Florida (Tampa) hospitals won't mandate vaccine for workers

pitabread said:

No, it's not.

Click to expand...

Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.

The Supreme Court has already given the green light to vaccine mandates and it is not Unconstitutional

RestoreTheJoy said:

Actually less than half of Americans (anyway) ever get a flu shot at all. The percentage of adults each year has fluctuated, reaching a high of 43.6% in 2014 and a low of 37.1% in 2017, the most recent year with available data.

So since a third to a half are getting it, and no one is threatening people with loss of livelihood or any other insane thing, yeah, you are not going to hear about it. People who voluntarily take it either feel it does or it does not help, and decide each year whether to do it again. Some health care places require it; others do not.

Some people do indeed do the same thing over and over. Others have never had a flu shot and never have the flu. At least we have recognized personal agency over one's medical decisions in this area, for the most part.

Click to expand...

My whole post was not about how many get the flu shot. It is about your contention that natural immunity does not wane. So, why has there been no outcry about the apparent conspiracy associated with mandatory annual flu shots for healthcare workers? Are all the employers requiring them solely to control their employees?

As for most having control over whether they get the flu shot or not, if you work in healthcare, almost all patient care facilities require the flu vaccine every year. The employee is not free to choose once they agree to the employment agreement.

When I worked in the hospital (30 years ago), apparently I was coerced into getting the flu vaccine and a TB test every single year. At the time, I thought I freely agreed to those terms in my employment contract prior to being hired, but apparently, that was/is coercive behaviour on the employer's part. I should have refused to do what I agreed to and then sued after if I was fired for non-compliance.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.

Click to expand...

Vaccine mandates have already been the subject of Supreme Court cases and were ruled legal. So no, he's not a dictator and he's not doing anything which necessarily violates the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the U.S. Constitution does give Federal authority to regulate businesses under the Commerce Powers clauses, which is the case here.

If you think otherwise, you're welcome to bring it to the courts and see what happens.

And from what I've read, the issue of legal challenges may end up being moot anyway. If the whole intent is to increase vaccination rates, this directive may succeed in that in the short term, regardless of whether it gets defeated in the long run.

RestoreTheJoy said:

Or we are vaccinating the completely immune, and calling it a win for the vaccine when they don't get sick, which they were never going to do anyway.

We all know that millions of people simply didn't get sick, even having been exposed. I believe what you say you are seeing in Ohio, but overall someone is definitely playing with the numbers somewhere. And the continuation of completely ignoring natural immunity is mind-boggling.

Click to expand...

No, nobody is ignoring natural immunity.

If natural immunity were as high in the unvaccinated population as some would like to pretend, then the trajectory lines would be similar among the two groups for hospitalizations and deaths. They're not even remotely close.

Claiming that "because the numbers aren't saying what I want, that must mean someone is playing with the numbers" is the kind of assertion I'd expect from Alex Jones and his ilk.

I have no doubts that we're vaccinating people who already have some level of immunity...I have no doubts, because I'm one.



Here's pic of my positive covid antibody test...

I still opted to get the vaccine because that enhances immunity even more.


I've stated before, I'd be completely okay with a provision that allowed people who could show a proof-positive antibody test to opt out of a vaccination requirement. I still think that boosting immunity with a vaccine offers even greater protection, but I'd be willing to say that a person with natural antibodies is "protected enough" that they're not going to bog down the healthcare system.

Is that a compromise you'd be on-board with?

Vaccine
or
Weekly testing
or
Positive antibody test

Would that be agreeable to you?


Based on conversations I've had with people who oppose vaccines, they didn't seem to like that idea either. It seemed like anything less than "we just need to pretend covid isn't a big deal and everyone needs to view it as a liberal hoax" was unacceptable to to them (at least from the people I've talked to about it)

RestoreTheJoy said:

Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.

Click to expand...

The Supreme Court has ruled otherwise a century ago. Vaccine mandates are clearly within the authority of the President.

RestoreTheJoy said:

No, they are completely ignoring natural immunity, or else the dictator in charge would have altered the decree he announced on Thursday, to include the recovered.

That is complete nonsense that natural immunity will wane. You have T cells and memory cells that muster the troops again if the infection ever comes around, with natural immunity, which is robust and long lasting. They are obfuscating on this, to push the shot, pretending that somehow your immune system that already worked needs Pfizer to keep it working. That's false. They are confusing antibody levels with immunity. Antibodies only show for a time after fighting the disease. That's how the body works.

“Last fall, there were reports that antibodies wane quickly after infection with the virus that causes COVID-19, and mainstream media interpreted that to mean that immunity was not long-lived,” said senior author Ali Ellebedy, PhD, an associate professor of pathology & immunology, of medicine and of molecular microbiology. “But that’s a misinterpretation of the data. It’s normal for antibody levels to go down after acute infection, but they don’t go down to zero; they plateau. Here, we found antibody-producing cells in people 11 months after first symptoms. These cells will live and produce antibodies for the rest of people’s lives. That’s strong evidence for long-lasting immunity.”

