Coronavirus in Massachusetts (employment, exemption, safe)

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by Mayei

It's not for me, but thanks. I'm willfully vaccinated.

edit: And out of curiosity, at what point do you think employer-mandated medical procedures become unethical? Is there a line?

I think female genital mutilation would be pretty over the top. COVID-19 vaccination? Nope.

[Mayei]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

Rights are only important when people disagree. Discussions of rights are only meaningful when you consider precedence. These two things are in direct conflict; saying one is unethical is necessarily saying the other is acceptable. You can't have it both ways. I'm sure you think it would be great if companies didn't require anything of anyone. Conversely I think it would be great if people didn't refuse to get vaccinated for scientifically unsubstantiated reasons like anxiety.

Not sure where you got that. Not agreeing with employer-mandated Covid vaccinations doesn't mean I don't think companies should have policies.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

To answer your specific question, I think that there has long been a general understanding that employers can require certain 'medical procedures' as a condition of employment. The US military requires a whole host of vaccines, for instance (and has not always been voluntary). My previous employer also required certain vaccines, particularly for overseas travel.

I understand some jobs require employees to have certain medical procedures but typically this is disclosed up front, and employees consent to this before accepting the position. At the same time, forgive me for not being convinced of its ethical soundness because the US Military have forcibly required vaccines.

Let's also not ignore the exceptional circumstances of the Covid vaccine. Fewer than 18 months ago, this article was published in CNN: The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that's risky

From the article:

I don't think it's ever been done at an industrial scale in 18 months," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar focused on emerging infectious disease at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. "Vaccine development is usually measured in years, not months."

Vaccine trials typically start with testing in animals before launching into a three-phase process. The first phase involves injecting the vaccine into a small group of people to assess safety and monitor their immune response. The second ramps up the number of people -- often into the hundreds, and often including more members of at-risk groups -- for a randomized trial. If the results are promising, the trial moves to phase-three test for efficacy and safety with thousands or tens of thousands of people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Emily Erbelding, an infectious disease expert at NIAID -- which is part of the National Institutes of Health -- said the typical vaccine takes between eight and 10 years to develop. While she is careful not to contradict her boss's timeline -- although she did say "18 months would be about as fast as I think we can go" -- she acknowledged that the accelerated pace will involve "not looking at all the data."

"Because we are in a race here to beat back this epidemic and a vaccine is very important, people might be willing to take a chance on just going quickly into phase two," Erbelding told CNN. "So the 18 months would rely upon speeding things up."

Volunteers in each phase need to be monitored for safety, Erbelding said. "Usually, you want to follow their immune response for at least a year," she said.

The fact that this timeline was widely considered an impossibility by experts and the public is fueling much of the speculation about this current vaccine. Before 18 months have passed, we are debating the ethics of mandates. Obviously I trust it enough to take it, but I'm not going to ignore why so many are skeptical.

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I think a useful guideline is when the employer believes that those 'medical procedures' are safe and important for the health or safety of the employee affected, their coworkers, or the other people that come into contact with the employee (customers, vendors, etc.). Vaccines definitely fall in this requirement. They are safe and have been proven effective at preventing contagious diseases. Not only do I consider this requirement ethical, I would consider allowing unvaccinated employees to interact with customers or coworkers unethical.

So you see no ethical scenario besides an unwilling person having a needle inserted into their arm to receive a vaccine/boosters they are skeptical about every 5-6 months? There are no possible accomodations which could also further safety? Also, if someone receives a vaccine because their employer required them to and they experience an adverse reaction (which happens), is the employer liable?

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by Mayei

It's not for me, but thanks. I'm willfully vaccinated.

edit: And out of curiosity, at what point do you think employer-mandated medical procedures become unethical? Is there a line?

Vaccine mandates - for example in schools, for healthcare workers, for members of our military, etc - have existed for over 100 years, and I rarely recall this being news. There is *plenty* of precedent. Why are people getting so worked up about these mandates? You seem to be implying that vaccine mandates are a slippery slope - given that we've existed on this hypothetical slippery slope for over 100 years without anyone even caring, I'd say the traction on this slope seems to be very good.

[Mayei]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

I think female genital mutilation would be pretty over the top. COVID-19 vaccination? Nope.

That's a pretty far leap. Far but not that far: Could an employer require a woman to be on birth control up to a certain age? Could they require an employee to take psychiatric medication if their irritability is affecting the work atmosphere?

