The good news and the bad news... · 11:42pm Oct 9th, 2021
The good news is that the Midnight Rising chapter draft is complete, and as a bonus, I may shortly have much more time to be writing with. The bad news is that I may shortly have more time because I’m liable to lose my job at a large financial firm for refusing to obey a vaccine mandate. 
I was warned to submit my vaccine status within a week or be fired. This after working from home (I’m in IT) for well over a year without issue. This after volunteering to come into the office for three months over the summer without a problem when nobody else wanted to be there. This after a glowing performance reviews over the past year.
Yet somehow, none of it matters because I chose to exercise my conscience and right to deny my workplace medical information on the grounds that it has nothing to do with my job performance. Which it does not.
Folks, please allow me to get political for a moment and say that no matter what you believe about COVID or anything else, nobody—and I mean NOBODY—has the right to force you to get what amounts to an experimental injection whose protection appears to be far weaker than advertised given how many breakthrough infections the Delta variant has caused, and whose long-term effects are unknown.
If they can force you do this by denying you access to income, to commerce, to simple shopping, or to anything else, then they can force you to do ANYTHING, and any semblance of personal liberty just went out the window in favor of an all-powerful state ruled by politically motivated status-seeking officials, elected and un-elected alike who are just drunk on their own power at this point, and who categorically do not have your interests at heart.
There’s a reason that medical personal are refusing the vaccine in significant numbers, and kindly remember that these are the same people who worked tirelessly through the height of the pandemic to care for the stricken, at potentially great risk to themselves. Last year they were deservedly considered heroes; now they’re being shown the door? New York, Delaware, California and even my own state have all done it, firing badly needed medical professionals en masse because they wouldn’t knuckle under even under threat of dismissal and being denied unemployment benefits. Same thing for other first responders like firefighters, to say nothing of employees who work for countless other businesses both big and small. It’s not right, and I intend to fight.
Know that I will be retaining legal counsel and filing a lawsuit if they see fit to fire me over this, which is a completely banal and pointless reason to do so given I can and have worked from home just fine. I’m generally slow to rile, but there are some things I simply will not abide, and this is one. I will not be part of this. I will not knuckle under to any vaccine mandate. If my job sees fit to fire me, so be it, but I’ll do my best to make them pay the price.
All that said... I’m more or less at peace with myself over this, as even if the worst happens and I’m fired, I’ve got sufficient savings to tide me over for many months until I find a new job. In the meantime, look for the next Midnight Rising chapter in two days or less. And know that you’re going to get one hell of science lesson on singularities in the course of the sex. How can black holes be used erotically? Read to find out! 
EDIT: Please keep it civil in the comments, folks. Follow the example of the exchanges between Eroraf86 and Ghost-091 below for examples of polite and reasoned debate.
See if there is a class action suit against them.
I can't take penicillin so I get why refusal. To demand all take and EXPERIMENTAL drug that only helps survive covid. This mandate is not logical and only for control and power
I fully agree. No one has the right to order you to get a medical procedure. Even if said procedure would save your life, a hospital cannot treat you without your consent (in fact, it makes you liable to civil lawsuits, and there is legal precedence to show that forcing that treatment is illegal).
I'm in much the same boat, Firesight, though my job is a bit different (I'm in the US military and am currently debating my own options) but there is no reason for me to get the jab and several reasons not to. Here's to hoping people calm their fucking titties and realize what the aftereffects/precedents are for what they are demanding people do.
If you want to get the jab, go right ahead. You have the right to get any medical procedure done to you that you want. To force people to get the jab makes you no different than Josef Mengele in my eyes, and I am perfectly willing to treat you like that.
Okay, a lot to dissect here. First of all, the technology for mRNA vaccines has actually been in development for a number of years, and since it contains no weakened infectious agents, it may actually be safer than a traditional vaccine. And no, an mRNA vaccine WILL NOT rewrite your DNA; it is only translated into a non-infectious protein component, which your immune system then recognizes as foreign and mounts a defense against. And because mRNA degrades very rapidly in the body, there's even less of a chance of long-term side effects than normal vaccines, of which NOT A SINGLE ONE has shown any detrimental long-term side effects.
