No EI for the unvaccinated

[Sparki55]

Covid is here forever. That's how viruses work. I'm fine with vaccines and boosters because I'm not a conspiracy theorist and because they are a minimal risk solution.

I am not a conspiracy theorist either.

I like to arrive at solutions through philosophical ethics and highly value choice of ones of potentially life altering decisions, not letting the government force these choices through laws and removal of safety nets paid into like EI.

[JLives]

Well if you want to collect EI don't be let go for just cause. Easy peasy.

[Sparki55]

Well if you want to collect EI don't be let go for just cause. Easy peasy.

Not being vaccinated isn't just cause when arrived at from a ethical standpoint.

[rustled]

I've asked for proof or strong evidence to show that

1. unvaccinated employees who are infected with covid present a significantly greater risk of infecting their coworkers than do vaccinated employees who are infected with covid
2. firing unvaccinated workers is more effective than testing to prevent infectious employees from infecting their coworkers

Again, this is what I would expect to have to be presented in court to prove the termination was reasonable, and denial of EI was reasonable.

Instead, I'm given proof unvaccinated people are more likely to get sicker with more symptoms - which strongly suggests they're less likely to come to work with covid than vaccinated people infected with covid - and more likely to be hospitalized.

No one has yet provided what I've actually asked for, though, and this suggests to me there is no reasonable evidence to support "no EI for the unvaccinated".

It doesn't matter what's presented. You'll just move the goalposts again on what you want to see. We see you. The information is available. Go read it.

Of course it matters what's presented. That's the problem - you seem to think whatever other information is provided should suffice. Presenting me with other information - and then accusing me of moving the goalposts - is silly and pointless, and it doesn't change reality:

If that information is readily available, someone would have posted it.

I suspect it doesn't exist.

[foenix]

I've asked for proof or strong evidence to show that

1. unvaccinated employees who are infected with covid present a significantly greater risk of infecting their coworkers than do vaccinated employees who are infected with covid
2. firing unvaccinated workers is more effective than testing to prevent infectious employees from infecting their coworkers

Again, this is what I would expect to have to be presented in court to prove the termination was reasonable, and denial of EI was reasonable.

Instead, I'm given proof unvaccinated people are more likely to get sicker with more symptoms - which strongly suggests they're less likely to come to work with covid than vaccinated people infected with covid - and more likely to be hospitalized.

No one has yet provided what I've actually asked for, though, and this suggests to me there is no reasonable evidence to support "no EI for the unvaccinated".

It doesn't matter what's presented. You'll just move the goalposts again on what you want to see. We see you. The information is available. Go read it.

Of course it matters what's presented. That's the problem - you seem to think whatever other information is provided should suffice. Presenting me with other information - and then accusing me of moving the goalposts - is silly and pointless, and it doesn't change reality:

If that information is readily available, someone would have posted it.

I suspect it doesn't exist.

I've posted it but as usual conveniently ignore it....

People who are vaccinated against Covid-19 are less likely to spread the virus even if they become infected, a new study finds, adding to a growing body of evidence that vaccines can reduce transmission of the delta variant.

British scientists at the University of Oxford examined national records of nearly 150,000 contacts that were traced from roughly 100,000 initial cases. The samples included people who were fully or partially vaccinated with either the Pfizer-BioNTech or the AstraZeneca vaccines, as well as people who were unvaccinated. The researchers then looked at how the vaccines affected the spread of the virus if a person had a breakthrough infection with either th

https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-n ... s-n1280583

It's impractical economically to ask all business owners in Canada to test their employees everyday for Covid. Health authorities have a tough enough job getting a test back in a timely fashion even for known Covid infected person as is never mind do tests everyday for every person employed in Canada.

[nucksRnum1]

Covid is here forever. That's how viruses work. I'm fine with vaccines and boosters because I'm not a conspiracy theorist and because they are a minimal risk solution.

Interesting point. Gene scientists have gone back into genomes and found "dead" covids of the past imprinted in genescapes. And human survival has adapted against it. I think it's interesting that this pandemic has necessitated more understanding of these strains. Both past and future.

[crookedmember]

"Particularly for anyone who genuinely feels they are risking their life by accepting the vaccine."

The people who are genuinely afraid of risking their lives by accepting the vaccine are maybe 3 or 5 percent of the unvaxxed, based on 97% acceptance in the health care sector.

The rest are anti-vax for political reasons. To scream and wave placards depicting the PM in a noose at hospitals, and harass nurses, staff, patients.

CPC rednecks and PPC supporters, generally. Mouth breathers. Society's dregs.

By coddling the latter, you make it impossible to help the former.

[fluffy]

Not being vaccinated isn't just cause when arrived at from a ethical standpoint.

When you consider that being vaccinated reduces risk for everybody, the ethical argument in favour of not being vaccinated pales in comparison to the ethical argument for getting vaccinated.

[rustled]

Not being vaccinated isn't just cause when arrived at from a ethical standpoint.

When you consider that being vaccinated reduces risk for everybody, the ethical argument in favour of not being vaccinated pales in comparison to the ethical argument for getting vaccinated.

No one's making an ethical argument in favour of not being vaccinated.

I agree with Sparki55: It's not ethical to threaten termination of employment and denial of EI in order to force people to be vaccinated. See if you're able to make an ethical case for that. So far, no one has.

[crookedmember]

Well if you want to collect EI don't be let go for just cause. Easy peasy.

Not being vaccinated isn't just cause when arrived at from a ethical standpoint.

I'd say if you are willfully increasing the risk to fellow employees because you refuse to get vaccinated, your ethics need a booster shot.

[Ka-El]

Covid is here forever. That's how viruses work. I'm fine with vaccines and boosters because I'm not a conspiracy theorist and because they are a minimal risk solution.

Minimal risk, highest efficacy - as the evidence clearly demonstrates (despite the deflections, denials and circular arguing)

I'd say if you are willfully increasing the risk to fellow employees because you refuse to get vaccinated, your ethics need a booster shot.

[Sparki55]

I'd say if you are willfully increasing the risk to fellow employees because you refuse to get vaccinated, your ethics need a booster shot.

And I completely agree with that!

What I don't agree with is termination of employment for those who don't get the shot and absolutely against ethics to deny EI.

[fluffy]

See if you're able to make an ethical case for that. So far, no one has.

To what end ? No matter what I say you'll just twist and obfuscate and argue semantics as you always do. The regulations for EI qualification are clear, and refusing vaccination has grown into a political expression for the majority of AVs. I have little sympathy in those cases.

[rustled]

See if you're able to make an ethical case for that. So far, no one has.

To what end ?

I'd think that's obvious - people who support it ought to be able to show us it's ethical.

No matter what I say you'll just twist and obfuscate and argue semantics as you always do.

I've always seen this "shoot the messenger" nonsense as a "poor-me, I'm a victim" way to frame someone pointing out the flaws in a statement or position you're having trouble defending against legitimate criticism.

Why not even attempt to make an ethical case for it? To me, the most likely explanation is that you don't really believe it's possible.

The regulations for EI qualification are clear, and refusing vaccination has grown into a political expression for the majority of AVs. I have little sympathy in those cases.

An EI disqualification ought not be in any way dependent on your sympathy, though - or anyone else's. More to the point, it ought to be incumbent on those doing the terminating to show the termination would stand up to legal and ethical scrutiny, and for those denying the EI to do the same.

Are you able to show that it's reasonable from an ethical standpoint to disqualify all employees who are being terminated because of a vaccine mandate? It seems unlikely to me, but I'm open to the possibility someone can.

[Ka-El]

*removed*