Corona, Controversies and Careers

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

This is an ethics professor at a Canadian university who is caught in a serious moral dilemma.

Your thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqHfx5SGaWE
uwot
Posts: 6093
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by uwot »

“I think she is flat out wrong and it’s not just a difference in opinion about morals, some of her facts are just incorrect,” said Arthur Caplan, the founding director of the Division of Medical Ethics at New York University Langone Medical Center. “She’s impugning the vaccine, calling it experimental, those are just not true assertions.”

The vaccines approved by Health Canada are both safe and effective at preventing illness from COVID-19. This has been proven in extensive clinical trials before the vaccines were available in Canada.

Caplan said it’s Ponesse’s skewed facts that led her to the wrong ethical conclusions.

“It is well established in Canada and the U.S. that employers can set whatever safety standards they wish as long as they are not inconsistent with basic public health,” Caplan said. “There’s this notion that you can’t tell me what to put in my body. That’s true, I can’t make you do it, but I don’t have to employ you.”
https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/202 ... rally.html
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Skip »

She's correct that nobody should force anybody to take a vaccination they don't want.
She's incorrect in characterizing this mandate as unethical coercion.
She was given a choice: Get vaccinated and teach here or don't get vaccinated and don't teach here.
Ethically, the university's responsibility for the safety of all its students and staff beats all hell out of its obligation to each individual student and staff.
She's supposed to know this.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:25 am Ethically, the university's responsibility for the safety of all its students and staff beats all hell out of its obligation to each individual student and staff.
That would be true if, and only if, the vaccine was actually necessary, effective, and non-experimental.

But do we know so much? Honestly, we don't. Out of desperation and fear, we've had millions vaccinated with a variety of products of unestablished efficacy and with no time to estimate long-term side effects. Maybe it's okay, but maybe it's not: we don't know. That's the truth. And even our so-called "experts" keep changing their minds about it.

And if the vaccine turns out to have bad long term effects, it's likely to be the youngest who have to deal with the most extreme of them. So are we protecting, or negatively injecting, the students?

But there's another angle as well. Many people insist that "a woman has a right to her own body." They regard this as so fundamental that it is supposed not to be contested. But is a coerced vaccination not an invasion of that "right," assuming it exists? And do men have the same right, in regard to finally determining what enters their bodies, or is it only women who do.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 12:34 am This is an ethics professor at a Canadian university who is caught in a serious moral dilemma.

Your thoughts?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fqHfx5SGaWE
She is correct, poor lady. She obviously loves her job.
If someone is vaccinated, she poses no danger to them.
If someone is not vaccinated, that someone knows the risk of being unvaccinated.
Therefore, there is no logic in vaccine coercion other than an erroneously assumed role of elites shepherding the beings of lesser judgment over which they rule, i.e., plantation mentality.

I heard a similar story about an Australian commercial pilot. He boiled the ethical matter down to a matter of judgement. He explained the condition of his judgement. He said that in the past 40 years of his career he has made many split-second life-and-death decisions. He has never erred in those decisions, and he said that he has the highest score in simulations that are designed to crash. His point is (in my words), that his accurate ability to assess risk, all things considered, has been proven and is actually the bedrock of his being. Therefore, his own judgement concerning whether or not to take the vaccine is his basis of trust.

Politicians who screw up most everything they touch is not his basis of trust concerning his one and only precious life. (my words)
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 16940
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Dontaskme »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am ..................
A search for relief from nature's way, the way it has it's way with us, however the medicine manifests as, will always be experimental for the seeker of relief.

We're all lab rats, it's not just exclusive to the animal known as a rat...the one in search of relief is it's own lab rat, metaphorically speaking. We're all in the same one lifeboat of hope.

No one has been alive before, so we're just working to survive, and surviving to work. There's no magic potion that will relieve us all of this stress. If there were, then we'd have found it by now, but so far, nature continues to have it's bitter way with us, because nature always wins the game of loser.

No person who has never been alive before ever screws up the search for relief in the form of a cure that only serves to assuage the misery and pain of sentient living organisms.

