Coronavirus Thread v.2

[Stadler]

Honest question, why do you think that all came about?  They didn't just wake up with the crazy.

I've seen it with my and my wife's families.  They used to keep everything in check and they're not bad to be around.  She had one aunt that went off the deep end with right-wing politics well prior to 2016.  I believe for most people, it has to do with Trump - he speaks without a filter and people love him for it.  So now, they feel like they have permission to speak without a filter because he does.  Everything that they usually keep to themselves now comes pouring out.  My wife's sweet, kind, 70 something year old aunt goes on Facebook and writes awful, nasty things about "dems" and people who looted in last year's riots. 

He also popularized the evil mainstream media/fake news idea, so everyone who loves him stopped tuning into their standard news sources and dug in deeper with more opinioned and crazier sources.  MSM coitizes their hero, so they go where he isn't criticized.  When the other party (and media) is so adamantly against one candidate/President, then they dig in even further than that with their love and support. 

We've backed away from her side of the family and stopped attending gatherings for several reasons.  The constant political conversations is one, and their lack of caring about Covid is another.  We had talked to her aunt once and she admitted that they weren't doing much because of covid last year, then you'll see her online complaining about masks and mandates.  Well, which is it?  Are you posturing online or not?  Do we feel comfortable going to a family Christmas party with 20-30 people in a small home when we know where your covid beliefs lie even though we feel like we can't trust you?

I think that's the observation, but not the WHY.   Trump isn't the first person - even the first politician - to speak with a limited or no filter.  So why NOW?    Why HIM?   Trump's really not that charismatic in the sense of that; he's speaking to SOMETHING in these people and that's what I'm getting to (because feeding that in a healthier way is the way forward to bring us together).   

[Stadler]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

[Stadler]

Honest question, why do you think that all came about?  They didn't just wake up with the crazy.

I've seen it with my and my wife's families.  They used to keep everything in check and they're not bad to be around.  She had one aunt that went off the deep end with right-wing politics well prior to 2016.  I believe for most people, it has to do with Trump - he speaks without a filter and people love him for it.  So now, they feel like they have permission to speak without a filter because he does.  Everything that they usually keep to themselves now comes pouring out.  My wife's sweet, kind, 70 something year old aunt goes on Facebook and writes awful, nasty things about "dems" and people who looted in last year's riots. 

He also popularized the evil mainstream media/fake news idea, so everyone who loves him stopped tuning into their standard news sources and dug in deeper with more opinioned and crazier sources.  MSM coitizes their hero, so they go where he isn't criticized.  When the other party (and media) is so adamantly against one candidate/President, then they dig in even further than that with their love and support. 

We've backed away from her side of the family and stopped attending gatherings for several reasons.  The constant political conversations is one, and their lack of caring about Covid is another.  We had talked to her aunt once and she admitted that they weren't doing much because of covid last year, then you'll see her online complaining about masks and mandates.  Well, which is it?  Are you posturing online or not?  Do we feel comfortable going to a family Christmas party with 20-30 people in a small home when we know where your covid beliefs lie even though we feel like we can't trust you?

I honestly think it started before Trump.  Trump was just the magnifying glass that started the fire.  t advent of the internet where people feel safe to say things without repercussions was the start.  Now people stay things they wouldn't in the past in public of face to face.  Trump allowed it to be ok to say those things in public.

Of course it did.  Add to that the bullying of social media and the solidification of "us versus them" when it's convenient - the identity politics movement is ironically predicated on establishing "us versus them" - and you have the recipe for an entire class of people who are insecure and frustrated from consistently being told their world view is wrong and yet who have no more obligation to "keep quiet" than anyone else.

I don't question the degree to which Trump added fuel to the fire, but I seriously question this narrative that ignores the fact there was a fire to begin with (and the participants in that fire; to blame this only on Republicans is in denial of a whole host of psychological and philosophical concepts, including some of the most basis premises of human existence).

[Adami]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

I....ugh....agree...... ...with..... ....Stadler......

[Stadler]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

I....ugh....agree...... ...with..... ....Stadler......

It feels good, doesn't it?  Go with it...  Use the force, Luke, you know it to be true.  These are not the droids you're looking for! 

[Adami]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

I....ugh....agree...... ...with..... ....Stadler......

It feels good, doesn't it?  Go with it...  Use the force, Luke, you know it to be true.  These are not the droids you're looking for! 

I read all of your posts in the voice of the Emperor, and that is NOT what he would say.

[hunnus2000]

we don't (necessarily) force people to change their body chemistry all the time.   Hey, since we're at it, maybe we should make people eat the proper ratio of carbs/protein/fats?   Maybe we should force people to take anti-depressants.   Sterilization is a fantastic idea; don't want those deplorables to be breeding now, do we?   I'm kidding, but see there ARE differences in this, and minimizing those differences does nothing to change minds.  It just reinforces the anti-vaxxer's feelings of not being heard. 

I think I get what you are saying here but one small point of order.  "Force people to change their body chemistry" is kind of a misnomer.  I say this because everything we are exposed to changes our body chemistry.  Drive in traffic? You are breathing in car exhaust that changes our body chemistry.  Use pesticides (organic or synthetic) on crops we then ingest and these can disrupt our body chemistry.  Give antibiotics to cows that go into steaks?  Microwave or heat up certain plastics?  Hell, even use scare tactics in advertising and you guessed it - our body chemistry is changed.

