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?

I can't speak for him, but I have a family member who was hospitalized by the moderna vaccine. That plus the J&J/AZ situation has me concerned.

I was given a medication as a child that was deemed very safe. Now it is known to cause crohns and IBS later in life, something I will probably have to deal with forever.

We don't know about the long term affects of these vaccines and it does give me pause.

Varsity1 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?

I can't speak for him, but I have a family member who was hospitalized by the moderna vaccine. That plus the J&J/AZ situation has me concerned.

I was given a medication as a child that was deemed very safe. Now it is known to cause crohns and IBS later in life, something I will probably have to deal with forever.

We don't know about the long term affects of these vaccines and it does give me pause.

I'm sorry about your relative, but for every case of a person getting sick from the vaccine, there's thousands in intensive care from Covid. There is simply no way that vaccines will ever cause even a tiny fraction of the damage Covid will.
Since your probability of contracting Covid is, over time, essentially 100%, the statistics leave absolutely no doubt as to what the right choice is.

Saying 'I'd rather risk my chances with Covid than taking the vaccine' is like saying 'I'd rather swim across this crocodile infested swamp than cross it in a boat that has a tiny chance to catch fire'...

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.

The arguments comes down to this:
- If you are hurt, and unable to perform your jobs safely, then you are not allowed to work. And if you are not allowed to work, you don't get paid. No company is responsible for any injuries for any activities outside of the work you are hired to do.
- If you are tested positive for covid, then you are not allowed to go to work because you are endangering other people. Just like any other dangerous infectious diseases. This might be considered sick leave OR paid holiday, but it depends on the contract between the workers and the company.
- When you personally doing dangerous activities that could kill or seriously injured you. It is not the Company responsibility to help you paid any of your expenses.

Varsity1 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?

I can't speak for him, but I have a family member who was hospitalized by the moderna vaccine. That plus the J&J/AZ situation has me concerned.

I was given a medication as a child that was deemed very safe. Now it is known to cause crohns and IBS later in life, something I will probably have to deal with forever.

We don't know about the long term affects of these vaccines and it does give me pause.

Sorry for family member, but this is literally the equivalent of deciding to walk down the middle of the road because you heard that a car ran into someone on the sidewalk once. I’ve seen healthy friends decimated by covid, and in one case a death.

ewt340 wrote:

- When you personally doing dangerous activities that could kill or seriously injured you. It is not the Company responsibility to help you paid any of your expenses.

Applying that logic, then obese people who are diagnosed with diabetes should not have their expenses/sicktime paid for because they engaged in activity (excessive eating) that led them to the disease. Same thing with smokers and lung diseases, and alcoholics and alcohol-related illnesses.

I am not sure which country you're from, but I can assure you that in the US and most democratic countries where privacy is a thing and human rights are respected, your suggestions wouldn't fly (pun intended). The government has made it clear that for as long as the vaccines are under EUA, vaccination is voluntary and it applies to the entire population, irrespective of their place of employment. We all have our views and we can argue here until cows come home, but the law is what it is.

I can see how people are passionate about getting everybody vaccinated, we all want this madness to end. But if someone is hesitant to take a brand new vaccine that not much is known about and that has caused adverse reactions, his/her choice should be respected and that person shouldn't have to pay for it by losing a livelihood.

This is not an issue that is unique to the airline industry. Hotels, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and any office where employee share common space would then have to fire everybody who is not willing to take an experimental drug. Furthermore, the vaccine makers themselves state that even vaccinated people may catch and transmit the virus. So, to what degree does getting a vaccine truly protect others? There are way too many unanswered questions around the drug to have such a black and white approach to employment policies around it.

Besides, airlines have done multiple studies last year that have shown that transmission risk of Covid in the airliner cabin is virtually zero. Here is one of them https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... -19-study/

Addressing the new study, United’s Chief Customer Officer, Toby Enqvist, stated:

“Throughout the pandemic, our top priority has been the health and safety of our customers and crew. It’s why we supported the work of military officials, medical experts and aviation engineers that shows that the cabin of an aircraft is one of the safest environments in the world. These results from the Department of Defense demonstrate that the steps we have taken at United, including maximizing air flow, running our air filtration system at all times, enforcing a mandatory mask policy and overhauling our cleaning procedures mean your chances of COVID-exposure on a United aircraft are nearly non-existent, even if your flight is full.”

Having proven that catching Covid on a commercial airplane was almost impossible, I don't know which airline would have an appetite to open a can of worms and mandate vaccination for their cabin crew when their own evidence can be used against them in court.

sanssouci wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

- When you personally doing dangerous activities that could kill or seriously injured you. It is not the Company responsibility to help you paid any of your expenses.

Applying that logic, then obese people who are diagnosed with diabetes should not have their expenses/sicktime paid for because they engaged in activity (excessive eating) that led them to the disease. Same thing with smokers and lung diseases, and alcoholics and alcohol-related illnesses.

