Jump to content
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Employees who refuse to vaccinate?


Recommended Posts

35 minutes ago, Fat Nick said:

 

GBS was specifically called out as a type of medical exemption, along with some others and an vague statement around other conditions that medically exclude you from being vaccinated.  It was clear that it had to be a medical exception, not a philosophical/religious/etc. one.  

Your points are interesting.  Personally, no GBS incidents in my family/wife's family, but one of our close friend's (we're their daughter's godparents) mother had GBS, NOT as a result of a vaccination, and she was told NOT to get it.  It's made life for them and the extended family very difficult as there is an expanded need to continue to quarantine and stay at home whenever they may see her.  It'd be interesting to see that view more widely publicized.  I've just always seen it simplistically as "Had GBS?  No vaccine for you!"

My sister has a heart condition, A-Fib and after a bunch of talks with her doctor got the vaccine with no issues...

I know that's not GBS was just curious on the other conditions

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, CrossEyed2 said:

Interesting that you're arrogant enough to think you know everything about somebody you've never met or with whom you've ever had a meaningful conversation.

Talk about a personality flaw. :rolleyes:


On a scale of 1-10... 3 Years ago, how invested in Christianity were you? How certain were you that your beliefs were correct? 

On a scale of 1-10... how certain are you now that those beliefs were correct? 

Edited by [icon]
  • Like 3
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

42 minutes ago, CrossEyed2 said:

Interesting that you're arrogant enough to think you know everything about somebody you've never met or with whom you've ever had a meaningful conversation.

Talk about a personality flaw. :rolleyes:

Lol. It’s not arrogance when all you do is regurgitate BS that is posted on these conspiracy sites. It’s a simple observation because there wouldn’t be a meaningful conversation. Go look again at this https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/ site where you said people died WITH Covid not FROM Covid and you’ll see a bunch of people posting the same memes. They are all getting the same misinformation as you. You are the only one in here acting like you found something new, but you didn’t. Just getting snowed by web sites.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, [icon] said:


On a scale of 1/10... 3 Years ago, how invested in Christianity were you? How certain were you that your beliefs were correct? 

On a scale of 1-10... how certain are you now that those beliefs were correct? 

Add in the same questions except change “Christianity” to conspiracy theories on Covid and the vaccines.

That’s exactly what I see and I’m nowhere close to atheism. Just seeing a simple pattern. The web sites frequented might as well be another Bible so to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, CrossEyed2 said:

So I’m supposed to be convinced by the “we’ve always done it this way” argument? 
 

Look at all of the pharmaceutical products that are FDA approved and later pulled from the market…roughly 1 in 3. For some of us, that’s simply not a good enough track record to take a product prophylactically for protection against something that I have a less than 0.5% chance of dying from. 

Wait a sec…that number seems floridly wrong. I think you’re conflating any FDA action with market withdrawal based on this article:

Quote

Objectives  To characterize the frequency of postmarket safety events among novel therapeutics approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and to examine whether any novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval were associated with increased risk.

Design and Setting  Cohort study of all novel therapeutics approved by the FDA between January 1, 2001, and December 31, 2010, followed up through February 28, 2017.

Exposures  Novel therapeutic characteristics known at the time of FDA approval, including drug class, therapeutic area, priority review, accelerated approval, orphan status, near–regulatory deadline approval, and regulatory review time.

Main Outcomes and Measures  A composite of (1) withdrawals due to safety concerns, (2) FDA issuance of incremental boxed warnings added in the postmarket period, and (3) FDA issuance of safety communications.

Results  From 2001 through 2010, the FDA approved 222 novel therapeutics (183 pharmaceuticals and 39 biologics). There were 123 new postmarket safety events (3 withdrawals, 61 boxed warnings, and 59 safety communications) during a median follow-up period of 11.7 years (interquartile range [IQR], 8.7-13.8 years), affecting 71 (32.0%) of the novel therapeutics. The median time from approval to first postmarket safety event was 4.2 years (IQR, 2.5-6.0 years), and the proportion of novel therapeutics affected by a postmarket safety event at 10 years was 30.8% (95% CI, 25.1%-37.5%). In multivariable analysis, postmarket safety events were statistically significantly more frequent among biologics (incidence rate ratio [IRR] = 1.93; 95% CI, 1.06-3.52; P = .03), therapeutics indicated for the treatment of psychiatric disease (IRR = 3.78; 95% CI, 1.77-8.06; P < .001), those receiving accelerated approval (IRR = 2.20; 95% CI, 1.15-4.21; P = .02), and those with near–regulatory deadline approval (IRR = 1.90; 95% CI, 1.19-3.05; P = .008); events were statistically significantly less frequent among those with regulatory review times less than 200 days (IRR = 0.46; 95% CI, 0.24-0.87; P = .02).

