why its not in the discussion around using it as a viable form of proof. Same for an organized push from the medical community and gov't toward living a more healthy lifestyle and eliminating many of the known problems in our diets and foods we are sold. Its been proven that obesity (and many of the comorbitities associated with it) have been a driving factor in the deaths (not all, but many) from Covid, but we are not allowed to talk about that. 

 

[Ramblin Wreck]

If your healthcare provider is antivax you're seeing the wrong person.

Why libs can't get anything done.  We hear unintelligent things such as this so it's naturally not to listen to anything they have to say.  Media propaganda > healthcare providers.  Crazy talk

 

[Max Power]

I agree, and I wish this was part of the discussion, but its not. My wife gets blood drawn every few months, according to her doctor her antibodies are very high. So much so, that her doctor is fine with her not having the vax as long as its not required. 

I got my bloodwork done a few weeks ago and turns out I had a asymptomatic case of Covid at some point and my antibodies are also high. 

Here is where the mistrust from anti-this-vax'ers feeds in, as there is no profit in natural immunity so thats why its not in the discussion around using it as a viable form of proof. Same for an organized push from the medical community and gov't toward living a more healthy lifestyle and eliminating many of the known problems in our diets and foods we are sold. Its been proven that obesity (and many of the comorbitities associated with it) have been a driving factor in the deaths (not all, but many) from Covid, but we are not allowed to talk about that. 

That is how I discovered my antibodies as well.  Wife and daughter both lost taste at different points over the last two years.  Neither had any other symptoms.  I was antibody tested at my last physical and came back with a high count.  Never showed any symptoms.  I had a 3 day cough at one point over the summer, tested and came back negative. 

I bet a lot more people have natural immunity than currently know right now.  You can get a basic test at CVS.  

It's crazy the amount of ways we can all improve our own health and they seem to take a back seat currently to getting the jab.  The only thing the jab is really good for is to keep you healthier once you catch covid naturally and develop natural immunity. 

 

[RCon]

The only thing the jab is really good for is to keep you healthier once you catch covid naturally and develop natural immunity.

You keep ignoring the fact that vaccinated people are significantly less likely to spread infection.  That's good for everyone.

 

[Max Power]

You keep ignoring the fact that vaccinated people are significantly less likely to spread infection.  That's good for everyone.

The problem is that we can't know that.  The vaccinated people are more prone to pushing out variants that effect vaccinated people. 

the vaccianted are less likely to show symptoms while being infected and are interacting with communities unknowingly spreading covid.  The unvaccinated are more likely to show symptoms and stay home appropriately. 

Its fine if you want to say an unvaccinated person stays infected longer.  But that does not equate to "significantly more spread from the unvaccinated"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

I love how everyone conveniently forgets that the stance against this is about physically putting something inside your body that once in, cannot be removed. 

Using drug testing as a parallel mandate is not accurate. Those types of mandates requiring you NOT to do something (which in most states is illegal anyway), or do it and risk getting caught. 

How about the gov't lifts the laws on smoking indoors. Offices, restaurants, theaters....all fair game. No more smoking laws. How many of you would loses your #### and scream "I'm not letting anyone poison my body with 2nd hand smoke!!!" 

Your right to what goes into your body ends when whether or not you put into your body impacts others.  The case against second hand smoke is pretty easy.  The case against spreading Covid is pretty easy in a no vaccine world, but gets a bit muddier with vaccines.  Then its more like the harms to the employer and in some cases public safety of drug usages.  So these aren't really all that different.  

 

[RCon]

The vaccinated people are more prone to pushing out variants that effect vaccinated people.

I'm sorry.  What's this nonsense?

 

[Max Power]

I'm sorry.  What's this nonsense?

The immune pressure theory. 

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/why-the-ongoing-mass-vaccination-experiment-drives-a-rapid-evolutionary-response-of-sars-cov-2

 

[Max Power]

The immune pressure theory. 

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/why-the-ongoing-mass-vaccination-experiment-drives-a-rapid-evolutionary-response-of-sars-cov-2

A link to a recent study done in San Fransisco. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.19.21262139v1

Abstract

Associations between vaccine breakthrough cases and infection by SARS coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) variants have remained largely unexplored. Here we analyzed SARS-CoV-2 whole-genome sequences and viral loads from 1,373 persons with COVID-19 from the San Francisco Bay Area from February 1 to June 30, 2021, of which 125 (9.1%) were vaccine breakthrough infections. Fully vaccinated were more likely than unvaccinated persons to be infected by variants carrying mutations associated with decreased antibody neutralization (L452R, L452Q, E484K, and/or F490S) (78% versus 48%, p = 1.96e-08), but not by those associated with increased infectivity (L452R and/or N501Y) (85% versus 77%, p = 0.092). Differences in viral loads were non-significant between unvaccinated and fully vaccinated persons overall (p = 0.99) and according to lineage (p = 0.09 – 0.78). Viral loads were significantly higher in symptomatic as compared to asymptomatic vaccine breakthrough cases (p < 0.0001), and symptomatic vaccine breakthrough infections had similar viral loads to unvaccinated infections (p = 0.64). In 5 cases with available longitudinal samples for serologic analyses, vaccine breakthrough infections were found to be associated with low or undetectable neutralizing antibody levels attributable to immunocompromised state or infection by an antibody-resistant lineage. These findings suggest that vaccine breakthrough cases are preferentially caused by circulating antibody-resistant SARS-CoV-2 variants, and that symptomatic breakthrough infections may potentially transmit COVID-19 as efficiently as unvaccinated infections, regardless of the infecting lineage.

