COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

Would you get the Pfizer vaccine if it were available to you?

  • Total voters
    77
mgr22 said:
I'm still seeing lots of debate among docs about the need for a booster. I wonder what the protocols will be for folks like you who had breakthrough infections. Booster or not, you could be one of the most immune people on the planet by the time you're feeling better.
Click to expand...
www.reuters.com

COVID-19 vaccine boosters not widely needed, top FDA and WHO scientists say

Additional COVID-19 vaccine booster shots are not needed for the general population, leading scientists including two departing senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials and several from the World Health Organization (WHO) said in an article published in a medical journal on Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
 
E tank said:
The time is approaching very quickly when the only folks sick enough to be hospitalized will be the unvaccinated. Then that's on them. I'll take care of them and I won't lay some trip on them either. But they'll be the only ones.

And if where I am is any indication, we won't need to open any temporary ICU's for them either 'cause they won't need them or enough of them will die before we come too close to needing more CC beds. We do now, but we won't then.

I really don't care if some healthy adult doesn't want the vaccine. They'll get sick or they won't. If they don't want to get sick, they'll get it. Just wildcatting here but the resolution is relatively near IMHO...
Click to expand...
I just wish the demands on the system and effects on everyone else weren't more wide spread. I'm all for letting people make stupid decisions that costs their own life if they're adamant. I don't like when they make stupid decisions that cost someone else's. The way hospital beds are going lately, it's getting to the point that non-COVID patients are definitely feeling the effects of the strain.
 
DrParasite said:
www.reuters.com

COVID-19 vaccine boosters not widely needed, top FDA and WHO scientists say

Additional COVID-19 vaccine booster shots are not needed for the general population, leading scientists including two departing senior U.S. Food and Drug Administration officials and several from the World Health Organization (WHO) said in an article published in a medical journal on Monday.
www.reuters.com www.reuters.com
Click to expand...
Isn't the reason the booster isn't supported is because they want a larger supply to be available for people around the world who haven't gotten their first shot yet? That the goal is now to protect against severe disease rather than protection from getting COVID 19 or breakthrough infection? Personally, I am confused about the supply issue. Are people not getting the shot around the world because of a supply issue or because they are choosing not to get the shot? Seems like even outside of the US people are not thrilled about the available vaccines.
 
mgr22 said:
Sounds like bad faith on both sides.
Click to expand...
It does, but ia it really up to your employer to determine how strictly you follow your religious beliefs?
 
ffemt8978 said:
It does, but ia it really up to your employer to determine how strictly you follow your religious beliefs?
Click to expand...
No, but I suspect some of the religious objections described in the piece are contrived; hence, the bad faith on both sides.

I've administered a few thousand optional vaccine doses (not COVID). Not once was I asked by a potential vaccine recipient how the vaccine was made; nor were there any concerns expressed about the possibility of religious conflicts. I'm just not convinced that 100% of the employees citing religious objections are sincere about that.
 
mgr22 said:
No, but I suspect some of the religious objections described in the piece are contrived; hence, the bad faith on both sides.

I've administered a few thousand optional vaccine doses (not COVID). Not once was I asked by a potential vaccine recipient how the vaccine was made; nor were there any concerns expressed about the possibility of religious conflicts. I'm just not convinced that 100% of the employees citing religious objections are sincere about that.
Click to expand...
I'm not disagreeing with you about the bad faith part, I'm just questioning if we want the employers to make that determination.
 
ffemt8978 said:
I'm not disagreeing with you about the bad faith part, I'm just questioning if we want the employers to make that determination.
Click to expand...
No, I'm not comfortable with employers testing the validity of employees' religious beliefs.
 
mgr22 said:
No, I'm not comfortable with employers testing the validity of employees' religious beliefs.
Click to expand...
to plays devil's advocate on this topic alone... why not?

if a person is claiming they can't take the vaccine based on religious grounds, shouldn't they have no issues swearing that they are refusing to take any other medications that would fall under the same category? If it is a true religious issue, they might not even be aware that the other drugs are made the same way, and be grateful for their employer for advising them of this conflict, so they can understand how common it is, and how they should be avoiding other medication too.

if it's truly a religious reason, then why would anyone have an issue standing up for their religious beliefs?

and, for the record, and for any who missed my first line, I do think that this is a huge overreach by the employer, and I would **** on the CEO's desk before I told my employer I was going to swear off anything as a condition of getting a religious exemption
 
DrParasite said:
to plays devil's advocate on this topic alone... why not?

if a person is claiming they can't take the vaccine based on religious grounds, shouldn't they have no issues swearing that they are refusing to take any other medications that would fall under the same category? If it is a true religious issue, they might not even be aware that the other drugs are made the same way, and be grateful for their employer for advising them of this conflict, so they can understand how common it is, and how they should be avoiding other medication too.

if it's truly a religious reason, then why would anyone have an issue standing up for their religious beliefs?

and, for the record, and for any who missed my first line, I do think that this is a huge overreach by the employer, and I would **** on the CEO's desk before I told my employer I was going to swear off anything as a condition of getting a religious exemption
Click to expand...
The logic and consistency you're looking for would be nice to have. I just don't think religion lends itself to that. And even if COVID were not involved, I wouldn't be comfortable having my employer rule on the sincerity of my beliefs.