There is no cure for the seeker of relief from the pain and suffering of sentient living organisms. There just isn't, else we'd have stopped seeking by now.

Or we could just admit, only a dumb stupid person would play a dumb stupid game like indulging in the procreation of more misery and suffering.

At least we are fortunate to know that pain and suffering is a really bad idea, animals, on the other hand, do not have that luxury, they are sentenced to suffering in silence.

The poor me, poor me, poor me, mentality of every self-aware sentient creature, is the hell on earth that can be avoided by not making more of it....but while there is the hope of a cure, then there is no hope.

Image
It really is ok to say NO to ( your/our life )
Age
Posts: 20043
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am
Skip wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:25 am Ethically, the university's responsibility for the safety of all its students and staff beats all hell out of its obligation to each individual student and staff.
That would be true if, and only if, the vaccine was actually necessary, effective, and non-experimental.

But do we know so much? Honestly, we don't. Out of desperation and fear, we've had millions vaccinated with a variety of products of unestablished efficacy and with no time to estimate long-term side effects. Maybe it's okay, but maybe it's not: we don't know. That's the truth. And even our so-called "experts" keep changing their minds about it.
Absolutely EVERY vaccine ever made and given world wide was given with absolutely nothing known in regards to the long-term side effects.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am And if the vaccine turns out to have bad long term effects, it's likely to be the youngest who have to deal with the most extreme of them. So are we protecting, or negatively injecting, the students?
Could this be why the elder are being given the covid vaccines first? And, do we yet know the long-term effects of the recently produced flu vaccines?

Also, the exact same claims and questions could have been said and asked with EVERY vaccine being administered, which, by the way, are usually given to the younger ones.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am But there's another angle as well. Many people insist that "a woman has a right to her own body."
Do you insist that they do not?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am They regard this as so fundamental that it is supposed not to be contested.
Do you regard this view is supposed to be contested?
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am But is a coerced vaccination not an invasion of that "right," assuming it exists? And do men have the same right, in regard to finally determining what enters their bodies, or is it only women who do.
Why would you ask such an obviously absurd and ridiculous question?

What could possibly exist, which separates women from me in regards to 'rights, themselves'?
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:24 am If someone is vaccinated, she poses no danger to them.
If someone is not vaccinated, that someone knows the risk of being unvaccinated.
In her country, that's certainly true. However, as she points out, the vaccine doesn't even purport to prevent transmission...no one says it can do that...only to perhaps (as a still undemonstrated claim) to reduce the consequences if one gets COVID. So it's not as if, if she had the vaccine, she would be "safer" to her students: she might well be a carrier anyway, and not know it -- and so might every one of them, even if vaccinated.

So I agree. It's hard to see how she poses a special risk to anybody, except perhaps to herself -- and that's still on the supposition that the vaccine really works as claimed. And it's not true to imagine that if she is vaccinated she will necessarily be "safer" for her students, either.

The only benefits promised by the vaccinators are that a) if it works, she might not herself become an emergency patient, and b) if it works, she might not need some perhaps extended medical leave from her job. Nothing beyond that is even being offered.

More importantly than all that, this is the first time I can recall that governmental fiat and people's careers are being used as leverage to compell them to submit to medical interventions they may not want. It seems an extremely dangerous precedent to set, in its own right.

Do we really want to allow governments and our bosses that kind of authority? And how will they use it, if we do?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Skip »

