business

Vaccine carrots or sticks? U.S. businesses grapple with getting employees inoculated

30 Comments
By Erwin Seba and Jessica Resnick-Ault

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

30 Comments
Login to comment

Freedom of choice, especially when it comes to a person's physical body is non-negotiable.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

The most important reason to encourage vaccination has to be public health, economic reasons should never be why a health measure is put in place or not. Confronting people may not be the best strategy, specially for those that are just doubtful because of being exposed to false information, giving education and orientation to dispel wrong ideas can be a much better approach.

Freedom of choice, especially when it comes to a person's physical body is non-negotiable.

As long as that choice do not endangers others this is completely fine, but irrational rejection of a valid, scientifically proved safer option that lowers the risk for others should not be protected. In the same way you cannot "choose" to drive without a license on public roads you may not be able to work in a nursing home or hospital without following every possible measure to avoid risk, including a vaccine.

2 ( +9 / -7 )

Freedom of choice, especially when it comes to a person's physical body is non-negotiable.

At will employee. You are free to find another job. No, you are not free to endanger your co-workers and customers.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

The most important reason to encourage vaccination has to be public health, economic reasons should never be why a health measure is put in place 

Economics are an absolutely valid reason to enforce public health and general health care measures. If you study development economics you find that nations have to do three things, and do them right, to grow and prosper. These three things are education, infrastructure and healthcare. Get any of those really wrong and economic growth and standard of living suffer as a result. People trying to work through treatable illnesses and disabilities for lack of available health care are not productive workers. People who die early due to preventable diseases obviously reduce their lifetime productivity. All of this reduces a nation's output and wealth. A government looking to improve their nation's overall prosperity has every reason to enforce public health and health care measures.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

the totalitarian regime in place. threatening your freedom to choose.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

If you take it and it protects you then it shouldn't concern you whether I take it or not.

It's not my job to protect others at the expense of my own health.

I will not sacrifice my health for the illusion of protecting others.

My body, my choice!

2 ( +10 / -8 )

Economics are an absolutely valid reason to enforce public health and general health care measures. If you study development economics you find that nations have to do three things, and do them right, to grow and prosper. These three things are education, infrastructure and healthcare. Get any of those really wrong and economic growth and standard of living suffer as a result. 

Let me clarify, enforcing public health is perfectly fine, what I am criticizing is trying to defend "health measures" for purely economic reasons without any benefit for public health. For example with an untested vaccine, unreliable tests or some useless drug only to give the appearance of doing something and resume economic activities. In short, as long as a measure can be validly based on increasing public health there is no problem.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

If you take it and it protects you then it shouldn't concern you whether I take it or not.

It's not my job to protect others at the expense of my own health.

I will not sacrifice my health for the illusion of protecting others.

My body, my choice!

That is the thing, its the job of some people to protect others, not at the expense of your health but of the risk they can allow you to represent.

Nobody is asking to sacrifice your health, not even for a very real safe and effective health measure. But if if falls under the responsibility of other people not to allow you to expose others to unnecessary risks then they can limit what you do, for example not allowing you to do a job or board an airplane unless you comply with objective, scientifically proved measures to avoid that risk.

You can still refuse to take anything, even medicines to save your life, if you want to, but not to expose others unnecessarily. It should be easy to understand.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

At will employee. You are free to find another job. No, you are not free to endanger your co-workers and customers

If your coworkers take it and you don't, how can those who took it be endangered by those who don't if the vaccine works.

So the only ones at risk in this scenario are those who accepted that risk.

-5 ( +3 / -8 )

not even for a very real safe and effective health measure.

You keep on claiming that vaccines are safe and effective. We don't know that yet; nobody does. Nobody in their right mind would just take your word for it, or that of big pharma.

If vaccines were proven 100% safe (actually proven) and effective, AND the disease was much more deadly than Covid19 (assuming it is treated honestly, and not with doctors' arms tied behind their backs), then I could see a point of mandating the vaccine.

But as it stands now, take it if you like, but let people choose.