I am not sure which country you're from, but I can assure you that in the US and most democratic countries where privacy is a thing and human rights are respected, your suggestions wouldn't fly (pun intended). The government has made it clear that for as long as the vaccines are under EUA, vaccination is voluntary and it applies to the entire population, irrespective of their place of employment. We all have our views and we can argue here until cows come home, but the law is what it is.

I can see how people are passionate about getting everybody vaccinated, we all want this madness to end. But if someone is hesitant to take a brand new vaccine that not much is known about and that has caused adverse reactions, his/her choice should be respected and that person shouldn't have to pay for it by losing a livelihood.

This is not an issue that is unique to the airline industry. Hotels, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and any office where employee share common space would then have to fire everybody who is not willing to take an experimental drug. Furthermore, the vaccine makers themselves state that even vaccinated people may catch and transmit the virus. So, to what degree does getting a vaccine truly protect others? There are way too many unanswered questions around the drug to have such a black and white approach to employment policies around it.

Besides, airlines have done multiple studies last year that have shown that transmission risk of Covid in the airliner cabin is virtually zero. Here is one of them https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... -19-study/

Addressing the new study, United’s Chief Customer Officer, Toby Enqvist, stated:

“Throughout the pandemic, our top priority has been the health and safety of our customers and crew. It’s why we supported the work of military officials, medical experts and aviation engineers that shows that the cabin of an aircraft is one of the safest environments in the world. These results from the Department of Defense demonstrate that the steps we have taken at United, including maximizing air flow, running our air filtration system at all times, enforcing a mandatory mask policy and overhauling our cleaning procedures mean your chances of COVID-exposure on a United aircraft are nearly non-existent, even if your flight is full.”

Having proven that catching Covid on a commercial airplane was almost impossible, I don't know which airline would have an appetite to open a can of worms and mandate vaccination for their cabin crew when their own evidence can be used against them in court.

But companies are not responsible to pay for your insulin if you have diabetes, companies also not responsible for your alcoholism or drug addiction, in fact, if you got drunk or high during most works, you would get fired for being intoxicated and creating unsafe environment for other workers.
In countries with universal healthcare, your insulin got subsidized by government.

Also, paid leave have limits on it, you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines. Also, there's been cases where people who got infected the first time could also get infected again, especially with different variants popping out left and right across the world.

ewt340 wrote:

sanssouci wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

- When you personally doing dangerous activities that could kill or seriously injured you. It is not the Company responsibility to help you paid any of your expenses.

Applying that logic, then obese people who are diagnosed with diabetes should not have their expenses/sicktime paid for because they engaged in activity (excessive eating) that led them to the disease. Same thing with smokers and lung diseases, and alcoholics and alcohol-related illnesses.

I am not sure which country you're from, but I can assure you that in the US and most democratic countries where privacy is a thing and human rights are respected, your suggestions wouldn't fly (pun intended). The government has made it clear that for as long as the vaccines are under EUA, vaccination is voluntary and it applies to the entire population, irrespective of their place of employment. We all have our views and we can argue here until cows come home, but the law is what it is.

I can see how people are passionate about getting everybody vaccinated, we all want this madness to end. But if someone is hesitant to take a brand new vaccine that not much is known about and that has caused adverse reactions, his/her choice should be respected and that person shouldn't have to pay for it by losing a livelihood.

This is not an issue that is unique to the airline industry. Hotels, restaurants, bars, coffee shops, and any office where employee share common space would then have to fire everybody who is not willing to take an experimental drug. Furthermore, the vaccine makers themselves state that even vaccinated people may catch and transmit the virus. So, to what degree does getting a vaccine truly protect others? There are way too many unanswered questions around the drug to have such a black and white approach to employment policies around it.

Besides, airlines have done multiple studies last year that have shown that transmission risk of Covid in the airliner cabin is virtually zero. Here is one of them https://liveandletsfly.com/united-airli ... -19-study/

Addressing the new study, United’s Chief Customer Officer, Toby Enqvist, stated:

“Throughout the pandemic, our top priority has been the health and safety of our customers and crew. It’s why we supported the work of military officials, medical experts and aviation engineers that shows that the cabin of an aircraft is one of the safest environments in the world. These results from the Department of Defense demonstrate that the steps we have taken at United, including maximizing air flow, running our air filtration system at all times, enforcing a mandatory mask policy and overhauling our cleaning procedures mean your chances of COVID-exposure on a United aircraft are nearly non-existent, even if your flight is full.”

Having proven that catching Covid on a commercial airplane was almost impossible, I don't know which airline would have an appetite to open a can of worms and mandate vaccination for their cabin crew when their own evidence can be used against them in court.

But companies are not responsible to pay for your insulin if you have diabetes, companies also not responsible for your alcoholism or drug addiction, in fact, if you got drunk or high during most works, you would get fired for being intoxicated and creating unsafe environment for other workers.
In countries with universal healthcare, your insulin got subsidized by government.

Also, paid leave have limits on it, you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines. Also, there's been cases where people who got infected the first time could also get infected again, especially with different variants popping out left and right across the world.