 

[LawFitz]

The immune pressure theory. 

https://www.geertvandenbossche.org/post/why-the-ongoing-mass-vaccination-experiment-drives-a-rapid-evolutionary-response-of-sars-cov-2

Since many here won't bother to click the link and read the article, here's the summary (bolded emphasis, mine)...

Summary

As Sars-CoV-2 entered a highly susceptible human population, it has initially been spreading rapidly and in an uncontrollable way. This already explains why Sars-CoV-2 [had] been evolving rather slowly with no substantial selection of fitness-enhancing mutations occurring over the first 10 months of the pandemic (i.e., between December 2019 and October 2020). More infectious ‘variants of concern’ (VoCs, i.e., alpha [B.1.1.7], beta [B.1.351], gamma [P.1]) started to appear as of late 2020 and led to a steep increase in cases worldwide.

Molecular epidemiologists have observed that mutations within the Sars-CoV-2 spike (S) protein of these emerging, more infectious lineages are converging to the same genetic sites, a phenomenon that coincided with a major evolutionary shift in the landscape of naturally selected Sars-CoV-2 mutations (1).

Significant convergent evolution(*) of more infectious circulating Sars-CoV-2 variants is not a neutral, host-independent evolutionary phenomenon that merely results from increased viral replication and transmission but is strongly suggestive of natural selection and adaptation following a dramatic shift in the host(ile) environment the virus is exposed to (1).

Molecular epidemiologists fully acknowledge that the pandemic is currently evolving Sars-CoV-2 variants that “could be a considerably bigger problem for us than any variants that we currently know in that they might have any combinations of increased transmissibility, altered virulence and/or increased capacity to escape population immunity” (1). This is to say that phylogenetics-based natural selection analysis on circulating Sars-CoV-2 lineages strongly suggests that viral variants resistant to spike (S)-based Covid-19 vaccines are currently expanding in prevalence and highly suspicious of causing future epidemic surges globally.

Deployment of current Covid-19 vaccines in mass vaccination campaigns combined with the ongoing widespread circulation of Sars-CoV-2 can only increase immune selective pressure on Sars-CoV-2 spike protein and hence, further drive its adaptive evolution to circumvent vaccine-induced humoral immunity. In this regard, the expectation of an increasing number of vaccinologists matches the current observation made by genomic epidemiologists in that S protein-directed immune escape variants are highly likely to further spread and expedite the occurrence of viral resistance to the currently deployed and future (so-called ‘2nd generation’) Covid-19 vaccines.

To monitor the circulation of hazardous viral variants in the population and to be able to provide unequivocal proof of the immune selection pressure exerted by mass vaccination campaigns and the harmful consequences thereof, there is an urgent need for conducting representative viral sampling on vaccinees, including those who are healthy or only subject to mild disease, and to genetically characterize the variants they shed upon exposure to Sars-CoV-2.

Conducting a mass vaccination experiment at a global scale without understanding the mechanisms underlying viral escape from vaccine-mediated selection pressure is not only a colossal scientific blunder but, first and foremost, completely irresponsible from the perspective of individual and public health ethics.

In the absence of vaccines capable of inducing sterilizing immunity, early multidrug treatment as proposed by Prof. Dr. P. McCullough and others (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33387997/), together with global chemoprophylaxis using highly efficient antiviral drugs, will be key to save lives, reduce the hospitalization burden and dramatically diminish transmission of highly infectious or neutralizing antibody (nAb)-resistant escape variants.

(*) Convergent evolution relates to the independent occurrence of one or more mutations that are shared in common across several viral variants

TL;DR - the author's assertion is that because these Covid vaxxes are leaky - i.e. they don't stop transmission (like Marek's disease vaxxes) - they are creating an environment for mutant variants to evolve through natural selection to get around vaccine-induced immunity. A leading indicator of this is that multiple mutant strains have evolved separately toward the same convergent end - namely, overcoming S-protein - i.e. vax-induced - immunity.

 

[RCon]

You can't have it both ways.  You can't have both "natural immunity is better" and "vaccine immunity promotes mutation to get around the immunity, but natural immunity doesn't" as sound hypotheses.

 

[Max Power]

You can't have it both ways.  You can't have both "natural immunity is better" and "vaccine immunity promotes mutation to get around the immunity, but natural immunity doesn't" as sound hypotheses.

Sure you can.

Is your claim is that natural immunity creates vaccine resistant variants at the same rate as vaccinated?  I'd like to see the homework there.

I also still haven't seen the studies about how much virus people with natural immunity shed compared to those vaccinated. Again, previously infected doesn't mean natural immunity.   

