business

U.S. employers ratchet up pressure on unvaccinated

70 Comments
By ALEXANDRA OLSON

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

© Copyright 2021 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed without permission.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.


70 Comments
Login to comment

Boycott Time everyone!

1 ( +13 / -12 )

Employers are losing patience with unvaccinated workers.

On one side; employees fed up with the decades of neo-liberal policies of employers:suppression of wages and cutting benefits, more precarious employment and disadvantageous contracts. And employees have have subsidies in Western countries and time to refrain from a desperate rush to work and reflect and retrain.

On the other side: Employers who want to go back to the old status quo; plus vaccinated employees and indemnified businesses.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

Just don't make a minimum wager have to enforce these rules against indignant hothead customers.

7 ( +9 / -2 )

This would make sense if it stopped transmission but it doesn't. It's a real own goal for the manufacturers because it doesn't matter if you're vacced or not

https://www.scmp.com/news/world/europe/article/3141136/uk-navys-flagship-hit-covid-19-outbreak-en-route-asia

1 ( +13 / -12 )

Tyson foods now joining companies requiring 120,000 employee vaccinations.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

Facism. Pure and simple. You absolutely cannot force people to take something they don't want nor need.

0 ( +12 / -12 )

Mr. Johnson: I beg to differ.

No company is forcing anyone to get the vaccine. They are merely making it a condition of employment.

And just like an individual is free to decide not to get vaccinated, an employer is also free to decide that an individual so choosing is not suitable for employment at their individual company!

-7 ( +7 / -14 )

is this still a democracy?

i feel not?

any thoughts?

0 ( +13 / -13 )

Good !!..

Vaccines are so very important to get out of the crisis.

More pressure on the silly unvaccinated rebels !!..

Facism. Pure and simple. You absolutely cannot force people to take something they don't want nor need.

It's not fascism, stop whining and playing the victim.

People have to learn that vaccines are the only solution for the country to get out of pandemic..

The priorities of the majority will always be more important than the priorities of an individual..

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

Matej: What is the relevance of your question?

How is determining a system of government associated with decisions by employers to make vaccination a condition for employment?

-5 ( +7 / -12 )

Matej: What is the relevance of your question?

How is determining a system of government associated with decisions by employers to make vaccination a condition for employment?

Its is completely relevant.I remember days when in ZA were places for whites only and laces for coloured only.

It was called apartheid.

This is kind of it but more sofiscitated one.

If country pretends to be free and guarantee by constitution freedom for ALL of citizens without any further criteria-should abolish these undemocratic practices.

2 ( +8 / -6 )

The priorities of the majority will always be more important than the priorities of an individual..

If only that were true.. Yet we see many cases where it is otherwise.

For example, the vast majority of pandemic relief going to select corporations, not the public. The majority opposing the pandemic Olympics.

If only the needs of the many really did outweigh the needs of the few. But that is not the society we live in.

]

0 ( +2 / -2 )

You absolutely cannot force people to take something they don't want nor need.

I agree. No one is forcing anyone to take the vaccine. People are refusing certain privileges for not taking it, but anyone who doesn't want to get vaxxed, doesn't have to get vaxxed. We're just not going to let them play with the rest of us. We're looking for more responsible friends to play with, who are not worthless members of society.

-9 ( +6 / -15 )

If only the needs of the many really did outweigh the needs of the few. But that is not the society we live in.

Spare the rhetoric, we as humans have come together with government around our entire world, as a group, to make things better for the group over individuals. Your silly rhetoric doesn't change thousands of years of human development.

You're like those people Louis CK makes fun of, for complaining about a late flight when they get to sit in a chair and cross the entire planet.

-7 ( +4 / -11 )

There is no right to infect others. Getting a vaccine and wearing a mask is easy, Do it, or stay home.

-7 ( +6 / -13 )

If you're vaccinated and you believe the vaccine works, why does an unvaccinated person need the shot to protect you?

If you're vaccinated and you believe (or have been told) that the vaccine does not give 100% protection, why does an unvaccinated person need the same shot?

0 ( +10 / -10 )

Except for the fact that fully-vaccinated people are also becoming increasingly more infected. ~47% of the recent Covid-19 infections in the UK are among fully-vaccinated individuals who are as likely to infect others as non-vaccinated people.

