Coronavirus in Massachusetts (2013, health insurance, homes)

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by yesmaybe

For suing I think it absolutely does. I get the impression that most orgs don't agree with anyone saying that they have the authority to force employees to get it while it's still EUA.

One problem I can see is that J&J is very unlikely to get full approval. I don't know what will happen to it once Pfizer or Moderna gets the full approval. I think it will be gone.

This already happened at Houston Methodist Hospital. The Federal judge threw the employee lawsuit out. It's being appealed in circuit court. 150+ employees have been fired or resigned.



https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/mo...d-or-resigned/

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

This already happened at Houston Methodist Hospital. The Federal judge threw the employee lawsuit out. It's being appealed in circuit court. 150+ employees have been fired or resigned.



https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/mo...d-or-resigned/

Oh that "right to work" stuff sure is a beyatch.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

This already happened at Houston Methodist Hospital. The Federal judge threw the employee lawsuit out. It's being appealed in circuit court. 150+ employees have been fired or resigned.



https://ktla.com/news/nationworld/mo...d-or-resigned/

I imagine there are thousands of judges in the US, so if they wind up with the right (wrong) judge who gives more credence to Tucker Carlson than he/she does to medical experts and scientists, a finding for the refuseniks is still possible.

But this pushback is entirely wrongheaded. They don't even acknowledge the long-standing conventions of requirements for vaccination (and other mandatory means of disease control like masks, gloves, disinfecting hands, work surfaces and implements), except to say that well, this is different, because the vaccines are under EUA - "still experimental" and Covid-19 isn't dangerous. Trouble with that proposition is, the vaccines already went through full, large scale clinical trials last summer and fall - the only part that is actually "experimental" is long over, and have since been given to hundreds of millions of patients under close monitoring. Furthermore, with over 600,000 Americans already dead, the danger from this pandemic is more than clear. I keep hearing them say things in interviews, but none of it is true!

[GeoffD]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I imagine there are thousands of judges in the US, so if they wind up with the right (wrong) judge who gives more credence to Tucker Carlson than he/she does to medical experts and scientists, a finding for the refuseniks is still possible.

But this pushback is entirely wrongheaded. They don't even acknowledge the long-standing conventions of requirements for vaccination (and other mandatory means of disease control like masks, gloves, disinfecting hands, work surfaces and implements), except to say that well, this is different, because the vaccines are under EUA - "still experimental" and Covid-19 isn't dangerous. Trouble with that proposition is, the vaccines already went through full, large scale clinical trials last summer and fall - the only part that is actually "experimental" is long over, and have since been given to hundreds of millions of patients under close monitoring. Furthermore, with over 600,000 Americans already dead, the danger from this pandemic is more than clear. I keep hearing them say things in interviews, but none of it is true!

My fiancée is a regional director for a bunch of hospitals. No flu shot and you’re suspended without pay until you get one. She’s not patient-facing and she was only on site a few days per week before COVID-19. 100% remote, she still needed to show the documentation that she got her flu shot.

I don’t see how this is any different. 55% of the population has received at least one jab. There is an enormous amount of safety data from 180 million vaccination shots. I think every employer should insist on vaccination as a condition of employment.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by OutdoorLover

I imagine there are thousands of judges in the US, so if they wind up with the right (wrong) judge who gives more credence to Tucker Carlson than he/she does to medical experts and scientists, a finding for the refuseniks is still possible.

But this pushback is entirely wrongheaded. They don't even acknowledge the long-standing conventions of requirements for vaccination (and other mandatory means of disease control like masks, gloves, disinfecting hands, work surfaces and implements), except to say that well, this is different, because the vaccines are under EUA - "still experimental" and Covid-19 isn't dangerous. Trouble with that proposition is, the vaccines already went through full, large scale clinical trials last summer and fall - the only part that is actually "experimental" is long over, and have since been given to hundreds of millions of patients under close monitoring. Furthermore, with over 600,000 Americans already dead, the danger from this pandemic is more than clear. I keep hearing them say things in interviews, but none of it is true!

I hope that judges make decisions based more on what’s the law and less on what they think is a good idea. It’s basically impossible to guarantee an outcome if it’s the latter. I don’t want legal experts forced to also be science experts.