Second, the effectiveness of the vaccine lies primarily in reducing the likelihood, severity, and duration of an infection. The thing about breakthrough infections is that, statistically, they are a vanishingly small minority of vaccinated individuals, and of those who do get infected, the severity and duration of infection are vastly reduced, with a far better prognosis than a similar person who has not received the vaccine. Key point here: NOTHING IS PERFECT.
Third, while the federal government does not have authority to mandate vaccines for the general public, employees at both the federal and private level can certainly be subject to such mandates, as can attendees of academic institutions both public and private. This article does a better job of explaining it than I would. Long story short, I'd recommend saving yourself both time and money by not filing a lawsuit that's almost guaranteed to be thrown out.
If by "significant numbers" you mean a significantly smaller fraction than the general population. The same demographics that predict vaccine hesitancy in the general population also predict vaccine hesitancy among health workers, especially among nurses and nursing home workers. It's largely a result of susceptibility to disinformation; see this article for a more thorough explanation.
If you still have concerns that I didn't address, I'd be happy to chat. Nothing wrong with asking questions.
All I can say is: consider what you are doing and weigh the consequences for each.
While i dont 100% agree
I do agree that a work place cant determine medical things unless it pertaining to said work.
IE: ive had a knee replaced and the job i have lifts heavy objects.
And that should all be notified during highering
Or when the condition arises
But as you are in IT it should not matter since you can work from home as well
~Reggie
It sounds like your job involves going into the office occasionally, which means the vaccine does affect your work performance because they can't in good conscience allow you to do that part of your job without it.
5593838
The fact a east coast state has to bring in NATIONAL GUARD to fill in for nurses fired says you are wrong
5593838
Note while this style has been worked on for years this specific ones have not. Even the MRNA creator has said they should not push like this. And these are experimental drugs. Thus to Nuemburg Code. ILLEGAL to force on people
5593838
Please provide the study that shows the vaccines for COVID have no/minimal side effects in five, ten, and/or twenty years. Not mRNA overall, just the ones for COVID. If you understand anything about medicine, you'll understand that just because one, or several, medicines of a certain style are handled well by the human body does not mean all of them are. The human body is a tricky thing, and that's why we have multiple different kinds of medicine that can be used to treat the same illness.
There are studies, however, that show a side effect of the COVID jab is reduced humoral response. It's, of course, worse for those that have compromised immune systems, as logic would imply. It could be a false "red flag" but it exists and there has not been enough time to show what the long term effects are. That means describing these as "experimental" and not trusting them to the same level as a vaccine that has been around for 60 years is not an irrational thing to do.
Israel says otherwise with more people diagnosed with COVID while fully vaxed than not. Harvard even found this out the hard way with their "95% vaccine rate" only to have 60 of the 74 brand new cases turn out to be among the "fully vaccinated". Something smells, and it sure doesn't look like it's a "vanishingly small minority" when the numbers keep going up.
Actually, no. They don't. Unless you think that it is perfectly acceptable to be able to discriminate against people with medical disabilities, the ADA says that employers have don't have the right to fire someone due to a medical issue without it running into a bona fide occupational qualification. There are many people that are unable to get the jab because of underlying medical issues, so by mandating that they MUST get it against the advice of their doctors, you are forcing them to make a potentially fatal choice or lose the ability to work and provide for themselves. If that is acceptable, you might as well come out and advocate for eugenics, because that is exactly what it is. I'd highly recommend you don't try and argue that there are exemptions, the fact that in, for example, LA you need to be tested every three days to be able to live your life is not an exemption. It's a punishment for daring to say that you won't get the vaccine, even for the most valid of reasons, which directly violates the ADA according to the plane reading of the text. Let's also not forget that now it's been shown that two shots isn't enough, we now need one every eight months.. Oh wait, it's actually five months... Well, looks like Pfizer is ineffective after two months... How about instead of acting like this is the freaking love child of Ebola and the Black Death, we acknowledge that the death rate is only 1.6% (in the US at least, I think comparing the world stat would be less than helpful in this case as I think the quality of medical care in the US vastly differs from somewhere like South Africa) and that the average death has 2.9 comorbidities (meaning that if you are healthy, you are significantly less likely to die from the illness). Misinformation exists on "both sides" of the political isle, but only one is taking outright fascistic actions in order to "protect" themselves from it.