It would be better to test individuals for antigens which shows them to be non-infectious.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

If you're vaccinated and you believe the vaccine works, why does an unvaccinated person need the shot to protect you?

Herd immunity affects many different things, from transmissibility to appearance of variants, the more vaccinated people there are the closer a community gets to this threshold and the lower the risk get for everybody, including vaccinated and unvaccinated people alike. This of course only applies to people that give any importance to what happens to others and not just themselves.

Except for the fact that fully-vaccinated people are also becoming increasingly more infected. ~47% of the recent Covid-19 infections in the UK are among

If you have an increasing percentage of the population being vaccinated that means they obviously will make a higher percentage of everything you measure at the same time. So if you vaccinate 100% of people over 60, obviously 100% of the infections on people over 60% will happen to vaccinated people. If the total number of infections are reduced (and the percentage of people with less severe or any symptoms increases) that still means an important reduction of the transmissibility of the disease.

fully-vaccinated individuals who are as likely to infect others as non-vaccinated people.

That is not a valid conclusion, because it blindly assumes that vaccinated people have the same rates or duration of symptoms. If vaccinated people for example are more likely to be asymptomatic, or experience symptoms on a much shorter period, that still means they are much less likely to infect others, even if the viral titers they have while symptomatic are the same as unvaccinated people.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

That is not a valid conclusion, because it blindly assumes that vaccinated people have the same rates or duration of symptoms.

You're confusing symptoms with contagiousness.

Incredibly amateur mistake because asymptomatic people can still be contagious, in fact they are more dangerous because they don't realize they're infected and they don't self isolate.

Either you're not a scientist or you're intentionally lying.

0 ( +10 / -10 )

If only the needs of the many really did outweigh the needs of the few. But that is not the society we live in.

Spare the rhetoric, we as humans have come together with government around our entire world, as a group, to make things better for the group over individuals. Your silly rhetoric doesn't change thousands of years of human development.

You're like those people Louis CK makes fun of, for complaining about a late flight when they get to sit in a chair and cross the entire planet.

Alas, irony, and subtlety, are difficult to convey in this medium.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Good.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

You're confusing symptoms with contagiousness.

Symptoms ARE related to transmissibility, it is well described that people without symptoms have lower titers of viral shedding and reduces the possibility of transmission, there is no confusion just scientific data.

https://wwwnc.cdc.gov/eid/article/27/4/20-4576_article

Incredibly amateur mistake because asymptomatic people can still be contagious,

The mistake is yours because you keep thinking in absolute terms (which would be as saying that since some people treated with antibiotics die, that would mean antibiotics have no effect on infection), asymptomatic people are less contagious than symptomatic people, so if the vaccine increases the rates of asymptomatic infections (or the duration of the symptoms) the only rational conclusion is that it also reduces transmission.

So no lying, just you not understanding something quite simple.

2 ( +10 / -8 )

welcome to 1984...

-3 ( +6 / -9 )

asymptomatic people are less contagious than symptomatic people

asymptomatic people continue to socialize and act as if they don't have the virus, because they don't know they do.

symptomatic people call in sick and isolate themselves from society until they get better.

Which is more dangerous?

Over and out.

-3 ( +9 / -12 )

Anyone supporting this does not deserve the liberties a democracy afford, go live in in the CCP controlled China if you crave for a social credit system and a nanny state. Let the rest of us live in peace.

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

The UK is lagging behind on this issue.

-5 ( +2 / -7 )

asymptomatic people continue to socialize and act as if they don't have the virus, because they don't know they do.

And are less likely to transmit the disease, which still makes you wrong.

Now, who do you think would be more likely to still keep doing social distancing measures, the people that listen to the science (and thus vaccinate since vaccines have proven to be safe and effective by science) or people that systematically reject whatever science says and do as the please (and reject both vaccines and social distancing measures). It is not so difficult to think exactly who would be more likely to be spreading the disease.

symptomatic people call in sick and isolate themselves from society until they get better.

And this applies for both vaccinated and unvaccinated people. So that still means vaccinated people are less likely to be spreading the disease.

