It still has nothing to do with the OP. You're derailing. Go start another thread about that

[It's close enough. Not an unreasonable derail--Staff]

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Salute The Marines said:

---

SoupNazi2001 said:

---

Charpie said:

---

What does that have to do with the op?

---

What does it have to do with it? Many think they are going to get one shot and be done with a mandate. It's not looking like that. Israel who we are following their lead on many things is not considering people fully vaccinated who do not get the booster.

---

No vaccine schedule has said we would need boosters every 6 months.

---

You aren't paying attention

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2021/08/27/biden-says-us-health-officials-are-considering-covid-booster-shots-within-5-months.html

---

Nowhere in your link does it say you'll need a booster every 6 months. Can you help me find it?

1 booster shot at 5 months =/= you will need a booster shot every 6 months

Charpie said:

---

It still has nothing to do with the OP. You're derailing. Go start another thread about that

---

How is it not relevant? Why are you getting so bent out of shape because he brings up an additional point to potentially consider? There is discussion around boosters which, unfortunately, indicates the vaccines may not have the length of efficacy initially thought. So there is a chance that you could have to go through the assessment multiple times a year if the trend continues.

03_Aggie said:

---

Charpie said:

---

It still has nothing to do with the OP. You're derailing. Go start another thread about that

---

How is it not relevant? Why are you getting so bent out of shape because he brings up an additional point to potentially consider? There is discussion around boosters which, unfortunately, indicates the vaccines may not have the length of efficacy initially thought. So there is a chance that you could have to go through the assessment multiple times a year if the trend continues.

---

Because the key issue surrounding boosters is typically the emergence of delta. Most docs, and especially ones on this site, have explained that even if active antibody levels decline at 6 months, you still have protection stored in memory cells. Delta is structurally altered enough to bypass some of that immunity, which could be supplemented with a targeted booster for at-risk populations. To my knowledge, nobody has said that forced boosters are on the way. I've already stated that I am against mandated vaccines, but I am 100% for vaccines and the efficacy that they are showing at reducing severe outcomes.

It would be one thing if covid was actually behaving like the flu, but it's proving to be far more transmissible and putting strain on hospital systems over extended periods of time. We're 18 months into this thing and people are acting like it's still week 3. We've learned a lot about the virus, how it's transmitted, and some ways to treat the illness it causes.

Also, if I, even reluctantly, got vaccinated and had little/no adverse effects, what is the fear behind a booster if needed down the road?

Why are we ok with corporations mandating no drug use or mandatory drug testing? If it's because we agree that drugs are bad for people and can negatively impact how business gets done, then apply that same argument to contracting covid.

Jbob04 said:

---

Rex Racer said:

---

I have been against mandates this entire time, but having actually caught COVID pneumonia myself, if I could go back in time and be vaccinated instead, I see absolutely ZERO reason to not be vaccinated. That's just my opinion.

---

X2 here. Wish I would have gotten it already instead of this pneumonia.

---

Would you consider sharing that thought, and your Covid experience, in a separate thread or perhaps in the Political forum? I think when someone was arguing against vaccination, but then has a change of heart due to personal experience, it can carry a lot of weight and really help someone else. Probably sounds overly dramatic - probably IS overdramatic - but it could even potentially save a life.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

Why should I risk it other than to protect others?

---

Think you answered it for yourself.

Also risk what? For every statistical category, It's risker to go without the vaccine. Having not got it, you already are taking the risker option.

Kick-R said:

---

When considering any data, it's becoming increasingly important to consider specifically delta as opposed to the whole pandemic. Delta is more infectious and some recent studies are estimating that it is more likely to cause hospitalization in younger populations than the original strain that was prevalent for most of last year and part of this year.

You should still do your research and make the best decision for you, and I am not for mandates, but delta is causing some real problems for otherwise healthy people.

---

FYI, study I saw this morning said Delta = 2X hospitalization risk.

Everyone here is psychic and knows the long term data. Therefore everyone groupthinks you should do what's best for them. Hope that helps.

Wodanaz said:

---

Everyone here is psychic and knows the long term data. Therefore everyone groupthinks you should do what's best for them. Hope that helps.

---

Please propose the mechanism for which the vaccine will cause unknown side effects on whatever infinite timeline that you have in mind. Maybe the subject matter experts' idea of long term data in the context of this vaccine was met a long time ago in the clinical trials. Like when they said no adverse reaction from a vaccine had ever been documented more than 6 weeks post infection so they made sure the phase 3 trails followed 30,000 people for at least 8 weeks. Furthermore many people in the trials have had the vaccine for over a year at this point.

While we study the 20 year study to satisfy those who don't want to understand how vaccines work and why "long term data" is a much shorter time horizon than they think it is, we should also start our 20 year study evaluating long term side effects of COVID infection. The data is already abundantly clear on which of the two will perform better, but maybe I'll grow a 3rd arm at my vaccination site by 2040. I mean we haven't studied that yet.

AggieKatie2 said:

---

CEO email made it fairly clear that a vaccine mandate is likely coming for our company.

Spouse was vaccinated several months ago, and other than feels lousy for a bit, had no issues.

