Your Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccine

gwb-trading said:
Yeah... .you can try to make the same claim about the polio vaccine in 1956.... but most workplaces, schools and government offices made it a requirement.
More...
Months after it was out? Polio has a higher percentage of long term effects and we didn't have the same safety standards for drugs back then that we do now.
 
Here4money said:
Months after it was out? Polio has a higher percentage of long term effects and we didn't have the same safety standards for drugs back then that we do now.
More...

Yes... months after the vaccine was generally available many workplaces made it a requirement. State Legislatures including North Carolina passed laws requiring all state workers and teachers get it. Most private employers followed that lead.
 
Here4money said:
I think employees who opt out of vaccination should be given a chance to continue employment if they follow current companies' spread prevention rules (vaccination not withstanding).
More...
Following spread prevention, true, is better than not following. But there can still be spread.

And having everyone vaccinated is better than only following spread prevention. There will be the least amount of spread.

So, if an employer wants the currently best possible counter-measure, they must opt for forced vaccinations.
Here4money said:
https://www.cnbc.com/2021/04/23/mit...ndoors-at-6-feet-or-60-feet-in-new-study.html

MIT researchers say you’re no safer from Covid indoors at 6 feet or 60 feet in new study challenging social distancing policies
  • An MIT study showed that people who maintain 60 feet of distance from others indoors are no more protected than if they socially distanced by just 6 feet.
  • According to the researchers, other calculations of the risk of indoor transmission have omitted too many factors to accurately quantify that risk.
  • “We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fear mongering but is actually based in analysis,” the author of the study said.
The risk of being exposed to Covid-19 indoors is as great at 60 feet as it is at 6 feet — even when wearing a mask, according to a new study by Massachusetts Institute of Technology researchers who challenge social distancing guidelines adopted across the world.

MIT professors Martin Z. Bazant, who teaches chemical engineering and applied mathematics, and John W.M. Bush, who teaches applied mathematics, developed a method of calculating exposure risk to Covid-19 in an indoor setting that factors in a variety of issues that could affect transmission, including the amount of time spent inside, air filtration and circulation, immunization, variant strains, mask use, and even respiratory activity such as breathing, eating, speaking or singing.

Bazant and Bush question long-held Covid-19 guidelines from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the World Health Organization in a peer-reviewed study published earlier this week in Proceedings of the National Academy of Science of the United States of America.

“We argue there really isn’t much of a benefit to the 6-foot rule, especially when people are wearing masks,” Bazant said in an interview. “It really has no physical basis because the air a person is breathing while wearing a mask tends to rise and comes down elsewhere in the room so you’re more exposed to the average background than you are to a person at a distance.”

The important variable the CDC and the WHO have overlooked is the amount of time spent indoors, Bazant said. The longer someone is inside with an infected person, the greater the chance of transmission, he said.

Opening windows or installing new fans to keep the air moving could also be just as effective or more effective than spending large amounts of money on a new filtration system, he said.

Bazant also says that guidelines enforcing indoor occupancy caps are flawed. He said 20 people gathered inside for 1 minute is probably fine, but not over the course of several hours, he said.

“What our analysis continues to show is that many spaces that have been shut down in fact don’t need to be. Often times the space is large enough, the ventilation is good enough, the amount of time people spend together is such that those spaces can be safely operated even at full capacity and the scientific support for reduced capacity in those spaces is really not very good,” Bazant said. “I think if you run the numbers, even right now for many types of spaces you’d find that there is not a need for occupancy restrictions.”

Six-feet social distancing rules that inadvertently result in closed businesses and schools are “just not reasonable,” according to Bazant.

“This emphasis on distancing has been really misplaced from the very beginning. The CDC or WHO have never really provided justification for it, they’ve just said this is what you must do and the only justification I’m aware of, is based on studies of coughs and sneezes, where they look at the largest particles that might sediment onto the floor and even then it’s very approximate, you can certainly have longer or shorter range, large droplets,” Bazant said.

