4 ms·
So your coworkers, presumably health care professionals, refused to accept the most basic public health measure, and expected to keep working, presumably in pro
by batty 4y 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 4y agoCalling 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 4y ago[deleted]
- 14 4y agoYou 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?