5 ms·

If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security, I'd love to hear it. I can only see a detriment to each

If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security, I'd love to hear it. I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.

arcticbull 5y ago
Easy. It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions. This will increase the vaccination percentages, reducing spread and keeping ICUs available for folks who didn't elect their condition. [edit] I'm sorry, if you choose to prioritize conspiracy theories over your health and that of others, I'm not at all opposed to reasonable barriers to that. We've had vaccines since 1796.
- imperio59 5y ago
  We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. Also there are starting to be plenty of companies requiring boosters. Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    > We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. First off, mRNA was discovered in the 1960s, first used for drug delivery in the 1970s, and vaccines in 1975. [1] The work to create these vaccines has been under way for almost 60 years. It also builds off the work of other coronavirus vaccines that have been in development since SARS and MERS about 20 years ago. If that's for some reason not sufficient, J&J, Covishield and AstraZeneca vaccines are not mRNA but instead adenoviral vector vaccines that have similar histories. [edit] Most vaccines take a long time to test due to the low prevalence of the disease in the population but given half of America is currently infected, it takes very little time to determine the safety and efficacy. Most drugs and vaccines were released publicly after a few thousand participants tried it. You're looking at billions of doses administered. You are not early. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
    - salawat 5y ago
      >given half of America is currently infected Point of order: the ideal test of a vaccine is: Given uninfected || infected but early When disease runs course Then Side effects minimized/non-existent Symptoms and severity of disease minimized. The worst time to test a vaccine is when everyone is in the "Oh snap, infected" situation, as it allows for teasing out of long cycle problems (like say unintentional sterilization or birth defects inducement) before introducing it to the majority of the population. Life hardly ever is that accommodating however.
  - joshuamorton 5y ago
    The booster is the same as the original vaccine but in a lower dosage. This may change with future boosters, but I also get a flu vaccine every year (and have for a decade). Those are "new" each year but aren't generally considered dangerous and experimental. > Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months? Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months? As I understand it, the entire vaccine will have left your body will before that point, leaving only your body's reaction to the spike protein. In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
    - merlincorey 5y ago
      > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots. In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects: > We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was. [0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-menstrual-cycle/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        The study author on that page says: > ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes. This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all. The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports. The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
- antihipocrat 5y ago
  Even if we assume that there is benefit in this specific case, the utility of this law extends well beyond vaccine mandates. It may sound great, until a government comes into power with very different world views to your own, and suddenly you're on a similar list.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    Sure, I agree, and when we have a bad list we can have that conversation. Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. I'm not sure the existence of a good list makes a future bad list any more - or any less - likely.
    - antihipocrat 5y ago
      The classic argument is that by the time the 'bad' list is implemented, it's already too late. The prevailing mentality up until recent times has been to prevent any list being created in the first place, as this guaranteed protection against abuse.
    - salawat 5y ago
      >Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. Might I ask your views on guns? I ask as I tend to see people making this argument apply it inconsistently between contexts. I've even caught myself doing it, which is why I'm quite sensitive to it. Just curious.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Good question because that was the first thing I thought of as I typed out the sentence. I'm in favor of allowing individuals to have guns, whether that's for sport or hunting - particularly long guns and shotguns - but not sawed-offs, automatic weapons or handguns except in specific situations. I don't think a national registry is particularly necessary but could be convinced. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions such mandatory licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and excluding folks with violent histories.
- lotsofpulp 5y ago
  > It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions. There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state. If I want to make up a religion (aka a set of assumptions) this second that contradict societal mandates, then my set of assumptions are just as valid as anyone else’s assumptions, whether they be orthodox Jewish, or jehovah, or whatever the hell people claim to be. But that is why there never should have been any non medical exemptions in the first place.
  - arcticbull 5y ago
    I suspect you should let Charles Manson's defense team know.
    - lotsofpulp 5y ago
      How is that relevant? Not murdering people is a societal mandate.
      - arcticbull 5y ago
        Not murdering people by spreading disease is a societal mandate too, in my opinion. People who spread deadly STDs like AIDS can be held liable for attempted murder. It seems we've already decided as a society that knowingly spreading deadly disease is a kind of violence. It doesn't extend here to the same degree because it's obviously much less deadly (and so much is circulating, proving who gave it to you is all but impossible) - however I think the premise holds.
        lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I am confused what you are referring to. I am talking about how people should forced to vaccinate (unless medical exemption) or not forced at all to vaccinate. Letting “religious” people off the hook is nonsensical and contrary to the principles of separation of church and state.
dragonwriter 5y ago
> If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security Because without it, the PSA can't know which of its employees do and do not have approved exemption requests. > I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect. It's not a law, it's an internal employer data system for tracking workforce (employer, contractor volunteer, etc.) exemption requests under existing workforce rules.
- antihipocrat 5y ago
  You are absolutely correct and I was mistaken, it's not a law. I believe my point still holds as it's more concerned about the system being implemented. You could substitute the word 'law' with 'system', and my meaning and intent is completely unchanged. Regarding the record keeping argument as being a benefit. I agree there is some value there if there was no existing record to keep track of numbers of exemptions. Without having more information about the current recording system I'm not able to say whether there is a need to distinguish the types of exemptions being offered, and why religious exemption needed to be focussed on in particular.
  - salawat 5y ago
    The point is to provide legal something to refer back to in case a manager gets swapped out and becomes frustrated when the employee says no to doing something they have an exemption for. Organizations aren't static and change over time, necessitating persistent state.