Framing the issue as if it were a different issue doesn't affect its ethical implications.
Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:45 am [S - Ethically, the university's responsibility for the safety of all its students and staff beats all hell out of its obligation to each individual student and staff. ]
That would be true if, and only if, the vaccine was actually necessary, effective, and non-experimental.
No - the university's responsibility holds true even in the absence of pandemics. The administration's duties include providing as safe and secure an environment for its students as is within its power. The parents who entrust their children to its care have a right to demand they not be exposed to unnecessary risk. To that end, the university is also under obligation to vet and supervise all of its employees. An anti-vaxxer or white supremacist on the staff could be even more dangerous than a known sex offender. I wouldn't put my kid under the influence of any of them.
But do we know so much? Honestly, we don't.
What other employer is required to give 100% guarantees and proofs for the efficacy of its policies regarding the conditions of employment? We don't know that all car seat belts perform as they are intended to, but the preponderance of evidence is on the side of their efficacy.
The school administrators' mandate is to make the best decisions they can, according to the most reliable information they have, upon which they assess the risk level of each available choice.
Out of desperation and fear, we've had millions vaccinated with a variety of products of unestablished efficacy and with no time to estimate long-term side effects. Maybe it's okay, but maybe it's not: we don't know. That's the truth. And even our so-called "experts" keep changing their minds about it.
So? What's this low opinion of medical science to do with the ethics of the situation under consideration?
And if the vaccine turns out to have bad long term effects, it's likely to be the youngest who have to deal with the most extreme of them. So are we protecting, or negatively injecting, the students?
"We" are not injecting anybody. "We" are each making up our minds whether to line up for the vaccine, go to work, wear masks, send our children to school, etc. The sensible among us take all practical precautions; the lunatics hold protest rallies. The virus doesn't give a damn either way.
But there's another angle as well. Many people insist that "a woman has a right to her own body." They regard this as so fundamental that it is supposed not to be contested. But is a coerced vaccination not an invasion of that "right," assuming it exists?
You have circled around to make the same false claim she was making, and snuck in abortion rights as a bonus.
In fact, nobody's coercing her to do anything. It's every employers prerogative to demand that employees wear appropriate clothing, including safety gear where needed. What they do with their bodies in their own homes is their own business. On the employer's time, dime and premises, they deport those bodies according to the employer's rules.
And do men have the same right, in regard to finally determining what enters their bodies, or is it only women who do.
Neither she nor her male colleagues have to get vaccinated, and none of them have to be in that university. They're entirely free to choose.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 3:23 pm The administration's duties include providing as safe and secure an environment for its students as is within its power.
That is not possible, in this case.

A vaccinated individual can still transmit COVID. But a vaccinated student, if vaccinations turn out to work as promised, is as fortified against that eventuality as he/she can be, anyway. So there is no improvement to student safety if the instructor is vaccinated, and no loss to that security if she is not.

The "student safety" issue is thus a red herring. It's not involved.
But do we know so much? Honestly, we don't.
What other employer is required to give 100% guarantees
Nobody said they should.

It's not the employer's responsibility to protect its employees and "customers" against all eventualities. It's their responsibility only to create safety so far as it depends on them, and so far as they are qualified to provide. It is not their responsibility, for example, to check on seatbelts, as good as seatbelts might be. They have no claim to competence in that aspect of a student's life.

Student safety is not less at risk with an unvaccinated instructor, since even fully vaccinated people are still transmitters.
Out of desperation and fear, we've had millions vaccinated with a variety of products of unestablished efficacy and with no time to estimate long-term side effects. Maybe it's okay, but maybe it's not: we don't know. That's the truth. And even our so-called "experts" keep changing their minds about it.
So? What's this low opinion of medical science
Au contraire: I have such a high opinion of medical science that I insist that every such decision should be a product of rigorous scientific testing -- which COVID vaccines have not even had sufficient time to be. That's the problem; and if we're honest and scientific, we'll admit it, rather than pretending to a level of certainty that science itself would deny we can possibly have.
And if the vaccine turns out to have bad long term effects, it's likely to be the youngest who have to deal with the most extreme of them. So are we protecting, or negatively injecting, the students?
"We" are not injecting anybody. "We" are each making up our minds whether to line up for the vaccine, go to work, wear masks, send our children to school, etc.