Conclusions and Relevance  Among 222 novel therapeutics approved by the FDA from 2001 through 2010, 32% were affected by a postmarket safety event. Biologics, psychiatric therapeutics, and accelerated and near–regulatory deadline approval were statistically significantly associated with higher rates of events, highlighting the need for continuous monitoring of the safety of novel therapeutics throughout their life cycle.

Drug withdrawal due to post-marketing safety concerns is actually pretty rare - 3 of 222 (1.3%) in that study. This site lists the 35 drugs pulled from the market since the 1970’s (until 2014).

FTR, vaccine recalls also occur, albeit rarely - 4 since the 1970s. The CDC does a good job summarizing major controversies related to vaccines, most of which were discredited on further study. They also have special pages addressing the most publicized antivax concerns, Autism and Guillain-Barré syndrome.

Edited by Terminalxylem
  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 10:54 AM, Cowboysfan8 said:

Really?

Dudes got a health condition and doesnt want to get a vax that normally takes years to get approval but was pushed through in a few months, so he loses his livelihood?

seems dumb 

 

His choice here.

Seems dumb to choose losing your livlihood over a shot.  :shrug: 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

 

Did her company specifically call out GBS or did you include that one yourself?  I ask for two reasons:  1. I have heard from folks on here and more importantly my wife's doctor that GBS is not a reason to not get the vaccine UNLESS your GBS symptoms were the result of a previous vaccine.  2.  My wife, who had GBS as a child, did get the vaccine and has had no issues (both doses of Pfizer).  If they state otherwise I would be curious to know why as we plan to get the booster once needed/recommended by our physicians.

 

2 hours ago, Fat Nick said:

 

GBS was specifically called out as a type of medical exemption, along with some others and an vague statement around other conditions that medically exclude you from being vaccinated.  It was clear that it had to be a medical exception, not a philosophical/religious/etc. one.  

Your points are interesting.  Personally, no GBS incidents in my family/wife's family, but one of our close friend's (we're their daughter's godparents) mother had GBS, NOT as a result of a vaccination, and she was told NOT to get it.  It's made life for them and the extended family very difficult as there is an expanded need to continue to quarantine and stay at home whenever they may see her.  It'd be interesting to see that view more widely publicized.  I've just always seen it simplistically as "Had GBS?  No vaccine for you!"

GBS and vaccination is frequently misunderstood, even by clinicians. FTR, here is the CDCs stance:

Quote

People who have previously had GBS may receive a COVID-19 vaccine. To date, no cases of GBS have been reported following vaccination in participants in the mRNA COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials. One case of GBS was reported in a vaccinated participant in the Johnson & Johnson Janssen COVID-19 Vaccine clinical trial (compared to one GBS case among those who received placebo). With few exceptions, the independent Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP) general best practice guidelines for immunization do not include a history of GBS as a precaution to vaccination with other vaccines.

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, CrossEyed2 said:

So I’m supposed to be convinced by the “we’ve always done it this way” argument? 
 

Look at all of the pharmaceutical products that are FDA approved and later pulled from the market…roughly 1 in 3. For some of us, that’s simply not a good enough track record to take a product prophylactically for protection against something that I have a less than 0.5% chance of dying from. 

 

This is 10000% irrelevant.

A company can require the vaccine.   

Very simple - you have the choice to get the vaccine, or not.

Edited by matuski
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Fat Nick said:

 

GBS was specifically called out as a type of medical exemption, along with some others and an vague statement around other conditions that medically exclude you from being vaccinated.  It was clear that it had to be a medical exception, not a philosophical/religious/etc. one.  

Your points are interesting.  Personally, no GBS incidents in my family/wife's family, but one of our close friend's (we're their daughter's godparents) mother had GBS, NOT as a result of a vaccination, and she was told NOT to get it.  It's made life for them and the extended family very difficult as there is an expanded need to continue to quarantine and stay at home whenever they may see her.  It'd be interesting to see that view more widely publicized.  I've just always seen it simplistically as "Had GBS?  No vaccine for you!"