-2 ( +7 / -9 )

Freedom of choice, especially when it comes to a person's physical body is non-negotiable.

Quite true. You are not free to endanger my life with a deadly disease.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Take the vaccine and your life isnt endangered by those who don't so why should those who don't want it be forced to do so.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

You keep on claiming that vaccines are safe and effective. We don't know that yet; nobody does. Nobody in their right mind would just take your word for it, or that of big pharma.

Yes we do, that is the whole purpose of the clinical trials. Fantasies about all the scientists and doctors of the world being part of a conspiracy to poison themselves, their family and friends are just not credible, so the science is valid.

Vaccines do not need to prove to be 100% safe, that is a strawman, a false argument that only you are holding up because you cannot contradict the real one. The real argument is that vaccines are much less risky than the disease they prevent. That you cannot deny except if based on the conspiracy religions.

Everybody can choose, but not to expose others. In some cases they will have to choose between keeping or not a job, or using or not a service. So refuse anything you don't like, even with invalid reasons, but you cannot complain if you cannot do certain things because of it. Science is not on your side.

1 ( +7 / -6 )

The real argument is that vaccines are much less risky than the disease they prevent.

Says you.

Everybody can choose, but not to expose others.

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer:

“When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

Says you.

Of course not, says every single professional organization of people dedicated to medicine and public health in the whole world. Like all of them. Not even one of those says that vaccines "have to be 100% safe".

Dr. Tal Zaks, Moderna’s chief medical officer:

“When we start the deployment of this vaccine, we will not have sufficient concrete data to prove that this vaccine reduces transmission.”

But obviously that situation is not going to continue forever. If, as expected, immunized people represent a lower risk of spreading, at least as much as asymptomatic patients, vaccination can become a requisite in order to decrease the exposure to other people. So would be decreased titers of virus being expelled, or the time for which the person puts others at risk, etc. Phase IV clinical trials are not just searching for problems, it also works very nicely to assess differences between vaccinated and unvaccinated people.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

Since the vaccine does not prevent infection and subsequent spreading of the virus there is absolutely no rrason to take it "to protect others".

Whether one takes it or not infection will happen.

All the vaccine does, purportedly, is shortens the length of the illness and or reduces the severity, both of which are questionable.

Unproven, never before tried nRNA vaccine, using entire populations as quinea pigs to increase pharmaceutical companies' profits.

Go ahead virusrex, why don't you volunteer first to take it since you are such a strong advocate, we will wait for your report back.

Thank you for your service.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Since the vaccine does not prevent infection and subsequent spreading of the virus there is absolutely no rrason to take it "to protect others".

That is a mistake, a misrepresentation. To say the vaccine do nothing to prevent spreading you need data to prove it. That data does not exist. What is real is that at this point we don't know if the vaccination prevents spreading, but it is widely expected to do so from the differences observed between symptomatic, presyntomatic and asymptomatic patients.

All the vaccine does, purportedly, is shortens the length of the illness and or reduces the severity, both of which are questionable.

No, there is nothing to question about it, this was clearly solved during the clinical trials for the vaccine, because that is their purpose.

Nobody is at this point a guinea pig. The vaccines have been properly tested and the technology proven safe even before the pandemic began. The only real question was if it was going to be effective or not, but the trials have proven it is.

People not vaccinated, for valid or invalid reasons are the ones that will provide the data that is more necessary now, about the prevalence of autoimmune problems, neuron degradation, fibrosis, persistent inflammation, etc. that have already been observed but that now can be compared with vaccinated people to see exactly how much protection is achieved against these (and likely many other undiscovered) long term problems. If you choose to be part of the higher risk group that is fine.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

Virusrex-san, I logged in to this Japan Today account only to say thank you, Thank You to you for your kind, patient, and thorough explanations.

Mark Twain said, “You can’t reason someone out of something that they weren’t reasoned into in the first place,” but I know that you have helped many confused and anxious readers here understand some essential and very important scientific truths about COVID-19 (and viruses in general). I sincerely appreciate your efforts.

