3 ms·

I agree with you. It has gone from public health measure to some dystopian form of control. I too have all my vaccines and also caught covid. It may have helped

by 14 5y ago

I agree with you. It has gone from public health measure to some dystopian form of control. I too have all my vaccines and also caught covid. It may have helped lessen my infection but we will never know. What really showed me this was about control is when several coworkers were let go because they did not want to get the vaccine. I am in healthcare. Then when staffing shortages happened they decided people who were sick with covid but showing minor symptoms could work while sick verses calling back those who were unvaccinated but not currently sick. If it was about public safety they would not be having sick covid workers over non sick but unvaccinated. I lost all respect at that point in time. Again I have all my vaccinations.

batty 5y ago
So your coworkers, presumably health care professionals, refused to accept the most basic public health measure, and expected to keep working, presumably in proximity to vulnerable populations? I hardly think their employer is the unreasonable party here. (E.g. I also wouldn't hire a lawyer who advocated trial by combat or a chemist who advocated alchemy...)
- version_five 5y ago
  Calling it a public health measure is editorializing. Since vaccines do not prevent transmission, I think most rational people would prefer an unvaccinated nurse that doesn't have covid vs a vaccinated nurse that does. The only official line left as far as I know is that vaccination "prevents severe infection". So is the rule still in place for the sake of the unvaccinated nurses? And I'm not trying to be ideological here - if I've made a factual or logical mistake, I'm happy to be corrected and will own it
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- 14 5y ago
  You are just one of those die hards who refuse to see a rational argument and change your mind no matter what. There really is no point in arguing with someone of your mindset. You worry about vulnerable populations, well did you read the part where I stated they wanted covid positive workers to take care of the vulnerable population? Please tell me how you can rationalize that this is better then having a non vaccinated worker who is not sick with covid and is of no risk getting the client sick?

by 14 5y ago

batty 5y ago

So your coworkers, presumably health care professionals, refused to accept the most basic public health measure, and expected to keep working, presumably in proximity to vulnerable populations? I hardly think their employer is the unreasonable party here. (E.g. I also wouldn't hire a lawyer who advocated trial by combat or a chemist who advocated alchemy...)

version_five 5y ago
Calling it a public health measure is editorializing. Since vaccines do not prevent transmission, I think most rational people would prefer an unvaccinated nurse that doesn't have covid vs a vaccinated nurse that does. The only official line left as far as I know is that vaccination "prevents severe infection". So is the rule still in place for the sake of the unvaccinated nurses? And I'm not trying to be ideological here - if I've made a factual or logical mistake, I'm happy to be corrected and will own it
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
14 5y ago
You are just one of those die hards who refuse to see a rational argument and change your mind no matter what. There really is no point in arguing with someone of your mindset. You worry about vulnerable populations, well did you read the part where I stated they wanted covid positive workers to take care of the vulnerable population? Please tell me how you can rationalize that this is better then having a non vaccinated worker who is not sick with covid and is of no risk getting the client sick?