CALMSP wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

and I think that's what some people have some hesitancy. Its more of I just want to see a little bit more come out before I take mine. Also, there's going to be plenty that do not want to take it if they still have to live under restrictive shutdowns or unable to return to normalcy.

Nah at this point those people are just moving the goal posts again and again. 200,000,000 shots have been given in the USA. what do they need 400,000,000?

take a look at the news this morning, or more reports coming out of people who are fully vaccinated now testing positive. As more of these scenarios play out, its only going to keep hesitation. Government needs to come out and say if you are 100% vaccinated, you can live your life like its 2019. Then, I think you'd see an immediate jump.

I don't know why media is making such a big deal about fully vaccinated people can still get infected. Firstly, it's rare, secondly, effectiveness is never 100% and there will always be breakthrough cases (this applies to all vaccines, not just COVID ones), third, it's possible you got infected because your shots hadn't fully 100% developed yet (remember that it takes time, taking a shot and being safe isn't instant), and fourth, even if you do get infected (already an unlikely scenario), the chances of you getting severely sick or even dying is even lower. Just remember how statistics work: millions have been vaccinated, and the breakthrough cases number in the hundreds at most. That's still pretty damn successful. I mean, flu vaccine breakthroughs happen all the time but you don't see media being all over them. Sounds to me that all this media attention is coming from people who don't get how vaccines work in the first place.

If one reads the article : "In Houston, the 142 breakthrough infections are out of more than 577,000 people who are fully vaccinated. The Houston Health Department says that’s approximately 0.02%. None of them needed to be hospitalized.

http://www.khou.com/article/news/health ... f71af300a5
In the other article:

"However, news of breakthrough cases should be taken into context, said Dr. Paul Thomas, a family medicine physician in Detroit who started Plum Health, a low-cost medical practice in Corktown.

People should keep in mind that the 246 breakthrough cases occurred among the more than 1.8 million Michiganders who are fully vaccinated, he said.

“That breaks down to 0.0144% of those who have gotten the vaccine have come down with a breakthrough infection,” Thomas said. “So that means that the vaccine is 99.99% effective in preventing infection.” "

http://www.poynter.org/reporting-editin ... -covid-19/

The facts outweigh the hysteria.

CALMSP wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

CALMSP wrote:

and I think that's what some people have some hesitancy. Its more of I just want to see a little bit more come out before I take mine. Also, there's going to be plenty that do not want to take it if they still have to live under restrictive shutdowns or unable to return to normalcy.

Nah at this point those people are just moving the goal posts again and again. 200,000,000 shots have been given in the USA. what do they need 400,000,000?

take a look at the news this morning, or more reports coming out of people who are fully vaccinated now testing positive. As more of these scenarios play out, its only going to keep hesitation. Government needs to come out and say if you are 100% vaccinated, you can live your life like its 2019. Then, I think you'd see an immediate jump.

That’s because we are testing asymptomatic people with an amplified PCR test not designed for that purpose.

It’s like testing drinking water for minute trace amounts of toxins and the reporting the water is contaminated rather than that water often has trace amounts that pose no danger.

travaz wrote:

If one reads the article : "In Houston, the 142 breakthrough infections are out of more than 577,000 people who are fully vaccinated. The Houston Health Department says that’s approximately 0.02%. None of them needed to be hospitalized.

http://www.khou.com/article/news/health ... f71af300a5
In the other article:

"However, news of breakthrough cases should be taken into context, said Dr. Paul Thomas, a family medicine physician in Detroit who started Plum Health, a low-cost medical practice in Corktown.

People should keep in mind that the 246 breakthrough cases occurred among the more than 1.8 million Michiganders who are fully vaccinated, he said.

“That breaks down to 0.0144% of those who have gotten the vaccine have come down with a breakthrough infection,” Thomas said. “So that means that the vaccine is 99.99% effective in preventing infection.” "

http://www.poynter.org/reporting-editin ... -covid-19/

The facts outweigh the hysteria.

I’m very pro vax, but that’s not hot you actually figure out efficacy. The chance of infection is that low, but the reality is if 177,000 michiganders had the virus in the last 30 days, and ~17% of the state is vaccinated, you’d expect 30,000 to get the virus. This is all rough napkin math, but efficacy is roughly 289/30000 which is 99% real world efficacy against test positive break through. Still that’s amazing.

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

and I think 1/6 of the blood clot people died? So 1/6,000,000.

rbavfan wrote:

People don't realize one reason Vaccines got here so quick is the research stated with SARS (2002), followed by MERS (2012) both of which are variants of this virus. They have studied ways to fight it for years. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/types.html

Those vaccines are only used for those with the virus and their immediate contacts, rather than for general immunity. Use of official information legislation might disclose why.

32andBelow wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

and I think 1/6 of the blood clot people died? So 1/6,000,000.

But the median for onset of symptoms is 9 days, with the latest 13 days, which means a very large contingent of the JandJ vaccine recipients are not past 14 days yet.
In our family, we are at 20 days, 12 days, 12 days, 11 days, 8 days, 5 days. For me, the vaccine has triggered my arthritis the last few days, and in the last 24 hrs, neuralgia in my lower body and right fingers that had been dormant for a few years.
These vaccines are not child’s play, and mandating them without more study is criminal.

ikramerica wrote:

But the median for onset of symptoms is 9 days, with the latest 13 days, which means a very large contingent of the JandJ vaccine recipients are not past 14 days yet.
In our family, we are at 20 days, 12 days, 12 days, 11 days, 8 days, 5 days. For me, the vaccine has triggered my arthritis the last few days, and in the last 24 hrs, neuralgia in my lower body and right fingers that had been dormant for a few years.
These vaccines are not child’s play, and mandating them without more study is criminal.

No, it's not. The vaccines save lives...period. They've already been studied enough to receive EUA (or equivalent) from most regulatory bodies. I agree that companies probably won't be able to mandate them until they have full approval, but that doesn't make trying to take care of their employees, employees' families, and their customers "criminal" by any stretch of the imagination.

