Hospital suspends over 100 employees for not getting COVID vaccine

OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
You were the one who claimed there were no adverse effects of the vaccine, I just provided the link to prove that statement was incorrect.

Minimal risk or not, I am questioning whether or not the employer has the right to make that decision for its employees, and if so where do we draw the line? It's too easy to claim that Covid is such a bad disease and these actions are justified, but what happens when the next disease comes down the pipe? Once the groundwork has been laid, it is easier for others to travel down the same path pointing back to Covid as the basis and justification for their actions.

Employee or employer favored market makes no difference at this time, because it bounces back and forth so often. If your best argument is that you can find work elsewhere, you're not trying hard enough to support your position.

As I've said repeatedly, this issue is too important not to respond with factual, logical and reason based arguments. Using emotion, hype, and hyperbole does no good for anyone.
 
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
@ffemt8978 Pfizer thinks they have everything required for FDA approval over a month ago. They have already applied for full FDA approval which requires submitting all of that data. Just waiting on the FDA to review. Same for Moderna... of course FDA could come back and say no, but there is no data out there suggesting a rationale for FDA not to approve that I am aware of, including the CDC page you linked to which demonstrates that these vaccines are very safe and very effective. It sucks to be an outlier. It also sucks to be a bad case of COVID/complications and to be a disease spreader. I expect full FDA approvals for Moderna and Pfizer in a few months.
I am aware of that, and agree with your expectations. I am questioning why this employer decided to take these actions before the vaccine was approved.

As far as being the outlier, is the employer willing to accept the costs of treatment (short term and long term) if one of their employees becomes an outlier?
 

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,611
1,029
113
You were the one who claimed there were no adverse effects of the vaccine, I just provided the link to prove that statement was incorrect.
Perhaps an overstatement on my part to say "no" events, but the events you reference have been of such small size as to be meaningless from a policy or public health perspective. There's risks from every vaccine - the seasonal flu shots have adverse events, too, for example - but this is about risk vs. reward, and the reward of vaccination invariably exceeds cost. In this case, with COVID, it very clearly does.

Minimal risk or not, I am questioning whether or not the employer has the right to make that decision for its employees, and if so where do we draw the line? It's too easy to claim that Covid is such a bad disease and these actions are justified, but what happens when the next disease comes down the pipe? Once the groundwork has been laid, it is easier for others to travel down the same path pointing back to Covid as the basis and justification for their actions.

Employee or employer favored market makes no difference at this time, because it bounces back and forth so often. If your best argument is that you can find work elsewhere, you're not trying hard enough to support your position.
Precedent may have been established, but costs and benefits change. Employers can make their judgement of risk/benefit & so can employees. Clearly this choice has been made in this case.

Personally, I am happy to get a vaccine that has made it through Phase 3 trials & has strong validated results. I don't need FDA approval to make that call. FDA approval is a bureaucratic step - the evidence was clear that the vaccines are safe & effective before the EUA was even granted.

Where do you draw the line? The approved vs. EUA?
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,540
1,111
113
I am aware of that, and agree with your expectations. I am questioning why this employer decided to take these actions before the vaccine was approved.

As far as being the outlier, is the employer willing to accept the costs of treatment (short term and long term) if one of their employees becomes an outlier?
We agree that mandating now is probably not the most sensible course.

That said, if you are the outlier and suffer a severe vaccine AE, employer mandate or not, Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP) and after the public health emergency is "over" the Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) is what covers the costs and losses. The burden of proof is pretty low, vastly lower than trying to sue a drug company.
 
Last edited:
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
Perhaps an overstatement on my part to say "no" events, but the events you reference have been of such small size as to be meaningless from a policy or public health perspective. There's risks from every vaccine - the seasonal flu shots have adverse events, too, for example - but this is about risk vs. reward, and the reward of vaccination invariably exceeds cost. In this case, with COVID, it very clearly does.


Precedent may have been established, but costs and benefits change. Employers can make their judgement of risk/benefit & so can employees. Clearly this choice has been made in this case.

Where do you draw the line? The approved vs. EUA?
Honestly, I don't know where the line should be drawn. How many employers require you to present your vaccination records to work there? All the diseases most of us were vaccinated against in childhood are also nasty diseases, yet I'm not aware of any employer requiring proof of those vaccinations. Why is Covid different than those?

Setting aside the debate over whether or not they should even be able to mandate a vaccination, as far as differentiating between approved and EUA, I think the employer would have a minimally better chance to defend mandating an approved vaccine vs an EUA. Doing so while under the EUA provides more arguments against it (not officially aporoved, mandating employees partake in essentially an experiment, unknown long term effects, etc...)
 