Looking at current statistics for my age group:
- Likelihood of hospitalization from COVID per CDC is currently 7 in 100,000 (no need to be hospitalized is 99.93%....right?)
- <8000 deaths for individuals 30-39 years of age
- Just as likely to die of pneumonia (solely) as Covid per CDC numbers for age group
- Twice as likely to die as female in age group though

Universal US Comorbidities in Hospitalization
- 60% Hypertension
- 50% Obese
- 43% Metabolic Disease
- 36% Cadiovascular Disease

Pfizer study stats for test groups:
- .06% severe adverse reaction ID'd by FDA

Considering my age group, and lack of comorbidities, it would appear my likelihood of needing hospitalization or death from covid is equal to and less than my risk of a serious adverse reaction to the vaccine.

Why should I risk it other than to protect others?

Why isn't my employer mandating diet and exercise requirements based upon dominant comorbidities?

Trying to educate myself and address my concerns.

---

Anecdotal as it is, all but 1 person I know who had gotten Covid pre-vaccine said it is awful. One person described it as feeling like a 2 week hangover. Others have had lingering effects that have lasted for months. No thanks. I only know 1 person who has gone to the hospital from it and knew another who died.

Meanwhile, I've got 2 people who work on my team who got Covid when we returned to the office after being vaccinated. Both are isolating but both are back to working from home after being down for 2 days. As a manager, I like that I haven't lost them to a black hole of illness for longer than that and I'm sure that's the math your employer is doing from their perspective. My employer for what it's worth still doesn't have a mandate and and doesn't appear to be adopting one. But you also need to look at it from your own personal perspective and what it would mean if you got really sick for a good period of time. Who takes care of your kids while they have to self isolate from school, where will you stay with the illness etc etc,

Your analysis is lacking the right data nodes it's political Covid math. Do the probability of adverse effects vs. it just sucking badly to be very sick for 2 weeks. It is pretty possible and I'd argue even probable that you will get Covid and that you don't go to the hospital but still lose 2 weeks of your life lying around being really sick at home and not go to the hospital still. That's the math I did when I got the vaccine. I wasn't scared of Covid killing me personally, but I think it is highly probably we all get Covid at least once and, when I do, I just don't want to have what so many who are healthy have described to me as the worst bout of illness they've ever had.

Everyone is still ignoring that ~30% of the population has natural antibodies.

There is no scientific reason a healthy young person who already had covid should be forced to get the vaccine. The only thing that helps is calm the fears of the irrational.

being pregnant doesn't really compare to choosing not to get vaccinated. Employers don't have policies against getting pregnant. They do have policies for taking the shot.

Perhaps its because it's against the law?

https://www.eeoc.gov/pregnancy-discrimination

Quote:

---

The Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA) forbids discrimination based on pregnancy when it comes to any aspect of employment, including hiring, firing, pay, job assignments, promotions, layoff, training, fringe benefits, such as leave and health insurance, and any other term or condition of employment.

---

tysker said:

---

Quote:

---

Why are we ok with corporations mandating no drug use or mandatory drug testing? If it's because we agree that drugs are bad for people and can negatively impact how business gets done, then apply that same argument to contracting covid.

---

Drug and alcohol tests are specific to the job requirement for safety and performance purposes. Does getting covid affect job performance or safety of others? Not significantly more than showing up to work sick or walking around with a bag of peanuts.

In OPs situation, should the firm instead offer many more WFH options for non-covid vaxxed employees. Maybe treat it like a working mother having issues getting to the office during the last weeks/months of pregnancy? Firms often bend over backwards for pregnant workers and new moms needing to work from home when possible, so I would think firms would be willing to offer such service to it's non-vaxxed employees as well.

---

I would argue that getting covid and ending up in the hospital for days/weeks affects job performance. And from a business perspective, there is a cheap and effective way to minimize that risk and potential downtime. It's a no-brainer if you're a business and you only consider productivity.

There is obviously a lot more nuance when you add in feelings, personal preferences, etc. to the equation. That's why many companies have not yet made the step to mandate. It's obvious at this point that nobody is just going to avoid exposure to covid (and most people probably already have had that exposure at this point), so the remaining viable mitigation options are either vaccinate or wait for it to run through the population.

Let me say again that I do not think that businesses or any other entity should be able to mandate vaccines or any other similar personal choice. But to look objectively at how a business runs and be surprised that mandates are being considered is foolish.

Let's talk about pregnancy in the same context. Pregnancy does create a situation where a worker is unable to work for an extended period of time. Pregnancy also comes with a minimum time window before that worker may become unavailable, during which time a business can be planning to make up for the shortfall. Pregnancy is not contagious, and can't be passed to other workers to create a domino effect.

Now imagine you have a business that is run and managed by a population that is 45+ years old. Suddenly, you introduce an illness that will spread easily and statistically be more dangerous to the population that makes the decisions and runs the business. Your entire leadership team goes down for 2 weeks, some for longer, and you're also in the middle of one of the greatest supply chain challenges of modern times. You can't control the supply chain at large, but you can reduce your own company's downtime with a safe and free vaccine. From a business perspective it just makes too much sense.