If we are going to run with this analogy, you could make the case that for some people, the fear of being vaccinated changes body chemistry and for some other people the fear of those around them NOT being vaccinated changes body chemistry.  Right?  I mean, there is a plethora of science devoted to cortisol release in humans that show evidence of being causative for chronic illnesses, like heart disease.

Maybe it is semantics, but I think we need to be careful with this language here.  We are "forced" to change our body chemistry all the time.  Most of us just don't spend a lot of time thinking about it like that.  And maybe these ways of thinking (not directed at you here) are part of the problem with people not understanding how science - specifically the science around vaccines - work.

Harmony, you're post sums up the changes in body chemistry quite well.    And it's great that you mentioned the heating up of plastics. Most people I have talked to have never realized this cause a rise in estrogen.

[Harmony]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

I see this response a lot, especially lately because people are scared that if their spouse or sibling has a car accident or a stroke or a gallstones, their loved one will die because the ICUs are full up of people - the vast majority of people - who have opted not to get vaccinated.

And I don't disagree under normal circumstances.  Our healthcare systems do not refuse care to people who are addicts, alcoholics, obese, smokers, or any other group of people who essentially roll the dice with their health and wind up losing that game.  But also under normal circumstances, these people do not clog up the ERs and ICUs preventing otherwise healthy people who happen to get into an accident or have gallstones from getting care.

The truth of the matter is that in many hospitals right now, triage decisions ARE being made.  And while these protocols may look different from hospital to hospital, one factor taken into account in a typical triage situation is, "Which patient has the best likelihood to survive?"  And all things being equal, the one that got vaccinated is probably going to be chosen in that scenario.  This is just simple science.  Someone who has been fully vaccinated is typically going to have a less severe case, or suffer for shorter periods of time.  Not always but in most cases.

But one has to wonder why a person who completely mistrusts science and medicine to the point where they won't get a vaccine to a life-threatening virus would suddenly trust those same scientists and medical providers to save them when they get ill with that same virus.  Often times the treatments given in hospitals for this virus are also not FDA approved and are considered "experimental" or "off label" usage.  And yet, talk to these folks who are about to be intubated and they will say, "Do whatever it takes to save my life!"  Yeah, I wonder why it needs to get to that point when "whatever it takes" meant simply rolling up their sleeve.  I don't understand it.

[hefdaddy42]

Because it's not about "my body/my choice", it's bigger than that.

Except it's not bigger than that.  CLEARLY it's not bigger than that, or we wouldn't be fighting about it.   Hell, I HAVE the vaccine (and will get any boosters I need the minute I can if it makes sense) and it's not bigger than that.  I just happened to opt for the "right" decision.

Yes it is bigger than that.  Saying that it's not because of some philosophical stance doesn't change the reality being faced in almost every hospital in the nation right now, especially in the so-called red states, where vaccination levels are lowest.

If they don't want the vaccine, they should have the decency to face the consequences without treatment either, thereby not clogging up the ERs.

No, Hef, we shouldn't.  That's vindictive, and just punishment.   Or, if we all agree that's what we want to do, I vote we expand that.  Tell all the smokers "too bad, so sad" and give their beds to someone who was able to tough out the nicotine withdrawal.   All the obese people who get sick?  "Well, shouldn't have had that second Big Mac, should you?".   Or the poor; if you can't allocate your funds to keep up with your healthcare, why not give a bed to someone who prioritized things like we told them?"  And from there, the sky's the limit!   Let's re-evaluate those people for whom "college wasn't for me", or maybe those for whom "condoms don't feel right!".   Not that there shouldn't be consequences for those decisions - smokers pay more; fathers have to pay child support - and I'm not actually personally against all of those things () but we don't typically let people die as a result of their decision-making without some intervention.

This discussion is a fantastic example of my general problem with the argument of "consequences"; how easily the vaunted "consequences" move subtly (or not so subtly) from just the natural result of the decision to a willful act by others in judgement of the decision.

I see this response a lot, especially lately because people are scared that if their spouse or sibling has a car accident or a stroke or a gallstones, their loved one will die because the ICUs are full up of people - the vast majority of people - who have opted not to get vaccinated.

And I don't disagree under normal circumstances.  Our healthcare systems do not refuse care to people who are addicts, alcoholics, obese, smokers, or any other group of people who essentially roll the dice with their health and wind up losing that game.  But also under normal circumstances, these people do not clog up the ERs and ICUs preventing otherwise healthy people who happen to get into an accident or have gallstones from getting care.

The truth of the matter is that in many hospitals right now, triage decisions ARE being made.  And while these protocols may look different from hospital to hospital, one factor taken into account in a typical triage situation is, "Which patient has the best likelihood to survive?"  And all things being equal, the one that got vaccinated is probably going to be chosen in that scenario.  This is just simple science.  Someone who has been fully vaccinated is typically going to have a less severe case, or suffer for shorter periods of time.  Not always but in most cases.

But one has to wonder why a person who completely mistrusts science and medicine to the point where they won't get a vaccine to a life-threatening virus would suddenly trust those same scientists and medical providers to save them when they get ill with that same virus.  Often times the treatments given in hospitals for this virus are also not FDA approved and are considered "experimental" or "off label" usage.  And yet, talk to these folks who are about to be intubated and they will say, "Do whatever it takes to save my life!"  Yeah, I wonder why it needs to get to that point when "whatever it takes" meant simply rolling up their sleeve.  I don't understand it.

