daysofourlives wrote:RB wrote:I have a few thoughts regarding employers making vaccines mandatory for employees (in the sense that the employee will be dismissed if they don't get vaccinated).
For starters, I wouldn't support any law that actually mandated vaccination for the general public, as in, everyone was forced to take the jab.
In that sense I agree that people should have the freedom to choose whether they undergo a particular medical procedure.
However, freedom works both ways.
If - as I think should be the case - people are able to choose whether they get vaccinated - then I think employers should also be able to decide they don't wish to employ unvaccinated workers, certainly in respect of new employees - e.g. I support the freedom of employers to choose to hire only fully vaccinated folks - and to some extent also in terms of existing employees, particularly where spreading viruses is more likely or has more serious consequences - e.g. roles where you have contact with lots of members of the public, roles which require lots of travel, the health sector, etc.
I suspect that any employers proposing to make vaccination a condition of continued employment have probably been advised they're on safe ground legally - à la the construction company making hard hats mandatory - but either way, I don't think such a condition is any different to the sort of obligations required in most codes of conduct - not showing up to work drunk, following various safety procedures, wearing safety equipment, not endangering other employees or members of the public. We don't usually question these 'mandates'.
Ultimately, as someone mentioned above, employers are way more concerned with money than ideology. If they think it's going to cost them more not to make vaccination an employment condition, then obviously they're going to move to minimize their liability risk.
I think some folks have failed to look at the 'flip side' of the 'freedom' argument. Surely if we accept - as I do - that people are free to refuse the jab, then others are also free to try to limit their contact with unvaccinated folks? And surely employers, and for that matter pubs, restaurants, shops, and really all businesses are free to exclude certain people if they feel that they pose a safety risk?
It just seems a total hyprocisy to me to say that, on the one hand, people have the freedom not to get vaccinated, but that on the other hand, other people aren't free to exclude the unvaccinated from their workplaces, places of business etc.
(Of course there need to be exemptions for the very small number of people who may be unable to get vaccinated for medical reasons or age.)
The thing youre missing is that despite being double vaccinated you can still be carrying it and still catch it. It doesnt mean you are not a risk to anyone else. For the sake of this argument you actually could be crook as a dog and actually have covid but youre still allowed entry or to work and they cant stop you if you have that green tick
If its about reducing the risk to the public and employees then surely a rapid antigen test before starting work is the safest option? This would cover any work health safety obligations, absolutely no need for mandating vaccination.
In other news it is possible that those vaccinated are no longer classed as human with your modified RNA and infact you are now patented and have given up all your rights.
I would agree you about the rapid tests, should be using them now. Would be fairly simple really.
As for the claim a our the nRMA vacs and how they work. There's a few white papers that I've been peer reviewed that takes about how they work to produce the proteins in the body and get the body to create the antibodies.
If you re keen I can post a link to one of them if you have the time to read them.
As for that last paragraph, I really enjoy your work on here and yes you are a bit out there. But this one is even a bit out there for you.
Read my reply. It is directed at you because you have double standards