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.