Good news: Mild COVID-19 induces lasting antibody protection | Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis

Click to expand...

This is what they are conveniently pretending not to know.

ThisIsMe123 said:

Not unlike having to wear gloves and hair nets while handling someone's food.

Click to expand...

Those don’t have the potential to cause adverse events. There is no VAERS for latex gloves and hairnets.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Those don’t have the potential to cause adverse events. There is no VAERS for latex gloves and hairnets.

Click to expand...

Latex allergies are a thing.

Also, where's the long term studies showing hairnets don't have long term side effects, where I arbitrarily get to say how long "long term" is?

Mayzoo said:

My whole post was not about how many get the flu shot. It is about your contention that natural immunity does not wane. So, why has there been no outcry about the apparent conspiracy associated with mandatory annual flu shots for healthcare workers? Are all the employers requiring them solely to control their employees?

As for most having control over whether they get the flu shot or not, if you work in healthcare, almost all patient care facilities require the flu vaccine every year. The employee is not free to choose once they agree to the employment agreement.

When I worked in the hospital (30 years ago), apparently I was coerced into getting the flu vaccine and a TB test every single year. At the time, I thought I freely agreed to those terms in my employment contract prior to being hired, but apparently, that was/is coercive behaviour on the employer's part. I should have refused to do what I agreed to and then sued after if I was fired for non-compliance.

Click to expand...

Well, actually I chose not to divert into that topic, but the truth is that many nurses quit because of these mandates. We are experiencing a shortage now, partly for that reason. They started the dictatorial talk even then, but fortunately backed down. From 2009, when they began pushing H1N1, that quickly blew over (I had that - it was no joke, but my immune system did its job).

"However, many health care workers resist vaccination. Nationwide, fewer than half receive vaccines each year for the more common seasonal flu.4 Uptake of the H1N1 vaccine is not expected to be much different. To achieve higher vaccination rates, a more aggressive approach is needed than simply informing health care workers and hoping they will receive vaccines on their own."

Mandatory Vaccination of Health Care Workers: Whose Rights Should Come First?

pitabread said:

Vaccine mandates have already been the subject of Supreme Court cases and were ruled legal. So no, he's not a dictator and he's not doing anything which necessarily violates the U.S. Constitution. In particular, the U.S. Constitution does give Federal authority to regulate businesses under the Commerce Powers clauses, which is the case here.

If you think otherwise, you're welcome to bring it to the courts and see what happens.

And from what I've read, the issue of legal challenges may end up being moot anyway. If the whole intent is to increase vaccination rates, this directive may succeed in that in the short term, regardless of whether it gets defeated in the long run.

Click to expand...

I'm quite familiar with that case, and there are vast differences. Jacobson never got the vaccine; he simply fought the new law (and this was passed by the legislature into LAW, it was not some dictatorial EO by a President). When Jacobson lost, he paid the fine, as to take it was seriously concerning for him, having had a very bad reaction to a previous vaccine. There was an exemption with a $5 fine. This is why the Court didn't focus on that issue.

Include an exemption here with a nominal fine, and the problem goes away (though some will argue that it is discriminatory against the poor, rightly so).

RestoreTheJoy said:

Well, actually I chose not to divert into that topic, but the truth is that many nurses quit because of these mandates. We are experiencing a shortage now, partly for that reason. They started the dictatorial talk even then, but fortunately backed down. From 2009, when they began pushing H1N1, that quickly blew over (I had that - it was no joke, but my immune system did its job).

"However, many health care workers resist vaccination. Nationwide, fewer than half receive vaccines each year for the more common seasonal flu.4 Uptake of the H1N1 vaccine is not expected to be much different. To achieve higher vaccination rates, a more aggressive approach is needed than simply informing health care workers and hoping they will receive vaccines on their own."

Mandatory Vaccination of Health Care Workers: Whose Rights Should Come First?

Click to expand...

Your article is from 2009. Mine is from 2018; hence, the difference in stats.

Since around 70% of non-VA hospitals already mandate flu shots, that is about 70% of non-VA hospital employees who accepted a vaccine mandate as a condition of employment. When those employees who have followed vaccine mandates in their jobs up to now, decide to default on their job responsibilities (refuse any required vaccine), they will likely be fired for just cause (unless they resign). This means it will be very unlikely they will receive unemployment and they will have a black mark on their employment record making it difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. When a potential employer calls to verify employment, were they terminated is almost always one of the questions.

I was hoping these folks had found jobs where this vaccine was not required, but now that will be even harder as I cannot imagine many employers taking on the cost of weekly testing for people who do not have a medical or religious exemption, but I have been surprised before. If they do take on this cost, something else will have to be suspended ie raises or some other perk to offset the new costs.

I wish all these folks (medical personnel and other now) the best of luck in finding employment that suits their needs.

Mayzoo said:

Your article is from 2009. Mine is from 2018; hence, the difference in stats.