The vaccine is free from the government. And your insulin is paid for by the company health plan. I don’t see your point

Trk1 wrote:

What a shame we live in a nation that the common good has been lost. We take shots not just for our selves but for the safety of everyone. Selfishness is why we continue to digress as a nation.

Americans seem to value their individual "freedoms" more than the collective. Someone even said this already in this thread "I don't care about the common good, I care about what's good for me".

rbavfan wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I don’t care one way or the other as I am already fully vaccinated. But if they wanted to, I believe there are ways they can influence you to get vaccinated without it being mandatory. I.E. a health and wellness credit on your healthcare premium, or other similar policies.

To me, I don’t have a right to privacy with the company as I submit to background checks and drug screens. How dare they see where I have lived in and worked, and how dare they test my urine. It’s worth the loss of privacy and freedom to enjoy recreational substances in order to have a good paying job. So if they did, it wouldn’t bother me. It is not a constitutional right to work for any company. You are free to find other employment if the terms change to where you are no longer comfortable.

My fave mask comment is they are taking my rights away making me wear a mask. So think about it unless you chop naked you have already givin up that right! Also I like the Crispy Creme donuts for proof of being vaccinated, but my waist does not.

Imagine when they find out the gov fines people who don't wear a seat belt. Freedom am I right?

gatibosgru wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

What a shame we live in a nation that the common good has been lost. We take shots not just for our selves but for the safety of everyone. Selfishness is why we continue to digress as a nation.

Americans seem to value their individual "freedoms" more than the collective. Someone even said this already in this thread "I don't care about the common good, I care about what's good for me".

rbavfan wrote:

jetmatt777 wrote:

I don’t care one way or the other as I am already fully vaccinated. But if they wanted to, I believe there are ways they can influence you to get vaccinated without it being mandatory. I.E. a health and wellness credit on your healthcare premium, or other similar policies.

To me, I don’t have a right to privacy with the company as I submit to background checks and drug screens. How dare they see where I have lived in and worked, and how dare they test my urine. It’s worth the loss of privacy and freedom to enjoy recreational substances in order to have a good paying job. So if they did, it wouldn’t bother me. It is not a constitutional right to work for any company. You are free to find other employment if the terms change to where you are no longer comfortable.

My fave mask comment is they are taking my rights away making me wear a mask. So think about it unless you chop naked you have already givin up that right! Also I like the Crispy Creme donuts for proof of being vaccinated, but my waist does not.

Imagine when they find out the gov fines people who don't wear a seat belt. Freedom am I right?

The seatbelt thing had been a huge point of contention for some people since the 70s. My car, my choice. Same with helmet laws.

The problem with those arguments is that you need a license to use a motor vehicle on a public right of way. That license has restrictions. If you don't want to follow the restrictions, drive somewhere else. Where? Not sure, maybe a private ranch of some kind? A huge farm?

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.

More than that.
1. Not 100% effective
2. Not 100% safe
3. Longevity depends on person to person variations

Vaccines only work to eradicate a disease if these events happen: 1. herd immunity is nearly reached + 2. vaccine penetration is over 60% of people who are still immune (shorter window, less chance) + 3. immunity is long lived + 4. mutations are slowed

We simply don't know if any of those 4 conditions will ever be true. It hasn't happened for the flu because immunity is short or non-existent, too many mutations, vaccine uptake is poor
It worked for Polio because it was ALREADY ON THE DECLINE when the vaccine was perfected, to the point it almost wasn't necessary in most developed nations, vaccine penetration is strong, and effectiveness is long lasting.

So far, for COVID, the belief that immunity may be short lived (vaccine or natural) so what is the end game?

ikramerica wrote:

kalvado wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

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.

More than that.
1. Not 100% effective
2. Not 100% safe
3. Longevity depends on person to person variations

Vaccines only work to eradicate a disease if these events happen: 1. herd immunity is nearly reached + 2. vaccine penetration is over 60% of people who are still immune (shorter window, less chance) + 3. immunity is long lived + 4. mutations are slowed

We simply don't know if any of those 4 conditions will ever be true. It hasn't happened for the flu because immunity is short or non-existent, too many mutations, vaccine uptake is poor
It worked for Polio because it was ALREADY ON THE DECLINE when the vaccine was perfected, to the point it almost wasn't necessary in most developed nations, vaccine penetration is strong, and effectiveness is long lasting.

So far, for COVID, the belief that immunity may be short lived (vaccine or natural) so what is the end game?

And were is the reason not to vaccinate?

No vaccine is 100% effective. But cutting down on 10 % of the whole USA population getting infected in a year has it's merits.
No vaccine is 100% safe. But every covid vaccine in use is safer than getting covid.
I do not know what you mean with longevity, yours or the vaccine, but if you mean the vaccine, than most vaccines have a limited time protection.

So what if the immunity maybe short lived or do not protect against new versions of the vaccine, still no reason to not get vaccinated.
The ever changing Influenza vaccine has saved thousands from death or at least sickness.