In my opinion, the debates over whether or not to get vaccinated and whether or not to require others to get vaccinated have less to do with religion than with people not wanting to be told what to do. I wish we could simply focus on the much greater probability of death or disability from COVID than from the vaccine, but that ship has sailed. Our society seems to be moving away from the shared concern for public health I grew up with. Perhaps the problem is marketing.
 
DrParasite said:
to plays devil's advocate on this topic alone... why not?

if a person is claiming they can't take the vaccine based on religious grounds, shouldn't they have no issues swearing that they are refusing to take any other medications that would fall under the same category? If it is a true religious issue, they might not even be aware that the other drugs are made the same way, and be grateful for their employer for advising them of this conflict, so they can understand how common it is, and how they should be avoiding other medication too.

if it's truly a religious reason, then why would anyone have an issue standing up for their religious beliefs?

and, for the record, and for any who missed my first line, I do think that this is a huge overreach by the employer, and I would **** on the CEO's desk before I told my employer I was going to swear off anything as a condition of getting a religious exemption
Click to expand...
Continuing with the devil's advocate...

Each person's religious belief is a deeply personal and personalized viewpoint based upon the combination of the teachings of their religion, their own interpretation of those teachings, and how they implement and balance the two into their lives. Some people may find it acceptable to take one of these meds orally but object to receiving them via injection. (As medical professionals we are aware of the similarities and differences between those two routes of administration, but that is beside the point when dealing with a person's personal religious beliefs).

As to the circumstances of this particular case, it is possible that some of these employees were willing to overlook the connection to the other drugs on the list, but felt being mandated to get a new vaccine was crossing the line. Some may feel that the combination of fetal cell and mRNA is taboo. Others may view it simply as a way to get out of getting vaccinated.

Unless the hospital is going to make every employee swear or affirm their viewpoints on the vaccine, there is the possibility of a religious discrimination case because a small group is being singled out for a separate, distinct action that others are not simply because of their religious beliefs. Whether or not somebody will be willing to take it to court, much less win, is unknown.
 
www.shrm.org

How to Handle an Employee's Request for a Medical or Religious Accommodation to a Vaccine Requirement

Understand how to evaluate and respond to an employee's request for reasonable accommodation to be exempt from vaccination requirements.
www.shrm.org www.shrm.org

Good primer on ADA and religious exemptions in the workplace

And here is the info from the EEOC:

What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws

Notice Concerning the Undue Hardship Standard in Title VII Religious Accommodation Cases.This document was issued prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in Groff v.
www.eeoc.gov www.eeoc.gov

Edit: reading through the EEOC guidelines, I can certainly see a case being made that by requiring an employee to swear off other meds: a) the employer does not have the reasonable objective criteria to doubt the "sincerely held belief" standard and is trying to create it instead; b) the employer is not addressing each individual concern as required and is instead responding with a group approach; c) the employer has not applied the reasonable accommodation standard on an individual basis as required.
 
Last edited:
The expectation that a religious belief be sincerely held if it is being used as a justification for an exemption from rules of any kinds is a totally reasonable expectation.

Remember when the rules changed to "only unvaccinated need to wear masks" and the apparent vaccination rates based on mask usage suddenly rose to 99%? That is why employers are not trusting. Non-vaccinators as a group has already proven that they will not follow rules and so the choice is trust but verify, or give up all pretense of any expectation of sincere compliance.
 
Summit said:
The expectation that a religious belief be sincerely held if it is being used as a justification for an exemption from rules of any kinds is a totally reasonable expectation.

Remember when the rules changed to "only unvaccinated need to wear masks" and the apparent vaccination rates based on mask usage suddenly rose to 99%? That is why employers are not trusting. Non-vaccinators as a group has already proven that they will not follow rules and so the choice is trust but verify, or give up all pretense of any expectation of sincere compliance.
Click to expand...
Curious how an employer could verify a religious belief without running afoul of Title VII. Any ideas?
 
Summit said:
The expectation that a religious belief be sincerely held if it is being used as a justification for an exemption from rules of any kinds is a totally reasonable expectation.

Remember when the rules changed to "only unvaccinated need to wear masks" and the apparent vaccination rates based on mask usage suddenly rose to 99%? That is why employers are not trusting. Non-vaccinators as a group has already proven that they will not follow rules and so the choice is trust but verify, or give up all pretense of any expectation of sincere compliance.
Click to expand...
If you want people to respect the rules, you have to make the rules respectable. Intrusions on the autonomy of individuals, especially in such a highly personal way as this, has probably never garnered a lot of cooperation.
 
If you've got a long file full of other vaccines that someone has gotten though, it doesn't seem unreasonable as an employer to call out their claim. I know someone who is consistent and has had absolutely none. But if someone has a whole list and now it's against their beliefs, then that's pretty clearly them taking the easy way out.
 
StCEMT said:
If you've got a long file full of other vaccines that someone has gotten though, it doesn't seem unreasonable as an employer to call out their claim. I know someone who is consistent and has had absolutely none. But if someone has a whole list and now it's against their beliefs, then that's pretty clearly them taking the easy way out.
Click to expand...
Or their beliefs have changed. Or they have new beliefs.

I agree it's a way to take advantage of the situation, but it would be hard to combat that with an algorithm.
 
What’s to prevent someone from lying? Saying that they won’t take those meds but take them anyway.
 
Fezman92 said:
What’s to prevent someone from lying? Saying that they won’t take those meds but take them anyway.
Click to expand...
The possibility that the meds are caught on either an employment random drug screen or during a medical test, at which point the employer could fire them for breaking their promise?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top