Forced vaccinations

Ethics, Morality, and Sin

Moderator: Moderators

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 821 times

Forced vaccinations

Post #1

Post by nobspeople »

With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
Miles
Prodigy
Posts: 3524
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 4:19 pm
Has thanked: 280 times
Been thanked: 992 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #2

Post by Miles »

.


It's the right thing to do. Considering that 98% to 99% of the Americans dying of the coronavirus are unvaccinated* how dumb do you have to be to refuse to get vaccinated?

About this dumb.

......................................


FYI as of July 26, 2021 only 49.4% of the US population had been fully vaccinated.**


*source

** source


.

nobspeople
Prodigy
Posts: 3191
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2020 11:32 am
Has thanked: 1510 times
Been thanked: 821 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #3

Post by nobspeople »

Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:03 pm .


It's the right thing to do. Considering that 98% to 99% of the Americans dying of the coronavirus are unvaccinated* how dumb do you have to be to refuse to get vaccinated?

About this dumb.

......................................


FYI as of July 26, 2021 only 49.4% of the US population had been fully vaccinated.**


*source

** source


.
How do you think a government would (or should) go about forcing vaccinations onto the populace?
Have a great, potentially godless, day!

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18877
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1891 times
Been thanked: 1246 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #4

Post by JoeyKnothead »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:36 pm With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?
Employees are not being forced to get vaccinated, nor are they being forced to have a job with any company that requires vaccination as a term of employment.

I caught the covid back in April 20, but luckily I only maybe ran a slight fever (I continue to run a ittle warm, so it might just be my normal, pre-disease state). I got vaxxed in May of this year, and will not allow anyone on my property who can't show a vax card. They are, though, perfectly free to go die in the ditch out front, in the county right of way. I'll even keep the dogs from picking at their bones.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
JoeyKnothead
Under Probation
Posts: 18877
Joined: Fri Jun 06, 2008 10:59 am
Location: Here
Has thanked: 1891 times
Been thanked: 1246 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #5

Post by JoeyKnothead »

nobspeople wrote: Wed Jul 28, 2021 12:24 pm
Miles wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 3:03 pm .


It's the right thing to do. Considering that 98% to 99% of the Americans dying of the coronavirus are unvaccinated* how dumb do you have to be to refuse to get vaccinated?

About this dumb.

......................................


FYI as of July 26, 2021 only 49.4% of the US population had been fully vaccinated.**


*source

** source


.
How do you think a government would (or should) go about forcing vaccinations onto the populace?
Raise taxes on red hats to pay for the impending medical / obituarial bills. That oughta get enough of em riled up to where we can get to herd immunity.
Discovery is finding things that exist.
Invention is using things discovered.

Create that path and engineer a metamorphosis.

- William

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #6

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

nobspeople wrote: Tue Jul 27, 2021 1:36 pm With the increase of COVID infections lately, some places are forcing their employees to get vaccinated against COVID.

Is this the right thing to do, or no?
I take it to be a self-evident truth of medical ethics that it is generally immoral for anyone in a position of power to coerce another (by means of threat or intimidation) to undergo a medical procedure they would not otherwise willing consent to (as a matter of conscience, aversion, or personal fear). So even if a case could be made that vaccination, under the present circumstances, is (in fact) the “right thing to do” for most members of the workforce, it wouldn’t immediately follow that an employer is morally justified in coercing its workforce to actually “do the right thing” ...This is especially true if the intended method of coercion entails the use of threatening and discriminatory practices which create undue hardships for a select group of employees.

I would go further to argue that current employer vaccine mandates (as modeled after Biden's Federal mandate) produce this very outcome by hoisting discriminatory testing requirements upon those with religious exemptions (at the employee’s financial expense) not because they necessarily lack immunity (many could have acquired natural immunity through past exposure to SARS-COV), but specifically because they are unvaccinated. This, I would contend, is unlawful and unethical per the guidelines outlined by the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC):
“ Title VII is violated when an employer or supervisor explicitly or implicitly coerces an employee to abandon, alter, or adopt a religious practice as a condition of receiving a job benefit or privilege or avoiding an adverse employment action.”
Put simply, the current mandatory COVID testing requirements for the religiously exempt, which are a key component of the broader vaccine mandate, violate Title VII by implicitly coercing employees to abandon or alter their religious conviction to not vaccinate as a condition of avoiding the adverse employment action of routine COVID testing.

Source: https://www.eeoc.gov/laws/guidance/sect ... 0748888622

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #7

Post by The Barbarian »

Put simply, the current mandatory COVID testing requirements for the religiously exempt, which are a key component of the broader vaccine mandate, violate Title VII by implicitly coercing employees to abandon or alter their religious conviction to not vaccinate as a condition of avoiding the adverse employment action of routine COVID testing.
This is true. Although the Supreme Court, over a hundred years ago, ruled that vaccination mandates are constitutional, there is a religious exception. Of course, that does not give the person so excepted, the right to endanger others.

In the Air Force, the regulation made it clear that you did not have to be vaccinated, but also made it clear that such a refusal could limit where you could go, assignments you might get, and/or promotions.

Getting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #8

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

The Barbarian wrote: Mon Oct 18, 2021 9:48 pm
Put simply, the current mandatory COVID testing requirements for the religiously exempt, which are a key component of the broader vaccine mandate, violate Title VII by implicitly coercing employees to abandon or alter their religious conviction to not vaccinate as a condition of avoiding the adverse employment action of routine COVID testing.
This is true. Although the Supreme Court, over a hundred years ago, ruled that vaccination mandates are constitutional, there is a religious exception. Of course, that does not give the person so excepted, the right to endanger others.

In the Air Force, the regulation made it clear that you did not have to be vaccinated, but also made it clear that such a refusal could limit where you could go, assignments you might get, and/or promotions.
I am unaware of a supreme court ruling which upholds the Federal government’s constitutional authority to circumvent state and local governments by strong arming private businesses (nationwide) into vaccinating their workforce under threat of excessive and repeated fines. As near as I can tell, historical precedent for mandatory vaccination of the general public (to the degree such has actually taken place in our nation’s history) shows unambiguously that this decision occurs exclusively at the state level. Ergo the constitution, specifically the 10th amendment, does not seem to support a federal vaccine mandate which applies to private citizens across all 50 states.

But even if the law did support federal issuance of a nationwide vaccine mandate, it wouldn’t necessarily follow from this that such a mandate would be ethical. After all, one could point to any number of mandates enshrined in prior law which, upon further reflection, turned out to be grossly unethical (Jim Crow laws come to mind). So if it is the case, as I tend to hold, that it is generally immoral for anyone in a position of power to coerce another (by means of threat or intimidation) to undergo a medical procedure they would not otherwise willing consent to (as a matter of conscience, aversion, or personal fear), then vaccine mandates could turn out to be unethical in the final analysis, even if such practices are currently permissible by law.

Getting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.
In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements? Is it because those who have forgone vaccination lack immunity to COVID? Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease. In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general). In so doing, the current executive order unduly punishes the religiously exempt not for lacking immunity specifically, but simply for refusing to vaccinate.

But even in the case where a religiously exempt employee lacks natural immunity, in what respect does this individual pose an appreciable threat to their remaining (vaccinated) co-workers. After all, if our current vaccines work as advertised, the threat of a vaccinated individual suffering sever illness from COVID infection is drastically reduced. Moreover, there is data which suggests that both the vaccinated and unvaccinated carry comparable viral load with respect to first time exposure to both the Alpha and Delta variants. If so, then it is unclear to what degree (if any) vaccination actually decreases the likelihood of spreading the disease. This is, perhaps, why masking and social distancing requirements remain in effect for vaccinated individuals. If there is no appreciable difference in viral transmission between the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, then the lion's share of the danger the religiously exempt actually pose is to one another. If this risk is mutually assented to by those seeking exemption from vaccination, then it isn’t precisely clear why the religiously exempt should be precluded from engaging in semi-normal business operations (masking and social distancing requirements not withstanding).

User avatar
The Barbarian
Sage
Posts: 562
Joined: Tue Jan 12, 2021 8:40 pm
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 357 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #9

Post by The Barbarian »

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am I am unaware of a supreme court ruling which upholds the Federal government’s constitutional authority to circumvent state and local governments by strong arming private businesses (nationwide) into vaccinating their workforce under threat of excessive and repeated fines.
It merely permits vaccine mandates:
[b]The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates
[/b]
In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ent-510280

But of course the federal government can only act as permitted by the Constitution. FAA, for example. There are many other such.
As near as I can tell, historical precedent for mandatory vaccination of the general public (to the degree such has actually taken place in our nation’s history) shows unambiguously that this decision occurs exclusively at the state level.
George Washington requiring smallpox vaccination in the Continental Army. Which happened somewhat earlier.
Washington issued the order to have all troops inoculated on Feb. 5, 1777, in a letter to John Hancock, who was president of the Second Continental Congress. In another letter, Washington ordered all recruits arriving in Philadelphia be inoculated.
https://www.wral.com/fact-check-did-geo ... /19807935/
But even if the law did support federal issuance of a nationwide vaccine mandate, it wouldn’t necessarily follow from this that such a mandate would be ethical. After all, one could point to any number of mandates enshrined in prior law which, upon further reflection, turned out to be grossly unethical (Jim Crow laws come to mind).
Preventing illness and death seems pretty ethical to me. But some might not think so. This is why things like laws exist.

Getting a religious exemption from vaccination, does not entitle you to go into a place of business where you could endanger others.
In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements?
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.
Is it because those who have forgone vaccination lack immunity to COVID?
Yes.
Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease.
That's a testable belief. Almost all patients in ICUs are now unvaccinated people. Thought you knew.
In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general).
Last time I was tested, it took less than five minutes, and I did it in my car. Last time I was vaccinated, it took 15 minutes only because they make people wait a few minutes to assure that rare allergic reactions don't happen (which, BTW are easily countered by a quick injection of epinephrine).

Bottom line? Religious objections does not amount to a freedom to endanger others.

User avatar
Ionian_Tradition
Sage
Posts: 739
Joined: Thu Jun 09, 2011 6:46 pm
Been thanked: 14 times

Re: Forced vaccinations

Post #10

Post by Ionian_Tradition »

The Barbarian wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 4:16 am
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am I am unaware of a supreme court ruling which upholds the Federal government’s constitutional authority to circumvent state and local governments by strong arming private businesses (nationwide) into vaccinating their workforce under threat of excessive and repeated fines.
It merely permits vaccine mandates:
[b]The Surprisingly Strong Supreme Court Precedent Supporting Vaccine Mandates
[/b]
In 1905, the high court made a fateful ruling with eerie parallels to today: One person’s liberty can’t trump everyone else’s.

https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/ ... ent-510280

But of course the federal government can only act as permitted by the Constitution. FAA, for example. There are many other such.
The ruling you've cited here supports my original contention that the history surrounding forced vaccination sets precedent for the States to ultimately determine whether a vaccine mandate is appropriate for the general public, not the federal government. I also suggested, in my previous response, that historical precedent does not a just law make (necessarily). Certainly we can agree that some personal liberties must be curtailed when said liberties threaten the rights of others (this is more or less self evident). However, it isn’t yet clear that the unvaccinated populous poses a sufficiently dangerous threat to the vaccinated so as to override the personally liberty to choose whether to undergo COVID vaccination.

George Washington requiring smallpox vaccination in the Continental Army. Which happened somewhat earlier.
Washington issued the order to have all troops inoculated on Feb. 5, 1777, in a letter to John Hancock, who was president of the Second Continental Congress. In another letter, Washington ordered all recruits arriving in Philadelphia be inoculated.
https://www.wral.com/fact-check-did-geo ... /19807935/
The forced inoculation of Washington’s troops is not sufficient grounds for supposing that the federal government has the right to circumvent state authority by mandating vaccination among the general (civilian) populous.

Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am

In what manner, precisely, do the religiously exempt pose a threat to their place of business within the context of the current vaccine requirements?
Mostly, because unvaccinated people catch and pass on the virus at much higher rates than unvaccinated people. Doesn't seem that difficult a concept.


Which serves to demonstrate my point that the lion’s share of the danger the unvaccinated actually pose is to one another. If that danger is mutually consented to (which in the case of the religiously exempt, it is) then it is unclear why such individuals should be denied the opportunity to participate in semi-normal business operations (or permitted to work remotely when possible). After all, businesses and the law already make provisions for activities in which employees mutual consent to place each other in harm’s way, even on company property (e.g. designated smoking areas)

As an aside, it is entirely unclear to me why those among the unvaccinated who can demonstrate sufficient natural immunity should be excluded from business operations.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am
Not necessarily. After all, a religiously exempt employee may very well have acquired sufficient natural immunity through past exposure to the disease.
That's a testable belief. Almost all patients in ICUs are now unvaccinated people. Thought you knew.
A refusal to vaccinate does not preclude COVID immunity, nor does the presence of unvaccinated individuals in ICUs show that natural immunity isn’t a thing…Thought you knew.
Ionian_Tradition wrote: Tue Oct 19, 2021 2:02 am
In fact, it is for this precise reason that I argue the current vaccine mandate is illicitly discriminatory in that it fails to recognize natural immunity as a basis for exemption from burdensome COVID testing (or vaccination in general).
Last time I was tested, it took less than five minutes, and I did it in my car. Last time I was vaccinated, it took 15 minutes only because they make people wait a few minutes to assure that rare allergic reactions don't happen (which, BTW are easily countered by a quick injection of epinephrine).

Bottom line? Religious objections does not amount to a freedom to endanger others.
That the experience of undergoing a single bout of COVID testing was not deemed burdensome to you is not a particularly compelling reason to suppose that (indefinite) weekly COVID testing would not eventually prove burdensome to those subjected to it.

In any case, if the primary reason for subjecting the religiously exempt to a weekly testing regimen stems primarily from their refusal to vaccinate, and not specifically a lack of immunity, then I would argue that the requirement constitutes a discriminatory form of harassment which, in intent, unduly punishes the religiously exempt for the "crime" of adhering to their religious conviction to forgo vaccination.

Post Reply