Exactly.

Also, smokers, obese, the poor, and any other group you bring up, aren't clogging up the ERs preventing others from getting care.  There is only one group doing that, and it's the group that doesn't trust medicine and science enough to protect them ahead of time, but fall back on medicine and science out of desperation once their bet with stupidity comes up bad.

[Stadler]

we don't (necessarily) force people to change their body chemistry all the time.   Hey, since we're at it, maybe we should make people eat the proper ratio of carbs/protein/fats?   Maybe we should force people to take anti-depressants.   Sterilization is a fantastic idea; don't want those deplorables to be breeding now, do we?   I'm kidding, but see there ARE differences in this, and minimizing those differences does nothing to change minds.  It just reinforces the anti-vaxxer's feelings of not being heard. 

I think I get what you are saying here but one small point of order.  "Force people to change their body chemistry" is kind of a misnomer.  I say this because everything we are exposed to changes our body chemistry.  Drive in traffic? You are breathing in car exhaust that changes our body chemistry.  Use pesticides (organic or synthetic) on crops we then ingest and these can disrupt our body chemistry.  Give antibiotics to cows that go into steaks?  Microwave or heat up certain plastics?  Hell, even use scare tactics in advertising and you guessed it - our body chemistry is changed.

If we are going to run with this analogy, you could make the case that for some people, the fear of being vaccinated changes body chemistry and for some other people the fear of those around them NOT being vaccinated changes body chemistry.  Right?  I mean, there is a plethora of science devoted to cortisol release in humans that show evidence of being causative for chronic illnesses, like heart disease.

Maybe it is semantics, but I think we need to be careful with this language here.  We are "forced" to change our body chemistry all the time.  Most of us just don't spend a lot of time thinking about it like that.  And maybe these ways of thinking (not directed at you here) are part of the problem with people not understanding how science - specifically the science around vaccines - work.

Harmony, you're post sums up the changes in body chemistry quite well.    And it's great that you mentioned the heating up of plastics. Most people I have talked to have never realized this cause a rise in estrogen.

I missed Harmony's post before (I think).   I don't argue with her; I'm fine with being careful with the language; I wouldn't have it any other way. 

But in doing so, there is a difference:  if government REQUIRES me to get a vaccine, there is no quotes around "force".  It IS force. It's one person/group putting a requirement in place that some other person/group doesn't agree with.  Posters here have equated that with getting a driver's license, or something similar, and I wanted to point out that there IS a difference - practically, legally, morally - with putting a requirement in place that is wholly external versus one that isn't.   Harmony, you made an impassioned post a week or so ago in the abortion thread, and I think that ethos applies here.  You will fight TOOTH AND NAIL - not a direct quote, but I think you might agree that was the spirit - to preserve your right for bodily autonomy, to not let "some old white male" tell you what you can and can't do with your body (quotes are mine to delineate a stereotype).   The concept is the same here.   Like the environmental in nature examples you gave, women aren't TOTALLY in control of their body; I know my ex-wife didn't WANT to have that miscarriage, but it happened nonetheless.  Control is relative, and it is contextual. It might have been due to any number of things, including her diet, the stress at work, the stress in our marriage... does her employer owe her a duty of no stress in order to maximize her chances of a successful pregnancy?   At some point the metaphysical overwhelms the conversation: me being "forced" to breath smog, well, that like saying I'm "forced" to eat three times a day, or void my waste.  They're not really the same thing.  And the fact is, someone not getting the vaccine is in THAT category, not the "proximate cause" category.

I think at the end of the day, the real fundamental point here is that this boils down to imposing ONE PERSON'S thought process, value system, and prioritization on ANOTHER PERSON against their will.  And it's just a fact that despite all the arguments to the contrary,  I have no requirement - legally, morally, practically - that I be rational in my thinking, nor that I not be hypocritical.  I can still believe that stepping on a crack breaks my mother's back.  Except in certain cases, I have NO duty to act rationally or non-hypocritically even if YOU (a random individual, no one here) is harmed.  I can't harm you with intent; I don't know of anyone that is refusing the vaccine in order to purposefully infect as many people as they can.  But if I am on the sidewalk in New York City and I come across two people dying of a heart attack, I can choose to help one, both or neither equally.  Absent some specific fact (fireman, doctor, police) I have zero duty to stop and help you. I can even step over the heart attack victim - not rendering help - and hold the door - helping! - a beautiful woman carry her bags in her building. Rational? Probably not.  Hypocritical? Almost certainly.   I can help that heart attack victim today and choose not to tomorrow.  I can help the first 100 heart attack victims I come across, and not help the 101st even though "that's what I've done in the past".   I can stand over that heart attack victim and alternately donate money to the American Heart Association, or put in an online order for a Number Two meal, supersized, at the Mickey D's in Times Square.

I'm not saying that the vaccine requirement wouldn't be ultimately good for society; I'm saying though that it's a multi-variable equation, and you - collective - don't get to unilaterally decide for me what variables count (and how much) without at least some discussion.   I'm not asking you to change your mind, I'm asking you to account for the fact that it's not enough just that YOU think it.  You have to allow - as we allow for so many other things in this world in the name of "tolerance" - that others might think differently for reasons you don't have to understand.

