More than 150 Houston hospital workers fired or quit after refusing COVID-19 vaccine

[ralliann]

Agree, but a hospital also has the right to fire someone who elects not to get vaccinated.

They shouldn't. The only people taking the risk are those whom are not vaccinated. Just like those getting the vaccine are weighing the risk.

 

[cow451]

Why should they have the ability to sue? It was their choice to not get vaccinated. Just like the vaccinated cannot sue if the vaccine harms them.

Welcome to America.

 

[expos4ever]

They shouldn't. The only people taking the risk are those whom are not vaccinated. Just like those getting the vaccine are weighing the risk.

No.

This has been explained over and over. The vaccine does not produce enough antibodies in some people and some people (although not many) cannot take the vaccine for a range of medical reasons.

Unvaccinated health care workers, who are eligible for the vaccine, should be fired. They pose a health risk.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I daresay you admire those who agree with you and stand their ground.

Let's test this theory: Do you admire women who "stand their ground" and pursue abortions rather than "pleasing men" who enact laws restricting abortion?

That's an illogical question. These women aren't standing their ground; they are indeed taking the already available legal way out of the dilemma of whether to have a baby.

To stand your ground, you go AGAINST the world's popular opinion, not with it.

 

[RestoreTheJoy]

I don't understand this reply. If you want people to understand you must elaborate.

The hospital workers deserved to get fired for refusing the vaccine. It is a job requirement, not just for COVID but also for other communicable diseases. No hospital worker has the right to infect other staff or patients.

It's a larger legal question. Not specific to this case. Do we want a society where employers (or anyone) can dictate others must submit to any experimental invasive drug or procedure against his will or will be heavily penalized? Or not?

 

[expos4ever]

To stand your ground, you go AGAINST the world's popular opinion, not with it.

Fine, forget the analogy. The fact remains: refusing to be vaccinated is neither scientifically nor ethical defensible.

It is an act of selfishness.

 

[ralliann]

Welcome to America.

Not that the one I knew growing up. It is changing pretty quickly.

 

[ralliann]

Fine, forget the analogy. The fact remains: refusing to be vaccinated is neither scientifically nor ethical defensible.

It is an act of selfishness.

Totalitarianism here?

 

[expos4ever]

It's a larger legal question. Not specific to this case. Do we want a society where employers (or anyone) can dictate others must submit to any experimental invasive drug or procedure against his will or will be heavily penalized? Or not?

Like so many anti-vaxxers, you artfully frame your position in a way that misleads the reader. If Covid were not so highly contagious, then, and only then, would you have a point.

You do not have the right to hurt me just because you choose to be reckless.

 

[expos4ever]

Totalitarianism here?

How so? Explain exactly how my position of favoring vaccines, and the firing of health care workers who refuse vaccination, has even the remotest connection to totalitarianism.

Is Harvard "totalitarian" if they fire professors who do not minimum job requirements?

 

[GOD Shines Forth!]

It's a larger legal question. Not specific to this case. Do we want a society where employers (or anyone) can dictate others must submit to any experimental invasive drug or procedure against his will or will be heavily penalized? Or not?

NOT!

 

[cow451]

It's a larger legal question. Not specific to this case. Do we want a society where employers (or anyone) can dictate others must submit to any experimental invasive drug or procedure against his will or will be heavily penalized? Or not?

This is not "experimental". Remand for reeducation.

 

[cow451]

Not that the one I knew growing up. It is changing pretty quickly.

Time goes in one direction only.

 

[ralliann]

How so? Explain

What you favor is virtuous, therefore those whom disagree with you should be fired and mocked. No protection under the law.

 

[cow451]

Totalitarianism here?

It isn't anywhere close. All industries have safety standards that are required. If I work in a construction area, I MUST wear a hard hat, even though I don't want to because it messes up my hair.

 

[ralliann]

It's a larger legal question. Not specific to this case. Do we want a society where employers (or anyone) can dictate others must submit to any experimental invasive drug or procedure against his will or will be heavily penalized? Or not?

Especially when the demand in itself, denies the effectiveness of the drug.

 

[cow451]

NOT!

The border is that way -------->>

 

[cow451]

Especially when the demand in itself, denies the effectiveness of the drug.

No it doesn't. Quite the opposite.

 

[expos4ever]

What you favor is virtuous, therefore those whom disagree with you should be fired and mocked. No protection under the law.

No. You surely cannot believe this is a proper answer. It is obvious that I am not saying that recalcitrant health care workers should be fired "because I say so".

They....are....a.....health.....threat!!!

Why are you so clearly misrepresenting me?

 

[ralliann]

It isn't anywhere close. All industries have safety standards that are required. If I work in a construction area, I MUST wear a hard hat, even though I don't want to because it messes up my hair.

But we can't have safety for ourselves? We are not talking about messing up hair. We are talking about people having to be forced to take a vaccine that we don't know much about. Which those who get the vaccine are not at risk, so...Why force others out of a job over their own choice.