Unless of course you have a scientific source that proves you are right and all the experts that contradict you are wrong. It is not like you expect people to just trust your authority, right?

1 ( +9 / -8 )

is this still a democracy?

Yes, rights are not absolute. Even school kids are required to get vaccines to be registered. When you go college you must provide proof of certain vaccines. Then, if you go into healthcare, many additional vaccines are mandatory.

4 ( +11 / -7 )

There is no right to infect others. 

There is no right to kill either.

However, if you arrest someone on the basis of you think they might kill in the future, that is profiling.

If you think someone is infectious and you want to restrict their rights, the onus is you to prove that they are infectious, and only after you have proved that, can you begin to restrict their rights.

Innocent until proven guilty is a fundamental tenant of a Constitutional Republic.

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Pierre LeVenerableToday  07:48 am JST

Boycott Time everyone!

Yes! Please! All anti-vaxxers, please boycott all restaurants, shops, and public venues! Stand united, at home!

9 ( +11 / -2 )

infection can also happen with an entire vaccinated staff.

. “I lost a ton of sleep over this but not as much sleep as I've lost over the fear of infection.”

See?

Bleiman said he recently had to close his bar for a night after his bartender, who was fully vaccinated, tested positive

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

Missed this one?

“In surveys by Gartner, fewer than 10% of employers have said they intend to require all employees to be vaccinated.”

so 90% are standing by for my business.

-5 ( +4 / -9 )

Good. Reap what you sow. There is no law or right that businesses have to allow you on their private property. With the exception of not discriminating based on race, there never was.

If they don't want you there, you are trespassing. A criminal act. That's THE LAW.

0 ( +4 / -4 )

And just like an individual is free to decide not to get vaccinated, an employer is also free to decide that an individual so choosing is not suitable for employment at their individual company!

I am totally pro vaccinations, but I know I cannot force people to take a vaccine that's only emergency authorized.

I think whether companies can do that will be decided in court.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

~47% of the recent Covid-19 infections in the UK are among fully-vaccinated individuals who are as likely to infect others as non-vaccinated people.

Guess what, when everybody is vaccinated, 100% of all COVID cases will be in vaccinated people. Not too good at math, are ya?

3 ( +9 / -6 )

If they don't want you there, you are trespassing. A criminal act. That's THE LAW.

I agree with you.

However, private companies are also bound by the contracts they sign. They can not arbitrarily change your condition of employment to include an invasive medical procedure.

Moreover, if they accept taxpayer funding, like a public library, a public stadium or even an airport, they cease to be fully private institutions and become public.

Public institutions must be open to all citizens. That's THE LAW.

You'll lose in the courts, like all segregationist have for the past 50 years.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

Public institutions must be open to all citizens. That's THE LAW.

Public or private, that's irrelevant. Sooner or later the vaccine will be required to do most things outside your home that occur indoors or in crowed places. That will either be mandated by gov't or private companies or both. But you need not be fearful, nobody will force you to get any shot.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Nice that all the aggrieved, “Don’t take away my freedom to get sick and make others sick” folks have all their reasons worked out. Meanwhile, back from la-la land, the people filling up the hospitals with Delta now are over 90% unvaccinated. Yes, there are a few vaccinated people in there too, but mostly not.

Self preservation is changing attitudes, especially right now in Florida, where Advent Health just had to cancel all elective surgery in order to handle all the serious covid cases of the “free” unvaccinated. The same scenario has not reached Japan yet, but don’t worry, it is coming.

-2 ( +4 / -6 )

But you need not be fearful, nobody will force you to get any shot.

The Nuremberg Code, Line 1, Sentence 1:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Definition of Consent: (Fries is a helpful acronym):

F- Freely given

R- Reversible

I- Informed

E- Enthusiastic

S- Specific

Attempting to force consent via coercion is assault.

You will lose in the courts, segregation always fails.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

The Nuremberg Code, Line 1, Sentence 1:

Why use a reference about human experimentation on war situations when neither of those things apply to the COVID vaccines? is it that you don't have any actual interest on ethics so you ignore the proper references for informed consent for medical treatments?