EDIT: Apologies, misclicked the "submit" instead of "preview". One section needs cleaning up (wording/phrasing not meaning what is actually intended), and I've marked it with *asterisks*.EDIT2: Fixed the issue. Freaking legalese was being a pain to find.
EDIT3: I am entertained by the cultish behavior of the, at least, one individual downvoting every single person that has an issue with the mandates the moment it's posted. What? Don't like the fact that evidence is being brought up to show that your actions are in keeping with the highest traditions of Nazi medical practices? Speak up and provide evidence to back the points as to why demanding that Americans "show their papers" like good little Juden is a good thing, or fuck off like the little Nazi baby you are. (Yes, this is intentionally inflammatory, as there is no point in having a civilized discussion with those unwilling to actual have a conversation. Still the demand to show vax status has WAY too much in common with Nazi Germany's demand that all Jews have special passports to show their Jewish "status" for me to ever be comfortable with it).
I'm sorry to hear that.... and yes, it is wrong to force you to get a vaccine.
5593885
That's not at all because they've been going non-stop for over a year, been attacked by anti-vaxers and otherwise burning out. I work security, I've been going almost non-stop since all this BS started and nearly every single one of my coworkers is either on the verge of burnout, has already burnt out or quit. Can't find security to work either and the closest we have on our site to Covid is we're acting as a vehicle depot for vaccine deliveries with a vaccine clinic next door.
It's tested and established... and I argue the idea that anything these days is finalized, especially in vaccines. (We get a new flu shot every year, is it experimental every year too?)
But enough talking to someone I have long suspected of being a troll.
5593901
burn out for some yes. most is against beign forced to have the vaccine.
most FDA drugs take YEARS to get approval and even then the FDA could have screwed up and have to pull the drug. these "vaccinces" are at best a year old so no big testing. Note we are being forced to take drugfs have have not even gottened the basic approvals beyond emergency use. and we are beign forced to take them. THAT IS ILLEGAL. Look up the Nurmeberg code. a code made after the NAZI war crimes which included experiements on people.
so maybe take a step back. get your head out of your ass and look around.
BTW the person downvoting. how about you show your face as to why you are downvoting, or are you a coward like every one that is for mandates?
EDIT: You just proved my point downvoter. You are nothing but a COWARD. You down vote but don't defend your position. If you won't defend your position then get the fuck out of here. And when you are being shuffled into a train car by a black uniformed person. Remember what we said here. It's already happening in Australia.
5593897
Huh, interesting. Thanks for citing that humoral response paper, I did not know that. Wonder why that happens.
I wonder if part of the enhancement in breakthrough infections might be due to behavioral differences? Like, how likely are vaccinated people to congregate indoors without masks or social distancing, as opposed to unvaccinated? And how do the statistics compare for the Harvard numbers, i.e. what's the test positivity rate? If 95% of the tested individuals are vaccinated, and that group has 80% of the positive tests, that's still a lower rate of infection among the vaccinated population.
I'm struggling to understand why you consider the "test every three days" thing an arduous punishment, especially once rapid tests FINALLY become more broadly available here in the US. I'll grant that the constantly changing recommendations and CDC guidelines are frustrating and confusing, though apparently, the CDC has a history of impractically excessive caution. As for the low death rate, one thing that many people seem to forget is that many survivors of COVID still suffer from prolonged, perhaps even permanent, negative effects, a.k.a. "long COVID." The mortality rate is an important measure of the threat a disease poses, but it's not the only one, and even by that measure, COVID-19 is substantially more lethal on average than the annual flu.
As for the rest, I guess it comes down to ideological preference. I'm still pissed that something as simple as wearing a mask during a respiratory illness pandemic was so hideously politicized, so forgive me if I'm reluctant to touch that can of worms with a ten-foot pole. And the way social media algorithms have so severely amplified disinformation and general polarization hasn't exactly helped. I'm just so sick of people turning everything into "us against them" narratives instead of thinking and acting more rationally. But then again, I'm high-functioning autistic, so maybe I just don't get how people work.
At any rate, I appreciate your thorough response. I know I certainly learned a few things from reading it, and hopefully you found something useful or interesting in mine. See, this is the kind of frank discourse that I wish was more commonplace. I like learning, and if that happens to be through me being proven wrong, well, that's science for you.