I have the feeling that the death toll of covid is that enormous in the USA, 550.000 dead, that those numbers do not register anymore.
Should people just keep dying?

ikramerica wrote:

gatibosgru wrote:

Trk1 wrote:

What a shame we live in a nation that the common good has been lost. We take shots not just for our selves but for the safety of everyone. Selfishness is why we continue to digress as a nation.

Americans seem to value their individual "freedoms" more than the collective. Someone even said this already in this thread "I don't care about the common good, I care about what's good for me".

rbavfan wrote:

My fave mask comment is they are taking my rights away making me wear a mask. So think about it unless you chop naked you have already givin up that right! Also I like the Crispy Creme donuts for proof of being vaccinated, but my waist does not.

Imagine when they find out the gov fines people who don't wear a seat belt. Freedom am I right?

The seatbelt thing had been a huge point of contention for some people since the 70s. My car, my choice. Same with helmet laws.

The problem with those arguments is that you need a license to use a motor vehicle on a public right of way. That license has restrictions. If you don't want to follow the restrictions, drive somewhere else. Where? Not sure, maybe a private ranch of some kind? A huge farm?

But that's what living in a society is like. If you live in a farm and need a car then you'll need a license, you'll need insurance, you'll need a title. Don't wanna do all that? Then ride the bus, or walk. And even that isn't "free", j waking isn't a freedom in some cities. This idea that freedom is the ultimate goal does not, in my opinion, ever work for beings who rely on being social. Which is why we compromise.

mjoelnir wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

kalvado wrote:

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.

More than that.
1. Not 100% effective
2. Not 100% safe
3. Longevity depends on person to person variations

Vaccines only work to eradicate a disease if these events happen: 1. herd immunity is nearly reached + 2. vaccine penetration is over 60% of people who are still immune (shorter window, less chance) + 3. immunity is long lived + 4. mutations are slowed

We simply don't know if any of those 4 conditions will ever be true. It hasn't happened for the flu because immunity is short or non-existent, too many mutations, vaccine uptake is poor
It worked for Polio because it was ALREADY ON THE DECLINE when the vaccine was perfected, to the point it almost wasn't necessary in most developed nations, vaccine penetration is strong, and effectiveness is long lasting.

So far, for COVID, the belief that immunity may be short lived (vaccine or natural) so what is the end game?

And were is the reason not to vaccinate?

No vaccine is 100% effective. But cutting down on 10 % of the whole USA population getting infected in a year has it's merits.
No vaccine is 100% safe. But every covid vaccine in use is safer than getting covid.
I do not know what you mean with longevity, yours or the vaccine, but if you mean the vaccine, than most vaccines have a limited time protection.

So what if the immunity maybe short lived or do not protect against new versions of the vaccine, still no reason to not get vaccinated.
The ever changing Influenza vaccine has saved thousands from death or at least sickness.

I have the feeling that the death toll of covid is that enormous in the USA, 550.000 dead, that those numbers do not register anymore.
Should people just keep dying?

This is not a reason to refuse vaccine - but this is a reason not to consider it as a zero-tolerance matter, like "thou shalt not kill". Otherwise, one may ask if someone who didn't get the shot is more dangerous than someone who is in a 99th efficiency percentile, meaning they still can get infected and spread etc. Or if vaccinating Modena or J&J is acceptable as it is less effective than Pfeizer,
At the end of the day, there are some thresholds, those are well below 100% and having certain %% of failure shouldn't be a game-changer. Some of that would come from refusal, some from inefficiency. No need for police to drag people to vaccination sites. there are a lot of ways to make them vaccinate at will.

And it is certainly not up to employer to force people to vaccinate until they pass down government regulations - state, federal, foreign(for international crews)
That was the original question for me - can AIRLINE require? No. Government requirements may be a totally different story. There is a totally different set of rights and responsibilities between a private company and the government.

kalvado wrote:

mjoelnir wrote:

ikramerica wrote:

More than that.
1. Not 100% effective
2. Not 100% safe
3. Longevity depends on person to person variations

Vaccines only work to eradicate a disease if these events happen: 1. herd immunity is nearly reached + 2. vaccine penetration is over 60% of people who are still immune (shorter window, less chance) + 3. immunity is long lived + 4. mutations are slowed

We simply don't know if any of those 4 conditions will ever be true. It hasn't happened for the flu because immunity is short or non-existent, too many mutations, vaccine uptake is poor
It worked for Polio because it was ALREADY ON THE DECLINE when the vaccine was perfected, to the point it almost wasn't necessary in most developed nations, vaccine penetration is strong, and effectiveness is long lasting.

So far, for COVID, the belief that immunity may be short lived (vaccine or natural) so what is the end game?

And were is the reason not to vaccinate?

No vaccine is 100% effective. But cutting down on 10 % of the whole USA population getting infected in a year has it's merits.
No vaccine is 100% safe. But every covid vaccine in use is safer than getting covid.
I do not know what you mean with longevity, yours or the vaccine, but if you mean the vaccine, than most vaccines have a limited time protection.