As one of my doctor friends is fond of saying: "Correlation does not equal causation". According to the CDC, in the US, 1-2 people per thousand get blood clots in a given year (and 60,000 - 100,000 peeps die from them annually). At this point, it is entirely possible (perhaps even probable) the vaccine had nothing to do with these 6 cases. Since the US has plenty of Pfizer and Moderna doses available, it makes sense to pause the J&J and investigate to make sure there is no connection, or if there is, to make sure it's communicated to pts and preparations are in place to handle possible blood clots if they occur (i.e. what they did with the AZ vax).

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

planecane wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

Maybe 1/650 if you get covid? Which would be a bad stat since there’s cases that aren’t in the count.

I think the best policy would be this:

- If you didn't get vaccines, and you get covid, then the company are not liable to pay for your hospitalization costs or your wages when you are sick.
- You have to pay for all extra expenses (like testing costs, etc.) if you are not vaccinated.
- The airlines are not liable to provide any tools or expenses for you to keep your health in check.
- If you spread the virus to the passengers, then you are liable to any expenses or lawsuit brought by the passengers is you caused them harm.

So these airline workers are liable to whatever consequences they faced when they refuse to get vaccinated.

It's only fair to everybody. They need to take accountability for their own actions.

If yesterday's events weren't evidence enough to convince you that requiring a vaccine being administered under an EUA as a condition of employment isn't ripe for a lawsuit, then I don't know what to tell you.

planecane wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I am by no means anti-vax or anti-COVID vax. I have had both shots of Moderna as of last week. However, the recent news of the US pausing the Johnson & Johnson vaccine due to a rare blood clotting disorder in six women who took it (one died and one in critical condition) and the issues in Europe with the AstraZeneca vaccine do illustrate that the concern some people have taking vaccines that are not fully approved aren't completely unfounded.

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

51 million?! Math is hard...

It's quite simple: Roughly 330,000,000 Americans divided by the 560,000 who've died of Covid19. It's actually closer to 1 in 590 as this article points out. (I was using estimated data).

https://coronavirus.nautil.us/how-many- ... rom-covid/

32andBelow wrote:

planecane wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

Maybe 1/650 if you get covid? Which would be a bad stat since there’s cases that aren’t in the count.

Fatality rate for (known) infections is approx 1.8 per 100 (Per Johns Hopkins). I explained the 1/650 (actually 1 in 590) above.

11C wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

26point2 wrote:

In the US there is some debate about the legality of mandating employees to get vaccinated. This issue is still developing as far as I understand it and it looks like it may be left up to the individual states to declare their policy.

What is the position with regards to airlines, their employees and the COVID vaccine? Will/are airlines requiring employees to get vaccinated?

My body, my choice. I will not be a lab rat for big pharma.
You can always say its against your religion. If your employer cans you, after telling them that, I see a large settlement in your future.

So how do we justify mandatory TB tests for medical personnel? How do we justify DOT mandated drug and alcohol testing? How do we justify anything with that philosophy? Do you also apply my body, my choice to a woman’s reproductive rights? And can everything be avoided by merely claiming, “its against my religion?” Do military members get to refuse vaccinations against bio agents? You make it sound so simple, but I would argue that it’s not.

Playing devil's advocate here:
breath and urine tests do not affect your body at all.
X-ray and blood test have some minor effect on your body.
Vaccination is designed to have a significant effect.
Surgery is designed to have a major effect.

Now, most childhood vaccinations are encouraged by making services dependent on them. COllege doesn't have to admit those with no immunizations. Your body, your career, your choice. Most adult shots are less mandatory, until there is another privilege (country admission) at stake.

Blood tests are uncommon for employment reason. Alcohol/drug tests, maybe, but those are usually in extreme situations, like after breath test shows the presence of alcohol.
TB X-ray maybe the most invasive mandatory procedure I can think of.

Making jobs - and moreover, basic rights (such as travel) dependent on body modification is a bit shaky. How far can we go with those requirements? Can an airline require rampers to do lower ribs removal surgery, so that they are more flexible and can work in a hold more efficiently? No way! But - where is the line?

ewt340 wrote:

I think the best policy would be this:

- If you didn't get vaccines, and you get covid, then the company are not liable to pay for your hospitalization costs or your wages when you are sick.
- You have to pay for all extra expenses (like testing costs, etc.) if you are not vaccinated.
- The airlines are not liable to provide any tools or expenses for you to keep your health in check.
- If you spread the virus to the passengers, then you are liable to any expenses or lawsuit brought by the passengers is you caused them harm.

So these airline workers are liable to whatever consequences they faced when they refuse to get vaccinated.

It's only fair to everybody. They need to take accountability for their own actions.

I read this article about the Nevada Casinos:
https://www.ktnv.com/news/coronavirus/c ... d-by-may-1

The cosmo has pledged 1 Million $ as bonuses if 90% of the staff gets a vaccine. It is not required , however if you dont you will have to provide a negative test on an ongoing basis (it will cost you $30.00 per test). Several other properties are also offering incentives. The Nevada Gaming commision is requiring a certain level of vaccinated staff for the Casinos to increase capacity and open additional venues and services. I don't think this is unreasonable at all and may be a model for many business' in the US.

kalvado wrote:

11C wrote:

Citrus1492 wrote:

My body, my choice. I will not be a lab rat for big pharma.
You can always say its against your religion. If your employer cans you, after telling them that, I see a large settlement in your future.

So how do we justify mandatory TB tests for medical personnel? How do we justify DOT mandated drug and alcohol testing? How do we justify anything with that philosophy? Do you also apply my body, my choice to a woman’s reproductive rights? And can everything be avoided by merely claiming, “its against my religion?” Do military members get to refuse vaccinations against bio agents? You make it sound so simple, but I would argue that it’s not.

Playing devil's advocate here:
breath and urine tests do not affect your body at all.
X-ray and blood test have some minor effect on your body.
Vaccination is designed to have a significant effect.
Surgery is designed to have a major effect.

Now, most childhood vaccinations are encouraged by making services dependent on them. COllege doesn't have to admit those with no immunizations. Your body, your career, your choice. Most adult shots are less mandatory, until there is another privilege (country admission) at stake.

Blood tests are uncommon for employment reason. Alcohol/drug tests, maybe, but those are usually in extreme situations, like after breath test shows the presence of alcohol.
TB X-ray maybe the most invasive mandatory procedure I can think of.