Cheers, mate!
5593916
That paper only recently came out (published on OCT 6) so no worries about not knowing about it. I was already hesitant (mostly due to the whole "get it or you won't be able to work or get unemployment" demand, again rings too much of fascism for my taste) and that just ensured that I very much want nothing to do with it until that mess is sorted out.
Could be, but even then the masks most people wear are ineffective anyways [I've got multiple studies on this one, just let me know and I can PM you a link to them) as (according to the Association of American Physicians and Surgeons) even surgical masks still let particles through that are about 800 times the size of COVID. On top of that, the CDC's own study on how masks mandates effected spread rates debunked itself by not accounting for social distancing, indoor-versus-outdoor seating in restaurants, indoor air circulation/purification systems, the lockdowns, etc and even then it only accounted for around a 1% to 2% decrease (misplaced the link on this one, will update when I find it). That's... Not good when you consider all of the trouble such things caused (I know for a fact whoever says that the masks don't decrease the amount of oxygen you take in has never worked out in those or been in a high-heat environment for multiple hours at a time). Unfortunately, a lot of this is not only science being science (which no one can blame anyone for) but politicians being politicians (which we can all blame them for, in fact I think we can blame them for pretty much everything under the sun and be right 99 times out of 100).
Because they cost money and time. On top of that, they are not very accurate (between 84% and 92% true positive accuracy for the more affordable tests). I know a guy whose wife tested positive for COVID and despite some vigorous activity, so to speak, they've been doing for the past week on a nightly basis, he tested negative. He then went to the hospital to get tested, just to confirm. Negative on the tests they did (they think that he had already gotten it, and if that's true then he was asymptomatic). When he asked for details about possible at-home testing, the nurse said to not trust the PCR tests and that they aren't exactly what the medical community would trust to be accurate on anything other than a confirmation test for someone showing symptoms (according to this group, the best test is to go to the hospital to get the test done in a lab). On top of that, for a decently accurate tests it's $28 for two (use in serial testing, so that's two tests over the course of three days for one result), another more accurate test it's $35 a pop, and the best one of the bunch available for general populace use is $55 a test. That adds up VERY fast for people on a budget. And to go with the only other possible route of getting tested at a hospital, you run into the issue of time. A person working minimum wage does not have the time to take an hour or two (at best) each day to drive to the hospital, wait to be seen, get tested, and then drive to work. Time is very much money (first job out of college was a $9.50/hr + tips hosting job, I was working the maximum hours they allowed me [39 hours and 59 minutes] and I was still barely making rent each month for a run-down studio apartment) and they can't afford that loss of time.
Preach it, buddy. As a YouTuber I watch every now and then puts it, "Eternal Truth #3: Politics ruins everything."
I hear ya there. I wish I could do the same, but with my job, I have to pay attention to all of it and wade through it to understand what's going on.
Agreed. If I can be proven wrong, especially on something like this, I want to be. It's the only way we learn and grow. However, when I look at the science, quote the science, and get told "you're just an anti-vaxxer", I have very little hope that I actually am wrong.
Stay safe out there.
Forcing you to reveal if you're vaccinated is wrong.
I’m sorry this may happen to you, I can only hope this doesn’t.
Me and mine chose to vaccinate (lineage of respiratory weakness) but this mandate doesn’t feel right or necessary to me. Especially because of your limited interaction with others at work… Bah, in five-ten years we will get more accurate data about what happened globally, but with a required 90% global vaccination rate to slow the spread… it’s essentially impossible to solve things this way.
Good luck
5593911
You do realize that the Phizer shot is fully approved, right? That's why so many workplaces are issuing mandates now. It's because there's at least one option that's currently considered safe.
I don't know where Firesight lives, but most States in the US have a Right to Work system. Essentially, it means that your employer can't force you to stay at a job. At the same time, they can let you go for nearly any reason. The few exceptions are due to race, religion, age, gender, etc. Medical status isn't one of them. The Americans with Disabilities Act can provide protection for those that can't take the jab, but it would require you to have a legitimate claim, such as a severe allergy to one of the ingredients. Even then, employers are only required to provide a reasonable accommodation.
