Biden Drops the Hammer on Unvaccinated

[Desk trauma]

Which is a small percentage. Employers can not make whatever rules they like. You can not discriminate for any reason.

You can on vaccination status.

 

[Aldebaran]

That's kinda like saying my choice to stop going to work is removed by my company continuing to pay me if I do show up. Weird - almost as if this argument advocates for some sort of universal income from the government. You know, so my choice not to work wouldn't be able to controlled by a company.

Not sure what you're talking about here, but it's not related to what we're talking about.

 

[renniks]

Nope.

You can require they get vaccinated as a condition of hire and continued employment.

Can I also tell them what they can't eat?
How much they can drink?
Can I monitor any of their other medical decisions?

 

[muichimotsu]

The real word is that the unvaccinated are not killing people. Covid is. Your uncaring attitude is noted. Thanks for the discussion.

The unvaccinated are at fault in no small part for encouraging spread needlessly because of massive misinformation and disinformation, to say nothing of horrible education and willful ignorance about things that then are further compounded by egomaniacal individualism. No one's saying the people in question are doing it directly, but they're hosting this far more likely and also likely aren't taking precautions because they believe they don't need to.

 

[Aldebaran]

Look at the vaccines as a whole how many people have had bad side affects compared to how many have taken the vaccine.

It doesn't matter how many. What matters is which ones have the bad side effects.

 

[dogs4thewin]

Which is a small percentage. Employers can not make whatever rules they like. You can not discriminate for any reason.

Actually, you can for certain reasons ( In some cases even in the case of protected classes and certainly on none protected classes such as vaccines.

 

[Desk trauma]

Can I also tell them what they can't eat?
How much they can drink?
Can I monitor any of their other medical decisions?

More than likely. Employers have very wide latitude on what kind of conditions of employment they can set.

 

[dogs4thewin]

It doesn't matter how many. What matters is which ones have the bad side effects.

Yeah it kinda does matter how many? There are risks to anything medical and so if the percentage of people who have problems is tiny that means that it is probably a fairly safe thing to do.

 

[Aldebaran]

Or maybe, hear me out, their stories are not real, and when looked into, they find that. Or their side effects don't merit noting, because they are looking for more significant ones.

If you believe they're all liars because they don't fit the popular narrative, or the "data" you want to believe, then just say so.
And if you believe that ending up with side effects that render a person disabled for life is not a side effect that merits noting, then at least be upfront about it. At least you'd be making your point of view more clear.

 

[renniks]

More than likely. Employers have very wide latitude on what kind of conditions of employment they can set.

Lol, I guarantee you if you try and tell your employees what food they can consume you will have a lawsuit.

 

[muichimotsu]

I agree. All I am saying is that this should not be acceptable. Lets find a way to fix the problem without violating someone rights. Many here seem to advocate there is nothing we can do if they won't get vaccinated, so screw them. I just think that is unacceptable.

Problem is you assume the rights to not be acted upon are any more absolute than the right to act, they have to be balanced and sometimes that means restricting freedoms within particular contexts.

There isn't the contradiction you keep claiming because this discussion has been a thing for centuries

One can lead a horse to water, but if they won't drink, they will dehydrate and die, the metaphor is palpable, just substitute horse for donkey and it works even better

 

[renniks]

Yeah it kinda does matter how many? There are risks to anything medical and so if the percentage of people who have problems is tiny that means that it is probably a fairly safe thing to do.

But we don't even know yet. The side effects could show up years down the road and be devastating.

 

[dogs4thewin]

More than likely. Employers have very wide latitude on what kind of conditions of employment they can set.

They can even fire you for using pot on your off hours ( even if it is legal in the state unless the state has a law that says otherwise. This can even be the case if you are using it for medical purposes.

 

[Aldebaran]

Gee, that sounds an awful lot like a thinly veiled insult...but no one bats an eyelash at this, do they?

Do you even know what it means?

Do you know what hypocrisy means?

You're exaggerating threats because you have such a comfortable existence otherwise you don't want to "lose your edge", so now you manufacture some new problem so you can still be a gadfly.

 

[Desk trauma]

Lol, I guarantee you if you try and tell your employees what food they can consume you will have a lawsuit.

That’s nice. Doesn’t change that vaccination as a condition of employment is lawful and not a recent invention but don’t let that stop the rabbit hole dive.

 

[dogs4thewin]

But we don't even know yet. The side effects could show up years down the road and be devastating.

True but the only way to know that is to get down the road.

 

[muichimotsu]

So you think that everyone that is unvaccinated fits into this category?

No, because I cannot say absolutely or would claim that everyone who's unvaccinated willfully and has no legitimate reasons voted for Trump, for example, or even that they're Republican.

Maybe right leaning, but that's pretty vague and could apply to people who are otherwise not that irrational and actually would be considered semi progressive and forward thinking. But they let their confirmation bias ruin any sense of humility or intellectual discussion because of emotional entanglement to an issue that doesn't necessarily require it to this extent

 

[muichimotsu]

Well that is for the medical professionals to decide at the time. I the mean time lets figure out a way to not have to make that choice in the future. Something that you don't seem to want to solve.

Bull pucky, I want to solve it, but the unvaxxed anti vax nutbars aren't helping. This is the equivalent of blaming the parents when they've exhausted all efforts and their recalcitrant child still won't behave and has to be institutionalized. Are you going to say that the unvaxxed are not part of the problem or are you going to put all the responsibility on the vaccinated?

Either way, it's unconscionable and irrational, because it's trying to play both sides instead of admitting one group is not helping at all, they're digging the hole instead of filling it.

 

[muichimotsu]

I disagree that Donald lit the fuse -- he's a symptom, and he certainly made it worse (as is his habit), but he's not the catalyst.

The metaphor isn't perfect, but a comparison might be better rendered as him spreading the fuel/gunpowder. *shrugs*

 

[renniks]

True but the only way to know that is to get down the road.

So, we should take the jab not knowing?