[Harmony]

Just for the record, I'm not in favor of holding anybody down to give them a vaccine.

I don't think a mandate where the other option is to test weekly is 'forcing' anyone to get a vaccine.

I think employers have a responsibility to set the standards for their work force which keep employees safe and adhere to OSHA guidelines and standards.

I don't think having any job is a "right" that people are granted.

So all of that said, there is no "body autonomy" issue IMO here.  I'm all in favor of people opting to exercise their body autonomy with regard to vaccines.

[Skeever]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

[Stadler]

I see this response a lot, especially lately because people are scared that if their spouse or sibling has a car accident or a stroke or a gallstones, their loved one will die because the ICUs are full up of people - the vast majority of people - who have opted not to get vaccinated.

And I don't disagree under normal circumstances.  Our healthcare systems do not refuse care to people who are addicts, alcoholics, obese, smokers, or any other group of people who essentially roll the dice with their health and wind up losing that game.  But also under normal circumstances, these people do not clog up the ERs and ICUs preventing otherwise healthy people who happen to get into an accident or have gallstones from getting care.

The truth of the matter is that in many hospitals right now, triage decisions ARE being made.  And while these protocols may look different from hospital to hospital, one factor taken into account in a typical triage situation is, "Which patient has the best likelihood to survive?"  And all things being equal, the one that got vaccinated is probably going to be chosen in that scenario.  This is just simple science.  Someone who has been fully vaccinated is typically going to have a less severe case, or suffer for shorter periods of time.  Not always but in most cases.

I can vouch this is a true story and not just me "whatabouting" you, since I talked with someone who posts here about it back when it happened.  My mom has high blood pressure, kidney issues, a heart valve issue, and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia.   She was having a little trouble catching her breath about two weeks ago, and my dad took her BP, which was high.  He called EMS.  They came, they checked her out and while all was not perfect, it was manageable.  My dad asked if she would be taken in and the lead EMT said "not for this.  The ER is full of COVID patients, and anything you experience here is less than if you caught COVID from the hospital. Stay here, monitor her, and call your general in the morning". 

My mom's care was materially compromised by the run on hospital services due to COVID.   I love my mom dearly, and - thankfully before her decline - I've told her that I wouldn't be the man I am today without her.  She has informed my entire life with her strength, grace, humility and dedication.  To me, though, her not going to the ER because of "COVID" isn't a blame game, and because her care could be fractionally better doesn't allow me to FORCE someone to make different choices in their lives on the off-chance there's some remote causal or statistical effect.

But one has to wonder why a person who completely mistrusts science and medicine to the point where they won't get a vaccine to a life-threatening virus would suddenly trust those same scientists and medical providers to save them when they get ill with that same virus.  Often times the treatments given in hospitals for this virus are also not FDA approved and are considered "experimental" or "off label" usage.  And yet, talk to these folks who are about to be intubated and they will say, "Do whatever it takes to save my life!"  Yeah, I wonder why it needs to get to that point when "whatever it takes" meant simply rolling up their sleeve.  I don't understand it.

Why does someone who works out, smoke?   Why did Eddie Van Halen trust the doctors who wanted to treat his cancer, but not believe them when they told him it was 40 years of smoking that did it and not the "brass picks" he "put in his mouth" while playing hammer-ons? (Google it, it's true).  Why did the lady in Dave Ropeik's book "How Risky Is It Anyway?" (a book I've cited at least 25 times here) fight her town administration to remediate trace levels of TCE in the air (at well below levels thought to harm; TCE is a known carcinogen) when all science said the risk was negligible if non-existent, and yet smoke enough cigarettes per day to increase her chances of getting cancer by orders of magnitude?  Why does someone with substance abuse problems have to hit ROCK BOTTOM before getting help (that's not hypocritical, but it does show something about perspective).   I don't understand any of those things, either, and yet I have zero doubt that every single one of us does at least one thing regularly that is both hypocritical and that harms - directly or indirectly - someone else.

[Harmony]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

I think it will be tied to the numbers of cases and hospitalizations.  I don't know how this will be done on a federal level so I could be wrong.  It makes sense that local numbers would drive the need for testing.  But if positive tests and hospitalizations are down in NY and up in Chicago, I don't know how that will be used to make "hard criteria on when it ends" because we as a society tend to move around a lot.

Good question.  If I were a betting woman, I'd say they don't have any idea or formal plan in place.   

[Harmony]

I see this response a lot, especially lately because people are scared that if their spouse or sibling has a car accident or a stroke or a gallstones, their loved one will die because the ICUs are full up of people - the vast majority of people - who have opted not to get vaccinated.

And I don't disagree under normal circumstances.  Our healthcare systems do not refuse care to people who are addicts, alcoholics, obese, smokers, or any other group of people who essentially roll the dice with their health and wind up losing that game.  But also under normal circumstances, these people do not clog up the ERs and ICUs preventing otherwise healthy people who happen to get into an accident or have gallstones from getting care.

The truth of the matter is that in many hospitals right now, triage decisions ARE being made.  And while these protocols may look different from hospital to hospital, one factor taken into account in a typical triage situation is, "Which patient has the best likelihood to survive?"  And all things being equal, the one that got vaccinated is probably going to be chosen in that scenario.  This is just simple science.  Someone who has been fully vaccinated is typically going to have a less severe case, or suffer for shorter periods of time.  Not always but in most cases.