5593916
The issue is we are not being allowed to have this discussion on social media were you will be censored even if you quote the CDC. There is a huge agenda here that is beyond health and anything that threatens that agenda must be silenced.
5593969
except the one given is NOT the FDA approved one. in fact that one is NOT available in the USA and in addition that fact that is that approval was clearly policical since every other drug takes YEARS to get that approval. and even after that he can be pulled. one of the Pfizer's drugs to fight nicotine adiction could cause cancer in it. and that one was an FDA approved drug.
you should take the damn vaccine
So, rather than the injection administered to hundreds of millions since March (even if you consider it experimental, that's a dang good preliminary data sample,) you'd rather get fired and then spend what remains of your money on legal fees...
Weird flex, but okay.
5593983
What are the long term ramifications of the vaccines? Are there any side effects in five, ten, or twenty years? Just because there are relatively few initial side effects does not mean there are none over time. Hell, there are studies now showing reduced immune response due to the MRNA vaccine. Situation is worse for those already with immune system problems. So "initial testing" is nice but long term studies are a hell of a lot more convincing, of which there are currently none.
5593980
Thank you Josef Mengele. We won't be stepping into the train cars because you demand it.
Let's call it what it is
mRNA "vaccines" have it in its names. RNA is a genetic material, and so these vaccines should be rightfully called genetic therapy with unknown long term effect.
Hope everything works out for you
5594023
it's not messing with your RNA though
5594024
...The mRNA vaccine literally introduce mRNA into human immune-response cells (can't remember the exact cells that are targeted, I think it's the Macrophages)...That's how you "teach" cells how to do things, and in this case that's to fight COVID...By the very definition of the words, that is messing with your RNA. Before the jab, there is no mRNA in the cells on how to deal with COVID (assuming you have no natural immunity). After the jab, there is. What is so hard about this to understand? Yes, you are correct that the mRNA jabs do not follow the entire definition of "gene therapy", but they sure as hell tick off several requirements for "gene therapy" including usage of viral vectors and "Introducing a new or modified gene into the body to help treat a disease" (which the mRNA is made up of genes). So calling those mRNA vaccines a "gene therapy" is not wholly incorrect.
This is why I call you Josef Mengele, you demand people get medical procedures done to them while you have no damn clue how they work...
5594024
yes it is you sheep
5594035
mRNA of the COVID virus
5594037
...That makes literally no change to the statement. Unless you are saying they introduce the actual COVID virus (which is what a traditional vaccine does, and the mRNA vaccines claim they don't), it is still a set of modified genes derived from COVID and introduced into the body via lipid nanoparticles (in this case) by a viral vector.
Again, you have no idea what you are talking about and demand people receive (as evidence now shows) potentially harmful medical procedures when they don't want to do it. That is literally what Nazis did. That is literally what you are doing.
Sorry, but you sound horribly misinformed on vaccines and how breakthrough cases work in general. If you get canned it's strictly your fault.
i fail to see the logic... you have the freedom of choice not to get vaccinated, they have the freedom of choice to let you go as they consider you a health risk to other workers if you aren't vaccinated. freedom is a 2 way stick
5594035
That's actually not entirely correct. The vaccine contains mRNA, which is essentially a blueprint for building proteins. The mRNA never enters any cell nucleus; instead, once it is taken into the muscle cells (NOT the immune cells), the mRNA is translated by a ribosome into a non-infectious part of the spike protein, and the original mRNA is then broken down. The protein is then displayed on the outer surface of the cell that made it, where your white blood cells can recognize and respond to it. Source: the official CDC explanation. Actual gene editing of any sort requires the appropriate enzymes, e.g. CRISPR-Cas9, to locate the right DNA section, cut it, and insert the modifications.
5593971
IRC, a number of vaccines were given emergency approval.
I still need to finish reading through it. You have a very clever angle! I trust Einstein would find it quite stimulating.
5594118
Note emergency not full hence still experimental hence violation of Nuremberg Codes
5594046
Not at all companies should not force EXPERIMENTAL vaccines on people
5594108
A job which he works fine8n shouldn't be threatened by an e experimental vaccine
5594108
So it's acceptable to discriminate against people that refuse to undergo a (as studies are starting to show) medical procedure with the potential for serious health complications down the road and deny them the ability to make any sort of living or even to be able to buy/sell... Using your logic, we should be able to discriminate against anyone with glasses because Lasik is available, or with any gum disease because dental implants are a thing... Please think of the third and forth order of effects when you make these arguments, and not stop at just the immediate effects.
5594117
Never said that it enters the nucleus, just that it enters the cell. Also, I even stated that the COVID vaccines don't follow the exact definition for a "gene therapy" (using the CDC's definition there), but follows enough of them that the argument can be made that it's not a wholly incorrect label. From the CDC's definition, there seems to be five "checkboxes" for a treatment to qualify as a gene therapy, and the mRNA vaccines tick off three of them. This is another one of those issues that needs people to stop declaring things like "you called this a gene therapy, that means you are wrong about everything". There's more pressing details to be concerned with than that. If anything, I'd love for it to be a gene therapy because is shows how far we've come with that tech.
On to the actual treatment, from my understanding, the treatment involves actually getting the protein marker inside of a immune response cell (again, I think it's the Macrophage) so it can learn to respond to it. To get metaphorical, the injection contains an outline (spike protein) that the cell picks up (enters the cell), studies (destroys the protein), and fills in with how to respond (spreads the information to other immune system response cells). The more I think about it, the more I think that this method might be from an earlier version of one of the vaccines than the ones that got approved. I'll see if I can find that study again...
5594132
how is he threatened? did they put a gun to his head and forced him to get it?
they are giving him the choice to not get vaccinated... don't want to? don't do it... freedom of choice is not without any consequences.
do you prefer to force the workplace to keep him and then if anyone gets sick and dies it would be whose problem? the companies? imagine that... they prefer to avoid it and let him go. why does he gets the freedom he wants but they don't?
btw @Firesight, what about a middle ground of regular testing?
5594129
didn't Pfizer get full FDA approval?
5594136
a very simple question, if an unvaccinated person infects anyone else at the workplace and he dies, who is to blame?
while vaccination works it is not a 100% solution with the "protection" level dropping over time, the reason behind the 3rd booster some countries started use including USA for some people with a higher risk
5594140
No one. No different than if a person went to work with a cold and someone else caught it. We need to acknowledge that the death rate is only 1.6% (in the US at least, I think comparing the world stat would be less than helpful in this case as I think the quality of medical care in the US vastly differs from somewhere like South Africa) and that the average death has 2.9 comorbidities (meaning that if you are somewhat healthy, you are significantly less likely to die from the illness). So yes, this is more serious than the flu, this is not an illness that turns your organs into goo that bleeds out of your eyes. While yes, I'm all for helping to protect those who are at most risk, how does it make any form of sense (from a government-view) to protect people 75+ from an illness by demanding someone who is 25 to take a vaccine that shows signs of causing either immunosuppression or other heart-related issues. If you force me (gun-to-the-head type force) to choose who to sacrifice, I have to say the older people than the younger out of shear pragmatism. Thank fuck we don't actually need to make that choice yet.
Who said anything about forbidding people from getting the vaccine if they wanted it? This is merely telling authoritarians to stop trying to force people to undergo a medical procedure that they don't want.
So along with all the logic and scientific points people have brought up here... I also would like to point out that schools, legal institutions, retail jobs, and businesses are not only well within their right to demand their employees are vaccinated by policy... it's been in place since LONG before Covid-19. Probably before half the people on this site were even born.
It's not a new, hip, leftist political thing. It's not a traditional right-wing thing. It's agnostic of political affiliation. It's medical science mixed with legal writ. Colleges require it, day care facilities for children require it, and a LOT of jobs require it. This has been the case for decades. Whine elsewhere, but you won't have my sympathy if you choose to ignore doctors' recommendations. They went to medical school, you didn't.
Look at it the other way around. If your company has a password policy, saying that all employees must have strong passwords on their machines and/or accounts... and you give all employees all the advice and your knowledge to back up why this is important, and show them it's publicly available info (stuff such as security research, examples of weak passwords and how to avoid them, etc). Then they throw it to the wayside, say "bah, that sounds like nonsense! I'm not going to do that!" and then someone gets into an employee's computer, mucks it all up, and something is ruined.
That sounds an awful like an avoidable situation, that took no effort to avoid.
It's a loose analogy, but if you spend your time around computers all day, you can figure it out.
5594253
Name a single vaccine that has been created in an environment like the COVID ones. Name one that didn't have years worth of medical studies done before being mandated. COVID's vaccines are unique in this regard (on top of six other details that are unprecedented [all 8 are listed on page 2]) and are the first vaccines being used under the Emergency Use Authorization powers of the FDA. So no. Very different beasts.
Tell that to the people who have lost their jobs with doctors telling them to not get the jab (hell, this is happening to me), but the government mandate doesn't care..."That can't happen" and yet that doesn't stop people from doing stupid things, like a federal judge trying to overrule the US Supreme Court (the highest court in the land and therefore can only be overruled by legislation or Constitutional Amendment) because he didn't like that they overturned his ruling.
...This is called an appeal to authority, and is quite fallacious. Do I need to point out all of those graduates from medical school that have done things like leaving their forceps in a surgery patient? It's not uncommon for such things to happen to doctors, with that vaulted MD. An MD does not make them infallible. Much like any degree, it's intended to show that someone educated you and not the quality or how much you retain of that education ("D's get degrees" and all that). It's not hard to educate yourself on things, people just don't want to do the work.
...This is the dumbest comparison I have ever seen, and that is coming from someone who is very fluent in IT. When does having a company enforce a password policy mean that you lose all right to bodily autonomy ("my body, my choice" only applies to abortions, I guess?)and can suffer life-changing illness like immunosuppression, an increased risk of blood clots (looking at you J&J), or Myocarditis [inflammation of the heart] (found a study on it and not a news article) because your boss gets to decide what is right or wrong for you? When does a company's password policy mean that you can die or suffer debilitating permanent injury from the implementation of it? These are nothing alike and trying to compare the two is literally comparing a String "2" with a float 2 while expecting a positive result
5594253
If a business won’t allow you to work for them without a vaccine, that’s one thing. I disagree but it’s TECHNICALLY their right. But a mandate that forces the Business to force the Employees to vaccinate is a whole different situation.
Edit:
Especially for off site employees
5594117
While looking for that study I mentioned (regarding how the mRNA works, which I still haven't found to my frustration...) I stumbled across this article, which I think describes the reasoning for vaccine hesitancy in medical professionals well: Worse Than the Disease? Reviewing Some Possible Unintended Consequences of the mRNA Vaccines Against COVID-19
Written simply enough that it doesn't take a PhD to understand, but still gets into the weeds a bit. Came out in May of this year, and am curious if the writers would find anything in the article worth updating. TL;DR for those uninterested in reading it: it recommends a lot more caution than is currently being used to spread the vaccine as the long-term data is still not in yet, that we need better monitoring of the vaccines effects (positive and negative), and more tests to explore the costs and benefits of the mRNA technology.
Figured I'd pass it along in case you were curious. If nothing else, it points out several issues I have with the vaccines myself.
5594137
Yes by forcing him to give up a paying job. Losing a job is a big deal.
5594138
One did, which many question because it normally take YEARS to get it and that can be pulled.
However that one is not available in the US. Only the emergency use ones are.
5594281
I believe the polio vaccines qualify. They were developed amid worsening ongoing worldwide outbreaks. In fact, the first, Salk's, seems to have done phase 1 testing in 1953, but phases 2 and 3 occured in late 1954/early 1955, with full certification and widespread use occuring almost immediately afterward in 1955. So the timeframe from testing to use was also similar.
And I for one have greater faith in the efficacy of our current process, because the Salk polio vaccine is what pioneered it (ie, we've had decades to refine it). Because...
5594138
5594131
Yes. On August 23. So, according to our own vetting process, Pfizer is as safe as we can realistically make it.
EDIT:
Speaking of blatantly wrong things.
P.S. Incidentally, the Nuremburg Code cannot apply. It has been signed into law by no one. It's a guideline. It influenced the US medical laws, sure, but it itself is legally meaningless. If you want to make a case that the Code of Federal Regulations, title 45 applies here - the section influenced by the Nuremburg Code - then I wish you luck. After all, the FDA has allowed all three, and fully approved Pfizer.