- Jul 13, 2018
- 5,153
- 1,654
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Non-Denom
- Marital Status
- Married
Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.No, it's not.
Upvote
0
Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.No, it's not.
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.
Yes, it is. The Constitution does not permit it. He cannot take authority he has not been granted.
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.
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.
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
Not unlike having to wear gloves and hair nets while handling someone's food.
Latex allergies are a thing.Those don’t have the potential to cause adverse events. There is no VAERS for latex gloves and hairnets.
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).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.
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.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.
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?
Again, all about the money, not because they actually care about anyone. Always follow the money.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.
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?
Sure do. If only more people would get vaccinated rather than going out of their way to make life harder for medical professionals.Do we want nurses or not?
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?
Latex allergies do not constitute an "adverse event".
Proving my point we don't know what the unknown potential long term risks of them are, just like that argument against covid vaccines.I don't do pro bono research, but I'm sure YOU could Google it and some studies on hairnets might pop up.
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!Latex allergies do not constitute an "adverse event".
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!