I hope and believe that many more readers will continue to learn more about and understand the reality of the current situation rather than succumb to the hyperbole. We are all in this together, and must pull together or pull apart.

6 ( +10 / -4 )

Virusrex-san, I logged in to this Japan Today account only to say thank you, Thank You to you for your kind, patient, and thorough explanations.

One of the main reasons I'm still here, his input is invaluable during these uncertain times.

Strangely, the input of those on the opposite of what he writes about is also important as it provides the take off points for his explanations.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Take the vaccine and your life isnt endangered by those who don't so why should those who don't want it be forced to do so.

Because you'll be endangering those who don't/can't/ haven't take/taken the vaccine yet

I don't agree with being forced of course though we may differ on what exactly constitutes being forced

2 ( +5 / -3 )

But as it stands now, take it if you like, but let people choose.

Seriously, who is suggesting that people won't have the right to choose whether to take the vaccine or not? What is going to happen is that certain activities, such as plane travel, will most likely be denied to the non-vaccinated, at least for the foreseeable future, because the majority of society - health experts, governments, the people - have decided on the basis of overwhelming scientific evidence that vaccinations are the best way to secure public health in such environments. There will be other circumstances, too, where vaccinations will be mandatory, such as working in aged care, but I haven't read anything yet about a coronavirus vaccine being forced on anyone who doesn't want one.

People who don't want to be vaccinated will still have the choice. If you don't like some of the consequences of the choice you've made, that's too bad. At least you'll still have your integrity, whatever you think that may be.

3 ( +6 / -3 )

Unproven, never before tried nRNA vaccine,

I think you meant to say mRNA vaccines, and these have been used to treat animal diseases since about 1990 and had been used in tests on humans for many years with limited success by researchers seeking vaccines for some cancers. mRNA vaccines exist for rabies, Zika, CMV and influenza but there has been no widespread commercial application of these.

4 ( +6 / -2 )

Lots of red flags for Astra's vax as well. But 'they' will tell you there is absolutely nothing to worry about and the risks are minimal when they are not when you dig further into the details:

https://www.distributednews.com/481938.html

Where are the long term studies? Wait...we'll get them as you inject over this year...instant data of negative adverse events suppressed by mainstream media.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

Where are the long term studies? Wait...we'll get them as you inject over this year...instant data of negative adverse events suppressed by mainstream media.

Religious beliefs, irrational arguments, demanding studies about the effect after years of a vaccine months old. Sorry but that is also an argument for the vaccine as safer than the natural infection, vaccine volunteers do not get long term or permanent problems like COVID-19 patients do, so the risks for the infection are still larger, even if you only want to take into account long term problems.

I recommend you not to get your information from sites already known for being deceptive and publish false things routinely. Your source has more red flags than all the pharmaceutical industry put together.

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/distributed-news/

Distributed News is a right-wing conspiracy and pseudoscience website that routinely publishes false information. The founder is Mike Adams, who owns several Questionable websites such as Natural News and News Target. Libtards.News is a part of the Natural News Network. This website lacks transparency and does not disclose ownership.

In general, politically, all Mike Adam’s stories favor the right and promote pseudoscience such as chemtrails, the Sandy Hook shooting being a false flag: Sandy Hook was theater! Actor who played law enforcement sniper was recorded walking around carrying rifle by the magazine. Further, they routinely publish anti-vaccination propaganda and conspiracy theories. Lastly, this source denies the consensus on climate change without evidence, as seen here: Climate change cultists are now taking over your local weather forecast.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

I recommend you not to get your information from sites already known for being deceptive and publish false things routinely. Your source has more red flags than all the pharmaceutical industry put together.

Yes, I checked out that poster's link also. How people can dismiss the entire so-called "msm" with all of its well-resourced variety of news sources and opinions across a broad political spectrum, and instead allow themselves to be misinformed by some website where the "journos" never use their full names and seem to have a policy of knee-jerk opposition to whatever anyone in authority (of any kind) says, is beyond me.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

You present only half of the story and omit the most important part, that people that are not vaccinated also have negative outcomes and even death, so if something happens whether the person is vaccinated or not then you cannot attribute it to the vaccine.