[Mayei]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

Vaccine mandates - for example in schools, for healthcare workers, for members of our military, etc - have existed for over 100 years, and I rarely recall this being news. There is *plenty* of precedent. Why are people getting so worked up about these mandates?

I touch on that in this comment:

Originally Posted by Mayei

Let's also not ignore the exceptional circumstances of the Covid vaccine. Fewer than 18 months ago, this article was published in CNN: The timetable for a coronavirus vaccine is 18 months. Experts say that's risky

From the article:
Quote:
I don't think it's ever been done at an industrial scale in 18 months," said Dr. Amesh Adalja, a senior scholar focused on emerging infectious disease at the Center for Health Security at Johns Hopkins University. "Vaccine development is usually measured in years, not months."

Vaccine trials typically start with testing in animals before launching into a three-phase process. The first phase involves injecting the vaccine into a small group of people to assess safety and monitor their immune response. The second ramps up the number of people -- often into the hundreds, and often including more members of at-risk groups -- for a randomized trial. If the results are promising, the trial moves to phase-three test for efficacy and safety with thousands or tens of thousands of people, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

Dr. Emily Erbelding, an infectious disease expert at NIAID -- which is part of the National Institutes of Health -- said the typical vaccine takes between eight and 10 years to develop. While she is careful not to contradict her boss's timeline -- although she did say "18 months would be about as fast as I think we can go" -- she acknowledged that the accelerated pace will involve "not looking at all the data."

"Because we are in a race here to beat back this epidemic and a vaccine is very important, people might be willing to take a chance on just going quickly into phase two," Erbelding told CNN. "So the 18 months would rely upon speeding things up."

Volunteers in each phase need to be monitored for safety, Erbelding said. "Usually, you want to follow their immune response for at least a year," she said. (end quote)

The fact that this timeline was widely considered an impossibility by experts and the public is fueling much of the speculation about this current vaccine. Before 18 months have passed, we are debating the ethics of mandates. Obviously I trust it enough to take it, but I'm not going to ignore why so many are skeptical.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by Mayei

I touch on that in this comment:

The vaccines were trialed in animals and then in humans. The Phase III trials involved 10s of thousands of volunteers. Since then they have been applied in 100s of millions of patients under pharmacovigilance. Both safety and efficacy have been excellent. What exactly does anyone imagine has been missed with all this study and experience? Some scientists may have been skeptical before this development effort was clearly defined and undertaken, but the number who are skeptical today is extremely small - insignificant.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by Mayei

It's not about monetary or geographic access, it's about bodily consent. If an employer and employee can find mutually agreed upon accommodations, that would clearly be the most preferable outcome.

If an employer mandates a vaccine, and the employee refuses, either the employee works from home or finds another job. How's that for accommodation?

[Mayei]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

The vaccines were trialed in animals and then in humans. The Phase III trials involved 10s of thousands of volunteers. Since then they have been applied in 100s of millions of patients under pharmacovigilance. Both safety and efficacy have been excellent. What exactly does anyone imagine has been missed with all this study and experience? Some scientists may have been skeptical before this development effort was clearly defined and undertaken, but the number who are skeptical today is extremely small - insignificant.

You don't have to convince me, I'm vaccinated. Just trying to provide some insight as to why people are hesitant. This quote can do that better than I can, though:

While she is careful not to contradict her boss's timeline -- although she did say "18 months would be about as fast as I think we can go" -- she acknowledged that the accelerated pace will involve "not looking at all the data."

Don't think I'll be changing anyone's minds here, anyway.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by Mayei

You don't have to convince me, I'm vaccinated. Just trying to provide some insight as to why people are hesitant. This quote can do that better than I can, though:



Don't think I'll be changing anyone's minds here, anyway.

You'd have to present me with some new information to change my mind. Showing that some scientists were skeptical before this was all done, is not reason to be fearful after (and yes, I recall some people being concerned when the broad outline of Warp Speed was first sketched). Again, the safety and efficacy have been demonstrated. I have yet to hear anyone make a valid, cogent argument for fearing these vaccines. And yes, I get it - you've been vaccinated, but you're also saying that people have valid reasons to be afraid. No, they don't.

[timberline742]

Crazy thought. If these conditions of employment are so important to the workers, they could unionize and collectively bargain.