 

My wife spoke to her doctor and initially he didn't have a straight answer and wanted time to research.  She also spent time on a couple of sites and groups where it did seem that people were split on things.  I think even Fauci had originally made a comment about GBS as an unknown but then walked that back some.  Eventually more information came out where the advice was to get it as long as your GBS diagnosis wasn't after a vaccine.  My wife's doctor also advised her to get it.  She was somewhat nervous but did eventually get both doses and had no issues.  It's very interesting they are saying no to GBS across the board.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

My wife spoke to her doctor and initially he didn't have a straight answer and wanted time to research.  She also spent time on a couple of sites and groups where it did seem that people were split on things.  I think even Fauci had originally made a comment about GBS as an unknown but then walked that back some.  Eventually more information came out where the advice was to get it as long as your GBS diagnosis wasn't after a vaccine.  My wife's doctor also advised her to get it.  She was somewhat nervous but did eventually get both doses and had no issues.  It's very interesting they are saying no to GBS across the board.

GBS isn't completely understood, but the link to vaccines is tenuous, at best. Most cases are preceded by an upper respiratory illness or diarrhea. The strongest association is with a bacteria that causes dysentery, Campylobacter jejuni.

The background incidence of GBS is 1.1-1.8 cases per 100,000 population. 

A single vaccine has been associated with development of GBS, the 1976 "swine" flu vaccine. It was linked to ~450 cases of GBS among 45 million vaccine recipients.

Quote

In 1976, vaccination against a novel swine-origin influenza A (H1N1) virus was associated with a statistically significant increased risk for GBS in the 42 days after vaccination (approximately 10 excess cases per 1 million vaccinations), a consideration in halting the vaccination program in the context of limited influenza virus transmission

No other vaccines, including subsequent H1N1 flu and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, have been conclusively linked to GBS.

When you look at the numbers, it's really kinda crazy the association has gained as much press as it has, as the absolute risk is incredibly low.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 12:46 PM, Gally said:

Based on Biden forcing all Government employees to get vaxxed I am assuming this is going to be a huge issue for all businesses in the near future.  Unfortunately this is too big of a political issue that it muddies the ability for people to actually think straight.  It's not a single answer thing but politics has made it a very divided situation.  It's very unfortunate.  


yep

 employees get vaccinated or get medically acceptable documentation to show why you need to be accommodated and don’t go back to the office. 
I’m fairly sure the bigger impact of the mandate will be more people continuing to work from home longer. If you can do your job (essential functions) remote, like many have for 18 months and counting, the feds will generally accommodate. Or get sued for failure to do so. Some will claim religious exemption which will be more challenging if we don’t just accept what the head of the religion says. 

Edited by -OZ-
Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

 

My wife spoke to her doctor and initially he didn't have a straight answer and wanted time to research.  She also spent time on a couple of sites and groups where it did seem that people were split on things.  I think even Fauci had originally made a comment about GBS as an unknown but then walked that back some.  Eventually more information came out where the advice was to get it as long as your GBS diagnosis wasn't after a vaccine.  My wife's doctor also advised her to get it.  She was somewhat nervous but did eventually get both doses and had no issues.  It's very interesting they are saying no to GBS across the board.

 

Honestly, I think more than anything, they're viewing GBS as a medical exemption, or an example of one.  Likely without segmenting GBS into categories based on diagnosis/potential cause.  They (the employer) is not really providing cautionary statements re. getting the vaccine if you have had GBS, just saying that if you had GBS, that qualifies as a "medical exemption" from having to get the vaccine.  Cautionary statement to their employees specifically.  I'm not sure what their stance is medically as it pertains to the vaccine my wife's company also makes.

I'm going to mention this to our friend.  I don't think her mother's GBS was vaccine related.  Maybe this could open her mind to getting the vaccine.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, belljr said:

My sister has a heart condition, A-Fib and after a bunch of talks with her doctor got the vaccine with no issues...

I know that's not GBS was just curious on the other conditions

 

I don't think they specifically indicated what conditions they felt would qualify or wouldn't....and to be fair, it's not really their place to.  My understanding is that if you have a letter from a medical professional stating why you are not a candidate for the vaccine, that could preempt the vaccine mandate for you.  That becomes a slippery slope as I'm sure there's a lot of less-than-reputable MD's who will carve out a niche business for medical exemption certifications, similar to some of the medical marijuana stuff. 