Making jobs - and moreover, basic rights (such as travel) dependent on body modification is a bit shaky. How far can we go with those requirements? Can an airline require rampers to do lower ribs removal surgery, so that they are more flexible and can work in a hold more efficiently? No way! But - where is the line?

The line is between a covid vaccination and getting ribs removed. Hope this helps.

32andBelow wrote:

kalvado wrote:

11C wrote:

So how do we justify mandatory TB tests for medical personnel? How do we justify DOT mandated drug and alcohol testing? How do we justify anything with that philosophy? Do you also apply my body, my choice to a woman’s reproductive rights? And can everything be avoided by merely claiming, “its against my religion?” Do military members get to refuse vaccinations against bio agents? You make it sound so simple, but I would argue that it’s not.

Playing devil's advocate here:
breath and urine tests do not affect your body at all.
X-ray and blood test have some minor effect on your body.
Vaccination is designed to have a significant effect.
Surgery is designed to have a major effect.

Now, most childhood vaccinations are encouraged by making services dependent on them. COllege doesn't have to admit those with no immunizations. Your body, your career, your choice. Most adult shots are less mandatory, until there is another privilege (country admission) at stake.

Blood tests are uncommon for employment reason. Alcohol/drug tests, maybe, but those are usually in extreme situations, like after breath test shows the presence of alcohol.
TB X-ray maybe the most invasive mandatory procedure I can think of.

Making jobs - and moreover, basic rights (such as travel) dependent on body modification is a bit shaky. How far can we go with those requirements? Can an airline require rampers to do lower ribs removal surgery, so that they are more flexible and can work in a hold more efficiently? No way! But - where is the line?

The line is between a covid vaccination and getting ribs removed. Hope this helps.

Great. Can you give a better justification, though?
Thing is, we like to draw lines in the sand. I can give you a lot of examples where your line doesn't help.
Just for example: USAF used to give amphetamines to pilots. Would it be a good idea to do the same with airline crews? Of course this should only be done for everyone's safety blah-blah-blah. Or if that is too much - how about caffeine injections? People are taking caffeine volunteerly, so we'll just help maintain proper dosing in a safe and professional manner.

Bottom line - I do understand employer's desire to have employees vaccinated; and as passenger I will appreciate vaccinated crew once I am back on board. But enforcing medical intervention may go a bit too far in my book.

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Playing devil's advocate here:
breath and urine tests do not affect your body at all.
X-ray and blood test have some minor effect on your body.
Vaccination is designed to have a significant effect.
Surgery is designed to have a major effect.

Now, most childhood vaccinations are encouraged by making services dependent on them. COllege doesn't have to admit those with no immunizations. Your body, your career, your choice. Most adult shots are less mandatory, until there is another privilege (country admission) at stake.

Blood tests are uncommon for employment reason. Alcohol/drug tests, maybe, but those are usually in extreme situations, like after breath test shows the presence of alcohol.
TB X-ray maybe the most invasive mandatory procedure I can think of.

Making jobs - and moreover, basic rights (such as travel) dependent on body modification is a bit shaky. How far can we go with those requirements? Can an airline require rampers to do lower ribs removal surgery, so that they are more flexible and can work in a hold more efficiently? No way! But - where is the line?

The line is between a covid vaccination and getting ribs removed. Hope this helps.

Great. Can you give a better justification, though?
Thing is, we like to draw lines in the sand. I can give you a lot of examples where your line doesn't help.
Just for example: USAF used to give amphetamines to pilots. Would it be a good idea to do the same with airline crews? Of course this should only be done for everyone's safety blah-blah-blah. Or if that is too much - how about caffeine injections? People are taking caffeine volunteerly, so we'll just help maintain proper dosing in a safe and professional manner.

Bottom line - I do understand employer's desire to have employees vaccinated; and as passenger I will appreciate vaccinated crew once I am back on board. But enforcing medical intervention may go a bit too far in my book.

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Airlines will not require the vaccine in the short term. They will incentivize vaccination and disincentivize not getting it until one or more countries require flight crews to have it for entry.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ok, this would be the easiest solution:

- Every workers who didn't get vaccinated would need to be tested and they have to pay for it everytime they started their shifts.
- If the test came back positive, it means that they are unable to work. And if they are unable to work then they have to be replaced. If they keep getting covid then they could get fired for their inability to perform their duty.

This should be the standard.

32andBelow wrote:

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

The line is between a covid vaccination and getting ribs removed. Hope this helps.

Great. Can you give a better justification, though?
Thing is, we like to draw lines in the sand. I can give you a lot of examples where your line doesn't help.
Just for example: USAF used to give amphetamines to pilots. Would it be a good idea to do the same with airline crews? Of course this should only be done for everyone's safety blah-blah-blah. Or if that is too much - how about caffeine injections? People are taking caffeine volunteerly, so we'll just help maintain proper dosing in a safe and professional manner.

Bottom line - I do understand employer's desire to have employees vaccinated; and as passenger I will appreciate vaccinated crew once I am back on board. But enforcing medical intervention may go a bit too far in my book.

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain. That is the biggest issue with any emergency actions - you need to take into account what will happen after emergency is over.
One thing I certainly don't want to do is to give companies too much powers over medical decisions regarding employer legal health decisions. It will escalate to ribs removal over time...

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Great. Can you give a better justification, though?
Thing is, we like to draw lines in the sand. I can give you a lot of examples where your line doesn't help.
Just for example: USAF used to give amphetamines to pilots. Would it be a good idea to do the same with airline crews? Of course this should only be done for everyone's safety blah-blah-blah. Or if that is too much - how about caffeine injections? People are taking caffeine volunteerly, so we'll just help maintain proper dosing in a safe and professional manner.

Bottom line - I do understand employer's desire to have employees vaccinated; and as passenger I will appreciate vaccinated crew once I am back on board. But enforcing medical intervention may go a bit too far in my book.

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain. That is the biggest issue with any emergency actions - you need to take into account what will happen after emergency is over.
One thing I certainly don't want to do is to give companies too much powers over medical decisions regarding employer legal health decisions. It will escalate to ribs removal over time...