Since around 70% of non-VA hospitals already mandate flu shots, that is about 70% of non-VA hospital employees who accepted a vaccine mandate as a condition of employment. When those employees who have followed vaccine mandates in their jobs up to now, decide to default on their job responsibilities (refuse any required vaccine), they will likely be fired for just cause (unless they resign). This means it will be very unlikely they will receive unemployment and they will have a black mark on their employment record making it difficult to obtain employment elsewhere. When a potential employer calls to verify employment, were they terminated is almost always one of the questions.

I was hoping these folks had found jobs where this vaccine was not required, but now that will be even harder as I cannot imagine many employers taking on the cost of weekly testing for people who do not have a medical or religious exemption, but I have been surprised before. If they do take on this cost, something else will have to be suspended ie raises or some other perk to offset the new costs.

I wish all these folks (medical personnel and other now) the best of luck in finding employment that suits their needs.

Click to expand...

Again, all about the money, not because they actually care about anyone. Always follow the money.

"Hospitals and health systems are stepping up enforcement of a safety measure—inoculating staff against the influenza virus or requiring those who refuse shots to wear masks—in a bid to avoid penalties that could reduce their payments starting next fall, the Wall Street Journal's Laura Landro reports.

For the first time this year, hospitals are being asked to report influenza vaccination rates among health care personnel under Medicare's quality-reporting program, or pay a fine. The American Hospital Association (AHA) estimates that a 100-bed hospital that fails to comply could forfeit $320,000.

Facing penalties, hospitals take hard line on employee flu shots

Hospitals are required to honor state exemptions though, religious, ethical, or medical.

And once in awhile, the nurses win: Nurses Win Decision Against Virginia Mason's Mandatory Flu Vaccination Policy

"SEATTLE -- Washington State Nurses Association (WSNA), representing more than 600 registered nurses at Virginia Mason Medical Center (VMMC), won an arbitration decision against VMMC which stops the hospital from forcing RNs to receive flu shots. This matter was moved to arbitration after WSNA filed a petition in Federal Court seeking an injunction to stop the hospital's policy, which made flu shots a condition of employment and threatened to fire anyone who did not comply.

The arbitrator's decision found that the employer violated the terms and the very purpose of the collective bargaining agreement between WSNA and VMMC by unilaterally implementing this policy. The employer was ordered to "cease and desist its intended implementation of the flu immunization policy and remove such condition of employment from its Fitness for Duty policy."

And here, as of 2020: 17 states with hospital staff flu shot requirements

About one-third of states require hospitals to offer employees flu shots or track their vaccination statuses to help boost flu vaccination rates in healthcare settings, according to a new ranking from Kaiser Family Foundation.

The ranking is based on an analysis of state laws and immunization websites outlining vaccine requirements for hospitals as of 2020.

Thirty-three states do not have any flu vaccination requirements for hospitals. The following 17 states require hospitals to offer the flu vaccine and/or report employees' vaccination status. Here is a summary of each state's requirements.

Do we want nurses or not? If we do, better back off the dictator routine. The Hard Realities of a ‘No Jab, No Job’ Mandate for Health Care Workers

"The questions and qualms about vaccines came at the end of a deeply distressing pandemic year for health care workers, and facilities are now finding fewer applicants for essential care.

By spring, ProMedica had 1,500 job postings in Pennsylvania alone, compared with a typical 400 openings. Pile said ProMedica raised wages in dozens of locations, though he declined to provide wage ranges or rates. It spent $4.5 million in Pennsylvania from March through last week — and still supplemented its workforce across the U.S. by hiring through staffing agencies.

“In 2020, we spent over $32 million on staffing agencies,” he said. Through this spring, ProMedica was on course to spend $66 million on staffing agencies for 2021, said Pile, who has worked in the care sector for 18 years."

RestoreTheJoy said:

Do we want nurses or not?

Click to expand...

Sure do. If only more people would get vaccinated rather than going out of their way to make life harder for medical professionals.

KCfromNC said:

Latex allergies are a thing.

Also, where's the long term studies showing hairnets don't have long term side effects, where I arbitrarily get to say how long "long term" is?

Click to expand...

Latex allergies do not constitute an "adverse event".

I don't do pro bono research, but I'm sure YOU could Google it and some studies on hairnets might pop up.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Latex allergies do not constitute an "adverse event".

Click to expand...

To who?

I don't do pro bono research, but I'm sure YOU could Google it and some studies on hairnets might pop up.

Click to expand...

Proving my point we don't know what the unknown potential long term risks of them are, just like that argument against covid vaccines.

GOD Shines Forth! said:

Latex allergies do not constitute an "adverse event".

Click to expand...

They do to me, I am very allergic so using anti vax logic don't force latex on me and latex is a grand conspiracy to control use, it' the mark of the beast! Run!

Taodeching said:

They do to me, I am very allergic so using anti vax logic don't force latex on me and latex is a grand conspiracy to control use, it' the mark of the beast! Run!

Click to expand...

I hate those gloves too. And the masks. And the vaccines. And Covid.