I can vouch this is a true story and not just me "whatabouting" you, since I talked with someone who posts here about it back when it happened.  My mom has high blood pressure, kidney issues, a heart valve issue, and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia.   She was having a little trouble catching her breath about two weeks ago, and my dad took her BP, which was high.  He called EMS.  They came, they checked her out and while all was not perfect, it was manageable.  My dad asked if she would be taken in and the lead EMT said "not for this.  The ER is full of COVID patients, and anything you experience here is less than if you caught COVID from the hospital. Stay here, monitor her, and call your general in the morning". 

My mom's care was materially compromised by the run on hospital services due to COVID.   I love my mom dearly, and - thankfully before her decline - I've told her that I wouldn't be the man I am today without her.  She has informed my entire life with her strength, grace, humility and dedication.  To me, though, her not going to the ER because of "COVID" isn't a blame game, and because her care could be fractionally better doesn't allow me to FORCE someone to make different choices in their lives on the off-chance there's some remote causal or statistical effect.

But one has to wonder why a person who completely mistrusts science and medicine to the point where they won't get a vaccine to a life-threatening virus would suddenly trust those same scientists and medical providers to save them when they get ill with that same virus.  Often times the treatments given in hospitals for this virus are also not FDA approved and are considered "experimental" or "off label" usage.  And yet, talk to these folks who are about to be intubated and they will say, "Do whatever it takes to save my life!"  Yeah, I wonder why it needs to get to that point when "whatever it takes" meant simply rolling up their sleeve.  I don't understand it.

Why does someone who works out, smoke?   Why did Eddie Van Halen trust the doctors who wanted to treat his cancer, but not believe them when they told him it was 40 years of smoking that did it and not the "brass picks" he "put in his mouth" while playing hammer-ons? (Google it, it's true).  Why did the lady in Dave Ropeik's book "How Risky Is It Anyway?" (a book I've cited at least 25 times here) fight her town administration to remediate trace levels of TCE in the air (at well below levels thought to harm; TCE is a known carcinogen) when all science said the risk was negligible if non-existent, and yet smoke enough cigarettes per day to increase her chances of getting cancer by orders of magnitude?  Why does someone with substance abuse problems have to hit ROCK BOTTOM before getting help (that's not hypocritical, but it does show something about perspective).   I don't understand any of those things, either, and yet I have zero doubt that every single one of us does at least one thing regularly that is both hypocritical and that harms - directly or indirectly - someone else.

Sorry to hear about your mom.  And frankly, it was probably safer for her not to go to the ER because her risk of contracting Covid while there would've been possible of course.  I had a similar (but different) situation recently when a family member wiped out on a bike.  Parent opted NOT to go to urgent care or ER as nothing was broken, but under normal circumstances would have definitely done so to get her son treated and checked out.

It is unfortunate that these types of choices are having to be forced on people because of what is currently the situation in our hospital ERs and ICUs but here we are.  You can bet the conversation would look a whole lot different right now if the ERs and ICUs were full up of opiate addicts to the point that other people could not find a bed after their long awaited colon cancer surgery.  As you say, not to "whatabout" you but just acknowledging the seemingly fickle responses we all are seeing from many people on these issues today.

As for the hypocrisy with regard to choices we all make/do daily, I don't doubt that at all.  But again, I ask you, what of all of those choices cause ERs and ICUs to fill up completely?  Aside from the point that any death is tragic no matter what - when we get to a place where we are right now and a specific choice is causing a nearly complete collapse of our emergency healthcare system, how does that stack up against EVH choosing to smoke and ultimately dying of his choice?

[Stadler]

Just for the record, I'm not in favor of holding anybody down to give them a vaccine.

I don't think a mandate where the other option is to test weekly is 'forcing' anyone to get a vaccine.

In case anyone cares, I agree with you on this (I think - I hope - I've written that before).  If there's a choice, most of my arguments go away. 

[Stadler]

I can vouch this is a true story and not just me "whatabouting" you, since I talked with someone who posts here about it back when it happened.  My mom has high blood pressure, kidney issues, a heart valve issue, and has been diagnosed with Alzheimer's dementia.   She was having a little trouble catching her breath about two weeks ago, and my dad took her BP, which was high.  He called EMS.  They came, they checked her out and while all was not perfect, it was manageable.  My dad asked if she would be taken in and the lead EMT said "not for this.  The ER is full of COVID patients, and anything you experience here is less than if you caught COVID from the hospital. Stay here, monitor her, and call your general in the morning". 

My mom's care was materially compromised by the run on hospital services due to COVID.   I love my mom dearly, and - thankfully before her decline - I've told her that I wouldn't be the man I am today without her.  She has informed my entire life with her strength, grace, humility and dedication.  To me, though, her not going to the ER because of "COVID" isn't a blame game, and because her care could be fractionally better doesn't allow me to FORCE someone to make different choices in their lives on the off-chance there's some remote causal or statistical effect.

But one has to wonder why a person who completely mistrusts science and medicine to the point where they won't get a vaccine to a life-threatening virus would suddenly trust those same scientists and medical providers to save them when they get ill with that same virus.  Often times the treatments given in hospitals for this virus are also not FDA approved and are considered "experimental" or "off label" usage.  And yet, talk to these folks who are about to be intubated and they will say, "Do whatever it takes to save my life!"  Yeah, I wonder why it needs to get to that point when "whatever it takes" meant simply rolling up their sleeve.  I don't understand it.

