Mandatory Vaccinations?

[jonathan180iq]

I just hope they can get other jobs... but, most likely not in the medical field though.

Seems like it would have been a lot simpler to just keep the job they had, doesn't it?

 

[McBell]

"153 Houston hospital workers fired, resign over vaccine rule"
"153 Hospital Workers Quit Or Were Fired Because They Refused To Get COVID Vaccines"

It was an ultimatum-comply or get fired. Some quit, yes. I wouldn't blame them.

I just hope they can get other jobs... but, most likely not in the medical field though.

Interesting how you completely the ignore the "suicide by cop" point.

They essentially quit.
Because they knew plenty ahead of time that they would be fired if they refused the vaccine.

Now it will depend upon how the unemployment office looks at it.
Will they side with you in that the were fired or will they side with me in that they quit?

Here in Indiana it would be determined they quit.
Both for public assistance and unemployment.

I am not familiar with Texas policies to say either way.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Seems like it would have been a lot simpler to just keep the job they had, doesn't it?

I think the hospitals were pushed and maybe they could have handled it differently. I also believe the pressure political figures are making this and provaxxers aren't making things better.

It's like a springboard affect. If I were in their place, I'd probably resign long beforehand. Going off the emotional climate of the media doesn't help but people are pulled in hook, line, and sinker.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Interesting how you completely the ignore the "suicide by cop" point.

They essentially quit.
Because they knew plenty ahead of time that they would be fired if they refused the vaccine.

Now it will depend upon how the unemployment office looks at it.
Will they side with you in that the were fired or will they side with me in that they quit?

Here in Indiana it would be determined they quit.
Both for public assistance and unemployment.

I am not familiar with Texas policies to say either way.

Mestemia, keep it civil.

This is what I mean about assumptions. Ask.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

They essentially quit.
Because they knew plenty ahead of time that they would be fired if they refused the vaccine.

What's wrong with all the articles saying they were fired and others resigned? It's the same reasoning.

I don't understand. Regardless if you're warned, you can still get fired for noncompliance. I'm not getting why you're saying otherwise?

Now it will depend upon how the unemployment office looks at it.
Will they side with you in that the were fired or will they side with me in that they quit?

They do it by reasoning?

They probably wont get it since even the judge threw the case out.

Here in Indiana it would be determined they quit.

Both for public assistance and unemployment.

I am not familiar with Texas policies to say either way.

I'm in Virginia. It's logical (at least so far I've known) that when a company dismiss you without your consent (or don't put you on the schedule, another example), you're fired. Least the general definition of the word.

The particulars, I don't know Texas policies either but I know many of the southern states are a bit striker than VA even though we're considered southern as well.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It is nothing more than suicide by cop.
They refused the vaccine knowing they would get fired over it.

Here we go. Why does the blame always need to be on the unvaccinated?

They were fired-unless the reporters made a wrong conclusion when they wrote their articles.

I would get fired if I decided to steal from my job. Doesn't mean I committed suicide, just that the action I hypothetically took has consequences. They were aware of the consequences, "and" they were fired.

This is why I hate media. It's all one-sided and they go with the majority.

 

[McBell]

Here we go. Why does the blame always need to be on the unvaccinated?

They were fired-unless the reporters made a wrong conclusion when they wrote their articles.

I would get fired if I decided to steal from my job. Doesn't mean I committed suicide, just that the action I hypothetically took has consequences. They were aware of the consequences, "and" they were fired.

This is why I hate media. It's all one-sided and they go with the majority.

you appear to not understand what "suicide by cop" means.

You also do not appear to understand the fact that unemployment tends to look at the reason one is "fired" and assesses if said "firing" was reasonable enough to warrant benefits.

And I find it extremely funny how you on one hand insist on their being fired based upon media headline and then claim to hate the media....

 

[ecco]

I have seen where an individual here and there made news for refusing a vaccine, but nothing on the scale of the hospital in Houston.

The scale is not all that impressive if you understand the big picture...

https://www.latimes.com/world-nation/story/2021-06-22/houston-covid-vaccine-firedIn April, Houston Methodist Hospital began requiring vaccination for its more than 25,000 employees across Texas, claiming to be the first hospital in the nation with a COVID vaccine mandate.​

154 of 25,000 employees = .00616.

The system will not even notice the loss.

 

[ecco]

I mean, my brother is homeless because he his job let a lot of people go when the pandemic was at its worse.

With so many people getting vaccinated and so many businesses reopening there is a shortage of workers in all industries. He should be able to get a job thanks to all the people who took the vaccine.

Also, I'm sure you and your brother would be very glad that neither of you got COVID from an unvaccinated nurse at a hospital if you were admitted for a broken bone or a severe stomach ache.

 

[ecco]

It's the context. If there wasn't coercion and push for the vaccine, I think they'd probably be a bit more willing to take it per their job. In and of itself, though, I don't agree people need to lose their job because of this.

That's really funny. You are suggesting the mindset is:

• COVID is bad.
• Vaccines are good.
• The reason I won't get vaccinated is because of the "coercion and push for the vaccine".

What would happen if majority of the workers left their hospital job (and any job for that matter)?

The majority of the 25,000 hospital workers are not ignorant of the basics of vaccinations.

I also wonder if provaxxers would laugh at the people who lost their jobs-even more so catch COVID.

The people who lost their jobs will not get vaccinated. There is a pretty good chance they will get Covid. I would laugh at them except that I know the more people who get it, the greater the possibility of a more virulent strain coming about. Then we are back to step one (march 2020).

Do you consider level of risk important and other X factors important when it comes to "possibly" endangering others?

Level of risk of what? Getting Covid? Spreading Covid? A new variant?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

With so many people getting vaccinated and so many businesses reopening there is a shortage of workers in all industries. He should be able to get a job thanks to all the people who took the vaccine.

Also, I'm sure you and your brother would be very glad that neither of you got COVID from an unvaccinated nurse at a hospital if you were admitted for a broken bone or a severe stomach ache.

I think he's developing psychosis from trauma but loosing his job and having OCD like symptoms makes it worse with COVID. Knowing him (no pun), he won't take the vaccine cause of government conspiracy.

I would personally get treatment from an unvaccinated nurse. I'm not that picky with that given I don't have that fear/concern she may have COVID. If I need help, I need help.

A lot of people avoided the ER and some died of heart attacks for fear they "might" catch COVID. COVID-19 fears keep millions of Americans from seeking hospital care

It's a valid justification of concern (if people don't like told they are afraid), but to die of a heart attack over an assumption...no. I'll take my chances.

But seriously, I hope he does not. He lives in his car out in a low population of Arizona. He's not a people person and doesn't have money to go to a movie. We are both relatively physically healthy. Though if his immune system is shot, his risk is even higher.

Level of risk not being at A risk.

I hope I won't catch it but other than deaths outside my area, masks, and vaccine signs, it doesn't seem like anything has changed here. No war zones.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That's really funny. You are suggesting the mindset is:

• COVID is bad.
• Vaccines are good.
• The reason I won't get vaccinated is because of the "coercion and push for the vaccine".

Me?

I know people don't read everyone's post in everyone's threads. I'll find the last comment somewhere recent that was a whole post on my reasoning on being unvaccinated. Take it as an excuse, but it's not like saying I made the wrong decision on the color of a car. I only take things into consideration with the facts, my medical professionals, loved ones, and my own assess and intuition. So, if I take it it won't be coercion and it won't be because of the idea I will be helping those I'm not even around.

The majority of the 25,000 hospital workers are not ignorant of the basics of vaccinations.

Okay?

That doesn't answer my question. My question was what would happen if the majority of workers left their job. The question doesn't ask about vaccines and ignorance of them.

The people who lost their jobs will not get vaccinated. There is a pretty good chance they will get Covid. I would laugh at them except that I know the more people who get it, the greater the possibility of a more virulent strain coming about. Then we are back to step one (march 2020).

That's a fallacy.

"Pretty good chance?" What fallacy is that... um... I think this one

Post Hoc Ergo Propter Hoc
Claiming that because one event followed another, it was also caused by it.

"A lot of people are rejecting vaccination, therefore people who are unvaccinated have a good chance of getting COVID."

I think it would be more "A lot of people are rejecting vaccination, therefore they are at risk of catching COVID."

We can't assess if the chances are higher or lower only relative to the person vaccinated who lowered their chances taking it. It also suggest confirmation bias a bit assuming that this "good chance" is an objective conclusion instead of base on emotionalism and your personal opinion.

EDIT. Another fallacy I just found....

Appeal to Incredulity
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.

I guess I'll change it to because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must be illogical.

Level of risk of what? Getting Covid? Spreading Covid? A new variant?

Age. Location. Health.

Doctors tend to use other factors when it comes to catching and spreading COVID. Age was a big factor they took into consideration Not just because they are at a risk.

 

[Suave]

Vaccinations are not without their own history of bad outcomes. See Mandatory Vaccinations?

Pro-vaccine woman says her healthy 13-year-old nephew died days after receiving second Covid jab
By World Tribune on June 21, 2021

A woman said that her 13-year-old nephew died less than three days after receiving his second dose of the Covid vaccine.

In a tweet that has gone viral, Tami Burages said: “A week ago today my brother’s 13-year-old son had his 2nd covid shot. Less than 3 days later he died. The initial autopsy results (done Friday) were that his heart was enlarged and there was some fluid surrounding it. He had no known health problems. Was on no medications.”

She added: “Our family is devastated. I struggled with putting this out on twitter. I am pro-vaccine. We vaccinated my own 14-year-old son as soon as it was available. I know it is *mostly safe*. But Jacob is dead now.”

Burages continued: “The @CDCgov needs to investigate this. There have been other cases of myocarditis in young men receiving their 2nd @pfizer shot. Have others died from it in the United States or is my nephew the first? I think parents should be warned of the risk.”

Earlier this month, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) confirmed “rare but higher-than-expected reports of heart inflammation following doses of the mRNA-based Pfizer and Modern COVID-19 vaccines.”

The CDC said it has identified 226 reports “that might meet the agency’s ‘working case definition’ of myocarditis and pericarditis following the shots, the agency disclosed. … The vast majority have recovered, but 41 had ongoing symptoms, 15 are still hospitalized and 3 are in the intensive care unit.”

National File noted that its Twitter account was blocked for 12 hours after it reported on the boy’s death, citing the woman’s tweet.

“Following publication of the story, the official National File Twitter account posted a link to the story with the caption, ‘a 13-year-old boy is dead after taking the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine, and his aunt, who is very pro-vaccine, is demanding an investigation from the CDC.’ However, within 3 hours of publishing the tweet, the National File account was locked out for 12 hours, with Twitter claiming that the tweet violated their rules, and specifically their policy on “spreading misleading and potentially harmful information related to COVID-19,” National File reported on June 21.

“Twitter’s censorship here is as repugnant as it is ridiculous,” said National File Editor-in-Chief Tom Pappert. “National File does not publish medical misinformation. We published a report containing direct quotes from a woman who – using Twitter – expressed concern about the death of her 13-year-old nephew, Jacob Clynick, which occurred after he received the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine.”

Pappert added that Burages is a “vaccine advocate who has used her Twitter account since 2017,” and that it was “disturbing” that National File was censored while her tweets remain on the platform. “It appears Twitter is attempting to censor news outlets for the crime of reporting on the concerns of a recently bereaved family member.”

Washington Times columnist Cheryl K. Chumley noted that “the tragedy with this potential side effect is that the 275 reports of heart inflammation Fox wrote that the CDC’s received since May 31 have all come from patients between the ages of 16 and 24. Specifically, from young males between the ages of 16 and 24. The very ages who don’t get harmed by the coronavirus in the first place.”

I'd like to firstly state I am mRNA C.O.V.I.D.-19 vaccinated without having any apparent negative side effects from being vaccinated. I weighed the risks and benefits of somebody like me being vaccinated, I concluded the benefits of me being vaccinated and consequently having near certain immunity against C.O.V.I.D.-19 outweighed the risks of me having a bad reaction to being vaccinated. That having been stated, I would like to inform any young adult considering to get vaccinated or any parents considering to have their child vaccinated, to be fully aware of the higher than expected cases of myocarditis/pericarditis observed among mRNA C.O.V.I.D.-19 vaccinated young adults in comparison to the risk of not being vaccinated and there being a very small infection fatality rate of 0.01153 percent among C.O.V.I.D-19 infected young adults ages 18 thru age 29.

CDC based data source references Cases, Data, and Surveillance ,
Cases, Data, and Surveillance,

Per CDC data, there have been an estimated 22,203,414 persons age 5 thru age17 infected by C.O.V.I.D.-19 as of the end of March 2021, Cases, Data, and Surveillance

I figure 256 deaths out of 22,203,414 infections would equal approximately 1.153 deaths out of 100,000 infections. 1.153/100,000 would equal an infection fatality rate of 0.001153 percent.

Per CDC data the rate of death by C.O.V.I.D.-19 is 10x higher for age group 18 thru age 29 than is the 0.001153 percent C.O.V.I.D.-19 infection fatality rate pertaining the referenced age group of age 5 thru age 17. This means the C.O.V.I.D-19 infection fatality rate would be approximately 0.01153 percent for the U.S. population within the age group of age18 thru age 29.

Cases, Data, and Surveillance

Per CDC data, there were 2,667 deaths of out an estimated 15,325,708 cases of flu during the 2019 to 2020 influenza season for the segment of U.S, population belonging to the age group 18 thru age 49. Reference: Estimated Influenza Illnesses, Medical visits, Hospitalizations, and Deaths in the United States — 2019–2020 Influenza Season | CDC

Per CDC data, the flu's case fatality rate for age group 18 thru age 49 is 2,667 deaths out of an estimated 15,325,708 cases of flu illnesses, which equals approximately 17.43 deaths out of a 100,000 cases of flu illness for this age group. This means the influenza's case fatality rate for the segment of U.S. population from ages 18 thru age 49 during the 2019-2020 influenza season is 0.1743 percent.

Of course, each young adult person contemplating being vaccinated should consider if the benefit of having certain immunity against a disease, which likely has an infection fatality rate pertaining to these young adults that is many times lower than influenza's case fatality rate pertaining to adults between the ages of 18 to 49, outweighs the increased risk of getting heart inflammation from being mRNA C.O.V.I.D.-19 vaccinated.

 

[McBell]

WHO: No urgent need to vaccinate children against COVID-19 right now | WANE 15​

 

[Suave]

WHO: No urgent need to vaccinate children against COVID-19 right now | WANE 15​

I was going to soon mention this, but you beat me to the punch.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It's the context. If there wasn't coercion and push for the vaccine, I think they'd probably be a bit more willing to take it per their job. In and of itself, though, I don't agree people need to lose their job because of this.

The COVID vaccine situation is much more charged than just any vaccine required due to change of rules. It's assuming that context doesn't apply and people just should follow "or" loose their job-coercion.

What would happen if majority of the workers left their hospital job (and any job for that matter)?

How would the hospitals and government for that matter handle that immediate lost?

I also wonder if provaxxers would laugh at the people who lost their jobs-even more so catch COVID.

Thankfully, most people who work at hospitals understand how vaccination is important and know better then to buy into nonsense conspiracies like "it makes you magnetic".

So that will not happen.

To the point: we can turn that around easily. What would happen if a majority of the works left their hospital because they refused to stop smoking in the building?

You mean more there was a smoking policy and now there is none and people shouldn't be upset just the same as the vaccine policy from where there wasn't one until required?

Smoking wouldn't be a good example for vaccines. It's better argument for masks because in both cases, people can stop smoking or wear masks-it's versatile.

A lot of the arguments with vaccines is it's not versatile. They actually inject you with it (however it works). It's one thing to be told to wear clothes when walking in a store and a whole 'nother to say you have to take X medication before coming into the store.

That's the difference.

1. the point is not about entering stores. The point is about working at a hospital

2. you can refuse the vaccine and go work elsewhere, where it isn't required

You get my point, though?

I'm talking about ethics. A doctor won't tell you to get vaccinated if he knows you have a condition that prevents it and he won't push it on you if you believe it's not in your best interests.

The point is that "experts" weigh the situation before telling people to take the vaccine.

Provaxxers push it on people without thinking of any other factors involve...yet they say they are listening to the experts.

This is a silly non-argument.
Nobody is going to force a vaccine on someone who has underlying conditions that makes the vaccine dangerous.

We are talking about the majority of people where such factors aren't present.

They "may" bear the consequences (must sounds like fear-it's not definite-we just don't know). They put themselves at "a" risk of catching COVID, but the "level" of risk depends on the person not whether or not he or she took the vaccine in and of itself.

Not just catch it themselves. People who get covid and who aren't vaccinated are immensly more contagious then those who were vaccinated. So these people are also a danger to others.

Why is it, do you think, that kids who aren't vaccinated against X and Y, aren't allowed in certain schools? It's not just to protect the unvaccinated kid. It's also, primarily even, to protect the other people that come in contact with this kid.

The problem is if Joe (going off of this point only not the OP), if Joe lived isolated with vary little population which there are many in the States or small population in some states and decides not to take the vaccine while another person in a heavily populated area decides not to take the vaccine, provaxxers will treat them the same-saying they refuse, not thinking of others, selfish, and ignorant.

Wouldn't they need to know more about these two people to make a determination whether or not they "warrant" those accusations (if one likes) and not make a blanketed statement just because someone says he or she is not vaccinated?

Obviously the underlying reason is important.
If you are allergic and can go into shock from the vaccine, that is quite a different story as opposed to someone not getting the vaccine "because it makes you magnetic" or "because bill gates has put nanochips in it to track us" or whatever other nutty nonsense.

Because you disagree with me?

No.

Double standard doesn't imply attacking a person's intellect (it's not attacking the person, just the argument).

I didn't attack anyone's intellect.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

People have the right to question no matter how illogical it may seem.

Sure. Nobody is claiming otherwise.

The point is not about anyone's right to not get a certain vaccine.
The point is about the consequences of such a decision.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

It was an ultimatum-comply or get fired. Some quit, yes. I wouldn't blame them.

How is that different from when the ban on smoking was put in place?
Those who would refuse to stop smoking in the building, would be fired as well.

How is that different form any policy change?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

I think the hospitals were pushed and maybe they could have handled it differently. I also believe the pressure political figures are making this and provaxxers aren't making things better.

It's like a springboard affect. If I were in their place, I'd probably resign long beforehand. Going off the emotional climate of the media doesn't help but people are pulled in hook, line, and sinker.

This has nothing to do with politics or media and everything with responsible healthcare.

 

[ecco]

So, if I take it it won't be coercion and it won't be because of the idea I will be helping those I'm not even around.

What coercion are you talking about? Are you referring to medical professionals showing statistics that unvaccinated people are far more likely to infected than vaccinated people? Is that what you consider coercion?

I consider coercion to be right-wing nut jobs telling people to not get vaccinated because there are tracking chips in the vaccine.
I consider coercion to be right-wing science deniers telling people to not get vaccinated because vaccines are all bad.

Instead of coercion being part of your decision-making, your decision should be based on the fact that...

• Covid kills people (over 600,000 Americans).
• Covid makes people ill, some with long lasting aftereffects (over 33,600,000 Americans).

So, what is your excuse for not getting vaccinated? Are you concerned about the implants? Do you disbelieve the numbers? Do you think you have superior immunity? What?

That doesn't answer my question. My question was what would happen if the majority of workers left their job. The question doesn't ask about vaccines and ignorance of them.

It's a moot question. It's an "IF pigs could fly" question. All people in the medical profession take courses in biology and immunology as part of their training. If they didn't believe what they were being taught, most would have found a different profession. Therefore, it's a fact that most medical professionals are not ignorant about vaccines.

It also suggest confirmation bias a bit assuming that this "good chance" is an objective conclusion instead of base on emotionalism and your personal opinion.

Over ten percent of Americans got infected. That's a pretty good chance. Now, the people getting infected are those who refuse to get vaccinated. They have a far greater chance of getting infected than I do. That's not emotionalism and personal opinion, that's an objective conclusion based on facts.

Appeal to Incredulity
Because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must not be true.
I guess I'll change it to because a claim sounds unbelievable, it must be illogical.

What claim are you referring to?

Doctors tend to use other factors when it comes to catching and spreading COVID. Age was a big factor they took into consideration Not just because they are at a risk.

Many elderly people got infected because of problems in nursing homes. If one person there got infected, many would get infected because Covid is spread through the air. Many of those infected died because elderly people in nursing homes have lower levels of immunity than thirty-year-olds. Some of that is relatable to previous ailments and immunosuppressant prescriptions. Some of that is also the result of more virions getting into the lungs because of the relatively tight living quarters.

Even outside of nursing homes, entire families got infected at indoor family gatherings because of the close contact and relative lack or air movement.