“The distancing isn’t helping you that much and it’s also giving you a false sense of security because you’re as safe at 6 feet as you are at 60 feet if you’re indoors. Everyone in that space is at roughly the same risk, actually,” he noted.

Pathogen-laced droplets travel through the air indoors when people talk, breathe or eat. It is now known that airborne transmission plays a huge role in the spread of Covid-19, compared with the earlier months of the pandemic where hand-washing was considered the leading recommendation to avoid transmission.

Those droplets from one’s warm exhalation mix with body heat and air currents in the area to rise and travel throughout the entire room, no matter how socially distanced a person is. People seem to be more exposed to that “background” air than they are by droplets from a distance, according to the study.

For example, if someone infected with Covid-19 is wearing a mask and singing loudly in an enclosed room, a person who is sitting at the other side of the room is not more protected than someone who is sitting just six feet away from the infected person. This is why time spent in the enclosed area is more important than how far you are from the infected person.

Masks work in general to prevent transmission by blocking larger droplets, therefore larger droplets aren’t making up the majority of Covid infections because most people are wearing masks. The majority of people who are transmitting Covid aren’t coughing and sneezing, they’re asymptomatic.

Masks also work to prevent indoor transmission by blocking direct plumes of air, best visualized by imagining someone exhaling smoke. Constant exposure to direct plumes of infectious air would result in a higher risk of transmission, though exposure to direct plumes of exhaled air doesn’t usually last long.

Even with masks on, as with smoking, those who are in the vicinity are heavily affected by the secondhand smoke that makes its way around the enclosed area and lingers. The same logic applies to infectious airborne droplets, according to the study. When indoors and masked, factors besides distance can be more important to consider to avoid transmission.

As for social distancing outdoors, Bazant says it makes almost no sense and that doing so with masks on is “kind of crazy.”

“If you look at the air flow outside, the infected air would be swept away and very unlikely to cause transmission. There are very few recorded instances of outdoor transmission.” he said. “Crowded spaces outdoor could be an issue, but if people are keeping a reasonable distance of like 3 feet outside, I feel pretty comfortable with that even without masks frankly.”

Bazant says this could possibly explain why there haven’t been spikes in transmission in states like Texas or Florida that have reopened businesses without capacity limits.

As for variant strains that are 60% more transmissible, increasing ventilation by 60%, reducing the amount of time spent inside or limiting the number of people indoors could offset that risk.

Bazant also said that a big question that is coming will be when masks can be removed, and that the study’s guidelines can help quantify the risks involved. He also noted that measuring carbon dioxide in a room can also help quantify how much infected air is present and hence risk of transmission.

“We need scientific information conveyed to the public in a way that is not just fearmongering but is actually based in analysis,” Bazant said. After three rounds of heavy peer review, he said it’s the most review he’s ever been through, and that now that it’s published he hopes it will influence policy.
More...
 
gwb-trading said:
And what if the the large majority of employees don't want to risk with an unvaccinated health risk. Should the other employees be put at risk because of this one individual refuses to get vaccinated?
More...
Yes. Life is a risk. People have been getting sick for, um, ever. That’s why we have these things called immune systems. Vaccines help in some cases...but in no way should my rights be infringed if I choose not to take it.

Next up - climate change taxation. also mandatory. Cost per breath. Don’t pay it - no breathing allowed.

It’s like people are just begging to have their rights taken away.
 
Young people demand vaccination requirements for reopening
https://www.axios.com/vaccination-w...oll-7e8c2e4e-54b4-4831-8e51-146f13a26ca3.html

Three-quarters of people between 18-29 say vaccination should be required to return to campus or work, according to new Generation Lab/Axios polling, and 37% would refuse to come back unless those conditions are in place.

Why it matters: Young workers have put pressure on CEOs to take action on social and political issues and have plenty of capital to exert it on reopening policy.