2 ( +9 / -7 )

The covid vaccine was developed to help everybody fight of this nasty virus, for the love of god why wouldnt you want it? and its free!, one chap who use to work for me was dead against having it, the daily sycobable about conspiracy theories, and its his body and he didnt want any foreign muck in it baffled my brains somedays, but if you dont want the life saving vacine, thats fine by me, but, if you get covid and need medical help of any sort , those that are not vaccinated should pay out of there own pockets for that treatment, no medicle insurance, its been your own doing, sorry.

-1 ( +6 / -7 )

Public institutions must be open to all citizens. That's THE LAW.

Nope. Wrong.

2 ( +7 / -5 )

I think whether companies can do that will be decided in court.

It was decided before you or I were born. Indivduals do not, never have and never will, have the right to endanger the public. Those who do not understand that are by definition, criminals. That is not an opinion nor an option. It is fact.

The one institution you are free to go if you do not like this, is prison. It is the very reason prisons exist. It is not negotiable. As many, many people have found out the hard way.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Those who do not understand that are by definition, criminals.

And people called Rosie Parks a criminal when she defiantly sat at the front of the bus, yet she ignored them and the world eventually realized that segregation is wrong.

That was 50 years ago, when minorities feared the government.

We don't anymore, millions and millions of Rosie Parks will challenge this new Apartheid system, in the streets and in the courts.

-4 ( +6 / -10 )

Discrimination against people who exercise thier human rights to make personal medical decisions.

Those who lose thier jobs ought to fight it in court and sue the pants off these companies!

-4 ( +5 / -9 )

@ Strangerland:

I agree. No one is forcing anyone to take the vaccine. People are refusing certain privileges for not taking it, but anyone who doesn't want to get vaxxed, doesn't have to get vaxxed. We're just not going to let them play with the rest of us. We're looking for more responsible friends to play with, who are not worthless members of society.

I'm sure there will be a lot of 'special jobs' for people like you to up their social credit score in the future.

I don't know what's in the mRNA-injection (and neither do you), but it sure brings out the worst in people...

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The Nuremberg Code, Line 1, Sentence 1:

The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential.

Definition of Consent: (Fries is a helpful acronym):

F- Freely given

R- Reversible

I- Informed

E- Enthusiastic

S- Specific

Attempting to force consent via coercion is assault.

You will lose in the courts, segregation always fails.

Indeed!

But surprising, some who know nothing about bioethics believe citizens during peace time have less rights than during wartime!

But regardless, the Nuremberg Code lead to a number additional rules such as the Common Rule which is applicable to biomedical research, and it clearly states that: there must be full disclosure of risk; these risks must be understood (common language); and there must be full voluntary choice to participate in the medical research (no coercion and no enticement).

And these vaccines are still experimental; they have yet to get full approval. People are being coerced and enticed into getting vaccinated. They vaccine risks are covered up. Some believe it's OK to withhold and censor information to avoid vaccine hesitancy... it's not OK!

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

We are heading to a strange and crazy society where this vaccine looks like gold for many and non vaccinated are gonna get demonized.

But this vaccine does not prevent transmission and infection at all.

At the moment, lockdowns and vaccines have not stopped anything. The more we do, the more infections there are.

0 ( +5 / -5 )

asymptomatic people continue to socialize and act as if they don't have the virus, because they don't know they do. 

If you do not have any symptoms, the chance you get the virus is nearly zero, especially if nobody around you hasn’t any symptoms and you haven’t been in any risky situation

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

@ Burning Bush

I usually disagree with everything you say, but it seems we have a common enemy, lol.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Discrimination against people who exercise thier human rights to make personal medical decisions.

This is of course something you are perfectly ok with, but only if you don't share those people beliefs, but if you do then you flip your double standards.

But surprising, some who know nothing about bioethics believe citizens during peace time have less rights than during wartime!

Even worse than that, people that don't know anything about ethics (as in the whole field) are still trying to use the worst possible reference to something that actually have much better ones, just because of ignorance. It is like trying to use the Geneva convention protocol to justify killing someone during a robbery.