I know that for folks who were still allowed to work without a vaccine (i.e. medically excluded from the vaccine), they had to test pretty regularly.  I think it might have been as frequently as weekly.  That in and of itself has to be a real pain.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, Anarchy99 said:

From my understanding, a company’s stance on mandatory vaccination will likely be viewed as a company policy and essentially a term of employment. Similar to showing up to work on time, failing a drug test, completing your job duties, etc. Not adhering to company policies can result in termination with cause. Companies might be nice and let the people they let go collect unemployment, but from what I have seen, not getting vaccinated would not qualify someone for unemployment. 

My wife's employer (J&J) just had a town hall meeting to clarify their vaccine policy. They're saying you either get vaccinated or have to test daily and mask-up. Otherwise they will consider you "voluntarily" leaving your position. I assume this was to clarify that you will not be eligible for unemployment if you do not adhere. :thumbup:

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

GBS isn't completely understood, but the link to vaccines is tenuous, at best. Most cases are preceded by an upper respiratory illness or diarrhea. The strongest association is with a bacteria that causes dysentery, Campylobacter jejuni.

The background incidence of GBS is 1.1-1.8 cases per 100,000 population. 

A single vaccine has been associated with development of GBS, the 1976 "swine" flu vaccine. It was linked to ~450 cases of GBS among 45 million vaccine recipients.

No other vaccines, including subsequent H1N1 flu and SARS-CoV-2 vaccines, have been conclusively linked to GBS.

When you look at the numbers, it's really kinda crazy the association has gained as much press as it has, as the absolute risk is incredibly low.

 

Yes, we were surprised and frustrated that her GP couldn't give her a better answer.  What we did know was her GBS was 100% (or I guess as close as one can be) not related to a vaccine so we felt safe in having her take it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, AAABatteries said:

  I have no clue which side I'm supposed to be on and who is on the other side. 

Exactly.  Like gender fluidity it will be side fluid. Your side will depend on who you are dealing with at the time.  

Lot of unknowns but it sure feels like its comin 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

20 hours ago, Fat Nick said:

My wife's company just issued a policy.  It's very clear.  Mandatory vaccinations.  If you don't vaccinate by the date they set and do not have a medical exemption (Guillain-Barre or something like that), it will be viewed as an employee-driven voluntary separation of employment.  i.e. if you don't vaccinate, you effectively are resigning.  That means no severance, no vested bonuses, and technically, at least in our state, no unemployment.  It's pretty clear.

My company hasn't come out with that firm of a policy yet, but it's coming...

Seems like a little bit of a slippery slope here.  What other things will businesses be able to mandate in the future that will not allow people to collect unemployment if they do not comply?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, ghostguy123 said:

Seems like a little bit of a slippery slope here.  What other things will businesses be able to mandate in the future that will not allow people to collect unemployment if they do not comply?

Random drug testing....oh wait :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 9:03 PM, Pip&#x27;s Invitation said:

How is that gonna work exactly? Will we be issued blue or red uniforms? Will it be fought online with memes and histrionics? 

I've asked this question as well. Do we get uniforms. Who are we fighting, our neighbors? Do we just drive down the streets and shot random people, while hoping no one is blowing up your house killing your family while you are out civil waring?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

43 minutes ago, ghostguy123 said:

Seems like a little bit of a slippery slope here.  What other things will businesses be able to mandate in the future that will not allow people to collect unemployment if they do not comply?


This will not happen, because the circumstances underlying the vaccination mandate are rare and cannot be widely applied. Someone tries to apply a slippery slope thing in the future? "Well ... we mandated vaccinations, so now we can mandate X."

But no. First question asked when precedent is invoked: "Is there an ongoing pandemic?" No? Then no precedent may be invoked -- kindly step off.

Edited by Doug B
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Fat Nick said:

 

I don't think they specifically indicated what conditions they felt would qualify or wouldn't....and to be fair, it's not really their place to.  My understanding is that if you have a letter from a medical professional stating why you are not a candidate for the vaccine, that could preempt the vaccine mandate for you.  That becomes a slippery slope as I'm sure there's a lot of less-than-reputable MD's who will carve out a niche business for medical exemption certifications, similar to some of the medical marijuana stuff. 

I know that for folks who were still allowed to work without a vaccine (i.e. medically excluded from the vaccine), they had to test pretty regularly.  I think it might have been as frequently as weekly.  That in and of itself has to be a real pain.


my wife’s work policy is to vaccinate or weekly tests. Seems reasonable. 