Lets say that 1 million people are vaccinated against something, and 10 of them die on the same year, it looks bad, as if the vaccine were the cause of the deaths, but if you follow another million people that are not vaccinated and find out that 15 of them died on that year, then the real risk appears. This kind of comparison is done routinely by professional epidemiologist and statisticians and their data proves that vaccines have no elevated risk of important or lethal side effects when properly compared, people do that for a living to investigate the safety and efficacy of the vaccines and their data completely contradicts you.

You have been presenting the exact same argument day in and day out trying to explain away and downplay adverse events in any of the vaccine trials.

Misleading people with half of the data is not valid, you need to understand well first what you want to use, because right now somebody may even think you were trying to this manipulation on purpose for some hidden reason, like profit. It is worth trying to avoid that kind of misunderstanding by correctly using the information.

Exactly what you are doing with these new vaccines. I have never seen someone so pro, pro vax and support news that supports pharma. There is money to be made in keeping the masses calm enough to follow through with the injection...now 2 times per year with a few months apart (Billions upon billions invested to inject 80% of the world's population). Absolutely no money not to. Huge losses if there isn't compliance. Moderna, Pfizer, Astra's stock on the up and up. Gotta keep the shareholders happy right?

Here...I need you to discredit Dr. Mercola or attack him for having a supplement line:

https://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2020/12/08/coronavirus-vaccine-side-effects.aspx

Still on top of that no one knows the long term effects but yet with a scientific background you are so comfortable with that. I could not in good conscience do what you do. It's amazing how many times you post and how quickly you reply to anything vax related or attack anyone vaccine hesitant. Do your spiel within the next 10 minutes I suppose. I'm done.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

You have been presenting the exact same argument day in and day out trying to explain away and downplay adverse events in any of the vaccine trials.

Well, that is of course so, because the argument is true and solid, you have to compare negative effects in vaccinated and not vaccinated people to find out if the vaccinated have more, It is not my fault it completely proves your point as mistaken. The problem is why you keep using an argument that is so easily defeated, I mean you don't even try to disprove what I write, so you are accepting it is true.

Exactly what you are doing with these new vaccines. I have never seen someone so pro, pro vax and support news that supports pharma. There is money to be made in keeping the masses calm enough to follow through with the injection.

The opposite you present only one side of the data while clinical trials have, by law, to present the data from both vaccinated and un-vaccinated people, that is their whole purpose, can you prove only half of the pertinent data is being presented? of course not.

And no, vaccines represent in general a huge loss of profit for pharmaceutical companies, compare the cost of one dose with the cost of a couple of weeks in the ICU, selling thousands of doses still cannot compensate for that kind of loses.

And no, I don't need to discredit Mercola, he is doing an excellent job doing that by himself.

https://quackwatch.org/11ind/mercola/

https://cspinet.org/news/fda-and-ftc-urged-bring-enforcement-proceedings-against-joseph-mercola-false-covid-19-health

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Mercola

https://www.newyorker.com/news/news-desk/an-anti-vaxxers-new-crusade

In 2016, Mercola agreed to pay as much as $5.3 million in customer refunds to settle a complaint by federal regulators that he made false claims about the health benefits and safety of tanning beds he sold.

Its ironic how you complain about some supposed hidden conflicts of interest that make every single health care organization of health professionals in the world declarations "invalid", but you completely trust a person found guilty of fraud and that actively lies in order to promote his sales of anti-scientific products, the textbook example of doing illegal things because of a conflict of interest.

It is not my fault that you actively search people with terribly bad reputations to sustain mistaken opinions, its like you could not find anybody honorable that shared your views, that would put anybody to think more carefully about them.

-2 ( +1 / -3 )

Still on top of that no one knows the long term effects but yet with a scientific background you are so comfortable with that. 