The law in this case seems pretty clear cut: if management wants you to do something that isn’t illegal and isn’t in violation of a very narrow set of exceptions, you can either do it or look for another job. I’m not sure that’s the best blanket policy, but in this case it does generate the outcome (more vaccination) that I think is best.

[OutdoorLover]

Originally Posted by jayrandom

I hope that judges make decisions based more on what’s the law and less on what they think is a good idea. It’s basically impossible to guarantee an outcome if it’s the latter. I don’t want legal experts forced to also be science experts.

The law in this case seems pretty clear cut: if management wants you to do something that isn’t illegal and isn’t in violation of a very narrow set of exceptions, you can either do it or look for another job. I’m not sure that’s the best blanket policy, but in this case it does generate the outcome (more vaccination) that I think is best.

It's true that one can view this even in the most general sense - if my boss asks me to sort out that biology data model and I refuse and start ranting about "my rights" instead, I'm going to be fired pretty fast, and the law isn't going to help me.

I tend to view this more in terms of harm, and I'm no lawyer, but I know that harm is often cited in legal decisions. The hospital's management can cite both the harm to the patients and the harm to their business that will result from members of their staff spreading disease to their patients. I would expect the plaintiffs in the suit to argue that they will be subjected to harm if they comply with the requirement for vaccination, but I think the evidence for that claim will be *far* weaker than the evidence the management can muster to support their claims of harm.

[LeavingMA]

Originally Posted by GeoffD

My fiancée is a regional director for a bunch of hospitals. No flu shot and you’re suspended without pay until you get one. She’s not patient-facing and she was only on site a few days per week before COVID-19. 100% remote, she still needed to show the documentation that she got her flu shot.

I don’t see how this is any different. 55% of the population has received at least one jab. There is an enormous amount of safety data from 180 million vaccination shots. I think every employer should insist on vaccination as a condition of employment.

So why not make sure they have every vaccine every made and not hire anyone unless they give their entire medical history? Or let's make sure they eat healthy foods. What did they have for lunch. Unhealthy, fire them. Overweight, get lost.

Big pharm has never done anything wrong. People still know this vaccine is still part of trial and hasn't been approved. Oh that's right, nobody told them that when they got injected.

[timberline742]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

So why not make sure they have every vaccine every made and not hire anyone unless they give their entire medical history? Or let's make sure they eat healthy foods. What did they have for lunch. Unhealthy, fire them. Overweight, get lost.

Big pharm has never done anything wrong. People still know this vaccine is still part of trial and hasn't been approved. Oh that's right, nobody told them that when they got injected.

You don't want to do this? Simple. Unionize and collectively bargain employment conditions.

[jayrandom]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

So why not make sure they have every vaccine every made and not hire anyone unless they give their entire medical history? Or let's make sure they eat healthy foods. What did they have for lunch. Unhealthy, fire them. Overweight, get lost.

You act like this is a slippery slope but we’ve been at the bottom of this hill for a while. Right now there is a labor shortage, companies have to balance what they want with what they can get.

https://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/30/b...e.3726460.html
https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclope...verweight.html

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

Big pharm has never done anything wrong. People still know this vaccine is still part of trial and hasn't been approved. Oh that's right, nobody told them that when they got injected.

The vaccine trials are only still being done for kids. I was actually part of the vaccine trial last year and the trials for adults finished. Look at the efficacy vs placebo. The trial was a massive success.

[htfdcolt]

Originally Posted by LeavingMA

So why not make sure they have every vaccine every made and not hire anyone unless they give their entire medical history? Or let's make sure they eat healthy foods. What did they have for lunch. Unhealthy, fire them. Overweight, get lost.

Big pharm has never done anything wrong. People still know this vaccine is still part of trial and hasn't been approved. Oh that's right, nobody told them that when they got injected.

You're a bit behind the times. I worked for an employer in RI (2013 - 16) who required both the employee and covered spouse to submit to a biometric screening, or else get hit with a $1500 surcharge each on their health insurance. Since I left, I heard it got even more onerous, where they can charge $ based on cholesterol readings. And employers can already refuse to hire smokers.

With the vaccine, I would argue the justification to require it is even stronger, because it goes beyond the health of the individual employee and affects all other (unvaxxed) employees.