The polling suggests that a "get the shot" ultimatum could be pretty effective.
  • Among the young people polled who aren't vaccinated, 66% said that if it was required to return to campus or work, they would get the vaccine.
  • 15% would try to switch jobs or schools, while 13% would refuse to get the vaccine and still try to work or attend school.
  • 2% said they would forge proof.
The big picture: 18-29 year-olds are the least vaccinated adult age group relative to their population size, though they've also been eligible for a shorter period of time.
  • People between 18-29 face less risk of severe infection from COVID-19, compared to older adults.
Between the lines: With 1 in 4 workers planning to look for new jobs after the pandemic, companies will feel pressured to adhere to the preferences of workers.
  • Those of young workers who have more flexibility to relocate or endure short-term unemployment could carry more weight.
By the numbers: 14% say they definitely would refuse to return to work or school without vaccine requirements, while 23% say they probably would refuse.
  • Just 25% say they definitely wouldn't refuse.
What they're saying: "I live in a very red area and a lot of people are not getting vaccinated," one respondent said. "So I know if I were to return to campus, and vaccinations were not mandatory that 90% of people would not be vaccinated. So that means our campus would have an outbreak again."

Methodology: This study was conducted from May 5-8 from a nationally representative sample of 928 respondents 18-29-year-old respondents. The margin of error is +/- 3.4 percentage points. The Generation Lab conducts polling using a demographically representative sample frame of young people around the country, across educational, racial, political, geographic, gender and economic backgrounds.
 
PintoFire said:
What about the country that developed and deployed the virus. What should we do about them?
More...
Good question.

Along with their development, and willy-nilly handling of bioweapons,
we need to also address their willy-nilly handling of space junk,
and not having respect of others' intellectual property,
and unlawfully claiming, and building in, the South China Sea,
and it is speculated that they intend on eventually claiming the moon.

We continue to enrich a country that is not our ally, and casually watch them grow their military and it's budget.

Past POTUS' have done little about them regarding the above, and about their human rights violations (re-education camps etc.).

Politicians respond, somewhat, to The People. The People aren't interested (or informed), so neither are politicians.

Keep this up, and we will no longer be "The" superpower.

Never let, or help (we are a big customer of China), your enemies level up.

As long as politicians kowtow to batshit crazy citizens,
rather than fixing the educational system so it stops producing batshit crazy citizens,
and explaining to citizens what needs to be done, and why;
we will become that batshit crazy banana republic so many citizens today seem to desire.
 
Get vaccinated or lose your job. Companies will not put up with anti-vaxxers.

Survey: Will employees be required to get the COVID-19 vaccination?
https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2021/05/employers-covid-19-vaccination-homeworking
  • Forty percent of companies surveyed in a new report require all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.
  • Employees will be encouraged but not required to get a jab by 32% of companies.
  • Mental health concerns and burn-out have risen up the agenda since the onset of the pandemic.

Almost nine in every 10 companies will require or encourage their employees to get a COVID-19 vaccination or face consequences, according to a new report.

All employees are required to be vaccinated by 40% of companies surveyed in a report from Arizona State University (ASU), the World Economic Forum and the Rockefeller Foundation. Employees will be encouraged but not required by 32% and 16% will require some, but not all, employees to have the jab.

While vaccination programmes are well underway in many of the world’s wealthiest countries, other regions lag far behind, with India and Latin America in the crosshairs. The ASU report assessed responses from 24 industry sectors and 1,339 facilities at 1,168 companies. Most came from companies in the US and UK, which are among the most advanced in terms of vaccination plans.
 
gwb-trading said:
Forty percent of companies surveyed in a new report require all employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19.

Almost nine in every 10 companies will require or encourage their employees to get a COVID-19 vaccination or face consequences, according to a new report.
More...

Heh...Right.

Considering that 60 percent of companies won't require it, wait until talent becomes hard to attract for the 40 percent requiring it. We'll see when that changes (assuming it is even accurate in the first place, which I seriously doubt).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top