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
@Summit , I am well aware that the long term effects argument doesn't hold much water. I continue to use it because in my travels across the country, that is one of the concerns I hear people who don't want to get vaccinated use and I've yet to see anyone offer a valid counterpoint to it. Until we can address it, it will continue to be a rallying point for those who don't want ti be vaccinated.
 

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,732
2,364
113
Using emotion, hype, and hyperbole does no good for anyone.

I found this highly ironic.

Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change?

If not, then tossing those words around repeatedly despite the volumes of data which far exceed any vaccine creation to date is not your actual concern.
 
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
I found this highly ironic.

Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change?

If not, then tossing those words around repeatedly despite the volumes of data which far exceed any vaccine creation to date is not your actual concern.
So do I, especially since I haven't really stated what my position is on this matter. I am questioning whether or not we want to allow an employer to do this, and if so where do we draw the line?

I am intentionally using those things in an effort to draw out quality responses and information that can be used to counter the arguments I hear against this policy from a wide variety of people.

As I stated earlier, this is a different discussion if the vaccines had full approval because it would eliminate some of the low lying objections against it.
 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,720
1,732
113
Anyways, let's say tomorrow the FDA says "Full Approval". It is no longer "experimental" or "emergency use"...does your position change?
I guess if you are actually saying you want FDA approval, or just using that an excuse to ignore the mountains of scientific evidence, and say "we don't need no stinking vaccine"

But instead of ponding if it's legal or moral, why not come up with an actual solution that satisfies both sides?

It is my opinion that no one should be forced to get vaccinated. People have the right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare. However, there are actions to every consequence. Should you contract whatever you could have been vaccinated against, it is my belief that you should be terminated immediately, because due to your own actions, you are now costing the company more money, with your health insurance coverages terminated that day. workman's comp should also deny the claim, because this was an avoidable incident, but it is the employees right to make stupid decisions, and deal with the consequences.

Sound a little extreme? you might think so, but it's consistent with my beliefs that your actions should have consequences, as well as it's up to each individual to decide what healthcare decisions they want to make about their body.
 
Last edited:

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,732
2,364
113
If the employer says I must wear a helmet, the employer provides a helmet, the employer trains me on helmet use, the employer updates me periodically on helmet use, the employer places 1000 signs around the site reminding me of helmet use....and I choose to not wear it and suffer a possible preventable injury....do you think I would remain employed? Do you think Workers Comp or Primary Insurance would try to deny?

I feel a lot of "no's" in that scenario. So how is mandating a vaccine to prevent a possible preventable illness any different? An illness, which if contracted could actually not only impact the employee, but also many other employees, patients, clients, vendors, etc? Seems like the potential harm of that one individual has far greater negative impact than that of the non-helmet wearer.

With that simple extrapolation, with my limited education, it seems to me that the employer has the right to mandate whatever they want in order to protect many, as opposed to the rights of the one, and the one has the right to seek employment elsewhere.

@ffemt8978 I called you out with those particular words, because while they are accurate, descriptive facts of the vaccine, the way you used them in context a couple times allowed me to infer (incorrectly?), that you were against it. There was a clear, subjective lean to me, the reader.

@DrParasite I am not against it. Did you quote me to just reinforce your lead out statement? My EMS service is 100% vaccinated by choice. I had my 1st in Dec and 2nd in Jan. Since then, I have assisted with vaccinating 1000s in my state and others where I traveled to on short contracts.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,540
1,111
113
The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!

Public Health as it relates to communicable disease, particularly vaccine preventable illness, is a team sport, not a libertarian rugged individualist fantasy.
 
OP
ffemt8978

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,430
1,129
113
If the employer says I must wear a helmet, the employer provides a helmet, the employer trains me on helmet use, the employer updates me periodically on helmet use, the employer places 1000 signs around the site reminding me of helmet use....and I choose to not wear it and suffer a possible preventable injury....do you think I would remain employed? Do you think Workers Comp or Primary Insurance would try to deny?

I feel a lot of "no's" in that scenario. So how is mandating a vaccine to prevent a possible preventable illness any different? An illness, which if contracted could actually not only impact the employee, but also many other employees, patients, clients, vendors, etc? Seems like the potential harm of that one individual has far greater negative impact than that of the non-helmet wearer.

With that simple extrapolation, with my limited education, it seems to me that the employer has the right to mandate whatever they want in order to protect many, as opposed to the rights of the one, and the one has the right to seek employment elsewhere.

@ffemt8978 I called you out with those particular words, because while they are accurate, descriptive facts of the vaccine, the way you used them in context a couple times allowed me to infer (incorrectly?), that you were against it. There was a clear, subjective lean to me, the reader.