Uhmm, that's not how it works love. In order for the pandemic to be over, you actually need to do something to fix it. Not running around doing nothing and screaming "pandemic will be over".

As someone who have lived through the Malaria epidemics, we didn't go around telling people that cleaning the gutter and spraying Mosquito Repellents are optional. It is strictly enforced in all the areas affected by them regardless of anyone opinion.

It ended because everybody actually doing their job. We know it could be done. We got many countries like Taiwan, South Korea or New Zealand that have proved many times that good government policies and participation from the citizens actually works. But then again, these countries have level of educated populations who use their brain to assess the risk of not getting the vaccine or wearing masks.

ewt340 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain. That is the biggest issue with any emergency actions - you need to take into account what will happen after emergency is over.
One thing I certainly don't want to do is to give companies too much powers over medical decisions regarding employer legal health decisions. It will escalate to ribs removal over time...

Uhmm, that's not how it works love. In order for the pandemic to be over, you actually need to do something to fix it. Not running around doing nothing and screaming "pandemic will be over".

As someone who have lived through the Malaria epidemics, we didn't go around telling people that cleaning the gutter and spraying Mosquito Repellents are optional. It is strictly enforced in all the areas affected by them regardless of anyone opinion.

It ended because everybody actually doing their job. We know it could be done. We got many countries like Taiwan, South Korea or New Zealand that have proved many times that good government policies and participation from the citizens actually works. But then again, these countries have level of educated populations who use their brain to assess the risk of not getting the vaccine or wearing masks.

There is a fine line between cleaning gutters - which is just some money or work, nothing more; and medical procedures.
I do see that as a good reason to consider vaccination under a different set of rules. Keep vaccination as a carrot and stick issue, not as a mandate issue.
There are a few carrot-and-stick approaches described on this very page, bonus for vaccination, malus (test fee) for not doing it, for example.

"everyone must do it, or it will not work" argument is not a good one. Vaccine is not 100% efficient, so there will be a certain percent of those still prone to infection (weaker one maybe, maybe just dataset is too small). So we're just talking %%, not yes-or-no scenarios.

kalvado wrote:

"everyone must do it, or it will not work" argument is not a good one. Vaccine is not 100% efficient, so there will be a certain percent of those still prone to infection (weaker one maybe, maybe just dataset is too small). So we're just talking %%, not yes-or-no scenarios.

No, that’s exactly why everyone needs to take the vaccine. You’re right, there are many people for whom the vaccine will not be effective and every unvaccinated person walking around is putting them at greater risk. We need these percentages to be as high as possible to get the maximum protection.

kalvado wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain. That is the biggest issue with any emergency actions - you need to take into account what will happen after emergency is over.
One thing I certainly don't want to do is to give companies too much powers over medical decisions regarding employer legal health decisions. It will escalate to ribs removal over time...

Uhmm, that's not how it works love. In order for the pandemic to be over, you actually need to do something to fix it. Not running around doing nothing and screaming "pandemic will be over".

As someone who have lived through the Malaria epidemics, we didn't go around telling people that cleaning the gutter and spraying Mosquito Repellents are optional. It is strictly enforced in all the areas affected by them regardless of anyone opinion.

It ended because everybody actually doing their job. We know it could be done. We got many countries like Taiwan, South Korea or New Zealand that have proved many times that good government policies and participation from the citizens actually works. But then again, these countries have level of educated populations who use their brain to assess the risk of not getting the vaccine or wearing masks.

There is a fine line between cleaning gutters - which is just some money or work, nothing more; and medical procedures.
I do see that as a good reason to consider vaccination under a different set of rules. Keep vaccination as a carrot and stick issue, not as a mandate issue.
There are a few carrot-and-stick approaches described on this very page, bonus for vaccination, malus (test fee) for not doing it, for example.

"everyone must do it, or it will not work" argument is not a good one. Vaccine is not 100% efficient, so there will be a certain percent of those still prone to infection (weaker one maybe, maybe just dataset is too small). So we're just talking %%, not yes-or-no scenarios.

God we’d still have polio if people of today lived back the.

kalvado wrote:

"everyone must do it, or it will not work" argument is not a good one. Vaccine is not 100% efficient, so there will be a certain percent of those still prone to infection (weaker one maybe, maybe just dataset is too small). So we're just talking %%, not yes-or-no scenarios.

It's not an argument, it's science.

umichman wrote:

What if someone has already had Covid? What about requiring vaccinations for other diseases (like Measles)? What about requiring annual flu shot?

A vaccine for COVID-19 acts as a booster for convalescent immunity. It creates stronger immunity than just recovering from an infection.

Actually I think several vaccinations should be required to fly, especially the Measles vaccine should be required in order to fly on commercial aircraft. There was an El Al flight attendant in her early 40's who died from Measles encephalitis in 2019. The woman had gotten the one MMR recommended when she was a child, but around 1991, the WHO started recommending 2 lifetime MMR vaccinations after the age of one with the second vaccination at least a month after the first. Many people born between 1958 and 1991 oy have one MMR vaccination and need another in order to meet WHO and CDC guidelines. El.Al set up a vaccination clinic at TLV to get all flight crew vaccinated against Measles. Just the couple of years before the COVID-19 pandemic started, there were lots of Measles outbreaks around the world, especially in the US, Israel, Ukraine, and Samoa.

As Measles is the most contagious disease known to medicine, it makes sense to require vaccinationbfot it to board aircraft. I have a 1 year old son whose mother is from Ukraine which had the world's worst outbreak of Measles in 2018-19. In 2019 they had something like over 60,000 cases. I absolutely refused to let my wife travel to Ukraine with our son before he is fully vaccinated against Measles. Technically he could get his second MMR tomorrow, but I would wait til maybe 2-3 weeks before departure date to have him vaccinated again. As COVID-19 has made international travel difficult even for fully vaccinated people like myself, I don't see them traveling to Ukraine in the near future.

flyingclrs727 wrote:

umichman wrote:

What if someone has already had Covid? What about requiring vaccinations for other diseases (like Measles)? What about requiring annual flu shot?

A vaccine for COVID-19 acts as a booster for convalescent immunity. It creates stronger immunity than just recovering from an infection.