Why does someone who works out, smoke?   Why did Eddie Van Halen trust the doctors who wanted to treat his cancer, but not believe them when they told him it was 40 years of smoking that did it and not the "brass picks" he "put in his mouth" while playing hammer-ons? (Google it, it's true).  Why did the lady in Dave Ropeik's book "How Risky Is It Anyway?" (a book I've cited at least 25 times here) fight her town administration to remediate trace levels of TCE in the air (at well below levels thought to harm; TCE is a known carcinogen) when all science said the risk was negligible if non-existent, and yet smoke enough cigarettes per day to increase her chances of getting cancer by orders of magnitude?  Why does someone with substance abuse problems have to hit ROCK BOTTOM before getting help (that's not hypocritical, but it does show something about perspective).   I don't understand any of those things, either, and yet I have zero doubt that every single one of us does at least one thing regularly that is both hypocritical and that harms - directly or indirectly - someone else.

Sorry to hear about your mom.  And frankly, it was probably safer for her not to go to the ER because her risk of contracting Covid while there would've been possible of course.  I had a similar (but different) situation recently when a family member wiped out on a bike.  Parent opted NOT to go to urgent care or ER as nothing was broken, but under normal circumstances would have definitely done so to get her son treated and checked out.

It is unfortunate that these types of choices are having to be forced on people because of what is currently the situation in our hospital ERs and ICUs but here we are.  You can bet the conversation would look a whole lot different right now if the ERs and ICUs were full up of opiate addicts to the point that other people could not find a bed after their long awaited colon cancer surgery.  As you say, not to "whatabout" you but just acknowledging the seemingly fickle responses we all are seeing from many people on these issues today.

As for the hypocrisy with regard to choices we all make/do daily, I don't doubt that at all.  But again, I ask you, what of all of those choices cause ERs and ICUs to fill up completely?  Aside from the point that any death is tragic no matter what - when we get to a place where we are right now and a specific choice is causing a nearly complete collapse of our emergency healthcare system, how does that stack up against EVH choosing to smoke and ultimately dying of his choice?

Thank you for the kind words; it's appreciated.  It's obviously stressful and frustrating on a personal level.

I don't have a solid answer for you on the last paragraph.  It's a cop-out, but the best answer I have is "it is what it is".   I'm not sure I single out that "cause and effect" like some (maybe you, I won't assume) do.   I struggle with the difference between selecting care choices because of COVID beds and say, because of municipal cutbacks that take ambulances out of circulation, or that raise prices on care because of the burden on the system of 42% of Americans being obese, or because I feel like I'm young enough and fit enough that I don't need no stinkin' healthcare.    I'm really not trying to be flip, but I'm really struggling with what to me boils down to ostracizing a group based on their collective choices, when so much of the details, including the harm, is subjective and individual, or even statistical.   My parents are in Florida, the fifth oldest state in the Union.  That bed may or may not be taken by an unvaccinated person, and either way, that person may or may not be there regardless of vaccine status.  I know the ODDS favor one outcome over the other, but we don't typically rely on "odds" for adjudicating fundamental rights.    It's a similar problem with guns; one of the flaws in many proposed gun control measures is that they encompass something like 75 million people when harm is not always specific (targeted) and implemented by 1000's or even 100's of the larger group.

[Ben_Jamin]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

[emtee]

Navy football coach was just fired for refusing the vaccine on religious grounds.

[Ben_Jamin]

Just for the record, I'm not in favor of holding anybody down to give them a vaccine.

I don't think a mandate where the other option is to test weekly is 'forcing' anyone to get a vaccine.

In case anyone cares, I agree with you on this (I think - I hope - I've written that before).  If there's a choice, most of my arguments go away.

I am the same exact way...

If these tests are fine with working to go see a doctor. Then I do agree. I feel these tests are all that required to determine whether someone actually does pose any sort of threat to anyone's health. How is one a risk if they test negative? How is one a greater threat before and after taking a test, when you could very well catch it once you walk out that door from taking the test? And you wouldn't know anything at all about that person regardless if they took a test or not when you walk out that door of your house.

If one is worried about their own health, they should get the vaccine. That protects only you from getting an illness, which is why those that are more at odds of dying from the disease are first priority. These people should get any vaccine.

The hospital situation is more of a moral issue. And one thing that I wonder about is how weren't these hospitals funded more, by getting more additions to rooms, more beds, more technology easy accessible. Why isn't more money spent on the hospitals to be prepared for any future variant strains that may possibly be stronger than the vaccines available. Why weren't the hospitals better prepared, after the year of the influx of patients. That should've been a lesson the Healthcare System should've learned and focused on making better.

It's not just the people's fault.

[Adami]

I wonder what constitutes a legitimate religious exemption? I doubt "Cuz my religion" is enough. I'm not exactly sure how many religions would be against a vaccine on religious grounds. I know some would, for sure, but how many?

[Grappler]

The hospital situation is more of a moral issue. And one thing that I wonder about is how weren't these hospitals funded more, by getting more additions to rooms, more beds, more technology easy accessible. Why isn't more money spent on the hospitals to be prepared for any future variant strains that may possibly be stronger than the vaccines available. Why weren't the hospitals better prepared, after the year of the influx of patients. That should've been a lesson the Healthcare System should've learned and focused on making better.