@DrParasite I am not against it. Did you quote me to just reinforce your lead out statement? My EMS service is 100% vaccinated by choice. I had my 1st in Dec and 2nd in Jan. Since then, I have assisted with vaccinating 1000s in my state and others where I traveled to on short contracts.
I made that lean obvious for a reason...in an effort to elicit good arguments against it.

I am not opposed to approved vaccines being mandated in select professions, provided the employer can articulate a good reason for it.

I am opposed to employers mandating a vaccine that hasn't been officially approved yet because while the difference between approved and EUA may be negligible, in legal aspects there is still a difference. Compare it to a new law that has been passed but not officially been signed into law yet. This situation is similar to enforcing the law before it is actually a law.

I am opposed to employers dictating what an employee does in their personal life, and I am opposed to the do it or leave attitude displayed by the employer.

I have questions about this particular case that I'm still looking for answers to. How many of the suspended employees do not interact with patients or the public in any capacity, and what is the justification for mandating those employees get vaccinated. I am questioning why we're treating Covid different from other vaccines.
 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,720
1,732
113
@DrParasite I am not against it. Did you quote me to just reinforce your lead out statement? My EMS service is 100% vaccinated by choice. I had my 1st in Dec and 2nd in Jan. Since then, I have assisted with vaccinating 1000s in my state and others where I traveled to on short contracts.
Apologies, I edited my original post, which changed the reason I added that quote. I think your question was 100% valid, and those who don't want to get vaccinated would find another stupid reason to say they don't want to take it. Personally, I did the same thing as you did and got it when it was offered, but many of my fellow FFs still don't want it for stupid reasons (it was developed too fast, don't trust the government, it isn't FDA approved, there is a one in a billion chance that it causes me to grow a third leg, blah blah blah).

The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!
how so? shouldn't the others get the vaccine then, to prevent them from being infected? which would negate the risk? keeping in mind the population that can't get vaccinated is actually very very small...
 

akflightmedic

Forum Deputy Chief
3,732
2,364
113
I am opposed to employers mandating a vaccine that hasn't been officially approved yet

I have questions about this particular case that I'm still looking for answers to. How many of the suspended employees do not interact with patients or the public in any capacity, and what is the justification for mandating those employees get vaccinated.

So if the FDA slaps their stamp on it tomorrow, does your position change?

So you mean how many of these staff are remote/work from home only? Cause if they present themselves to a work facility, they interact with MANY people throughout the day, including colleagues who do interact with more patients and public than the person in question. So unless they show up in a bubble suit, pack lunch, report to their self contained negative pressure office and then exit the same way, the question of do they interact with the public or patients seems moot.
 

mgr22

Forum Deputy Chief
1,410
598
113
I am questioning why we're treating Covid different from other vaccines.
I'm highlighting that last sentence of your reply because I think it's most important. In my opinion, COVID devolved from a medical issue to a political one soon after it was discovered, due primarily to anti-science messaging at the federal level. What I saw next wasn't just a lack of trust in science, but pride in that lack of trust. I don't get that.

The subsequent focus on rights -- e.g., whether or not to wear masks, social-distance, or get vaccinated -- seemed to be stoked by that pride, rather than by sincere concerns about constitutional freedoms. Much of that exercise seemed counter-productive to me because it neglected the companion issue of when to exercise rights. For example, I have a right not to wear a mask, but sometimes I haven't exercised that right because there were masked people near me who I figured would feel more comfortable if I were masked, too. It's really not a big deal to take a pass on exercising rights sometimes.

I get a feeling there are some offended hospital employees who are overlooking basic patient-care issues. And perhaps there are some hospital executives with tunnel vision who haven't explored all routes of compromise.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,540
1,111
113
how so? shouldn't the others get the vaccine then, to prevent them from being infected? which would negate the risk? keeping in mind the population that can't get vaccinated is actually very very small...

Right now 1 in 6 American's can't be vaccinated due to age or health restrictions.

Further, 1 in 20 who received the mRNA vaccines are not immune (and don't know it), 1 in 4 who received J&J are not immune, and if Delta becomes predominant then 1 in 6 who received mRNA will not be immune.

So that is where the team sport comes in. You can individually reduce your chance of being a disease vector by vaccinating yourself, and protect yourself... but if enough people vaccinate then you can have Herd Immunity. Basically, any outbreak burns itself out naturally and a disease is no longer endemic.

