Vaccination Status on Your Resume
By Anne Dachel
Dec 7, 2020, CNBC: Yes, your boss can fire you if you refuse to get a Covid vaccine
The country’s first Covid vaccine could be authorized for emergency use as soon as Thursday. If Pfizer and BioNTech get the green light, distribution is set to begin within days.
But as difficult as the research, development and distribution stages have been, some experts argue the hardest part of fighting the virus is actually what comes next: convincing the U.S. population to take the vaccine.
Roughly four in ten Americans say they would “definitely” or “probably” not get a vaccine, according to a recent survey by the Pew Research Center. While this is higher than it was two months ago, to achieve herd immunity, experts say that about 70% of the population needs to be vaccinated or have natural antibodies.
Employers, however, may not be taking “no” for an answer….
“Under the law, an employer can force an employee to get vaccinated, and if they don’t take it, fire them,” said Dunn.
Dorit Reiss, a professor at the University of California Hastings College of Law, said that private businesses have pretty extensive rights. “Requiring a vaccine is a health and safety work rule, and employers can do that,” said Reiss.
Take the health-care system. Dr. Hana El Sahly, who oversees a clinical trial for Moderna’s vaccine candidate, believes hospitals could eventually make Covid inoculation a condition of employment, similar to how the annual influenza vaccine is required of all medical staff.
“We all have to demonstrate that we took our flu shot before we go out and see our patients on the wards,” said El Sahly. “When we are sick, we cannot deliver vital functions to the community.”…
Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, if taking the vaccine is a violation of a “sincerely held” religious belief, they, too, would potentially be able to opt out.
How soon could this happen?
When the FDA meets this week, they will decide whether to grant an emergency use authorization, or an EUA, to Pfizer and BioNTech. It may seem like semantics, but an EUA is not the same thing as full approval.
“An emergency use authorization is not a license,” said Reiss. “There’s a legal question as to whether you can mandate an emergency observation. The language in the act is somewhat unclear on that.”
Mandatory vaccination protocols, therefore, may have to wait until the FDA completes the entire approval process for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
What is clear, however, is that if an employer does choose to mandate the Covid vaccine, a company is not liable should an employee develop side effects from a vaccine. Instead, experts say that any claims would be routed through worker’s compensation programs and treated as an on-the-job injury. …
And for those who still refuse? Rather than firing them, Reiss said employers could require that they complete an educational course that delves into trial efficacy data and the experience of participants….
So workers may not have much of a choice if they want to keep a job.
And in Scotland if your kid starts behaving abnormally after vaccination or whatever other reason but not vaccines,. just remeber you will have an un-acceptable wait of 18 weeks if your lucky and then the counter starts to count 2.5 million days and counting..
Child mental health scandal as youngsters wait 2.5 million days beyond target
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/child-mental-health-scandal-youngsters-23226048
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP,
Posted by: Angus Files | December 28, 2020 at 04:39 AM
We are not the world....
But we know who your daddy is.
A CELEBRATION OF THE MANY USES OF Real Time PCR diagnostics, set to music.
Enjoy!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6iwgkrFWGlg
OOPS! They for got to mention Covid 19 diagnosis.....NOT!
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 20, 2020 at 07:04 PM
Petition to Stop Forced Experiment Vaccines
Don’t know if this petition has already been mentioned here on AoA.
https://stopmedicaldiscrimination.org/
Posted by: Pogo | December 20, 2020 at 06:06 PM
@Cait
"2,821 people in the US died of Covid-19"
Where is your proof? How many were co-morbidities?
In fact, the only Sars Cov 2 test (PCR) is not based on the "novel virus" at all! This is the CDC's dirty secret:
"The analytical sensitivity of the rRT-PCR assays contained in the CDC 2019 Novel Coronavirus (2019-
nCoV) Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel were determined in Limit of Detection studies. Since NO
QUANTIFIED VIRUS ISOLATES of the 2019-nCoV WERE AVAILABLE for CDC use AT THE TIME THE TEST WAS DEVELOPED and this study conducted, assays designed for detection of the 2019-nCoV RNA were tested with
CHARACTERIZED STOCKS of in vitro transcribed FULL LENGTH RNA (N gene; GenBank accession: MN908947.2) of known titer (RNA copies/µL) spiked into a diluent consisting of a suspension of human A549 cells and viral transport medium (VTM) to MIMIC clinical specimen.
In other words, the test is based on a CDC home brew THAT IS NOT NOVEL. Colds, and flu are corona viruses. The test cannot distinguish.