So what if the immunity maybe short lived or do not protect against new versions of the vaccine, still no reason to not get vaccinated.
The ever changing Influenza vaccine has saved thousands from death or at least sickness.

I have the feeling that the death toll of covid is that enormous in the USA, 550.000 dead, that those numbers do not register anymore.
Should people just keep dying?

This is not a reason to refuse vaccine - but this is a reason not to consider it as a zero-tolerance matter, like "thou shalt not kill". Otherwise, one may ask if someone who didn't get the shot is more dangerous than someone who is in a 99th efficiency percentile, meaning they still can get infected and spread etc. Or if vaccinating Modena or J&J is acceptable as it is less effective than Pfeizer,
At the end of the day, there are some thresholds, those are well below 100% and having certain %% of failure shouldn't be a game-changer. Some of that would come from refusal, some from inefficiency. No need for police to drag people to vaccination sites. there are a lot of ways to make them vaccinate at will.

And it is certainly not up to employer to force people to vaccinate until they pass down government regulations - state, federal, foreign(for international crews)
That was the original question for me - can AIRLINE require? No. Government requirements may be a totally different story. There is a totally different set of rights and responsibilities between a private company and the government.

When the bears becomes immune the virus goes away. That’s all there is to it

32andBelow wrote:

The vaccine is free from the government. And your insulin is paid for by the company health plan. I don’t see your point

The point is that ewt340 said employers shouldn't be responsible to bear costs of those employees who engage in "dangerous" activities that could make them injured or sick. So, if the employer is paying for the benefits, and if the benefits should be denied to people who engaged in "dangerous" activities that could make them sick, one could argue that insulin, treatments, etc. should be denied to obese people because they chose to overeat, smoke, drink, etc.

My other point is that it's a slippery slope that, as a society, we wouldn't want to get on.

ewt340 wrote:

But companies are not responsible to pay for your insulin if you have diabetes, companies also not responsible for your alcoholism or drug addiction, in fact, if you got drunk or high during most works, you would get fired for being intoxicated and creating unsafe environment for other workers.
In countries with universal healthcare, your insulin got subsidized by government.

Also, paid leave have limits on it, you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines. Also, there's been cases where people who got infected the first time could also get infected again, especially with different variants popping out left and right across the world.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Companies do in fact pay for insulin, etc. though company heath benefits so ultimately the employer bears the costs of a lot of employee treatments. It all depends on the collective agreement but in many airlines in North America that is the case.

I am afraid you're also mistaken in that intoxication doesn't get you fired on the spot. In many countries alcoholism is a disability and you can't be fired for having a disability. It's against the law. In fact, in North America, labour laws require employers to have what is called a duty to care and pay for your rehab/treatment. If rehab fails then it's a different story but being drunk on the job once is not a reason to be fired as long as its related to alcoholism.

As for paid leaves, again, you are mistaken in your assumption of what can and cannot be claimed. In North American airlines paid sick time is governed by respective collective agreements. Those agreements govern exclusively what the limits are, not to mention that employers generally aren't allowed to ask employees why they are sick. Unless you can quote a sick time policy that states what you state - you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines - your argument is your own opinion.

Of course you are entitled to think how airlines and companies should be run, what vaccination requirements should be, and who should be paid for sick leave and who shouldn't be. But you are very unconvincing in your arguments because they seem to be based on nothing and often amount to wishful thinking.

This thread is almost funny, especially considering that without practically all of us being vaccinated, the airline industry will be dead - continue to be dead.

I have now got my Coronapas / Corona Passport / Passeport Corona, documenting in Danish, English and French language that I have received two shots of an EU approved vaccine.

That document gives me the right to have a haircut (without a fresh, negative PCR test), and a few other things - I think I can have a tattoo as well if I want that. If one day our retaurants, pubs, theatres etc. will be allowed to open again, then they will serve people who (like me) have a valid Corona passport, and others will be refused entry.

But that's only the beginning. We will in an uncertain future all be excluded from a lot of things, including having a job, if we do not qualify with proper Corona status. Just an example: How can an airline company employ an FA, if he/she cannot check in at a hotel due to lack of Corona Passport?

It's nothing new. I'm an old man - otherwise I wouldn't have got both shots yet. Therefore I do remember, that when I was a small kid, then I got a document telling that I had been vaccinated against smallpox. Without that document I would not have been allowed going to school.

There will in the near future be true international "Corona passports", at least EU wide. They will govern our life at least during the next many years, maybe forever.

sanssouci wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

But companies are not responsible to pay for your insulin if you have diabetes, companies also not responsible for your alcoholism or drug addiction, in fact, if you got drunk or high during most works, you would get fired for being intoxicated and creating unsafe environment for other workers.
In countries with universal healthcare, your insulin got subsidized by government.

Also, paid leave have limits on it, you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines. Also, there's been cases where people who got infected the first time could also get infected again, especially with different variants popping out left and right across the world.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Companies do in fact pay for insulin, etc. though company heath benefits so ultimately the employer bears the costs of a lot of employee treatments. It all depends on the collective agreement but in many airlines in North America that is the case.