If a relatively small percentage of people refuse to join the fight against a vaccine preventable illness, then they are deciding for the vast majority that the illness will remain endemic instead of eradicated, and a threat to the vaccinated folks who didn't seroconvert or those who couldn't vaccinate. That is what I mean about this not being an individual decision that only affects individuals. We could make all COVID cases imported if everyone got the jab. We did that with Smallpox, Polio, Measles... until after that mass murderer Andrew Wakefield published his fraudulent paper that convinced enough individuals decided that they were going to impose their personal health decisions on others and now Measles is endemic in the US again after being exterminated through herd immunity (there were only imported cases).

Lower vaccination rates require more intrusive and draconian public health measures to stem the tide of an outbreak like quarantine, isolation, etc, so again, the individualist is setting the course against individual rights when refusing vaccines.

Read more at the link... I wrote that 6 years ago, won an award for it.
 
Last edited:

Kevinf

Forum Captain
383
155
43
with your health insurance coverages terminated that day
I'm against a power fantasy where people are left to suffer and rot in the gutter because they aren't employed and can't afford basic healthcare. That's quite a sadistic take on consequences isn't it? People txt and drive and if they get into an accident, we don't say... well it was THEIR FAULT so let's just leave them to die in agony in this mangled up vehicle. No... we help them, because we're better than that as a society. What went so very wrong that has us thinking that taking away someone's access to health care as a punitive measure is a laudable act?

This notion that basic help and healthcare is reserved for "the worthy" needs to go away, fast.
 

Carlos Danger

Forum Deputy Chief
Premium Member
4,327
3,023
113
The problem with peoples' "right to make stupid decisions about their healthcare" when it comes to infectious disease is that they are making "stupid decisions" about the healthcare of others, for them, because the problem with infectious disease is that it is... INFECTIOUS!

Public Health as it relates to communicable disease, particularly vaccine preventable illness, is a team sport, not a libertarian rugged individualist fantasy.
Mock the idea of autonomy and self-determination all you want. I still fail to see how, with nearly 60% of the public vaccinated and another percentage having some natural immunity and all the metrics improving with every measured interval, that we feel we need to force anyone to be vaccinated against their will. Is firing people who don't want to be vaccinated really the only option here? Why is it that every time we are faced with questions on how to deal with an issue, the default answer in the minds of so many people is always the use of force or coercion to make people to do what we think they should do, and screw any consideration of their rights as an individual? As if there is just_no_other_way to protect the very small subset of patients who are both susceptible to severe COVID and unable to be vaccinated themselves.


I'm highlighting that last sentence of your reply because I think it's most important. In my opinion, COVID devolved from a medical issue to a political one soon after it was discovered, due primarily to anti-science messaging at the federal level. What I saw next wasn't just a lack of trust in science, but pride in that lack of trust. I don't get that.
No, COVID was equally politicized by those from all shades of the political spectrum, and that was inevitable no matter which major party was in charge. Every issue is politicized these days, and the bigger the issue the worse it is. As far as "anti science" messaging, there was so much miscommunication, incompetence, political opportunism and outright lying on the part of the very institutions that we are supposed to have the utmost trust in that I don't even know what "anti science" means in the context of last March and April. How many times were we told "we have to follow the science.....it is absolutely critical that we all do this thing" only to find out a few months or a year later that that science was wrong the thing that was absolutely critical probably had little positive impact and may have even had a net negative effect on society.
 

mgr22

Forum Deputy Chief
1,410
598
113
No, COVID was equally politicized by those from all shades of the political spectrum, and that was inevitable no matter which major party was in charge. Every issue is politicized these days, and the bigger the issue the worse it is. As far as "anti science" messaging, there was so much miscommunication, incompetence, political opportunism and outright lying on the part of the very institutions that we are supposed to have the utmost trust in that I don't even know what "anti science" means in the context of last March and April. How many times were we told "we have to follow the science.....it is absolutely critical that we all do this thing" only to find out a few months or a year later that that science was wrong the thing that was absolutely critical probably had little positive impact and may have even had a net negative effect on society.
You must be confusing me with someone else. I didn't mention a political party or politician.
 

johnrsemt

Forum Deputy Chief
1,481
206
63
For FF8978 and others that say no employers put the Flu Vaccine as a requirement for employment: US Dept of Defense Medical Command: any medical worker, has to have the flu vaccine or a very good reason for not having it: documented severe allergic reaction (not just saying it makes me sick, but proof of hospitalization) or religious exemption and you better be practicing that religion and have in your records. You don't get the annual flu vaccine by a certain date, you don't come back to work.
We had an employee who was scheduled weekends, who had to drive 4 hours round trip on his own time to come into the clinic to get the vaccine to work a shift after the cutoff, because he was sent home the previous weekend
 

Top