Actually I think several vaccinations should be required to fly, especially the Measles vaccine should be required in order to fly on commercial aircraft. There was an El Al flight attendant in her early 40's who died from Measles encephalitis in 2019. The woman had gotten the one MMR recommended when she was a child, but around 1991, the WHO started recommending 2 lifetime MMR vaccinations after the age of one with the second vaccination at least a month after the first. Many people born between 1958 and 1991 oy have one MMR vaccination and need another in order to meet WHO and CDC guidelines. El.Al set up a vaccination clinic at TLV to get all flight crew vaccinated against Measles. Just the couple of years before the COVID-19 pandemic started, there were lots of Measles outbreaks around the world, especially in the US, Israel, Ukraine, and Samoa.

As Measles is the most contagious disease known to medicine, it makes sense to require vaccinationbfot it to board aircraft. I have a 1 year old son whose mother is from Ukraine which had the world's worst outbreak of Measles in 2018-19. In 2019 they had something like over 60,000 cases. I absolutely refused to let my wife travel to Ukraine with our son before he is fully vaccinated against Measles. Technically he could get his second MMR tomorrow, but I would wait til maybe 2-3 weeks before departure date to have him vaccinated again. As COVID-19 has made international travel difficult even for fully vaccinated people like myself, I don't see them traveling to Ukraine in the near future.

Straying a little bit off topic, but I read recently (I’ll try and find the article and link it) that the mRNA vaccines *may* have the capability of carrying several different vaccines at once. Basically delivering a document box of instructions to your body in one delivery. Instead of multiple injections, in the future you may be able to go for a “vaccine booster” which may be able to deliver vaccines for several different viruses at once. If true that may be huge, as they may be able to tailor that specifically to flight crews, or certain regions. Just getting one shot to cover you for the next 5 years may increase the likelihood of people keeping up with their vaccines. And in an airline world, airlines may be able to order a specific formula that has all the vaccines a flight crew needs to travel to all the regions that have restrictions and have it done in one shot.

This technology is amazing.

Airlines have worked, and will always work, around the logistical issues of entry requirements for certain countries. For instance, a crew member with a Taiwanese passport would not be allowed to fly to China, just as a Lebanese passport holder would be removed from a flight to Israel. When AA flew to Moscow, not every single AA crew member got a Russian visa, so the pool of those who could do ORD-DME was rather limited, and the airline managed just fine.

Because a foreign country XYZ might impose a Covid vaccination as an entry requirement - just like a visa - doesn’t mean that thousands and thousands of crew members across the country have to get vaccinated. As I have mentioned earlier in the thread, there will be ample voluntarily vaccinated employees to crew those destination-specific flights.

At the moment arguing over this topic is a moot point because the US federal law expressly prohibits employers from requiring vaccinations that are administered under Emergency Use Authorizations. This includes even hospitals. So, if healthcare workers cannot be required to get vaccinated, I cannot see how any other employee group’s mandatory vaccination can withstand a legal scrutiny.

https://www.statnews.com/2021/02/23/fed ... er-an-eua/

As for financially punitive measures requiring unvaccinated employees to pay for their own tests, I think as a society we are better off not getting on that slippery slope. With that approach one can then argue that obese people should pay for their own diabetes tests, alcoholics should pay for their own liver diagnostics, etc. and thats not the society I would like to live in.

I know that some middle eastern airlines force unvaccinated employees to pay for their tests, but then again they also fire female crew members for getting married and/or getting pregnant. I dont think anybody living in a free democratic world should be looking towards Middle East as an example of the best employment standards and practices.

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

kalvado wrote:

Great. Can you give a better justification, though?
Thing is, we like to draw lines in the sand. I can give you a lot of examples where your line doesn't help.
Just for example: USAF used to give amphetamines to pilots. Would it be a good idea to do the same with airline crews? Of course this should only be done for everyone's safety blah-blah-blah. Or if that is too much - how about caffeine injections? People are taking caffeine volunteerly, so we'll just help maintain proper dosing in a safe and professional manner.

Bottom line - I do understand employer's desire to have employees vaccinated; and as passenger I will appreciate vaccinated crew once I am back on board. But enforcing medical intervention may go a bit too far in my book.

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain.

I can not think of a single mandatory vaccination where the requirement wasn´t dropped once the virus was out of circulation.

best regards
Thomas

2175301 wrote:

I'm not sure you are quoting the right - or all the applicable statutes. I live in the USA and my wife works part time in a hospital.

She tells me that the hospital she works at limits health care workers in certain areas to only fully vaccinated people (Covid-19 Ward, Emergency Room, currently expanding to Surgery, and soon to expand to other areas). They have told the staff that they will work to find you a position in another area of the hospital if you are not vaccinated, if they can; but, will not guarantee you employment if they cannot find work suitable to your skills and pay rate.

There are very few medical staff who have declined vaccination since the medical staff (including my wife) has seen some of the worst results of Covid-19.

So, I take it from a very large medical company in the USA that they do think that they can dictate which staff positions require vaccination, and can end your employment if they cannot provide you with employment based on your previous position and qualifications.

I see no reason why Airlines could not do the same with the positions that have close interaction with a lot of passengers or other people.

As far as Covid-19 effects. I'm one of the "long haulers" with degraded mental ("brain fog") and other physical capabilities from developing Covid-19 early March 2020. It is clearly limiting my ability to earn $.

I've already gotten the 1st vaccine shot. 2nd one is scheduled. In 30-40% of cases the vaccine greatly reduces of eliminates the "long hauler" symptoms. I'm hoping that I'm one of those.

Have a great day,

Without seeing a written policy of the hospital that states what you've mentioned, it's hard to comment on what you have said. But regardless, nothing stops an employer from requiring employees to get vaccinated. That doesn't mean it will hold up in court, though.

Here is a copy of the transcript from FDA's open session with respect to Covid-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download - on p156, line 11 you can see where Dr. Cohn (who is an executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) states that vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory under EUA, even in hospitals.

All the best.

tommy1808 wrote:

kalvado wrote:

32andBelow wrote:

We are in a global pandemic. That’s the justification. It’s not done big scam. It’s just reality.

Pandemic will be over, practices will remain.