I am afraid you're also mistaken in that intoxication doesn't get you fired on the spot. In many countries alcoholism is a disability and you can't be fired for having a disability. It's against the law. In fact, in North America, labour laws require employers to have what is called a duty to care and pay for your rehab/treatment. If rehab fails then it's a different story but being drunk on the job once is not a reason to be fired as long as its related to alcoholism.

As for paid leaves, again, you are mistaken in your assumption of what can and cannot be claimed. In North American airlines paid sick time is governed by respective collective agreements. Those agreements govern exclusively what the limits are, not to mention that employers generally aren't allowed to ask employees why they are sick. Unless you can quote a sick time policy that states what you state - you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines - your argument is your own opinion.

Of course you are entitled to think how airlines and companies should be run, what vaccination requirements should be, and who should be paid for sick leave and who shouldn't be. But you are very unconvincing in your arguments because they seem to be based on nothing and often amount to wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Companies provided Insurance coverage for their employee. It's not the actual company you are working for that pays or provide the insulin for you. It's the Insurance companies and the Drug Manufacturers.
The Company you work for didn't paid for your insulin. Your co-workers who are healthy also got insurance coverage.

Secondly, as my experience as a worker in few different companies. You need doctor's note for such claim. You can't just call your company and said "hey, I'll take 2 weeks paid sick leave cause I'm sick. Don't ask what happen just pay me and I'll show up 2 weeks later".

I'm basing my argument based on logical thinking. "Why would a company forced to pay workers who are unable to perform their duty safely?"
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. What you failed to do is to provide some sort of proof that workers could still getting paid without performing their duty safely.
And you make this arguments about someone's believe or opinion. Which doesn't make any sense in any of the context here regarding the pandemic, the vaccines or the regulations.

prebennorholm wrote:

That document gives me the right to have a haircut (without a fresh, negative PCR test), and a few other things - I think I can have a tattoo as well if I want that. If one day our retaurants, pubs, theatres etc. will be allowed to open again, then they will serve people who (like me) have a valid Corona passport, and others will be refused entry.

But that's only the beginning. We will in an uncertain future all be excluded from a lot of things, including having a job, if we do not qualify with proper Corona status. Just an example: How can an airline company employ an FA, if he/she cannot check in at a hotel due to lack of Corona Passport?

There are people who are legitimately unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons, due allergies or young age. If we end up in a segregated society where some will have rights to access services and others won't, I think a FA checking into a hotel will be the last thing we should be worried about.

At that point western democracies might as well start tossing away human rights legislation into the dumpster bin and look up to China as a good example of a divided society where certain things are only permitted for certain individuals based on their Social Credit score. I am not too sure this is the path that anyone living in a democratic world would want to get on.

ewt340 wrote:

sanssouci wrote:

ewt340 wrote:

But companies are not responsible to pay for your insulin if you have diabetes, companies also not responsible for your alcoholism or drug addiction, in fact, if you got drunk or high during most works, you would get fired for being intoxicated and creating unsafe environment for other workers.
In countries with universal healthcare, your insulin got subsidized by government.

Also, paid leave have limits on it, you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines. Also, there's been cases where people who got infected the first time could also get infected again, especially with different variants popping out left and right across the world.

I am afraid you are mistaken. Companies do in fact pay for insulin, etc. though company heath benefits so ultimately the employer bears the costs of a lot of employee treatments. It all depends on the collective agreement but in many airlines in North America that is the case.

I am afraid you're also mistaken in that intoxication doesn't get you fired on the spot. In many countries alcoholism is a disability and you can't be fired for having a disability. It's against the law. In fact, in North America, labour laws require employers to have what is called a duty to care and pay for your rehab/treatment. If rehab fails then it's a different story but being drunk on the job once is not a reason to be fired as long as its related to alcoholism.

As for paid leaves, again, you are mistaken in your assumption of what can and cannot be claimed. In North American airlines paid sick time is governed by respective collective agreements. Those agreements govern exclusively what the limits are, not to mention that employers generally aren't allowed to ask employees why they are sick. Unless you can quote a sick time policy that states what you state - you can't claim 1 month paid leave because you refused to get vaccines - your argument is your own opinion.

Of course you are entitled to think how airlines and companies should be run, what vaccination requirements should be, and who should be paid for sick leave and who shouldn't be. But you are very unconvincing in your arguments because they seem to be based on nothing and often amount to wishful thinking.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Companies provided Insurance coverage for their employee. It's not the actual company you are working for that pays or provide the insulin for you. It's the Insurance companies and the Drug Manufacturers.
The Company you work for didn't paid for your insulin. Your co-workers who are healthy also got insurance coverage.

Secondly, as my experience as a worker in few different companies. You need doctor's note for such claim. You can't just call your company and said "hey, I'll take 2 weeks paid sick leave cause I'm sick. Don't ask what happen just pay me and I'll show up 2 weeks later".