 

[LawFitz]

You can't have it both ways.  You can't have both "natural immunity is better" and "vaccine immunity promotes mutation to get around the immunity, but natural immunity doesn't" as sound hypotheses.

Natural immunity is more robust and durable (the body recognizes all parts of the virus, not just the S-protein).

 

[The Commish]

Natural immunity is more robust and durable (the body recognizes all parts of the virus, not just the S-protein).

no....it doesn't

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

Natural immunity is more robust and durable (the body recognizes all parts of the virus, not just the S-protein).

For sake of argument lets agree with this sentence.  Would not this mean that only those variants of the virus that are more robust and durable would survive long enough to be a danger  in those with natural immunity creating even more dangerous variants that those simplistic get around a single protein vaccinated variants.

 

[Max Power]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=qP31cfD3YOY

This is a good watch explaining the theory. I think it was between the 25-45 minute marks

 

[parasaurolophus]

Ok?   I've already said that I don't think all employers should do this for employment.  I've also said with Max that I don't have a problem with any of 1-3 if we have a baseline that #2 needs to be at to be equal to #3 (like Joe said above - your ranking of 2 and 3 is another core disagreement around here, isn't it?)    I don't think many are having that nuanced of a discussion, I see a lot of Group 4 stomping their feet because they might be asked to get a vaccination.  

Then why on earth would you bring it up. 

 

[Terminalxylem]

Switching 2 and 3 really is where the disagreement is and why many, but not all, folks have a hard time finding a kumbaya moment.

What is the factual truth?

To the best of our knowledge, vaccine-derived immunity appears more reliable and potent than natural immunity. There are multiple studies which support that hierarchy. There is a single, non peer reviewed study which suggests natural immunity is superior, but it’s received so much press you’d think it’s the word of god.

I certainly can understand arguments for both, but so far, the data favors everyone getting vaccinated.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I agree, and I wish this was part of the discussion, but its not. My wife gets blood drawn every few months, according to her doctor her antibodies are very high. So much so, that her doctor is fine with her not having the vax as long as its not required. 

I got my bloodwork done a few weeks ago and turns out I had a asymptomatic case of Covid at some point and my antibodies are also high. 

Here is where the mistrust from anti-this-vax'ers feeds in, as there is no profit in natural immunity so thats why its not in the discussion around using it as a viable form of proof. Same for an organized push from the medical community and gov't toward living a more healthy lifestyle and eliminating many of the known problems in our diets and foods we are sold. Its been proven that obesity (and many of the comorbitities associated with it) have been a driving factor in the deaths (not all, but many) from Covid, but we are not allowed to talk about that. 

I don’t agree vaccine mandates are profit-driven at all, but if one believes that, what about the profit from bloodwork? Antibody tests aren’t recommended except in rare clinical situations, and certainly not serial testing. Why do you believe Big Lab is less capitalistic than Big Pharma?

 

[Terminalxylem]

I don’t agree vaccine mandates are profit-driven at all, but if one believes that, what about the profit from bloodwork? Antibody tests aren’t recommended except in rare clinical situations, and certainly not serial testing. Why do you believe Big Lab is less capitalistic than Big Pharma?

FTR, here are the charges associated with vaccination and covid antibody tests:

Medicare

On March 15, 2021, CMS updated the Medicare payment rates for administering COVID-19 vaccines. On August 12, 2021, the FDA updated the emergency use authorizations (EUAs) for the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna COVID-19 vaccines to authorize the use of additional doses of the vaccine for immunocompromised individuals. On September 22, 2021, the FDA updated the EUA for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine to authorize booster doses for certain populations.

For COVID-19 vaccines administered on or after March 15, 2021, additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine administered to immunocompromised individuals on or after August 12, 2021, and booster doses administered to certain populations on or after September 22, 2021, the Medicare payment rates for administering the vaccines are:

Approximately $40 for single-dose vaccines

For vaccines requiring multiple doses, approximately $40 for each dose in the series, including any additional doses and booster doses

These rates reflect updated information about the costs involved in administering the COVID-19 vaccine for different types of providers and suppliers and the additional resources you need to safely and appropriately administer the vaccine.

We generally implement changes to Medicare payment rates for specific services through notice and comment rulemaking. In this case, however, we implemented the payment rate changes for these specific services to respond quickly to new information during the COVID-19 public health emergency (PHE).

For COVID-19 vaccines administered before March 15, 2021, the Medicare payment rates are:

$28.39 for single-dose vaccines

For vaccines requiring a series of 2 or more doses:

$16.94 for the initial dose(s) in the series

$28.39 for the final dose in the series 

Covid antibody tests

SARS-CoV-2 Serology (COVID-19) Antibodies (IgG, IgM), Immunoassay

The test is designed to detect IgG and IgM antibodies in a blood sample that may indicate exposure to COVID-19. IgM antibodies to COVID-19 are generally detectable in blood several days after initial infection, with IgG antibodies typically reaching detectable levels simultaneously or 1-2 days later.

Quest will bill your health plan $110.00

So the better money making plan would be serial antibody testing, to ensure immunity doesn't wane over time.