If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security, I'd love to hear it. I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.

arcticbull 5y ago

Easy. It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions. This will increase the vaccination percentages, reducing spread and keeping ICUs available for folks who didn't elect their condition. [edit] I'm sorry, if you choose to prioritize conspiracy theories over your health and that of others, I'm not at all opposed to reasonable barriers to that. We've had vaccines since 1796.

imperio59 5y ago
We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. Also there are starting to be plenty of companies requiring boosters. Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
- arcticbull 5y ago
  > We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years. First off, mRNA was discovered in the 1960s, first used for drug delivery in the 1970s, and vaccines in 1975. [1] The work to create these vaccines has been under way for almost 60 years. It also builds off the work of other coronavirus vaccines that have been in development since SARS and MERS about 20 years ago. If that's for some reason not sufficient, J&J, Covishield and AstraZeneca vaccines are not mRNA but instead adenoviral vector vaccines that have similar histories. [edit] Most vaccines take a long time to test due to the low prevalence of the disease in the population but given half of America is currently infected, it takes very little time to determine the safety and efficacy. Most drugs and vaccines were released publicly after a few thousand participants tried it. You're looking at billions of doses administered. You are not early. [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
  - salawat 5y ago
    >given half of America is currently infected Point of order: the ideal test of a vaccine is: Given uninfected || infected but early When disease runs course Then Side effects minimized/non-existent Symptoms and severity of disease minimized. The worst time to test a vaccine is when everyone is in the "Oh snap, infected" situation, as it allows for teasing out of long cycle problems (like say unintentional sterilization or birth defects inducement) before introducing it to the majority of the population. Life hardly ever is that accommodating however.
- joshuamorton 5y ago
  The booster is the same as the original vaccine but in a lower dosage. This may change with future boosters, but I also get a flu vaccine every year (and have for a decade). Those are "new" each year but aren't generally considered dangerous and experimental. > Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months? Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months? As I understand it, the entire vaccine will have left your body will before that point, leaving only your body's reaction to the spike protein. In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
  - merlincorey 5y ago
    > In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects. I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots. In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects: > We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was. [0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-menstrual-cycle/ https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      The study author on that page says: > ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes. This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all. The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports. The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
antihipocrat 5y ago
Even if we assume that there is benefit in this specific case, the utility of this law extends well beyond vaccine mandates. It may sound great, until a government comes into power with very different world views to your own, and suddenly you're on a similar list.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  Sure, I agree, and when we have a bad list we can have that conversation. Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. I'm not sure the existence of a good list makes a future bad list any more - or any less - likely.
  - antihipocrat 5y ago
    The classic argument is that by the time the 'bad' list is implemented, it's already too late. The prevailing mentality up until recent times has been to prevent any list being created in the first place, as this guaranteed protection against abuse.
  - salawat 5y ago
    >Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. Might I ask your views on guns? I ask as I tend to see people making this argument apply it inconsistently between contexts. I've even caught myself doing it, which is why I'm quite sensitive to it. Just curious.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Good question because that was the first thing I thought of as I typed out the sentence. I'm in favor of allowing individuals to have guns, whether that's for sport or hunting - particularly long guns and shotguns - but not sawed-offs, automatic weapons or handguns except in specific situations. I don't think a national registry is particularly necessary but could be convinced. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions such mandatory licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and excluding folks with violent histories.
lotsofpulp 5y ago
> It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions. There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state. If I want to make up a religion (aka a set of assumptions) this second that contradict societal mandates, then my set of assumptions are just as valid as anyone else’s assumptions, whether they be orthodox Jewish, or jehovah, or whatever the hell people claim to be. But that is why there never should have been any non medical exemptions in the first place.
- arcticbull 5y ago
  I suspect you should let Charles Manson's defense team know.
  - lotsofpulp 5y ago
    How is that relevant? Not murdering people is a societal mandate.
    - arcticbull 5y ago
      Not murdering people by spreading disease is a societal mandate too, in my opinion. People who spread deadly STDs like AIDS can be held liable for attempted murder. It seems we've already decided as a society that knowingly spreading deadly disease is a kind of violence. It doesn't extend here to the same degree because it's obviously much less deadly (and so much is circulating, proving who gave it to you is all but impossible) - however I think the premise holds.
      - lotsofpulp 5y ago
        I am confused what you are referring to. I am talking about how people should forced to vaccinate (unless medical exemption) or not forced at all to vaccinate. Letting “religious” people off the hook is nonsensical and contrary to the principles of separation of church and state.

dragonwriter 5y ago

> If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security Because without it, the PSA can't know which of its employees do and do not have approved exemption requests. > I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect. It's not a law, it's an internal employer data system for tracking workforce (employer, contractor volunteer, etc.) exemption requests under existing workforce rules.

antihipocrat 5y ago
You are absolutely correct and I was mistaken, it's not a law. I believe my point still holds as it's more concerned about the system being implemented. You could substitute the word 'law' with 'system', and my meaning and intent is completely unchanged. Regarding the record keeping argument as being a benefit. I agree there is some value there if there was no existing record to keep track of numbers of exemptions. Without having more information about the current recording system I'm not able to say whether there is a need to distinguish the types of exemptions being offered, and why religious exemption needed to be focussed on in particular.
- salawat 5y ago
  The point is to provide legal something to refer back to in case a manager gets swapped out and becomes frustrated when the employee says no to doing something they have an exemption for. Organizations aren't static and change over time, necessitating persistent state.