Of course. They're part of life.
Not necessary. For that matter, they could put her in a lecture theatre, and keep everybody twenty feet away from her. They could put a plexiglas shield up, if they wished. And that situation would be far safer than merely going to a grocery store, which everybody does every day.Six feet away, with a mask on, in motion, not face-on, outdoors. Better still, remotely.[remove a potentially infected individual from the lectern where she can stick the virus on 30 students at a time. ]
Well, she can stay more than six feet away, and still run her classes very effectively.
The firing was totally unnecessary.
One you, for any reason you like, suspect is unnecessary and dangerous. Something that has not been around long enough to be scientifically proven not to have serious side effects. Something new. Something you don't want to take.Which chemical?So let me put it to you. If you work for...say, a newspaper. And your boss says to you, "Either you take this chemical into your body, or you're fired." Do you think your newspaper CEO has competence or the right to mandate that to you?
But if you don't take it, you'll be fired.
There is no information on the ultimate effects of this vaccination. It hasn't existed nearly long enough for the studies to be done, or for cohorts of test subjects to exhibit results. There are also no control groups for it at all. And we have no idea of the long term, especially on effects after years, or effects on young people's development.The CEO and management don't need the competence; they need the information.
So the CEO is making it up, or being naively trusting of the word "science" when advocates of the vaccine use it. He doesn't know what the vaccination will do to you. Neither does the scientific community. And you know that.
What do you say now? Is it still your body, or does your employer have a right to force you to take it against your will and judgment?