I'm basing my argument based on logical thinking. "Why would a company forced to pay workers who are unable to perform their duty safely?"
It's not an opinion. It's a fact. What you failed to do is to provide some sort of proof that workers could still getting paid without performing their duty safely.
And you make this arguments about someone's believe or opinion. Which doesn't make any sense in any of the context here regarding the pandemic, the vaccines or the regulations.

Sorry my friend. Not only you seem to be blatantly ignorant on how airline collective agreements function in North America, on how heath benefits are paid out, and on how sick time is administered ... but you also fail to bring any substantive evidence to support your arguments. As I said to you, you are entitled to have your own ideas on how things should be done, but I am not prepared to give any weight to someone else's wishful thinking that is presented to me as a fact. A lot of N. American airline contracts are openly available though respective union websites. Have a look at them and educate yourself, if you wish.

I enjoy healthy exchange of ideas, and I am always interested to hear someone else's thoughts, but when arguments lack substance - not to mention elementary eloquence and depth - it starts to amount to my waste of time, which is why I have no desire to engage in discussions with you any more.

Have a nice day!

sanssouci wrote:

prebennorholm wrote:

That document gives me the right to have a haircut (without a fresh, negative PCR test), and a few other things - I think I can have a tattoo as well if I want that. If one day our retaurants, pubs, theatres etc. will be allowed to open again, then they will serve people who (like me) have a valid Corona passport, and others will be refused entry.

But that's only the beginning. We will in an uncertain future all be excluded from a lot of things, including having a job, if we do not qualify with proper Corona status. Just an example: How can an airline company employ an FA, if he/she cannot check in at a hotel due to lack of Corona Passport?

There are people who are legitimately unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons, due allergies or young age. If we end up in a segregated society where some will have rights to access services and others won't, I think a FA checking into a hotel will be the last thing we should be worried about.

At that point western democracies might as well start tossing away human rights legislation into the dumpster bin and look up to China as a good example of a divided society where certain things are only permitted for certain individuals based on their Social Credit score. I am not too sure this is the path that anyone living in a democratic world would want to get on.

Interestingly enough, other Democracies like New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea are actually able to prevent the virus from ruining their countries without tossing away their human rights. Funny how everything that didn't align with your believed is suddenly labelled as Communist China.

And I don't think anybody in democratic world wants their countries ravage by the virus too. But then again, I see lots of people refusing to wear mask or get the vaccines.....

I mean, I'm pretty sure we already living in a world where someone who are not qualified to perform their job safely could be dismissed or fired. But sure, let's pretend like people who want to risk our safety deserve to get a job over others who actually qualified to do their job.

sanssouci wrote:

filipinoavgeek wrote:

If anything I'm shocked at just how many anti-vaxxers are in this thread. Knowing how this site was so pessimistic about the trajectory of the pandemic and its effects on the aviation industry, now that there's light at the end of the tunnel these same people suddenly don't want to take the option that will ultimately help recovery efforts.

One thing I did notice (please correct me if I'm wrong) is that, from what I can tell, the comments about not wanting to take the vaccine are mainly coming from the US. Meanwhile, as far as I can tell, airline crews getting vaccinated isn't much of a controversy anywhere else and in fact most airlines and governments are encouraging it. Is there a reason for this?

Your observation is correct, but I think one ought to make a distinction between antivaxxers and those who are hesitant to take Covid vaccine. One thing is to be opposed to the idea of getting vaccinated by tested and proven vaccines (polio, hepatitis, etc.) and another is to be opposed to taking a brand new experimental medication that comes with many unknowns and a lot of questions unanswered. I don't think US is the only country with high rate of vaccine hesitancy. France seems to be not far behind, including hesitancy amongst healthcare professionals.

https://www.thelocal.fr/20210309/explai ... -covid-19/

Except in this very thread there are multiple people arguing against being vaccinated not due to health concerns (which, while not necessarily valid considering statistics, are at least understandable) but because they "infringe on human rights". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being anti-vax due to being against government intervention or "because it's my right" seems to be more of a US-centric thing; while it does seem to exist in other countries, that viewpoint seems to be more prevalent to me in the US. It doesn't seem to be the same as the vaccine hesitancy sentiment in parts of Europe or even Japan, which were all mostly caused by previous botched vaccination programs and health concerns as opposed to "infringing rights". In fact, the current anti-vax sentiment due to "infringing rights" reminds me a lot of the "war on seatbelts". As someone who at one point in their life was slightly vaccine hesitant (but not anti-vax) but is no longer so and has already received a dose, I still believe that the benefits of vaccination outweigh any potential risks or cons.

ewt340 wrote:

Interestingly enough, other Democracies like New Zealand, Taiwan and South Korea are actually able to prevent the virus from ruining their countries without tossing away their human rights. Funny how everything that didn't align with your believed is suddenly labelled as Communist China.

I'm less familiar with NZ's case (supposedly them being more isolated and sparsely populated helped them easily contain transmission), but in the cases of Taiwan and South Korea, both countries already had a culture of mask-wearing and most individuals masked up voluntarily, which helped them. Even now they are still mostly masking up (and I think at least with Taiwan the mask-wearing is a mandate and thus people are required to do so), and as far as I'm aware they aren't protesting against this practice.

prebennorholm wrote:

This thread is almost funny, especially considering that without practically all of us being vaccinated, the airline industry will be dead - continue to be dead.

I have now got my Coronapas / Corona Passport / Passeport Corona, documenting in Danish, English and French language that I have received two shots of an EU approved vaccine.

That document gives me the right to have a haircut (without a fresh, negative PCR test), and a few other things - I think I can have a tattoo as well if I want that. If one day our retaurants, pubs, theatres etc. will be allowed to open again, then they will serve people who (like me) have a valid Corona passport, and others will be refused entry.

But that's only the beginning. We will in an uncertain future all be excluded from a lot of things, including having a job, if we do not qualify with proper Corona status. Just an example: How can an airline company employ an FA, if he/she cannot check in at a hotel due to lack of Corona Passport?

It's nothing new. I'm an old man - otherwise I wouldn't have got both shots yet. Therefore I do remember, that when I was a small kid, then I got a document telling that I had been vaccinated against smallpox. Without that document I would not have been allowed going to school.

There will in the near future be true international "Corona passports", at least EU wide. They will govern our life at least during the next many years, maybe forever.

Future you described is based on many assumptions, biggest one is that security theater (ok, safety theater) is more important than actual safety.
It's a matter of months before virus would mutate around vaccines, difference in vaccines would require yellow and green stars to be worn - ok, different types of passports, and periodic antibody testing via blood test replacing PCR swabs to keep system efficient.
I don't know there and how things would converge, but a lot of a learning curve is still ahead.
And love it or hate it, condom is the most reliable HIV and STD prevention tool, and mask is the one for respiratory infections.
In terms of onboard service, masked FA is safer than immunized FA, I would say.

prebennorholm wrote:

This thread is almost funny, especially considering that without practically all of us being vaccinated, the airline industry will be dead - continue to be dead.

I have now got my Coronapas / Corona Passport / Passeport Corona, documenting in Danish, English and French language that I have received two shots of an EU approved vaccine.

That document gives me the right to have a haircut (without a fresh, negative PCR test), and a few other things - I think I can have a tattoo as well if I want that. If one day our retaurants, pubs, theatres etc. will be allowed to open again, then they will serve people who (like me) have a valid Corona passport, and others will be refused entry.

But that's only the beginning. We will in an uncertain future all be excluded from a lot of things, including having a job, if we do not qualify with proper Corona status. Just an example: How can an airline company employ an FA, if he/she cannot check in at a hotel due to lack of Corona Passport?

It's nothing new. I'm an old man - otherwise I wouldn't have got both shots yet. Therefore I do remember, that when I was a small kid, then I got a document telling that I had been vaccinated against smallpox. Without that document I would not have been allowed going to school.

There will in the near future be true international "Corona passports", at least EU wide. They will govern our life at least during the next many years, maybe forever.

That is a very sad sad statement.....you were allowed to get a haircut.

filipinoavgeek wrote:

Except in this very thread there are multiple people arguing against being vaccinated not due to health concerns (which, while not necessarily valid considering statistics, are at least understandable) but because they "infringe on human rights". Please correct me if I'm wrong, but being anti-vax due to being against government intervention or "because it's my right" seems to be more of a US-centric thing; while it does seem to exist in other countries, that viewpoint seems to be more prevalent to me in the US. It doesn't seem to be the same as the vaccine hesitancy sentiment in parts of Europe or even Japan, which were all mostly caused by previous botched vaccination programs and health concerns as opposed to "infringing rights".

Perhaps you are right, or perhaps Americans are more outspoken than Europeans, or they express the same views in a different way. It would take a very in-depth study to make some sense of it all, but I think cultural values and the country's social fabric would influence such individual attitudes, no doubt. Americans seem to be more centred on individual good, where as a lot of Europe seems to be centred on the values of common good. You only need to compare the safety net of the two social security systems to see where such personal attitudes might come from.

Which one is better is a matter of a personal opinion, but a clear distinction must be made between militant antivaxxers who don't want to get vaccinated (by any vaccine) and the ones who are hesitant about one specific vaccine because of genuine and well-founded concerns.

Strato2 wrote:

Dalmd88 wrote:

Companies don't have much to stand on currently to make it mandatory to have a vaccine. All of the vaccines are currently only approved for emergency use. They are considered experimental. Even the US military can not mandate that emergency use vaccines are required.

I highly doubt that even when they are completely approved few companies will make them mandatory. The legal fight just isn't worth it. Most will highly encourage the vaccines and possibly reward the employees that do get it.

Approved Covid-19 vaccines are just that. They are NOT experimental in any way shape or form. This is just disinformation campaign sprouted by anti-vaxxer conspiracy theorists.

https://fullfact.org/online/covid-vacci ... xperiment/

They are approved for emergency use only. Not fully approved or vetted yet.

Thread has gone off topic.