Probably because of his scientific background he knows your fears are unfounded and also knows that many sites on the internet you cite post nonsense. In my own profession I have seen highly regarded news sites devoted to my line of work post up articles by their, cough cough, journalists that are just complete fabrications without even a little bit of truth lurking in them, but due to confidentiality rules and such I am not free to challenge them openly.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Citing Quackwatch.org? Seems like you are well aligned with these folks...

"Stephen Barrett, founder of Quackwatch, is a delicensed medical doctor. In addition, he failed the medical board exam required for a psychiatrist. His using the "MD" after his name is misleading and even fraudulent. He has never performed scientific research, nor written a scientific paper, but yet discredits Nobel Prize scientists such as Dr. Otto Warburg and Dr. Linus Pauling. Stephen Barrett is one BIG QUACK who is financed by the pharmaceutical industry that makes quack medicine. He was deemed "unworthy of credibility" in a court of law. Therefore, all his writings are medical quackery. There should be a picture of Stephen Barrett beside the words "nutcase" and "con artist" in the dictionary."

In a Canadian lawsuit Barrett admitted to the following:

The sole purpose of the activities of Barrett & Baratz are to discredit and cause damage and harm to health care practitioners, businesses that make alternative health therapies or products available, and advocates of non-allopathic therapies and health freedom.

Oh boy Virusex...here to prime the people for pharma? A little too close for comfort.

When looking at fraud why don't you look into the pharma fraud in each of those companies...let's look at Pfizer:

"Pfizer set a record for the largest health care fraud settlement and the largest criminal fine of any kind with $2.3 billion in 2009."

Source: U.S. Department of Justice

Protonix

"People are suing Pfizer over Protonix. Protonix lawsuits say Pfizer failed to warn about the risk of kidney problems. In 2013, Pfizer agreed to pay $55 million to settle criminal charges. The U.S. Department of Justice said Wyeth promoted Protonix for unapproved uses in 2000 and 2001. Pfizer acquired Wyeth in 2009."

Prempro

"Nearly 10,000 women filed Prempro breast cancer lawsuits against Pfizer. By 2012, Pfizer settled most of the claims for more than $1 billion."

Trovan

"In 1996, Pfizer conducted an unapproved clinical trial. It involved children with meningitis in Nigeria, CBS News reported. The trials led to the deaths of 11 children. Dozens more were left disabled.

Trovan is a drug severely restricted in use because of its potential to cause liver damage. Injury to the liver as a result of taking Trovan can lead to liver failure and death.

In 2011, Pfizer paid $700,000 to four families who lost children during the Trovan trials.

In addition, the company set up a $35 million fund for those affected by Trovan. Pfizer also agreed to sponsor health projects in Kano, Nigeria."

Pfizer's COVID19 Vax will be deemed FDA approved "safe" like their other pharma products until it isn't anymore and they recall...by that time it will be too late. You'll be back to explain the issues away. No big deal. Nothing to see here. When serious adverse events / deaths have occurred to a larger extent then they "Recall". Haven't you figured that out yet?

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Citing Quackwatch.org? Seems like you are well aligned with these folks...

So in comparison with MANY sourcer that says that the person you want to pass as trustful is actually guilty of fraud and frequently lying you reply with another that say that a person that simply aggregates the evidence of fraudulent and false declarations of people (that disgrace themselves)? What does that mean, is Mercola then not-guilty of fraud now? of course not, he is still guilty of eveything he is accused. Including that he lie to make profit. Exactly what you said should be enough not to trust. Now show me where exactly quackwatch base any of the evidence presented in his medical license? And also include cspnet, wikipedia, the new yorker, and the dozens and dozens of other sources that point at your source as the worst kind of quack.

So, pharma companies should not be trusted because they pay money when found guilty, but Mercola should be trusted because he pays money when found guilty? That is a double standard, an illogical position that only people that know their own sources are even worse than what they want to accuse, will ever use.

And all this just because I told you to improve your sources and replace them with some that will not constantly lie about everything just to get more profit? You should be grateful for that advice, usually people do not use lies and twisted information on purpose, unless they want to deceive others.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites