Biden's vaccine employment requirement

[ao_fan]

I’m guessing my company will take the path of least resistance here and let people get tested weekly. As it is you arent allowed in the office if you’re not vaccinated, but highly doubt they want to fire people. most of my company is vaccinated anyway though.

[ao_fan]

When I went to see my doctor she asked for my vaccination card. I got the impression I wouldn’t be allowed in the office at all if I wasnt vaccinated. Doctors might be discriminating against the unvaccinated. I also emailed them my negative covid test to be allowed in. It was a bit extreme.

They might have let me in without the negative covid test, but I just offered it since my one and only symptom is on the very long list of covid symptoms. They have a sign on the door saying that if you have any of these symptoms of covid to call first rather than enter and the list was long.

[magillaG]

@ao_fan

Doctors might be discriminating against the unvaccinated.

My guess is that they don’t want themselves and their whole staff to possibly get sick and shut down the office for two weeks or more.

There is no reason for a gp to see covid patients. They are not set up for that.

[Lucy]

My GP practices in a major hospital. I was surprised to see that the screening question was not, “do you have any of these symptoms?”, but rather, “do you have new or worse cases of any of these symptoms?”

[ao_fan]

And also possibly infect other patients. Yes I don’t blame them for not wanting to see covid patients. Yet another reason to get the damn vaccine. Your doctor might refuse to see you otherwise.

[RoyWalley]

@Lucy

It’s to be determined whether there’s decades of case law supporting vaccine mandates? No it’s not, that’s a simple matter of fact.

Will this particular mandate pass muster? I dunno. It’s got some details that are dicey. Which (as I’ve said several time) is why I am not a fan of it.

You said it’s a matter of fact [that it’s constitutional], then you said you don’t know if this mandate will “pass muster”. Another way of saying that is “That’s to be determined”.

@Lucy

But are there vaccine mandates that are constitutional? Can your state require vaccination to go to school? Can a business require its employees be vaccinated? Can a cruise ship require proof of vaccination as a condition of service? Unless the current court is way more willing to change the law than I expect, yes, those are all constitutional.

So, we’ll wait and see if Biden’s action is constitutional. And we’ll also wait and see if the governor of Florida has the power to compel cruise companies to accept unvaccinated guests. (or, more likely, to find another place to take on passengers.)

You’re probably on the wrong side if you find yourself arguing in favor of allowing the government to walk as close as possible to the line. Precedents are good for showing what the government and institutions can’t do to an individual, then you expand on that to further limit governments and institutions. If you’re going the other way with a precedent, then that’s a sign it’s time to get rid of the precedent.

[Maphistos_Sidekick]

(Yes, I’m slow to react…)

@RoyWalley

Go ahead and pursue that, and years from now ask “Whatever happened to that right to privacy thing?”

One of the things that the “muh rights” crowd fails to consider is that, in practice, rights are fragile things.

One has to exercise them judiciously and responsibly for those rights to be recognized.

[snoo]

Going back to the smallpox discussion (sorry). The thing is, smallpox was disfiguring on the outside. It was obvious and scary looking. If covid was similarly disfiguring on the outside, I doubt people would be anti-vaxxers.

[Marcie]

@magillaG

On a side note, looks like the CDC is referring to the confidence interval as an uncertainty interval, although it is clearly a confidence interval based on their definition.

I wonder if the word “confidence” confused people too much.

https://www.researchgate.net/post/Difference_between_uncertainty_intervals_and_confidence_intervals_in_public_health2#:~:text=An%20uncertainty%20interval%20refers%20to,uncertainty%20in%20a%20sample%20statistic.

An uncertainty interval refers to confidence interval, the difference between the two being only philosophical rather than mathematical. Confidence interval is an interval estimate of the parameter. Thus a confidence interval is meant to estimate the degree of uncertainty in a sample statistic.

Also, it appears Andrew Gelman prefers the term “uncertainty interval” over “confidence interval.” Not being a BMA member, I can only read part of his first of 4 reasons here:

Are confidence intervals better termed “uncertainty intervals”?

[Rastiln]

I’m good with this mandate, and anticipating GOP governors to sue and lose, despite the conservative SCOTUS majority. As Biden said, “Bring it on.” I’m liking him a lot, he doesn’t have thin skin, is humble, and seems to really care about the country.