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download Page 42
Also, by their own admission, the test is very unreliable:
"bOptimum specimen types and timing for peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been
determined. Collection of multiple specimens from the same patient may be necessary to detect the virus. The
possibility of a false negative result should especially be considered if the patient’s recent exposures or clinical
presentation suggest that 2019-nCoV infection is possible, and diagnostic tests for other causes of illness (e.g.,
other respiratory illness) are negative. If 2019-nCoV infection is still suspected, re-testing should be considered
in consultation with public health authorities. "
Page 38
"Inadequate or inappropriate specimen collection, storage, and transport are likely to yield false test
results. Training in specimen collection is highly recommended due to the importance of specimen
quality." Page 12
"Performance of the CDC 2019-nCoV Real-Time RT-PCR Diagnostic Panel has only been established
in upper and lower respiratory specimens (such as nasopharyngeal or oropharyngeal swabs,
sputum, lower respiratory tract aspirates, bronchoalveolar lavage, and nasopharyngeal
wash/aspirate or nasal aspirate).
• Negative results do not preclude 2019-nCoV infection and should not be used as the sole basis
for treatment or other patient management decisions. Optimum specimen types and timing for
peak viral levels during infections caused by 2019-nCoV have not been determined. Collection of
multiple specimens (types and time points) from the same patient may be necessary to detect
the virus.
• A false-negative result may occur if a specimen is improperly collected, transported or handled.
False-negative results may also occur if amplification inhibitors are present in the specimen or if
inadequate numbers of organisms are present in the specimen.
• Positive and negative predictive values are highly dependent on prevalence. False-negative test
results are more likely when prevalence of disease is high. False-positive test results are more
likely when prevalence is moderate to low. "
"If the virus mutates in the rRT-PCR target region, 2019-nCoV may not be detected or may be
detected less predictably. Inhibitors or other types of interference may produce a false-negative
result. An interference study evaluating the effect of common cold medications was not
performed.
• Test performance can be affected because the epidemiology and clinical spectrum of infection
caused by 2019-nCoV is not fully known. For example, clinicians and laboratories may not know the optimum types of specimens to collect, and, during the course of infection, when these
specimens are most likely to contain levels of viral RNA that can be readily detected.
• Detection of viral RNA may not indicate the presence of infectious virus or that 2019-nCoV is the
causative agent for clinical symptoms.
• The performance of this test has not been established for monitoring treatment of 2019-nCoV
infection.
• The performance of this test has not been established for screening of blood or blood products
for the presence of 2019-nCoV.
• This test cannot rule out diseases caused by other bacterial or viral pathogens. "
Pages 38-39
Now, SCIENTIFICALLY SPEAKING, exactly how many have died from Covid 19?????????????
https://www.fda.gov/media/134922/download
Posted by: Emma Philadelphia | December 16, 2020 at 04:43 PM
@ John Stone
I agree with many of your points. However, I take exception to your suggestion that Cia advocates putting people in harm's way: "...they are deliberately putting people in harms way. Let's be clear that is what you advocate."
That's not at all what she is advocating.
On December 8, two people in the UK had an allergic reaction to the Pfizer vaccine; both had a history of allergic reaction severe enough to warrant carrying an epipen. The same day, 599 people in the UK and 2,821 people in the US died of Covid-19.
People are already in harm's way.
Posted by: Cait | December 16, 2020 at 10:54 AM
Emmaphiladelphia, the guys working on the rigs know when they are being played,and most now are non believers of the whole COVID pantomime and it has caused them to look in a negative manner at the other vaccines.The freetime lost at home with their familys is a big loss sadly to say most will have it to get there freetime back.
Protest in Scotland today..Anti-lockdown protesters gather outside Nicola Sturgeon's Bute House residence
https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/anti-lockdown-protesters-gather-outside-23157591
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | December 12, 2020 at 01:44 PM
This lady wants a forced vaccination law passed so she doesn't have to worry when she goes for her cosmetic dental appointment:
https://summit.news/2020/12/10/ny-lawmaker-introduces-bill-to-make-vaccination-mandatory/
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 11, 2020 at 09:55 PM
Emma; I saw the FDA on approving covid on C-Span. I could have sit down and listened and been so interested. I did not have the time or opportunity, people needed me; darn it. So thanks for going through it a little.
Cia, thanks for the dosage information.
Please Father in Heaven let Fauci and his ilk meet justice really soon.
Posted by: Benedetta | December 11, 2020 at 08:02 PM
John & Cia--Pharma for sure and a significant degree of medicine dependent on pharma, doesn't have an ethical, principled bone in its body; especially carved out for vaccines where honesty and integrity is secondary to the goal. If it were otherwise, the need for the Age of Autism wouldn't be needed. Dan Olmstead would have found other injustices to write about.
Posted by: michael | December 11, 2020 at 07:14 PM
@CIA
Where is your proof that "many thousands have now received the vaccines?"