40 minutes ago, Doug B said:


This will not happen, because the circumstances underlying the vaccination mandate are rare and cannot be widely applied. Someone tries to apply a slippery slope thing in the future? "Well ... we mandated vaccinations, so now we can mandate X."

But no. First question asked when precedent is invoked: "Is there an ongoing pandemic?" No? Then no precedent may be invoked -- kindly step off.

Drug tests, seat belts, helmets, other OSHA type stuff, uniforms for some, there are many policies people follow or opt to not work at that business. :shrug:

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Mile High said:

I've asked this question as well. Do we get uniforms. Who are we fighting, our neighbors? Do we just drive down the streets and shot random people, while hoping no one is blowing up your house killing your family while you are out civil waring?

Everyone fighting everyone.  Friends and foes changing constantly.  

This does not have to involve blood on the streets type of war.

There was a war on drugs.  A cold war...........not sure what this one will be called yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Everyone fighting everyone.  Friends and foes changing constantly.  

This does not have to involve blood on the streets type of war.

There was a war on drugs.  A cold war...........not sure what this one will be called yet

Fightspace, Instawar or Twittergeddon.

  • Laughing 2
  • Thinking 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Everyone fighting everyone.  Friends and foes changing constantly.  

This does not have to involve blood on the streets type of war.

There was a war on drugs.  A cold war...........not sure what this one will be called yet

I mean, we're already kind of there. Families have been split apart over QAnon adherence and other "culture war" things. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Pip's Invitation said:

I mean, we're already kind of there. Families have been split apart over QAnon adherence and other "culture war" things. 

I was about to say, the war has already started.  

100 years from now the history books will say this war started in 2020, maybe even earlier.  

It really sucks how divided people are on topics and how it actually affects their lives and their relationships.  So stupid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

I was about to say, the war has already started.  

100 years from now the history books will say this war started in 2020, maybe even earlier.  

It really sucks how divided people are on topics and how it actually affects their lives and their relationships.  So stupid.


not to get political but 2016 seems significant. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Terminalxylem said:

Fightspace, Instawar or Twittergeddon.

I vote for Twittergeddon, it kinda rolls off the tongue like "syphilis" or "onamonapia".  Plus twitter seems like a central piece at the beginning of the conflict.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

Seems like a little bit of a slippery slope here.  What other things will businesses be able to mandate in the future that will not allow people to collect unemployment if they do not comply?

Oh I agree 100%.  I'm fully supportive of vaccination mandates, but I honestly don't understand how they are actually legally allowed - and like you said, it sets a really risky precedent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, ghostguy123 said:

"The Stupid War".  Love it.  

Cant wait to see who wins "The Stupid War".   


also known as Idiocracy 2 :popcorn:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 9/14/2021 at 7:13 AM, E-Z Glider said:

I assume this is going to become a bigger issue moving forward, but what are employers to do with employees who refuse vaccination?

We do contract work for a manufacturer who recently sent out a letter saying that no one can enter their building after 11/1 if they aren't vaccinated. We have 2 employees who go there several times a week. One of them is refusing vaccination. He says he will get an "exemption certificate" (I'm not exactly sure on what grounds although I know he does have some sort of heart condition), but the letter we received from the manufacturer does not list any other options (exemptions/regular testing/etc). The letter simply says if you do not provide a vax card by 11/1, you are terminated. 

This guy was basically hired for the sole purpose of servicing this account. He's not irreplaceable. How do we handle this as an employer? I'm going to check with our corporate attorney, but thought Id check here too for some feedback. TIA

It sucks that you have to deal with this. Personally, I think the Vax or Test direction is the way to go in these instances, but it's not like you can control your customer's policies. Has anyone reached out to them to have a conversation and make sure you fully understand their position on this and let them know it will impact their staffing? Sometimes written policy and policy practice aren't exactly the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, SWC said:

i think crosseyed 2 should answer icons question take that to the bank brohans

 

On 9/15/2021 at 4:56 PM, [icon] said:


On a scale of 1-10... 3 Years ago, how invested in Christianity were you? How certain were you that your beliefs were correct? 

On a scale of 1-10... how certain are you now that those beliefs were correct? 


bumped... didn't want this to get lost in the shuffle. Whenever @CrossEyed2 is ready 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
  • Create New...