Another problem are the dissinformation efforts to pretend vaccination is an experiment on the people being vaccinated, which is totally false. Pretending not to know the difference between informed consent for treatment and informed consent for experimentation (or pretending is the same thing) is evidence of not being actually interested in the medical ethics, just trying to deceive people.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Article 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights refers specifically to medical treatment:

Article 7 prohibits torture, cruel, inhuman or degrading punishment and non-consensual medical or scientific treatment.[25] As with Article 6, it cannot be derogated from under any circumstances.

Can you understand that second sentence that immediately follows?

It means that you can not make up any excuse or justification or whatever to disregard a person's consent.

A vaccine requires consent.

Consent can not be induced via coercion, threats or intimidation.

The law is clearly written and the US is bound by it.

All these Gestapo laws are illegal.

-3 ( +4 / -7 )

It means that you can not make up any excuse or justification or whatever to disregard a person's consent

Consent is not being disregarded when valid, scientific limits are put in order to slow down spreading and increase safety in the working environment, if people choose to keep those measures (like not being able to travel or to be subjected to frequent testing) then that is their choice, if other people choose to replace those necessary measures with vaccination that is also their choice.

Exaggerating and thinking your decisions should never have any negative consequence is not the same as disregarding consent, it just mean you are trying to be treated better than the rest of the people that make a choice between these two options.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

@ virusrex

It's not a choice! We (unvaccinated, dirty, rabid dogs that we are) are being forced to!

If you work at Walmart and you don't feel comfortable taking an mRNA-injection. Well, too bad for you:

Either you can feed your kids, pay your rent, OR (listen to this) you can get an injection. It's you choice, bro!

That's not even the illusion of choice. It's called 'Sophie's choice'...

0 ( +4 / -4 )

It's not a choice! We (unvaccinated, dirty, rabid dogs that we are) are being forced to!

Working at Walmart is not exactly an irreplaceable situation, nor vaccination has even been decided in the courts, those that have actually are have options instead of the vaccines, which is exactly what I am talking about. The choice is perfectly real, full anti COVID measures or vaccines with less measures.

The obvious exceptions are the places where every effort should be made to protect vulnerable population like hospitals and places tending for people of advanced age, no amount of desire of personal freedom can justify doing something that can be proved scientifically to increase the risk for those people that are actually in special danger from the infection.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Are you really saying that people working at the largest (private) employer in the US are easily replaceable?

I mean, sure they are from Walmart's point of view, but look at it from the perspective of from a single mother trying her best to give her kids a bright future. She's trying to make ends meet and suddenly she needs to get injected with mRNA to be able to continue doing that. What?!

Maybe you are in the position to not have to care about how to make ends meet every month, but A LOT of people have to. And you are leaving them no choice but to get injected...

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Maybe you are in the position to not have to care about how to make ends meet every month, but A LOT of people have to. And you are leaving them no choice but to get injected...

Welcome to the capitalist free market.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Are you really saying that people working at the largest (private) employer in the US are easily replaceable?

What kind of twisted logic is necessary to misunderstand that? it does not even make sense with the rest of the comment, it obviously means that walmart do not represent a job opportunity that can't be replaced, but more importantly why do you ignore the rest of that same sentence? It has not even been confirmed that people working hourly can be required to be vaccinated without any other option (specially when the clients are not required to be vaccinated), read the article it is written very clearly.

As long as people have options (even if they consider those options disagreeable) that also help slowing down the spreading you can't make the argument of forcing the vaccination. Again with the obvious exception of positions where a responsibility towards vulnerable people has to be taken.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

@ virusrex

Your say: You have a choice to get vaccinated or not, but you have to deal with the consequences.

What if (and this requires empathy) people don't want to get an mRNA-injection (for reasons whatever), but your employer suddenly enforces this rule. You can A: Look for another job (for many people that's not realistic) or B: Lose your job (not being able to pay the rent etc..), or C: Get injected against your will.

How is this a choice?!

0 ( +3 / -3 )

What if (and this requires empathy) people don't want to get an mRNA-injection (for reasons whatever), but your employer suddenly enforces this rule. You can A: Look for another job

Yes

(for many people that's not realistic) or

Life is tough.

B: Lose your job (not being able to pay the rent etc..),

It’s difficult when you lose your job due to your choices. But they were your choices.

or C: Get injected against your will.

No one is forcing vaccines anywhere as far as I know. So no, it wouldn’t be against your will.