Supposedly half got a placebo. Which brings me to my point: How do we know how many received an actual vaccine? Who, specifically was watching, testing to make sure there was actual vaccine in the syringe. Otherwise, we have no proof of what each individual got. For years they have pretended that a different vaccine was a "placebo control." I do not trust anything they do regarding vaccines, without genuine outside verification. In the military, if you pack parachutes, they randomly pick a soldier and a parachute he just packed and send them up in the plane to jump. We need the equivalent verification system for vaccines. A well trusted anti-vax doctor should be able to make a surprise visit to any vaccine provider, pick one up and then give it to Bill Gates, Faust-i, or Paul Proffitt while televised. Perhaps that would help their trust score.
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 11, 2020 at 03:52 PM
Hi John,
Yes, it has been my experience too, that often those who are academically bright and well educated but have limited medical experience have absolute faith in the integrity of those who declare a medical product is safe, and don't do their own research, even though they could.
I think that we are all reliant on the integrity of others in areas where they have more knowledge than us. And for most, who are more expert , or more their "betters" ( I don't like that phrase much, as it has always seemed imo, to imply moral superiority, though I know you did not mean it that way, Cia ) than the doctors and government who approve the vaccines and declare them safe?
To give a different scenario building on something John said, , that might make this point of view clearer..
If we take a car to the mechanic, and he says to you, ( after making sure he has no liability, but not mentioning this to you) I pledge to you that this new brake system I want to install is safe. It will keep you safe, it will keep the people around you safe. And you say, please put it in. Four months down the road, you discover that actually this particular brake system is incompatible with your type of car ,that it has only been studied to work for two months, and that it has been slowly shredding the internal parts of the car, and eventually causes a crash. The mechanic says, well you are obviously car illiterate. You could have looked in some of the manuals or online discussions and done your own research. I did not want to infantalise you by taking away your right to choose. Your choice, and I have no liability anyway. Then he walks away and says, anyway, you should have listened to your betters. Not me, but other people who might have tried to warn you about me, ( The ones I told you were anti car and should not be listened to.)
So how could our hypothetical mechanic have handled this differently? He could have said, this is a new product. It is only studied for its effects for two months. I don't know whether or not it will shred your car long term. There is no liability if something goes wrong. And I'm not putting it in my car yet. Then you have free choice, to buy or not, having as much information about the potential consequences as he does.
The reality is, everyone needs to act with the integrity that they wish to be treated . I would like to see any expert who says the vaccines are safe, to show they really mean it, and take the vaccine publicly. If there is a reason they can't take it, then they need to shout it from the rooftops, so people with similar risk factors know about it. I would like to see accurate information on side effects, and no more comments about how bad it is to "scare" people. I want to know if certain vaccines are safer for different people. Which vaccine is safest for the elderly? For teenagers ( if any) .I want everyone to know who was excluded from the trials. I want complete data from the trials released. I want everyone to know that the effects on fertility have not been tested.
I applaud the willingness of the former presidents to take the vaccine on TV. And I would like to see Fauci, Gates, and all the researchers who approved the vaccine take it. Any doctor who publicly announces it is safe, or was on the CDC board approving it, should take it publicly. No "waiting for their turn." If they say it is safe, then their turn is now. And again, if there is a reason it might not be safe for them, then announce it, and make sure the CDC lists it as a contraindication. I would also like an honest comparison between the vaccines, risk factors, effectiveness etc. Giving people the ability to pick between the available vaccines would be huge. It is in no ones interests to give someone a vaccine that might injure or kill them when another one might work, but without honest information, no one will be able to tell.
We are already seeing massive walkback over the implications of the anaphylactic reactions of the health care workers in the UK.
Per Paul Offit, a trusted expert.
https://www.radio.com/kywnewsradio/news/local/philly-expert-says-covid-19-shot-benefits-outweigh-risks
e says a better recommendation, which is standard practice, to have everyone wait 15 minutes before leaving the doctor after they get vaccinated in case there’s a reaction.
“It’s actually fairly easily treated with a shot of epinephrine. That will stop that reaction. That’s why we ask everyone who gets a vaccine to do that. This vaccine is no different," he said.
He said he believes the safety and benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine outweigh any potential risks from allergic reactions.
So, we cannot now say anyone with allergies who needs an epi pen should have "known better". They have just been told by an expert that all they need to do is wait 15 minutes in the doctors office.
Posted by: Hera | December 11, 2020 at 03:30 PM
Cia
It is about honesty and integrity. We should not accept anything else. If that is not our view I don’t know why we are here.
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2020 at 02:28 PM
John,
I think it’s more what your standard is for acceptability. Every vaccine and every drug cause negative side effects in some, up to and including death and disability. Negative side effects for the mRNA and Astra Zeneca vaccines have been reported on since early summer. Before the release of the Pfizer product, those with autoimmune disorders were already being warned that they had an increased risk for reactions.
Maybe there have been a lot more negative reactions than have been reported. I don’t believe in the honesty or compassion of the drug industry more than anyone else. But at the same time, I don’t think many would deny that many thousands have now received the vaccines. I do not believe that hundreds or more of them are now dead or severely disabled because of the vaccine they received. I think as much as they would want to deny it if it happened, the populace would have noticed and talked about it if anything that major had happened. I think the alternative media would have reported on it, complete with photographs of the victims, if a major event involving massive vaccine carnage had occurred.
I think a number of reactions have occurred. How many is enough to block people’s access to the product? The number would differ for each person expressing an opinion. But starting from the premise that, like all medical products, it causes grievous harm to some, where should the line for completely unacceptable be drawn? If, as appears likely, most people are back to normal within days, and the product really does prevent Covid, with all of its ramifications, in them, then do they not have the right to take it? Avoiding death, permanent organ damage, and long Covid are desirable ends which the vaccine may very well offer. The disease is quite common in many places now, including here, the mortality in symptomatic cases is high, and long-term disability even higher.
I’m really not trying to beat a dead horse, but to me it seems as though you were requiring that in order to be licensed, a vaccine being considered should not cause serious side effects in anyone, which I don’t think is realistic. And if your standard were that high, it would mean that many would die or be disabled for want of the vaccine. Would that be fair, even if you were to say that that was just Nature’s (sic) way? Seriously, is that the underlying reasoning, that a natural death is just one of those things, even in a pandemic, but any human intervention must be 100% always safe? Again, I’m not trying to be offensive, but I’m trying to understand why we are at loggerheads.
Posted by: Cia | December 11, 2020 at 01:58 PM
Cia
You keep on saying the same thing but it is unconscionable. The lie is that the products have been vetted by independent experts (very specifically the word independent has been used by the British government) but it is a lie - if you want to use the infantilising bit what they are doing is infantilising but it is misrepresentation, deceit, and they are deliberately putting people in harms way. Let's be clear that is what you advocate. If you advocated that products need to be vetted with rigour and integrity before being released to the market that would be appropriate reassurance, and that would be something but we are not within a million miles of it. If you are saying people should know better than to believe it, perhaps they should, but it is still deceit and inherently criminal. I think the "infantilising" argument is red herring. You are saying it deprives people of their right to be deceived, but people don't even have the ability to sue the manufacturer and they will take less care about the risks because they have fallen for a bogus reassurance. What you are perhaps arguing is that if people are stupid enough to get the vaccine it may help to protect you -and it serves them right for being stupid!
Obviously, the purpose of the government is also immoral which is to sell its citizens and their rights and their wealth in perpetuity to global oligarchs who do nothing but lie, but that is alright too (because it would be infantalising them to do otherwise)!
It is the moral righteousness of the conman who steals all your money, and then says you should have known better. What we need to do and what most of us are doing here is to argue that the integrity of government needs to be restored.
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2020 at 12:01 PM
@CIA
"The Pfizer vaccine looks as though it may very likely be effective at preventing severe cases and deaths from Covid. We’ll see more in a short time as well as seeing if it prevents transmission."
Where is your evidence that it can prevent "severe cases and deaths?" It certainly isn't in the clinical trial data.
If the COVAX does not prevent transmission of SARS Cov2, IT IS NOT A VACCINE.
What you have described is a therapeutic, To be given indiscriminately.
We do not even know how long the "effect" will last.
THIS IS A FAILED PRODUCT.
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 11, 2020 at 11:56 AM
Hera,
But it would be infantilizing adults to presume either to force them to get the vaccine or tell them that they absolutely may not get it, regardless of their desires. And it would place those who presumed to do this into the role of God.
The Pfizer vaccine looks as though it may very likely be effective at preventing severe cases and deaths from Covid. We’ll see more in a short time as well as seeing if it prevents transmission. I read that it stops the virus from being present in the nose, which would likely prevent its being expelled and transmitted. More on short-term reactions, eventually long-term reactions and duration of immunity. It looks as though the Moderna vaccine will be approved by the FDA within a week. Together those would cover two doses for 100 million Americans. The Johnson and Johnson and Astra Zeneca vaccines will probably be along in the next few months, and they think that would be enough to give to every American who wanted one. And it’s good that many say they will not get it, a de facto control group.
Someone I know in Bulgaria said Sputnik V probably wouldn’t be approved by the EU due to its lack of testing. That sounds suspicious: it’s been given since the summer to large numbers, real world testing like what Pfizer is doing now. It’s an adenovirus vectored Vaccine and the Chinese Vaccine is a killed whole cell virus vaccine, with 86% efficacy reported by the UAE.
The illiterate in this situation are at the mercy of their betters. They would do well to increase their literacy and critical thinking skills. But it would be inappropriate to block access to any of the vaccines which reach the market, which means approval, whatever you think of that process. We’ll soon see how effective it is. But there is no other way of finding out other than testing it in the real world. The pressure is great since Covid is wreaking such devastation now. If you took the Pfizer (etc.) product off the market, you would be assuming responsibility for the Covid cases and their further consequences which would occur, which probably wouldn’t have occurred had they gotten the vaccine. Of course caution is warranted, but it’s also true that desperate times call for desperate remedies. We are in a much more urgent situation than if we were considering any other VPD.
Benedetta,
I saw this morning that the standard dosage of Ivermectin (for humans) is 0.2 Milligrams (not micrograms) per kilo, one dose days one and three post-exposure or if at high risk, then one dose every four weeks. I think that is a different and much higher dosage than I read (and said) previously, so it should be looked up and confirmed before using.
Posted by: Cia | December 11, 2020 at 11:37 AM
@John Stone
"I don't think the Pfizer vaccine should have been licensed."
Spot on.
Here is a very very short interview with one of the sustaining voters on FDA approval of the COVAX:
"AILSA CHANG, HOST:
An FDA advisory panel has voted to recommend emergency authorization for Pfizer's COVID-19 vaccine for patients 16 and older. The Food and Drug Administration typically follows the panel's advice, so it is possible vaccinations could begin within days. Dr. Cody Meissner from Tufts University School of Medicine was part of that panel, and he joins us now.
Welcome.
CODY MEISSNER: Thank you very much. It's a pleasure to be here.
CHANG: Well, it's a pleasure having you. So the specific question before the panel today was, do the benefits of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine outweigh its risks for use in people 16 years of age and older? How did you vote on that question?
MEISSNER: That's correct. That was the question, and the question received the majority of votes in favor. I voted...
CHANG: Seventeen.
MEISSNER: Yes. I voted to abstain because I was a little uncomfortable with the inclusion of 16- and 17-year-old adolescents in that request for authorization....."
Listen to the audio. The interviewer appears to quickly cut off Meissner's commentary!
https://www.iowapublicradio.org/2020-12-10/fda-advisory-committee-member-on-vote-on-pfizers-coronavirus-vaccine-authorization
To sum it up, The mortality rate for the younger population is very low; the vaccine is new and experimental, therefore there is high risk and low benefit for that group.
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 11, 2020 at 10:46 AM
Hera,
Unfortunately, I come across many educated people and they think the government, the MHRA etc will have done due diligence, and manifestly the haven't. These are educated people who could read documents, calculate some of the maths but they are convinced that they need someone else -an expert - to do it for them. I suspect people on lower incomes are often more suspicious. But I don't think louche regulation is an acceptable answer, and I don't think the Pfizer vaccine should have been licensed.
Posted by: John Stone | December 11, 2020 at 08:53 AM
@Angus Files
"They are now saying to oil workers when the vaccine comes along anyone who has the vaccine does not have to do quarantine"
Where is the PROOF that a vaccinated person cannot get and spread Covid 19? They must cite the specific evidence from the clinical trials. FDA approval does not guarantee the vaccine works.
THAT IS ALL THAT MATTERS.
Citizen employees must organize class action lawsuits against private companies practicing medicine without a license.
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 10, 2020 at 11:25 PM
@Tob
"Snyder said UPMC is “very excited about the preliminary information we have about how safe the vaccine is and how it will work.”
Still, he said UPMC will conduct its own review of the vaccines before injecting any of its employees."
This is all you need to know. Doc Snyder won't take the vaccine. He is not convinced it is safe and effective. On what evidence is he basing his opinion?
From Snyder to SnyderMAN:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zGVqXW_yPJk
Posted by: Emmaphiladelphia | December 10, 2020 at 10:55 PM
Perhaps THE most important video to date, instructing businesses to JUST STAY OPEN, and citizens to NOT give away their liberty:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_yBA3ToVlF4&feature=youtu.be
I cannot recommend strongly enough that every American watch this video by Peggy Hall. It is 27 minutes long, and if it doesn't inspire you to take back your personal liberty, your business, and your life, then I don't know what will. I intend on sharing this video today not only with you, but also with local business owners in my area. Please join me in watching this video, sharing it, and most importantly, ACTING ON IT!
In pursuit and defense of truth and liberty,
Laura
Posted by: Laura Hayes | December 10, 2020 at 09:38 PM
Hi Cia,
Unfortunately most Americans , and most people in the U.K do not have the literacy skills required to do what you suggest.
Here is the latest USA literacy breakdown.
https://nces.ed.gov/datapoints/2019179.asp
And this breakdown from 2012, shows what the levels mean, and that at that time the U.K had a broadly similar rate of literacy.
https://www.wyliecomm.com/2020/11/whats-the-latest-u-s-literacy-rate/
The very top levels are
level 4
Proficient
376-500 10% Perform multiple-step operations to integrate, interpret or synthesize information from complex texts, which may require complex inferences. Click to the second page of search results from a library website to identify the author of a book called Ecomyth.
Level 5 2% Integrate information across multiple dense texts; construct syntheses, ideas or points of view; or evaluate evidence-based arguments. Identify from search results a book suggesting that the claims made both for and against genetically modified foods are unreliable
So, in 2012, roughly 2% of the American population were capable of evaluating evidence based arguments.
And the level4/level 5 combo for 2019 is also 12%
The situation in the UK seems to be similar, though I haven't seen the 2019 figures.
This means, that many people in the US aren't going to know anything more about vaccines than the headline "safe and effective". There is no way that someone who had not done a lot of research, and wasn't capable of evaluating "evidence based arguments" would even be able to guess that epi pen use would put them at risk, because, after all, the government has already said the vaccines are safe and effective.
My friend has already signed her mother, in a nursing home up for the shot when it becomes available. She knows she won't get any side effects, because her mom was "fine with the flu shot".
She is definitely literate, very good with numbers, but there is zero chance she would choose to look, or likely be able to interpret data, or even read a peer reviewed journal. Her information is solely based on what Fauci and others say on TV, or the odd newspaper article.
Posted by: Hera | December 10, 2020 at 08:28 PM
In the oil industry its 10 days quarantine in a hotel by yourself before going onto an oil rig.Then 2 weeks
working on the rig.Then if you were used to 3 weeks of you get about two weeks of.Tbefore you go back to start work back into quarantine- wash spin repeat.They are now saying to oil workers when the vaccine comes along anyone who has the vaccine does not have to do quarantine -no coercion there none whatsoever...
Pharma For Prison
MMR RIP
Posted by: Angus Files | December 10, 2020 at 06:23 PM
John,
Many, including me, have been saying for months that those with a tendency to autoimmune disease would run a much greater risk for adverse reactions. The reactions reported so far, transverse myelitis, Bell’s palsy, and anaphylaxis, are all autoimmune reactions. The two deaths in the US, one was acute atherosclerosis, which I had never heard of, but it may have been autoimmune as well. Last week I commented at The Prepared saying this, that the product would cause some/many to react with autoimmunity. The mod apparently looked it up and added a revision to that effect, saying that many doctors were telling patients with autoimmune diseases that they probably shouldn’t get the non-vaccine.
I don’t think anyone should be forced either way. But it’s also a question of agency. All adults have to make the best decisions they can regarding their own and their children’s health. The two health care providers who reacted with anaphylaxis were carrying epi-pens. I think they were responsible for knowing, looking it up if they didn’t know, that their autoimmunity put them at increased risk of reaction. They could have asked the injection giver about it. Did the provider know about their autoimmune condition?
Of course they had the right to refuse it. But they also had the right to take it. Even many young, healthy health care providers have died of Covid, probably because of the high inoculum of virus that they were exposed to on the front line.
I think the Pfizer product will probably usually prevent Covid starting about a week after they get it, though it’s not certain if you don’t get full protection until after the second dose. We are still in the Phase III trial period. Maybe two weeks from now we’ll be saying that it was complete junk, that it doesn’t work at all. But I think we’ll have to wait until then to assess it.
Sure, there are a lot of rapacious crooks involved in the medical industry. But I think probably this product will work fairly well. And, surprisingly, it will only cost twenty dollars. How could that be? I thought they’d charge at least two hundred dollars. Maybe I’m wrong. But the devil can quote scripture for his purposes. I read the latest Covid statistics for the US and Boone County this morning (not the UK), and I was horrified.
Posted by: Cia | December 10, 2020 at 04:36 PM
Cia
Plainly, in licensing these products the regulators are not even abiding by a plausible interpretation of their own rules, so no I think they are simply deliberately putting the public in harms way, and it is unconscionable, and nothing to do with freedom of choice. Either they do the job properly or we don't have regulator and then people know they have got to research the product. Yes, I agree the Vitamin D dose probably won't make much difference at the standard level (but maybe a bit) and they have been holding back on it for a year.
The anaphylactic cases on the first day were completely predictable given the failure of guidance - were they actually waiting to see what happened?
Posted by: John Stone | December 10, 2020 at 02:17 PM
John,
I can’t find the reply to me you made recently. I read the dose of D3 being distributed for free to people in the U.K. was not strong enough to be therapeutic. I don’t know any more than that.
I don’t know how much of what is being reported is true. I believe that most of what I read is true, but if I learn I am wrong, I’ll reevaluate. I’ve read enough about the Pfizer vaccine to think that we do not want it, but recognize that that might leave us vulnerable to catching Covid, maybe a bad or fatal case of it. I think it’s better to take D and zinc, Ivermectin and HCQ, but maybe I’m wrong on that.
I think we need the outcome data which will be coming in soon. Everyone has the right to consider it and make his choice. Also, of course, decide if he believes the data are correct. But if he believes they are, if 200 Covid deaths are prevented by the vaccine at the cost of one death and ten disabilities caused by the vaccine, then many may choose to take the vaccine hoping for that benefit. But of course it’s their right to refuse the vaccine on any grounds.
Posted by: Cia | December 10, 2020 at 01:29 PM
Oh, so then the employee will promise to pay you when you can no longer work? and pay for your medical bills?
Posted by: Benedetta | December 10, 2020 at 10:39 AM
Then we've got this champion, who one day says how great it was that Marshal Tito declared martial law to forcibly vaccinate Yugoslavia against smallpox, and then a week later, says that doctors shouldn't go first. Hahaha. What's good for the goose...
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/89918
"In 1972, smallpox was considered eradicated in Europe. In March of that year, the former country of Yugoslavia suffered an outbreak. The government sprang into action and reacted swiftly. On March 16, 1972, martial law was declared, population movement was severely restricted, and in effect, the entire country was placed under quarantine. The army was used to enforce the quarantine and over a period of approximately 3 months, the entire population of 18 million was vaccinated and the outbreak ended."
https://www.medpagetoday.com/infectiousdisease/covid19/90125
Op-Ed: Don't Vaccinate Healthcare Workers First
Posted by: TOB | December 10, 2020 at 10:16 AM
Companies with more than fifteen employees are required to obey the Title VII and Civil Rights Act regulations providing for religious and medical vaccine exemptions. Those who want to resist potential vaccine requirements at their workplace have ample legal grounds to contest them. Even before this week, when some British health care workers with autoimmune conditions, reacted to the Covid vaccine with anaphylaxis, prompting medical officials to exempt those with such conditions, Pfizer had advised that it not be given to those with “significant” autoimmunity. So there are grounds right there to contest vaccine requirements on legal grounds, even in businesses which employ fewer than fifteen workers. I think basically everyone in the world either has autoimmune problems himself or has relatives who do. Is an employer really going to take the risk of a major lawsuit if he wants to force vaccination on an employee who cites eczema or hay fever, or an uncle who had asthma?
And there will be the pressure of consensus. If no mid-sized to large companies may mandate vaccination, and government entities at the federal and state levels do not do so, would small companies go out on a limb and mandate them, knowing how it will blow up if an employee coerced into vaccination reacts?
As I said before, Trump and Biden say they would not mandate them, Bojo the same, Governor Parson of Missouri along with many others would not, even a medical center here, Boone Hospital, would not. Small employers would be wary of the bad publicity if they force people. Everyone will be wary of losing customers if they demand that customers show proof of vaccination before entering.
I think vaccination will continue to be a matter of individual choice (and yes, I am aware of school mandates being enacted in several states in the last few years, the unethical exception). It may take some public education and lawsuits to clarify the point.
Dorit says that rather than fire employees who resist, they could be ordered to be exposed to educational materials on the vaccine. That’s fine. And they’d be on the clock as they did so, paid to discuss the vaccine, its potential risks and benefits. Sounds like fun to me.
They will have to try persuasion rather than force. Within weeks we’ll have some data on how well the Pfizer product works in the U.K. for good or ill. And everyone will have to put that in the hopper and try to decide what to do. Also true that many places in the US and other countries, like Germany, are breaking records on cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, on an almost daily basis. That knowledge will also play a role in decision-making.
Posted by: Cia | December 10, 2020 at 09:48 AM
if you want to see the sausage being made, here is the EUA meeting link
https://www.fda.gov/advisory-committees/advisory-committee-calendar/vaccines-and-related-biological-products-advisory-committee-december-10-2020-meeting-announcement
Posted by: greyone | December 10, 2020 at 09:17 AM
On the other hand, at least one large medical system has decided to let the public be the semi-tracked clinical trial, and not require their own doctors to roll the dice with the Pfizer product.
These doctors have the right to say No, and the only way we little folks will hold on to our right to say No is to assert it.
https://www.pennlive.com/news/2020/12/upmc-wont-require-employees-to-get-covid-19-vaccine.html
By David Wenner | dwenner@pennlive.com
UPMC requires its health care employees to receive the flu vaccine. But it won’t make them get the COVID-19 vaccine, which UPMC expects to begin offering to employees as soon as this month.
One reason is general uncertainty about the COVID-19 vaccine -- the first of several in the pipeline could receive emergency approval from the U.S. government this month, possibly within days.
Dr. Graham Snyder, UPMC’s medical director of infection prevention and hospital epidemiology, said UPMC’s mandatory flu vaccination policy “is based on decades of experience with the influenza vaccine.”
But there’s no comparable data for a COVID-19 vaccine, or on whether a mandate is the best way to get large numbers of people to become vaccinated, Snyder said on Tuesday.
The first COVID-19 vaccine, from Pfizer, is expected to soon receive emergency approval. A second vaccine, from Moderna, is also expected to soon receive emergency approval. Distribution of at least one vaccine is expected to begin this month.
Snyder said UPMC is “very excited about the preliminary information we have about how safe the vaccine is and how it will work.”
Still, he said UPMC will conduct its own review of the vaccines before injecting any of its employees.
“Until we learn more and build our own experience with this vaccine, plus, until we see the uptake of vaccine in our communities, and have an understanding about the role that vaccination has in ending this pandemic, it’s not the right thing to make it mandatory,” he said.
He said UPMC’s independent review won’t slow down distribution plans.
UPMC doctors on Tuesday outlined their plans for receiving and distributing the COVID-19 vaccine.
Overall, they offered an enthusiastic assessment of the COVID-19 vaccine and said they plan an information campaign to persuade the public to get vaccinated.
Vaccine manufacturers began large scale production of their COVID-19 vaccines even as they carried out clinical trials that could potentially prove their vaccine unsafe or ineffective. The purpose was to be able to immediately begin distributing vaccine deemed safe and effective.
Snyder said some of the vaccine trials have taken place in Pittsburgh, with some UPMC employees participating.
He said some have experienced side affects such as fever, fatigue or arm pain, with some needing to take a day or two off from work.
He called this “a normal and healthy immune response.”
UPMC plans to first offer the vaccine to its employees who are at highest risk of exposure to COVID-19 and to high-risk residents of long term care facilities. Next will come other essential workers and people over 65 with medical conditions that put them at high risk from COVID-19.
“We are optimistic we will be able to provide vaccines for frontline health care workers who wish to receive it before the end of January,” Snyder said.
Still, UPMC officials said doses of vaccine will arrive in batches, and they don’t know how many they’ll receive initially and in subsequent shipments. They expect the eventual total to be in the “tens of thousands.”
The third and final phase of vaccine distribution will involve people who have non-essential roles in relation to the pandemic and who don’t have medical conditions that put them at high risk. The Pennsylvania Department of Health is in charge of vaccination in the state and has said getting vaccinated will be voluntary for everyone.
Dr. Donald Yealy, UPMC’s chair of emergency medicine, said Tuesday “even under the best-case scenario, it will likely be months before everyone who wants and should get a COVID-19 vaccine can actually receive one.”
Pfizer’s vaccine requires ultra-cold storage. UPMC officials said they have added freezers, but also said they routinely deal with vaccines that require similar storage, and don’t expect storage to be a problem.
Snyder said the arrival of vaccines won’t mean a quick end to the COVID-19 threat.
“I cannot stress enough that while the ability to offer a highly effective COVID-19 vaccine is truly fantastic news, it does not mean that we can stop wearing masks, distancing and washing our hands,” he said.
Posted by: TOB | December 10, 2020 at 09:15 AM
"What is clear, however, is that if an employer does choose to mandate the Covid vaccine, a company is not liable should an employee develop side effects from a vaccine. Instead, experts say that any claims would be routed through worker’s compensation programs and treated as an on-the-job injury.
So … corporations can mandate employees get the vaccine .. but .. those corporations also receive complete liability protection for their mandatory vaccine policies … is this a great country or what? If ANY vaccine were SAFE AND EFFECTIVE .. absent any increased risk for injury due to vaccine .. the entire industry would not require COMPLETE LIABILITY PROTECTION FOR THEIR "UNAVOIDABLY UNSAFE" PRODUCT .. NO?
Demanding product liability protection for your product … DOES NOT INDICATE THE PRODUCT IS AS "SAFE AND EFFECTIVE" as the patient deserves … indeed .. is there another product on the market that has complete product liability protection???? I suspect not .. otherwise no one would buy the product if the company that makes it demands to be HELD UNACCOUNTABLE FOR ANY SERIOUS DEFFECTS... COMMON SENSE.
Posted by: Bob Moffit | December 10, 2020 at 08:02 AM
In true 1984, 1933, or New Normal fashion, this is part of the comment her pack (vaccineworkinggroupethics (you can't make this stuff up), submitted for todays EUA hearing:
"Private businesses may desire to require vaccines to protect employees, consumers, and the public, and to protect their economic viability by messaging to customers and employees that they are acting for safety. If an EUA does not allow it, they do not have a choice. "
http://vaccineworkinggroupethics.org/publications
Posted by: greyone | December 10, 2020 at 07:38 AM