I can not think of a single mandatory vaccination where the requirement wasn´t dropped once the virus was out of circulation.

best regards
Thomas

There is approximately 1 (one) case of eradicated human infection - smallpox. Immunization requirement is dropped for that one. So you are totally correct.
Two our of 3 strains of polio are no longer there, but complete immunization is still required.
Covid is unlikely to be eradicated, though.

I am not talking about covid immunization practices, though. I am talking about private entities not licensed for medical operations making healthcare decisions for employees. So far, passing down government regulations and accommodating employees in that context is the only thing private companies may do. Companies doing alcohol and substance abuse counseling is as much as I am comfortable with.

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

The pause on J&J news should make people feel better about the vaccines. With a less than 1 in a million chance of getting a blood clot the CDC paused it. That means they take it seriously. For frame of reference, in December the average American had a 1/650 chance of dying from Covid19 (all things being equal). Go ahead and marinate on that for a minute.

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

51 million?! Math is hard...

It's quite simple: Roughly 330,000,000 Americans divided by the 560,000 who've died of Covid19. It's actually closer to 1 in 590 as this article points out. (I was using estimated data).

https://coronavirus.nautil.us/how-many- ... rom-covid/

My decimal was off and I was doing an in the head swag because you said 1/650 chance in December which I interpreted as you giving a monthly risk so I was multiplying by 12 months. Doing the math properly, that would be be about 6 million a year but I see all you were doing was a total risk of dying.

Now, I don't agree with your calculation either because you said the "average American." The average American is 38 years old. So far, a 38 year old has had about a 0.02% chance to die from COVID in the pandemic. The risk to the "average American" would be around 1/5000, not 1/650. Over 80% of the deaths are people 65 and over who are at significantly higher risk than the "average American."

1/5000 is still far higher than the risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine.

ewt340 wrote:

Ok, this would be the easiest solution:

- Every workers who didn't get vaccinated would need to be tested and they have to pay for it everytime they started their shifts.
- If the test came back positive, it means that they are unable to work. And if they are unable to work then they have to be replaced. If they keep getting covid then they could get fired for their inability to perform their duty.

This should be the standard.

Enough with the hysterics.

ewt340 wrote:

Ok, this would be the easiest solution:

- Every workers who didn't get vaccinated would need to be tested and they have to pay for it everytime they started their shifts.
- If the test came back positive, it means that they are unable to work. And if they are unable to work then they have to be replaced. If they keep getting covid then they could get fired for their inability to perform their duty.

This should be the standard.

While I don't necessarily disagree, this opens up a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line. What differentiates C19 from other activities that are very risky? For example I am into mountaineering, a hobby that is on the deadlier side, and a friend of mine does paragliding (one of the deadliest hobbies out there). What risk of its employees does an employer have to tolerate? I would like to continue mountaineering without my employer getting involved (I had to spend some time in the hospital because of my hobby).


This line of argumentation does not really work as this would open the door for more supervision by employers. However, giving C19 to you customers and potentially infecting them is a different line of argumentation. No airline would like to read "All Passengers of flight DL123456 in quarantine because of an un-vaccinated Cabin Crew member". I think that with the safety of customers argument, you have a way better case of "enforcing" vaccination. And for airlines that only fly internationally, I think there is no other way for their employees of either getting the vaccine or search some new occupation.

sanssouci wrote:

Without seeing a written policy of the hospital that states what you've mentioned, it's hard to comment on what you have said. But regardless, nothing stops an employer from requiring employees to get vaccinated. That doesn't mean it will hold up in court, though.

Here is a copy of the transcript from FDA's open session with respect to Covid-19 vaccine Emergency Use Authorization https://www.fda.gov/media/143982/download - on p156, line 11 you can see where Dr. Cohn (who is an executive secretary of the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices) states that vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory under EUA, even in hospitals.

All the best.

Thank you for your polite reply,

That doesn't mean that a policy requiring vaccination to be an employee, or be terminated, would not stand up in court either.

2 key items I have learned in my long life:

1) When dealing with legal questions there are often what appears to be conflicting legal standards at both the federal and within state law. EUA may not be the only federal regulations or laws involved in this question... and which ones have priority... often takes a court case or two to figure out. Companies and lawyers tend to like situations like this as even if their interpretation of which standard takes priority losses in court, they do not face additional fines and in some cases triple damages.

2) Personal beliefs or opinions on what any policy or law means are often wrong. Again, it often takes a court case to define what something means.

This clearly is not a case of settled law where the courts have ruled on what the legal interpretation or standard is.

It appears to me that at least one hospital/clinic chain feels that they have sufficient legal standing to make the case for requiring Covid-19 vaccines at this time.

Capricorn wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

Ok, this would be the easiest solution:

- Every workers who didn't get vaccinated would need to be tested and they have to pay for it everytime they started their shifts.
- If the test came back positive, it means that they are unable to work. And if they are unable to work then they have to be replaced. If they keep getting covid then they could get fired for their inability to perform their duty.

This should be the standard.

While I don't necessarily disagree, this opens up a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line. What differentiates C19 from other activities that are very risky? For example I am into mountaineering, a hobby that is on the deadlier side, and a friend of mine does paragliding (one of the deadliest hobbies out there). What risk of its employees does an employer have to tolerate? I would like to continue mountaineering without my employer getting involved (I had to spend some time in the hospital because of my hobby).


This line of argumentation does not really work as this would open the door for more supervision by employers. However, giving C19 to you customers and potentially infecting them is a different line of argumentation. No airline would like to read "All Passengers of flight DL123456 in quarantine because of an un-vaccinated Cabin Crew member". I think that with the safety of customers argument, you have a way better case of "enforcing" vaccination. And for airlines that only fly internationally, I think there is no other way for their employees of either getting the vaccine or search some new occupation.

I don't think there is a significant difference between FA and passengers in this case. Moreover, I don;t remember a flight where my interaction with FA would meet CDC exposure standard - 10 minutes less than 6 feet. Fellow passengers, though, a different story.

The most plausible scenario I can envision, though, is a government mandate for all customer-facing employees to get vaccinated. Once (if) that happens, things would be very different. It wouldn't happen until everyone can get a same-day appointment, though, and things are still not quite there.

Capricorn wrote:

While I don't necessarily disagree, this opens up a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line. What differentiates C19 from other activities that are very risky? For example I am into mountaineering, a hobby that is on the deadlier side, and a friend of mine does paragliding (one of the deadliest hobbies out there). What risk of its employees does an employer have to tolerate? I would like to continue mountaineering without my employer getting involved (I had to spend some time in the hospital because of my hobby).

Not really a valid comparison though, is it?

If my colleague with whom I share an office with goes mountaineering on the weekend and breaks her leg, I don't have to call in sick on Monday to go get checked for a broken leg myself because I was exposed to her.

The risk here is the same as it's always been for viruses. One person, who might not even look or feel ill, has the ability to infect an entire group.

So I'd hardly say it's a slippery slope to employers banning any dangerous activity. There's just no relevance between the 2

Citrus1492 wrote:

26point2 wrote:

In the US there is some debate about the legality of mandating employees to get vaccinated. This issue is still developing as far as I understand it and it looks like it may be left up to the individual states to declare their policy.

What is the position with regards to airlines, their employees and the COVID vaccine? Will/are airlines requiring employees to get vaccinated?

My body, my choice. I will not be a lab rat for big pharma.
You can always say its against your religion. If your employer cans you, after telling them that, I see a large settlement in your future.

Many global airlines already have a clause in their contract about “required vaccinations” in order to operate to certain countries.
This dates back to the 60s/70s when vaccinations were a requirement of entry in to some nations.
Thus the employees have already agree to the policy.

They can chose to comply with their contract or not.

FGITD wrote:

Capricorn wrote:

While I don't necessarily disagree, this opens up a slippery slope. Where do you draw the line. What differentiates C19 from other activities that are very risky? For example I am into mountaineering, a hobby that is on the deadlier side, and a friend of mine does paragliding (one of the deadliest hobbies out there). What risk of its employees does an employer have to tolerate? I would like to continue mountaineering without my employer getting involved (I had to spend some time in the hospital because of my hobby).

Not really a valid comparison though, is it?

If my colleague with whom I share an office with goes mountaineering on the weekend and breaks her leg, I don't have to call in sick on Monday to go get checked for a broken leg myself because I was exposed to her.

The risk here is the same as it's always been for viruses. One person, who might not even look or feel ill, has the ability to infect an entire group.

So I'd hardly say it's a slippery slope to employers banning any dangerous activity. There's just no relevance between the 2

It does depend how the employer will argue. If they argue vaccines are necessary because of increased operational cost or increased overall costs, then yes me breaking a leg (or more, speaking out of experience) is also affecting their cost negatively. So I don't want to open the door up for employers to interfere in my private life any further.

But as you correctly point out, un-vaccinated employees are a business risk, potentially spreading the disease, infecting customers, causing negative press and maybe permanently unable to fulfil certain parts of their job (flying internationally). So I just hope that when vaccines will become mandatory, which I think they will, employers use the later kind of argumentation and not increased costs (vaccine as cost advantage). I want to continue my "risky" hobby and I am not really putting anybody besides me in danger. That was the goal of my previous post and maybe that was misunderstood.

planecane wrote:

RDUDDJI wrote:

planecane wrote:

I agree that the benefits of the vaccines FAR outweigh the risks but where does that 1/650 chance of dying from COVID come from? That would be like 51 million people.

51 million?! Math is hard...

It's quite simple: Roughly 330,000,000 Americans divided by the 560,000 who've died of Covid19. It's actually closer to 1 in 590 as this article points out. (I was using estimated data).

https://coronavirus.nautil.us/how-many- ... rom-covid/

My decimal was off and I was doing an in the head swag because you said 1/650 chance in December which I interpreted as you giving a monthly risk so I was multiplying by 12 months. Doing the math properly, that would be be about 6 million a year but I see all you were doing was a total risk of dying.

Now, I don't agree with your calculation either because you said the "average American." The average American is 38 years old. So far, a 38 year old has had about a 0.02% chance to die from COVID in the pandemic. The risk to the "average American" would be around 1/5000, not 1/650. Over 80% of the deaths are people 65 and over who are at significantly higher risk than the "average American."

1/5000 is still far higher than the risk of a severe reaction to the vaccine.

This is not how statistics work my friend. Yes, you can cherry pick one age if you want, but clearly that's not what I was doing. Yes, different ages have higher/lower mortality rates but that's not relevant to my initial post on it. I was averaging ALL Americans (really over about a year (mid March 2020-Early April 2021)). If you want to do it by age, knock yourself out, but it doesn't change the facts for the *average* American. You can't mix median and mean averages for a comparison.

Other news out this week shows that so far there have been only ~5800 breakthrough cases out of 77 million fully vaccinated (in the US), which means only 0.008% of vaccinated peeps have gotten Covid. That is fantastic news. That number will only get better as more get vaccinated and the transmission slows even more.

https://www.cnn.com/2021/04/14/health/b ... index.html

2175301 wrote:

Thank you for your polite reply,

That doesn't mean that a policy requiring vaccination to be an employee, or be terminated, would not stand up in court either.

2 key items I have learned in my long life:

1) When dealing with legal questions there are often what appears to be conflicting legal standards at both the federal and within state law. EUA may not be the only federal regulations or laws involved in this question... and which ones have priority... often takes a court case or two to figure out. Companies and lawyers tend to like situations like this as even if their interpretation of which standard takes priority losses in court, they do not face additional fines and in some cases triple damages.

2) Personal beliefs or opinions on what any policy or law means are often wrong. Again, it often takes a court case to define what something means.

This clearly is not a case of settled law where the courts have ruled on what the legal interpretation or standard is.

It appears to me that at least one hospital/clinic chain feels that they have sufficient legal standing to make the case for requiring Covid-19 vaccines at this time.

You are correct, until the law is tested in court, it's hard to know how each law will be interpreted by the court, and then all the levels of appellate courts. However, the opinion/article I quoted is form an experienced and a respected law firm, and I think when it comes to statues they know much better what they are talking about than all of us here .