As explained recently by my governor, "ICU Bed Availability" does not always refer to the physical number of beds being used or are available. 

It is a number that is also based on how well the department is staffed.  If they do not have enough doctors or nurses available on any given day, then the ICU bed availability goes down.  Doctors and nurses are human as well - they have vacation time or they can get sick and miss days of work.  Hospitals won't stuff an ICU full of patients and not have enough people on hand to care for them.

Illinois was able to send additional staff to hospitals that were burdened with staffing issues and low numbers of ICU beds to help alleviate some of those low percentages a few weeks ago. 

I would say that hospitals are fully prepared, after a year and a half of covid.  It's stubborn people that are clogging them up.  Luckily, the two family members of mine that had to go to the ER weren't rejected from their non-covid care. 

[Chino]

I've read interviews from a number doctors who have all said some variation of "I don't need anymore beds. I need staff". There was a doctor on NPR last night who was saying he has a number of floors with patients that are supposed to get checked by a nurse every 30 minutes. They're seeing 3-4 hour gaps on a regular basis. That's nuts.

[Harmony]

I've read interviews from a number doctors who have all said some variation of "I don't need anymore beds. I need staff". There was a doctor on NPR last night who was saying he has a number of floors with patients that are supposed to get checked by a nurse every 30 minutes. They're seeing 3-4 hour gaps on a regular basis. That's nuts.

And related to this, here is my question for the legal knowledgable among us here.  If my loved one dies because they didn't get that 30 minute check and it can be proven via medical records that this "negligence" (not blaming the staff but it is what it is) caused my loved one to die without standard medical care, then do I have a right to sue the hospital for inadequate staffing?  Or malpractice?

[lonestar]

I wonder what constitutes a legitimate religious exemption? I doubt "Cuz my religion" is enough. I'm not exactly sure how many religions would be against a vaccine on religious grounds. I know some would, for sure, but how many?

The traditional religious exemption used is because of the fetal tissue line that's used in other vaccine's developments comes from an aborted fetus donated to science (I think). Now, the mRNA shots don't use any of this tech, and are free from being utilized in these exemptions, to the point where even Pope Frances stated that "getting vaccinated is an act of love"...

[Stadler]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

And timing is important here; if it falls to the employer, I can see it ultimately, maybe through one or two iterations of healthcare procurement, being rolled through the healthcare insurance program back to the employee.

[Stadler]

I wonder what constitutes a legitimate religious exemption? I doubt "Cuz my religion" is enough. I'm not exactly sure how many religions would be against a vaccine on religious grounds. I know some would, for sure, but how many?

I think it's a problematic question.   This is a good article on that.

[Stadler]

The hospital situation is more of a moral issue. And one thing that I wonder about is how weren't these hospitals funded more, by getting more additions to rooms, more beds, more technology easy accessible. Why isn't more money spent on the hospitals to be prepared for any future variant strains that may possibly be stronger than the vaccines available. Why weren't the hospitals better prepared, after the year of the influx of patients. That should've been a lesson the Healthcare System should've learned and focused on making better.

As explained recently by my governor, "ICU Bed Availability" does not always refer to the physical number of beds being used or are available. 

It is a number that is also based on how well the department is staffed.  If they do not have enough doctors or nurses available on any given day, then the ICU bed availability goes down.  Doctors and nurses are human as well - they have vacation time or they can get sick and miss days of work.  Hospitals won't stuff an ICU full of patients and not have enough people on hand to care for them.

Illinois was able to send additional staff to hospitals that were burdened with staffing issues and low numbers of ICU beds to help alleviate some of those low percentages a few weeks ago. 

I would say that hospitals are fully prepared, after a year and a half of covid.  It's stubborn people that are clogging them up.  Luckily, the two family members of mine that had to go to the ER weren't rejected from their non-covid care.

So, if you collate the various points of view here, we potentially have a situation where the lack of a vaccine moves one variable (the patients) and the presence of a vaccine mandate moves another (the healthcare staff).   Those seem to at least potentially be contra-indicated.

As I've been saying, this is a complicated, multi-variable issue.

[Stadler]

I've read interviews from a number doctors who have all said some variation of "I don't need anymore beds. I need staff". There was a doctor on NPR last night who was saying he has a number of floors with patients that are supposed to get checked by a nurse every 30 minutes. They're seeing 3-4 hour gaps on a regular basis. That's nuts.

And related to this, here is my question for the legal knowledgable among us here.  If my loved one dies because they didn't get that 30 minute check and it can be proven via medical records that this "negligence" (not blaming the staff but it is what it is) caused my loved one to die without standard medical care, then do I have a right to sue the hospital for inadequate staffing?  Or malpractice?

With the proviso that you can sue anyone virtually at any time and for virtually any reason, sure.  I don't say that to be snarky, I say that to be practical: absent some specific sovereign immunity component, you have the burden of proof.  Malpractice is, to my knowledge, essentially negligence.  So, if you can show that they had a duty to provide a certain level of care, and they didn't, and that lack of care proximately (directly) caused her death, then you like are entitled to some remuneration for your loss.  Not being a medical professional, I imagine this is a very fact-specific environment.   Can you show that her death was attributable to the intervening two-and-a-half-hour gap?  I can't answer that.

[Skeever]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

I don't know how much it would cost, but I also don't really care.
The employee should not have to pay just as they should not have to pay for any other mandatory testing or PPE.

[hefdaddy42]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

I don't know how much it would cost, but I also don't really care.
The employee should not have to pay just as they should not have to pay for any other mandatory testing or PPE.

I don't know.  If the only reason they are having to be tested is because they are refusing a no-cost vaccine, I would be fine with passing that cost on to the employee. 

If all employees are vaccinated, then tests wouldn't be necessary for the employer.

[Stadler]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

I don't know how much it would cost, but I also don't really care.
The employee should not have to pay just as they should not have to pay for any other mandatory testing or PPE.

I don't know.  If the only reason they are having to be tested is because they are refusing a no-cost vaccine, I would be fine with passing that cost on to the employee. 

If all employees are vaccinated, then tests wouldn't be necessary for the employer.

Well, no, what about breakthrough cases? 

[hefdaddy42]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

I don't know how much it would cost, but I also don't really care.
The employee should not have to pay just as they should not have to pay for any other mandatory testing or PPE.

I don't know.  If the only reason they are having to be tested is because they are refusing a no-cost vaccine, I would be fine with passing that cost on to the employee. 

If all employees are vaccinated, then tests wouldn't be necessary for the employer.

Well, no, what about breakthrough cases?

What about them?  I mean, they are fairly rare, throw them in too if you want, but the rule as I understand it is regular testing if you refuse the vaccine.  Those are the two options on the table.

I would imagine that if you get vaccinated and still come down with COVID, you would just need a negative test before coming back to work.  If your employer doesn't charge you for such a test, you would probably still be paying your provider or a pharmacy for the test, so it makes no difference.  Either way, one test for a breakthrough case is different than paying for multiple tests a week for an asshole employee who refuses the free vaccine.

[Ben_Jamin]

I agree that a test is fine, but I don't like the cost being put on employees. That burden should fall to the employers (who should then be enabled to give uncooperative employees the axe).
The only other thing I would like is to see the hard criteria on when it ends. And that's my biggest critique of the newest guidance, as I see it. There's no clarity or solid footing around when the measures (even the currently existing ones) become active and when they become unnecessary. That's not to say that data isn't driving the decision making; but if it is, I'm just not seeing the where and how.

Do you know how much that would cost...And these businesses don't want to lose people that are good at what they do. It's not as easy for the smaller businesses. The issue is dividing the line for the smaller business while leveling up the big businesses as they have no problem paying for these tests, and can afford to lose several workers.

This has left them with a dilemma to deal with now...Layoff workers and have to go out and search for replacements? Cut down in size, to be below the 100 employee threshold?

These smaller businesses do not like this mandate because it's causing more unnecessary stress for the companies that are barely making it through Covid-19 as it is.

I don't know how much it would cost, but I also don't really care.
The employee should not have to pay just as they should not have to pay for any other mandatory testing or PPE.

I don't know.  If the only reason they are having to be tested is because they are refusing a no-cost vaccine, I would be fine with passing that cost on to the employee. 

If all employees are vaccinated, then tests wouldn't be necessary for the employer.

Well, no, what about breakthrough cases?

What about them?  I mean, they are fairly rare, throw them in too if you want, but the rule as I understand it is regular testing if you refuse the vaccine.  Those are the two options on the table.

I would imagine that if you get vaccinated and still come down with COVID, you would just need a negative test before coming back to work.  If your employer doesn't charge you for such a test, you would probably still be paying your provider or a pharmacy for the test, so it makes no difference.  Either way, one test for a breakthrough case is different than paying for multiple tests a week for an asshole employee who refuses the free vaccine.

You can still be vaccinated and test positive and therefore still able to transmit that virus.

See, this is the effect that this mandate is making people have to deal with now. The businesses were fine, people do not have to visit these businesses. But since people are so entitled to everything, businesses suffer because of that customer entitlement of being right.

For the safety of the customer, they enact new regulations, which are in fact only under emergency authorization. Once this pandemic becomes endemic and therefore not a threat worth worrying about, then these regulations become obsolete. Unless they pass these under legislation which is where some people feel this is where it's going to head to and set precedents for a lot of things now, under the guise of what constitutes "Public Health".

[Skeever]

I would assume the thinking is that the vaccinated will no longer be getting tested regularly and will probably not be getting tested at all unless they seek medical care for any illnesses they have which keep them home IF testing is then done at the direction of their healthcare provider as part of the diagnosis. And since breakthrough cases should be relatively rare with serious cases being even more rare, it's unlikely that this will happen unless there is some mass testing performed among the vaccinated.

I know nothing, but this is what I see as another step away from the COVID ledge. Cases will dwindle as the vaccine numbers increase because, and even if the virus is still there, it will have no greater impact on daily life than any of the other illnesses that circulate around, at least among the vaccinated. And furthermore, even if the virus is still out there, an even greater number of cases will go on unreported until we arrive at the point when precautions are no longer seen as necessary.   

Anyway, those are just my two cents - just a layman's read on what's going on...
I may be totally off. I don't think COVID will be eradicated anytime soon, but with mass vaccinations and (hopefully) improved treatments, I could see us moving into some pattern like the above - where the virus plays a much less immediate role in daily life.