You have a decision, you just don’t like that choice.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Let's say I'm a rapist and I force someone to have sex with me, otherwise I would kill them.

If they choose to not get killed and thus raped. Would you say they chose to get raped?

No. Because they wouldn’t have chosen to be raped. In your hypothetical situation the choice would be to not die, unfortunately resulting in a rape.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

How is this even legal?

Resist!

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

~47% of the recent Covid-19 infections in the UK are among fully-vaccinated individuals who are as likely to infect others as non-vaccinated people

The UK was seeing 80,000 cases a day in January with over 1300 deaths. Now, in their next wave, as one of the most vaccinated countries out there, while they are seeing 60,000 cases a day, there are less than 100 deaths per day.

“The vaccine doesn’t work” they say. Because they’re too stupid to realize they’re too stupid to know what they’re talking about.

And here I am using all these numbers and recklessly destroying narratives. My bad.

2 ( +4 / -2 )

If your employer tells you that you have such and such amount of time to get a vaccine, and you don't get it, then you are fired. That is wonderful! You do not deserve the job. There are other people who care about keeping others safe who can be hired.

3 ( +5 / -2 )

What do you complain so much? The business owner has the freedom to set the rules for his property or company. The same for you, the employees, freedom to do the vaccination or search another employer who accepts unvaccinated staff. And btw. , if you had engaged and educated much more, you would be now irreplaceable, and the boss wouldn’t even dare to demand you to get vaccinated, because he would fear you feel nerved or even leave and then the whole business goes bankrupt. Only an example, just to illustrate that the bias also could be on your advantage. You cannot say in general, that you are exploited or pressed by them, you can also turn it into your direction. Anyway, get that vaccination, it’s better for yourself and us all.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Anyone who thinks they are somehow magically immune to the virus will unfortunately, and painfully, perhaps even mortally, learn otherwise. And many have already done so.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Your say: You have a choice to get vaccinated or not, but you have to deal with the consequences.

That applies to every decision you make in life, why should this be an special case?

If the employer has valid reasons to make the vaccine mandatory (for example for workers in close contact with patients at very elevated risk from the infection) then making every logical effort to decrease risk of transmission is part of what the job requires and not doing it actually means not doing the job properly.

If the employeed thinks the employer is not justified, the usual mechanisms to fight it are still available, so people can make their case and see what happens, that is also part of the consequences of the decisions being made. At this point the most common choice is not even that, but to be obligated to use all the different measures against the spreading of the disease or replace some of them thanks to the reduction of risk that comes from the vaccine, there is no problem with choosing between these options.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Burning BushAug. 4  05:17 pm JST

Those who do not understand that are by definition, criminals.

And people called Rosie Parks a criminal when she defiantly sat at the front of the bus, yet she ignored them and the world eventually realized that segregation is wrong.

That was 50 years ago, when minorities feared the government.

We don't anymore, millions and millions of Rosie Parks will challenge this new Apartheid system, in the streets and in the courts.

That is a ridiculous comparison but I am not surprised to see such nonsense from you, you're getting desperate as the noose tightens. Racism and public health are 2 completely different matters, antivaxxers are in no way comparable lol, they just prolong the pandemic.

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

or C: Get injected against your will.

No one is forcing vaccines anywhere as far as I know. So no, it wouldn’t be against your will.

You have a decision, you just don’t like that choice.

A bit like being told by your boss to have sex with him or you'll lose your job. She's not force to have sex, it's her choice ...

Anyone who thinks they are somehow magically immune to the virus will unfortunately, and painfully, perhaps even mortally, learn otherwise. And many have already done so.

Anyone who thinks the vaccines are somehow magically safe will unfortunately, and painfully, perhaps even mortally, learn otherwise. And many have already done so.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Anyone who thinks the vaccines are somehow magically safe will unfortunately, and painfully, perhaps even mortally, learn otherwise. And many have already done so.

That is the favorite false argument from antivaxxers, the real argument is that vaccines are simply much safer than risk the natural infection, as proved by literally millions of cases and vaccinations around the world. Nobody has to depend on magical anything, just the scientific certainty that being vaccinated is objectively better than not.

-1 ( +1 / -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