Nah, you're too nice to be Joseph Stalin. As for being totalitarian, I think you'd have to form a government first.I'm totalitarian with my kids sometimes...doesn't make me Joseph Stalin.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Nah, you're too nice to be Joseph Stalin. As for being totalitarian, I think you'd have to form a government first.I'm totalitarian with my kids sometimes...doesn't make me Joseph Stalin.
Would you mind speaking with my 17 year old? He might have a few words for you....Nah, you're too nice to be Joseph Stalin. As for being totalitarian, I think you'd have to form a government first.
So you're okay with employers mandating that employees quit smoking or lose their job, that insurance companies require the people they cover to quit smoking all in the name of public health. You're okay with those same groups requiring people give up drinking alcohol because of the increased health care costs. You're okay with employers and insurance companies mandating where that you bo longer eat sugar or meat because they are unhealthy. This is the slippery slope that you're okay with everyone going diwn.You could describe it as above too, but really this is more about "OK if you don't want to, you don't have to, but don't ask everyone else to pay for the risks you needlessly but voluntarily accept."
Remember there are other negatives for the employer as smokers need smoke breaks, may smell bad to customers and colleagues, be out sick, have higher health costs etc.
So too with unvaccinated, they may be out sick, have higher healthcare costs, and get other customers and colleagues sick.
Many employers offer discounts on health rates if you get checkups, have blood pressure or BMI in the right ranges, because people who do those things head off problems earlier and utilize less healthcare in the long run.
Employers incentivizing preventative care and health promotion shouldn't be construable as totalitarian!
It's going to be necessary to incentivize in the face of our new social media informed world with severe malactor amplified misinformation from parties with foreign divisive motivations, domestic profit motivations, tribal identarian ideologies, or pure unadulterated attention whoring. What is a business owner, insurance company, or health promotion leader to do?
I don't grant your slippery slope validity, but I point out that many employers have banned tobacco use by employees or attached high cost to insurance premiums. I am OK with voluntary choices resulting in higher premiums.So you're okay with employers mandating that employees quit smoking or lose their job, that insurance companies require the people they cover to quit smoking all in the name of public health. You're okay with those same groups requiring people give up drinking alcohol because of the increased health care costs. You're okay with employers and insurance companies mandating where that you bo longer eat sugar or meat because they are unhealthy. This is the slippery slope that you're okay with everyone going diwn.
I'm not okay with something like insurance being mandatory and then using that as a method to change people's behaviors. If buying insurance was optional and not mandated I'd probably have a different viewpoint.I don't grant your slippery slope validity, but I point out that many employers have banned tobacco use by employees or attached high cost to insurance premiums. I am OK with voluntary choices resulting in higher premiums.
Are you OK with life insurance not covering BASE jumping and requiring a supplemental policy?
We single out smokers, people who use alcohol, when I signed up for insurance on the exchange when I was between work it asked about high risk activities.Not sure what you mean by "already addressed in the cost of insurance". Different insurers have different agreements with different hospital systems. My 60 year old colleagues have a greater risk for needing coronary artery stenting than my 30 year old ones do, but the 30 year old friends are more likely (but not necessarily) to have children. And cost of the PCI dwarfs delivery of a child from positive hcg to vaginal delivery. Everyone is distributing their potential financial liability across a broad beam of subscribers and possible medical costs.
Besides, that isn't even my point. Singling out a particular patient group sets a terrible precedent and the unintentional consequences to a decision like this are troubling to me. An increase of $2400 a year to healthy patients? Because of something that not only has not happened but is unlikely to happened to them? I don't trust that, once that line had been crossed, the stage could be set for other ways to coerce behavior by powerful institutions...call me paranoid but I used to think China's "one child policy" was a far removed reality/ideology that was not relevant to me or my descendants, but this kind of mentality has me wondering....
If people aren't getting vaccinated, deal with the reasons why. That might be a difficult prospect, but the perceived simplicity of going all totalitarian on them will not go well.
They already discount insurance costs based on healthy habits. If you don't smoke you save x amount of money. If you don't drink you save y. If you have good blood work you save z. And now if you have the covid vaccine you save abc.So you're okay with employers mandating that employees quit smoking or lose their job, that insurance companies require the people they cover to quit smoking all in the name of public health. You're okay with those same groups requiring people give up drinking alcohol because of the increased health care costs. You're okay with employers and insurance companies mandating where that you bo longer eat sugar or meat because they are unhealthy. This is the slippery slope that you're okay with everyone going diwn.
Just to clarify, you're okay with an insurance company who you are required by law to be a customer of, dictating your lifestyle choices?They already discount insurance costs based on healthy habits. If you don't smoke you save x amount of money. If you don't drink you save y. If you have good blood work you save z. And now if you have the covid vaccine you save abc.
And employers are allowed to set the terms of employment. So yes I am.
Wouldn't you still have the option to choose a lifestyle, but perhaps at a higher cost? And how much does getting vaccinated have to do with lifestyle? Isn't the argument against mandating vaccines mostly about people being told to do something they don't want to do? If so, where should governments and employers draw the line against telling citizens or employees to do things they don't want to do?Just to clarify, you're okay with an insurance company who you are required by law to be a customer of, dictating your lifestyle choices?