[Snikelfritz]

@twig93

That would be the justifications I can think of.

And those justifications would apply to anything to improve employee health. People were telling me earlier in this thread that wouldn’t happen, that it would only be things that put other people at risk. I’m putting no one at risk working from home.

[RoyWalley]

@Snikelfritz

People were telling me earlier in this thread that wouldn’t happen

Even Biden said it’s something he wouldn’t do.

[twig93]

@Snikelfritz

I’m putting no one at risk working from home.

Depends. You’re putting the people you share a residence with at risk, which may or may not include other employees, and is more likely to include others covered by the company’s medical and/or life insurance.

You’re putting others in the community at risk when you leave home, therefore increasing the risk to employees.

And is there truly a 0.00% chance of you ever going into the office / participating in an in-person event / meeting with a client?

I suppose that Delta’s method of simply charging higher insurance premiums is perhaps more justifiable if the answer to above question is actually “yes”.

[Lucy]

@RoyWalley

You said it’s a matter of fact [that it’s constitutional],

I wish you would read a little more carefully. I have been absolutely consistent in this thread saying:

1. the particular mandate Biden announced, especially the part where he plans to use OSHA rules to force large employers to require vaccination or testing, sense like a bad idea, and I’m not sure it’s constitutional
2. vaccine mandates in general, including the party of Biden’s where he plans to require federal employees and contractors to be vaccinated, are legal and have a long history of being found legal by the courts.

Those are different things. And, as I’ve said above, it’s a simple matter if fact that courts have many times ruled that vaccine mandates are legal. But details matter.

I also said that reading this thread has made me more, not less, in favor of mandates. Because it seems more and more likely that nothing short of mandates is going to end the pandemic in the US. That doesn’t mean i support every possible mandate. I remain sceptical of the feds making employers do the work. But do we need more mandates than we have? Yeah, i think we do.

[RoyWalley]

@Lucy

Because it seems more and more likely that nothing short of mandates is going to end the pandemic in the US.

Or it could prolong it as the people on the fence harden their position. Good luck with the next pandemic when you tell people it’ll be just 2 weeks to flatten the curve.

[Lucy]

@twig93

And is there truly a 0.00% chance of you ever going into the office / participating in an in-person event / meeting with a client?

If my employer said, “you aren’t allowed in our buildings unless you are vaccinated” then there is truly a zero percent chance of my going into the office until i get vaccinated. And the other people i meet with for work purposes come to our office.

Maybe my employer wants me to show up at least occasionally, though.

I’m dubious that OSHA rules will cover those who work from home, though. Doesn’t OSHA regulate workplaces?

[Snikelfritz]

@twig93

Depends

That’s grasping at straws at best.

If a vaccine mandate for employees is about protecting workplaces, then fully WFH employees aren’t applicable.

If a vaccine mandate is about getting more people vaccinated, sure, but then don’t pretend it’s about workplaces.

[RoyWalley]

@twig93

Depends. You’re putting the people you share a residence with at risk, which may or may not include other employees, and is more likely to include others covered by the company’s medical and/or life insurance.

You’re putting others in the community at risk when you leave home, therefore increasing the risk to employees.

To quote Snikelfritz, those justifications would apply to anything to improve employee health. Are you down for that?

[Lucy]

@RoyWalley

Or it could prolong it as the people on the fence harden their position. Good luck with the next pandemic when you tell people it’ll be just 2 weeks to flatten the curve

See, what I’ve learned from this thread is that it’s too late. Those positions already seem to be extremely hardened.

[twig93]

@Lucy

If my employer said, “you aren’t allowed in our buildings unless you are vaccinated” then there is truly a zero percent chance of my going into the office until i get vaccinated.

For you, perhaps. You probably have a decent amount to lose if you go into the office, get caught, and get fired.

For someone working a low-paying job denying claims who can’t wait to get out of there as soon as the record label hears his demo, I’m less confident. He can get a similar paying job at Dunkin’ Donuts tomorrow. Low paying jobs are insanely easy to come by these days.

One could also argue that it puts the company at a disadvantage to have employees who are not permitted in the office.