If you are threatening to take away somebody's job, you're coercing her to have to take the injection, even if she feels she has reason and desire not to. So you're not honouring the principle of "each making up [her] own mind." You're punishing that, and compelling her.
But there's another angle as well. Many people insist that "a woman has a right to her own body." They regard this as so fundamental that it is supposed not to be contested. But is a coerced vaccination not an invasion of that "right," assuming it exists?
You have circled around to make the same false claim she was making, and snuck in abortion rights as a bonus.
It's exactly the same principle. If a person has "a right to her own body," say, then it's impossible to see why she has an obligation to take injection.
On the employer's time, dime and premises, they deport those bodies according to the employer's rules.
Employers cannot simply mandate absolutely anything they like. They cannot say, for example, "This position is a woman's position, so you must get a sex change or lose your job." They can't say, "I'm making a rule that all employees must be Democrats or donate to Planned Parenthood," on the one hand, or "All empolyees must wear the swastika," or "be Trumpists" or "be Hindus," on the other. Employers cannot mandate that their employees cannot drink or smoke drugs on their own time, even if those activities are harmful.

The employer's right of demand begins and ends with the job.

And this professor was doing her job for 20 years. And can we suppose she would really be doing her job as an ethicist and a teacher if she abandoned her principles to keep that position?
And do men have the same right, in regard to finally determining what enters their bodies, or is it only women who do.
Neither she nor her male colleagues have to get vaccinated, and none of them have to be in that university. They're entirely free to choose.
But you'll disemploy them if they disagree with you.

So they're not "free to choose" at all; they're punished for one choice, and not for the other. That's not honouring "choice," whatever else it is.
Walker
Posts: 14245
Joined: Thu Nov 05, 2015 12:00 am

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Walker »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 2:12 pm
Do we really want to allow governments and our bosses that kind of authority? And how will they use it, if we do?
At some point during the two years that Obamacare was rammed through Congress, the requirement of possessing proof of very expensive health insurance effectively became a condition of citizenship in the US, which implanted the notion of citizenship for those born in country being conditional to whatever government fiat is currently fashionable. Now, taking the vaccine, and living under the threat of constitutionally illegal acts being enacted to violate personal human rights, is a condition for employment, i.e., living in modern society.

Look for other conditions to appear now that unelected regulators have tasted the extent of their power with all the Covid nonsense. All hail Fauci, Dr. Science. Booster shots will likely be a requirement for participating in modern society (survival), and even though currently the official word is they are unnecessary, the probability is high that particular dictate will change to yes, they are necessary, and if Fauci still has a say that will change to unnecessary again, and then back to necessary a few times.

Eventually, registering with the approved political party could be a condition for access to some of the big necessities in life such as a roof, or in the same vein, registering with the unapproved political party could be a condition for hurtful discrimination, shunning, egging, character assassination, and so on ... extending the reach of typical Leftest-approved behavior.

Here’s a quote from an interesting, unequivocal opinion by a Mr. Citizen, with more to say in the link.

“Many of us, perhaps even the majority, immediately recognized this virus for what it is: a common flu virus maybe engineered to be more contagious if not more fatal but hardly differing substantially from other influenza strains. We have lived with seasonal flu all our lives. We saw no reason to fear it until the medical community, and Anthony Fauci specifically, started telling lies.”

https://www.americanthinker.com/blog/20 ... octor.html
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

Walker wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 5:30 pm All hail Fauci, Dr. Science.
It's ridiculous to equate Fauci and science, even if one believes in the vaccines. What's abundantly clear to everybody who's been watching with half a brain engaged is that Fauci et al. have changed their minds a dozen times.

When one changes and flipflops, it's a bald confession that the last thing one said was incorrect. So it wasn't "science," but something else. In such a case, the term "science" is merely a veneer, a dishonestly-used term laid over unfounded opinions to impart to them an authority they do not legitimately have. And to distrust them is only good sense.

It was once touted as "science" that the Chinese virus threatened nobody outside China, and to say otherwise was mere racism; what happened to that? Or take the AstraZeneca shot: "science," we were told, said it was effective and good; now "science" says "Don't even take it." The "science" that says that open borders are not grounds for quarantine, but that going to visit a healthy relative in a developed country is, is clearly not real "science" at all.

So what are we to think of the "science" that now says no long-term ill effects can come from the vaccine, even though not even one cohort of test cases has been around long enough for us to know, and even though we have no control group against which to measure the effects whenever/if ever they appear? Why should we trust something that is so far from obeying basic scientific method, even if, in the press, it claims to be "science"?
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Skip »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 4:42 pm [S - The administration's duties include providing as safe and secure an environment for its students as is within its power.]
A vaccinated individual can still transmit COVID.
Can still transmit it if they have recently been in contact with an infected individual. The far greater risk, however, is that an unvaccinated individual is incubating the disease for two weeks and transmitting it to everyone with whom they have contact until they're diagnosed and quarantined, and each of those people, unaware that they're carrying it, is transmitting it on to unsuspecting others.
But a vaccinated student, if vaccinations turn out to work as promised, is as fortified against that eventuality as he/she can be, anyway.
Which is 95% in the best case. And even if the student is immune, they can unwittingly transmit the disease - as above - from that one irresoponsible teacher to anyone they contact who is not immune, including 5% of their fellow vaccinated students.
The "student safety" issue is thus a red herring. It's not involved.
It is if they remove a potentially infected individual from the lectern where she can stick the virus on 30 students at a time.
It's not the employer's responsibility to protect its employees and "customers" against all eventualities.
Only the known risks, under their auspices, by the most probably effective means available to them.
It's their responsibility only to create safety so far as it depends on them, and so far as they are qualified to provide.
Precisely. In their work-place, through the use of whatever safety equipment is available, training, protocol and elimination of known potential hazards.
It is not their responsibility, for example, to check on seatbelts, as good as seatbelts might be.
It is if the employer is a taxi or delivery service.
They have no claim to competence in that aspect of a student's life.
Only their life on campus. Where the teachers are.
even fully vaccinated people are still transmitters.
Question of the odds, innit? https://www.nationalgeographic.com/scie ... f-covid-19
Au contraire: I have such a high opinion of medical science that I insist that every such decision should be a product of rigorous scientific testing -- which COVID vaccines have not even had sufficient time to be.
Insist away. Still not relevant to the case in point.
If you are threatening to take away somebody's job,
If I'm the employer, I have the right to take away the job I had given to anyone who does not meet the conditions of employment. (Or cause some other problem, or become too frail, or set a bad example, or is surplus to requirements. ) They're free to seek employment elsewhere. Or sue for wrongful dismissal, of course.
Employers cannot simply mandate absolutely anything they like.
'Absolutely anything' wasn't on the table. In this instance, as in all the others I mentioned, the employer is making rules regarding safety, security and productivity in the workplace for which they are responsible. And the prevention of illness or accident for which they may be held liable in court.
And this professor was doing her job for 20 years. And can we suppose she would really be doing her job as an ethicist and a teacher if she abandoned her principles to keep that position?
That's entirely up to her.
But you'll disemploy them if they disagree with you.
If I'm the employer who has made a decision on the best information I had, for the best chance of a positive outcome that I could, in my own establishment, and they refused to abide by my decision, of course I'd fire their ass. So would any employer.
So they're not "free to choose" at all; they're punished for one choice, and not for the other.
Isn't that true of all choices?
That's not honouring "choice," whatever else it is.
Honouring one person's choice at the risk of all the other's health is not the mandate - and not sound ethics.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 22140
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Immanuel Can »

Skip wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 7:47 pm The far greater risk, however, is that an unvaccinated individual is incubating the disease for two weeks and transmitting it to everyone with whom they have contact until they're diagnosed and quarantined, and each of those people, unaware that they're carrying it, is transmitting it on to unsuspecting others.
It doesn't change anything, if they're vaccinated, allegedly. Don't you believe in the vaccines?
The "student safety" issue is thus a red herring. It's not involved.
It is if they 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. And her health is the only one at risk: remember? They have the miracle vaccine. And they are all potential carriers too, allegedly. So it looks to me like that's a bad bet.
It's not the employer's responsibility to protect its employees and "customers" against all eventualities.
Only the known risks, under their auspices, by the most probably effective means available to them.
That's the problem: what makes your employer a medical "expert," and what puts your health under their "auspices"? Nothing. As for the "effective means," that begs the whole question of what should be "available to them," and what should not.
It is not their responsibility, for example, to check on seatbelts, as good as seatbelts might be.
It is if the employer is a taxi or delivery service.
Not for university classes, obviously, unless they've gotten a lot bumpier than I remember.
They have no claim to competence in that aspect of a student's life.
Only their life on campus. Where the teachers are.
No, they still have no competence. Competence means expertise that would warrant THEM being the one to make the decision on your behalf. What makes a university administrator a medical expert?
Au contraire: I have such a high opinion of medical science that I insist that every such decision should be a product of rigorous scientific testing -- which COVID vaccines have not even had sufficient time to be.
Insist away.
It's not even debatable. It's obvious, if one has even a marginal understanding of scientific method. So yeah, I insist.
If you are threatening to take away somebody's job,
If I'm the employer, I have the right to take away the job I had given to anyone who does not meet the conditions of employment.[/quote]
She has no contractual duty to be injected with substances. That was not in her contract, and it would remain debatable that any employer would have the right to violate her body in that way.
Employers cannot simply mandate absolutely anything they like.
'Absolutely anything' wasn't on the table.
No, but forcing their employees to inject themselves was.
And this professor was doing her job for 20 years. And can we suppose she would really be doing her job as an ethicist and a teacher if she abandoned her principles to keep that position?
That's entirely up to her.

Well, it's up to her whether or not she'll behave unethically, sure. But it's not up to her to keep her job, apparently; because the employer has made a new condition of employment...the legitimacy of which we are debating.

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 you'll disemploy them if they disagree with you.
If I'm the employer who has made a decision on the best information I had, for the best chance of a positive outcome that I could, in my own establishment, and they refused to abide by my decision, of course I'd fire their ass.

So your decision is that employers never overstep their authority? What a trusting soul you are.
So they're not "free to choose" at all; they're punished for one choice, and not for the other.
Isn't that true of all choices?

No. For most choices, one is not punished. Rather, one is allowed to make this or that choice without being coerced, and certainly without the threat of instant disemployment.
Skip
Posts: 2820
Joined: Tue Aug 09, 2011 1:34 pm

Re: Corona, Controversies and Careers

Post by Skip »

Immanuel Can wrote: Tue Sep 14, 2021 8:18 pm [unvaccinated individual is incubating the disease transmitting it on to unsuspecting others.]
It doesn't change anything, if they're vaccinated, allegedly. Don't you believe in the vaccines?
Believe-in? As I mentioned, 95% effective, best case, against the variants known at the time of manufacture. Since then, at least two new ones, both more resistant than the original have been reaping the population, making even vaccinated patients sick, but mostly not dead.
Don't you believe in sickness and death?
[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.
Six feet away, with a mask on, in motion, not face-on, outdoors. Better still, remotely.
And her health is the only one at risk: remember?
It's the only one she has any right to put at risk, certainly.
They have the miracle vaccine.
I don't believe in miracles. They have the reasonably effective, as far as is currently known, vaccine, which will prevent up to 95% of them getting seriously ill or dying if they catch any of the known variants. Their families and acquaintances may not have. Their very young siblings can't, as yet.
And they are all potential carriers too, allegedly. So it looks to me like that's a bad bet.
Just so.
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?
Which chemical? What's the medical consensus on the efficacy of that chemical in preventing the spread of disease to my fellow employees and the public whose members I have to interview? The CEO and management don't need the competence; they need the information. There is sufficient evidence in the medical literature, test results, studies, etc. to determine whether ingesting that chemical poses a greater risk than not ingesting it. If the preponderance of available evidence from accredited sources is in the favour of taking it, then the employer has both the competence and authority required to make it a condition of employment. In the contract, it would come under the heading of Health and Safety, and there would almost be a clause allowing for review and update from time to time ac conditions change. Under the same heading, incidentally, he can mandate a smoke-free, scent-free, peanut-free workplace - all of those being recent additions.
Post Reply