One of the issues is with how these mandates are coming about. The government doesn't have the legal basis to order everyone to get vaccinated yet, so they are resorting to "encouraging" employers and insurance comapnies to do what they can not. If the government were to get the legal basis to make vaccines mandatory, then it would be constrained by certain limits. Going this route removes those constraints. The ends don't always justify the means.Wouldn't you still have the option to choose a lifestyle, but perhaps at a higher cost? And how much does getting vaccinated have to do with lifestyle? Isn't the argument against mandating vaccines mostly about people being told to do something they don't want to do? If so, where should governments and employers draw the line against telling citizens or employees to do things they don't want to do?
We single out people with conditions or who actively *do* something like smoke. We don't single out people that *don't do* something in a negative way firstly because the list is never ending and secondly because what to single someone out for because they *don't do* something would vary as much as there are opinions on what people should be doing.We single out smokers, people who use alcohol, when I signed up for insurance on the exchange when I was between work it asked about high risk activities.
So your point about singling out a specific patient population moot as it is already done. There is a very obvious cost for not being vaccinated, they are just paying the risk that they are to insurance. Its simple insurance underwriting.
Also my risk of having a child is absolutely zero, yet I still pay for it. I also pay for my older coworkers who may need a cardiac cath. Insurance costs are the expected cost of the group. I'd you have unvaccinated employees the expected cost goes up, and the company is choosing to make the high risk pay for that increased liability instead of spreading it out.
They already do. By adjusting my premiums based on the risk I am to them and the pool I am joining. You make it seem like this is something new.Just to clarify, you're okay with an insurance company who you are required by law to be a customer of, dictating your lifestyle choices?
No it's not new..just not sure people have looked at it from that viewpoint.They already do. By adjusting my premiums based on the risk I am to them and the pool I am joining. You make it seem like this is something new.
We single out people who don't wear shoes and don't wash their hands with respect to entering and working in restaurants. We also single out people who don't get vaccinated for measles during measles outbreaks. When it comes communicable disease, no man is an island.We single out people with conditions or who actively *do* something like smoke. We don't single out people that *don't do* something in a negative way firstly because the list is never ending and secondly because what to single someone out for because they *don't do* something would vary as much as there are opinions on what people should be doing.
Study is out of the UK on incidence of deaths of children and young people. this data was collected from the 1st year of the Pandemic.initial study
Deaths in Children and Young People in England following SARS-CoV-2 infection during the first pandemic year: a national study using linked mandatory child death reporting data
BackgroundDeaths in children and young people (CYP) following SARS-CoV-2 infection are rare. Quantifying the risk of mortality is challenging because of high relative prevalence of asymptomatic and non-specific disease manifestations. Therefore, it is important to differentiate...www.researchsquare.com
1 in 20K CYP died of COVID in their dataset. The vaccine death rate is <<1 in 1M. This tracks with other complications which are vastly more common in cases of COVID illness than from vaccination. This is before considering the apparent (see below) increased virulence of Delta.Study is out of the UK on incidence of deaths of children and young people. this data was collected from the 1st year of the Pandemic.
99.995% survived.
Limitations to this study are it doesn’t cover delta or other variants, and (as many of you will argue) long term sequela.
Still, with data like this, I would be hesitant giving my child the vaccine. Lucky for me I don’t have to.
Good studies but the 1:20k CYP deaths appears to be incorrectly interpreted1 in 20K CYP died of COVID in their dataset. The vaccine death rate is <<1 in 1M. This tracks with other complications which are vastly more common in cases of COVID illness than from vaccination. This is before considering the apparent (see below) increased virulence of Delta.
The vaccine reduces risk of infection, transmission, illness, hospitalization, long term sequelae, and death from COVID and these beneficial reductions are much greater than the risk of the vaccine.
I'd note that preprint uses some very funny math for risk calculations based on incidence vs whole population instead of in affected population, note that is is the same BS math that COVID deniers were using early in the pandemic to say that "99.999% of people survive COVID" (because they took the whole population as the denominator and very few had gotten COVID).
At face value this preprint study shows what I have been saying all through this thread: even in the lowest COVID risk group, the vaccine is still safer than the disease risk and the best bet for the individual as well as society.
Here are some other studies to read:
Largest Real-World Pfizer Safety Study to Date shows excellent safety and that complications rates in vaccinated group are lower than in unvaccinated who get COVID.
Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published
The Clalit Research Institute, in collaboration with researchers from Harvard University, analyzed one of the world's largest integrated health record databases to examine the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2 vaccine against COVID-19. The study provides the largest peer-reviewed evaluation...medicalxpress.com
MMWR a classroom Delta outbreak with a 50% attack rate on the students from an unvaxxed infected teacher:
Outbreak Associated with SARS-CoV-2 B.1.617.2 (Delta)...
COVID-19 outbreak associated with an unvaccinated infected teacher in an elementary school from May–June 2021 in Marin County, California.www.cdc.gov
6mo post infection 1 in 6 COVID survivors have a new neuro/psych dx:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanpsy/article/PIIS2215-0366(21)00084-5/fulltext
Delta appears to be more virulent (higher hospitalization risk):
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3099(21)00475-8/fulltext
Good info there. ThanksLargest Real-World Pfizer Safety Study to Date shows excellent safety and that complications rates in vaccinated group are lower than in unvaccinated who get COVID.
Largest real-world study of COVID-19 vaccine safety published
The Clalit Research Institute, in collaboration with researchers from Harvard University, analyzed one of the world's largest integrated health record databases to examine the safety of the Pfizer/BioNTech BNT162B2 vaccine against COVID-19. The study provides the largest peer-reviewed evaluation...medicalxpress.com