In any case, because mandatory EUA drug vaccinations have never been tested in court, I don't know how any employer would have an appetite to test the waters and potentially open itself to a massive litigation and a potential PR disaster. This is particularly true for PR-conscious airlines, whom, by the way, have been funding studies and arguing for the entire year last year that the transmission rate on board a commercial plane is almost zero.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-co ... d=73616599

I cannot see how they can go to court and argue that unvaccinated people pose risk to health and safety when their own evidence suggests otherwise.

sanssouci wrote:

2175301 wrote:

Thank you for your polite reply,

That doesn't mean that a policy requiring vaccination to be an employee, or be terminated, would not stand up in court either.

2 key items I have learned in my long life:

1) When dealing with legal questions there are often what appears to be conflicting legal standards at both the federal and within state law. EUA may not be the only federal regulations or laws involved in this question... and which ones have priority... often takes a court case or two to figure out. Companies and lawyers tend to like situations like this as even if their interpretation of which standard takes priority losses in court, they do not face additional fines and in some cases triple damages.

2) Personal beliefs or opinions on what any policy or law means are often wrong. Again, it often takes a court case to define what something means.

This clearly is not a case of settled law where the courts have ruled on what the legal interpretation or standard is.

It appears to me that at least one hospital/clinic chain feels that they have sufficient legal standing to make the case for requiring Covid-19 vaccines at this time.

You are correct, until the law is tested in court, it's hard to know how each law will be interpreted by the court, and then all the levels of appellate courts. However, the opinion/article I quoted is form an experienced and a respected law firm, and I think when it comes to statues they know much better what they are talking about than all of us here .

In any case, because mandatory EUA drug vaccinations have never been tested in court, I don't know how any employer would have an appetite to test the waters and potentially open itself to a massive litigation and a potential PR disaster. This is particularly true for PR-conscious airlines, whom, by the way, have been funding studies and arguing for the entire year last year that the transmission rate on board a commercial plane is almost zero.

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/risk-co ... d=73616599

I cannot see how they can go to court and argue that unvaccinated people pose risk to health and safety when their own evidence suggests otherwise.

You have a valid point in that studies show that Covid-19 transmission rates in Airliners are very low.

Hospitals have a different situation in that virtually all patients have a compromised or weakened immune system due to illness or injury (and the body is focusing on fighting or repairing the existing condition - and does not have the normal ability to fight of another potentially significant infection); which results in a noticeably higher infection rate and seriousness of the infection. That may be the key difference here and why the hospital/clinic chain feels that they can mandate vaccines for at least certain work areas.

Have a great day,

Another week passed and another week I have avoided getting a vaccination. Even when countries mandate the thing I will enjoy being removed from my trip and either reassigned or pay protected. I'm not going to be bullied by fear-mongering into getting the shots. I've been flying the entire pandemic and I will keep doing so without fear.

I started this pandemic employed as a data analyst with a major airline up in Canada. Was in aviation for 30 years and did everything in between from dumping the lavs to flying. Over a year later from my last airline shift, I find myself working as a clinical data analyst who has spent the last four months investigating and reporting on every single COVID hospital ICU admission and discharge in the provincial healthcare system. Sadly that also means every death that occurs in hospital. I compile and submit the list to the public health agency who reports hospitalizations and deaths to the public. It is my job to tell the stories of those who can’t tell their story those who are intubated or have died because of this virus. Many of these stories involved travel of some sort. These variants of concern are a game changer, and are spreading like wildfire.

The healthcare system I work for strongly encouraged that I get vaccinated which I did. I was not required to as a condition of employment. I didn’t get vaccinated for myself, I got vaccinated for others, patients, those who are immunocompromised, the elderly, family members, the frontline healthcare workers who I support. The list goes on. I get vaccinated so that others may live. It’s not about me it’s about others and we often forget that. Most of the clinicians and frontline healthcare workers who I support in my work feel the same way.

To those who do not want to get vaccinated that is your choice and you are fully entitled to it. If that is due to fear or uncertainty or whatever, that is your right. But please don’t support your decision with half baked numbers that have no basis in science or fact.

The aviation industry prides itself on its safety culture continuously improving to protect passengers and employees. How does not getting vaccinated contribute to a just safety culture?

airtran737 wrote:

Another week passed and another week I have avoided getting a vaccination. Even when countries mandate the thing I will enjoy being removed from my trip and either reassigned or pay protected. I'm not going to be bullied by fear-mongering into getting the shots. I've been flying the entire pandemic and I will keep doing so without fear.

Just curious, why not vaccinate?

airgpo wrote:

airtran737 wrote:

Another week passed and another week I have avoided getting a vaccination. Even when countries mandate the thing I will enjoy being removed from my trip and either reassigned or pay protected. I'm not going to be bullied by fear-mongering into getting the shots. I've been flying the entire pandemic and I will keep doing so without fear.

Just curious, why not vaccinate?

As often with these particular individuals, it's a mixture of ignorance and deep selfishness.

It's the old "I refuse to do anything to help my community and the people around me because I don't want to, but I fully expect said community to respect and accommodate my choice and 'freedom'..."
They apparently don't find anything wrong with it.

It's especially striking in this case as this is an individual who works for an industry that largely depends on as many people as possible getting vaccinated to survive and recover.

Francoflier wrote:

airgpo wrote:

airtran737 wrote:

Another week passed and another week I have avoided getting a vaccination. Even when countries mandate the thing I will enjoy being removed from my trip and either reassigned or pay protected. I'm not going to be bullied by fear-mongering into getting the shots. I've been flying the entire pandemic and I will keep doing so without fear.

Just curious, why not vaccinate?

As often with these particular individuals, it's a mixture of ignorance and deep selfishness.

It's the old "I refuse to do anything to help my community and the people around me because I don't want to, but I fully expect said community to respect and accommodate my choice and 'freedom'..."
They apparently don't find anything wrong with it.

It's especially striking in this case as this is an individual who works for an industry that largely depends on as many people as possible getting vaccinated to survive and recover.

This! I'd add that some people do it just to get attention. Normally I'd be fine with them working themselves out of the gene pool through natural selection, but the problem is that this doesn't work that way. As long as Covid19 continues to spread at a fast rate, it continues to mutate which puts us all in danger. We're fortunate, so far, that the vast majority of mutations have been harmless. If one of these mutations breaks through the vaccines' protection, we're all in trouble.