Voices
in
Japan

poll

Do you think employers should have the right to require workers returning to their offices to be vaccinated against the coronavirus?

109 Comments
© Japan Today

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

109 Comments
Login to comment

definitely no.

better to quit that job than be opressed.

-37 ( +46 / -83 )

The only way for things to get back to normal is for the majority to be vaccinated and for those that refuse then please stay at home.

34 ( +65 / -31 )

Say no to discrimination and segregation on the basis of personal and private medical decisions.

-35 ( +32 / -67 )

This one is going to be a huge can of worms everywhere.

It is just mind-boggling to see how we went from pretty much all of us considering vaccinations, sometimes mandatory ones, as the most accepted way of fighting diseases to some of us violently rejecting vaccines as they embrace weird conspiracy theories in less than 10-20 years.

Going back to the question: considering the potential for disruption to the business, the potential for danger to the health of both non-vaccinated and vaccinated staff, the danger of potential litigations, the employers do not have much choice.

14 ( +34 / -20 )

@blue what dangers? We can spread the virus regardless of whether we have been vaccinated or not!

There is no logical reason to be refused work due to lack of vaccination.

This vaccine is not a cure and DOES NOT stop the spread.

-30 ( +25 / -55 )

Segregating people and denying them the human right to earn a living because they MIGHT be sick and MIGHT possibly spread sickness to others? Surely this would be a gross violation of human rights.

-34 ( +22 / -56 )

How about heavy legal punishments for governments, big pharma and companies that cause vaccine injury and death by coercing and forcing people to accept vaccines against their will?

-34 ( +18 / -52 )

those that refuse then please stay at home.

Why? If they are not afraid of Covid.

If you are afraid of Covid then maybe you should stay home.

-30 ( +17 / -47 )

Employers shouldn’t be allowed to let unvaccinated workers in the office.

These people need to be kept isolated from society for their safety and outs.

19 ( +38 / -19 )

How about heavy legal punishments for governments, big pharma and companies that cause vaccine injury and death by coercing and forcing people to accept vaccines against their will?

They’re putting guns to their head and injecting them or murdering them?

Because if it’s not that then your comment is just useless rhetoric.

11 ( +27 / -16 )

Should employers be responsible for their employees safety? Oh no! Invasion of privacy! Do away with safety helmets and allow employees with deadly diseases to work until they drop. It’s all good for the profit of the company! Screw the workers!

14 ( +26 / -12 )

Say no to discrimination and segregation on the basis of personal and private medical decisions.

Except of course when you do not share those personal and private medical decisions and think they could affect you, in that case you are perfectly fine with discriminating and segregating people in order to protect yourself.

4 ( +20 / -16 )

vaccinations have been required for over 200 years. What makes this different? The need of the many outweighs the preference of the few. Choice is fine as long as no one else is hurt.

15 ( +29 / -14 )

It does not make any sense to force someone to take any of these experimental vaccines. All these vaccines do is reduce the symptoms for those who take it. They do not prevent you from catching it or transmitting to others.

And there is something very fishy that very early on, vaccinations were automatically accepted as the ONLY solution to the pandemic while aggressively rejecting/censoring/prohibiting all alternative treatments.

These vaccines are risky and their benefits are very limited for younger people; for kids they have virtually no benefits, only risks.

-16 ( +18 / -34 )

They do not prevent you from catching it or transmitting to others.

They don't in the same sense that antibiotic don't prevent people from dying of infections or chemotherapy prevent dying from cancer, they still help.

And there is something very fishy that very early on, vaccinations were automatically accepted as the ONLY solution to the pandemic while aggressively rejecting/censoring/prohibiting all alternative treatments.

Nothing fishy except for people with a systematic bias against science, for rational people it is very clear, vaccines demonstrated being extremely safe and effective, your favorite alternative treatments didn't, trying to insinuate that the whole scientific and medical community is actively censoring the treatments even from their own family and friends even without getting any benefit personally from doing it, is simply speaking unbelievable for anybody that think for a moment about it.

11 ( +28 / -17 )

Absolutely, yes, although they must find a way to accommodate any staff who cannot be vaccinated for proven medical reasons. Failure to comply with mandatory vaccinations at companies should result in immediate termination, with it noted on their records. If it is known that they came without vaccination and infected others, they should be charged with a crime.

5 ( +21 / -16 )

I would say no.

But after more than a year of this, specially after all the stuff that happened last year in Banana Republic of 'murica, I think people have way too much freedom.

Like Spiderman's motto, "power comes with great responsibility," Freedom also comes with great (er) responsibility. And far too many are not willing to sacrifice not even a tiny little bit of their "freedom" for the greater good.

That said, now I'm not so sure I oppose to employers requiring employees getting vaccinated in order to let them back in the workforce.

-1 ( +11 / -12 )

better to quit that job than be opressed.

Oppressed by taking a test to see if you have a virus? LOL

12 ( +21 / -9 )

better to quit that job than be opressed.

Yes, fight the oppression, and quit your job. Please.

15 ( +26 / -11 )

It makes perfect sense to do so. There is a new slogan here in Australia. “No jab! No job!”

7 ( +19 / -12 )

If you are afraid of Covid then maybe you should stay home.

I am definitely not afraid to be around people that have been vaccinated.

5 ( +18 / -13 )

vaccinations have been required for over 200 years. What makes this different?

The covid19 vaccines are still experimental and have so far caused more adverse reactions (and 36% of deaths) within a few months than all other vaccines together over the past 31 years; and about 6X more deaths than all previous flu vaccines put together.

The need of the many outweighs the preference of the few. Choice is fine as long as no one else is hurt.

These vaccines provide very little benefit for others (they reduce symptoms). Not getting the vaccine does not hurt others.

-12 ( +17 / -29 )

The covid19 vaccines are still experimental and have so far caused more adverse reactions (and 36% of deaths) within a few months than all other vaccines together over the past 31 years; and about 6X more deaths than all previous flu vaccines put together.

That is still completely false and repeatedly debunked, it does not matter how many times you try to misrepresent the information it is still easily proved as false. This obviously depends on the vaccine having magical properties and affecting exactly as much non vaccinated people, which makes no sense.

The real situation is that no other vaccine has been used so extensively on people of advanced age and with preexisting conditions while being under such close vigilance as these, but since this proves your whole point as false it is impossible for you to accept it, even if completely true.

Vaccines hugely reduce the complications and deaths, and can even reduce infections and tranmssion of variants, for antivaxxers that do not care about public health and the well being of a population these huge advantage seem "little benefit" but for the professional and those that actually care for the health and lives of others they are plenty of benefits.

9 ( +24 / -15 )

False.

Not False.

They people you mention regularly push false information as true.

There is no pro-vax movement like the anti-vaxxers.

However, there is an anti-misinformation movement.

7 ( +16 / -9 )

The covid19 vaccines are still experimental and have so far caused more adverse reactions (and 36% of deaths) within a few months than all other vaccines together over the past 31 years; and about 6X more deaths than all previous flu vaccines put together.

The real situation is that no other vaccine has been used so extensively on people of advanced age and with preexisting conditions while being under such close vigilance as these, but since this proves your whole point as false it is impossible for you to accept it, even if completely true.

That is still completely false and repeatedly debunked. You are suggesting that many of those "people of advanced age and with preexisting conditions" have never gotten a flu vax. After you were first corrected, you started adding the "such close vigilance" comment, but there is no evidence for that. On the contrary, there are many statements from doctors saying there is an active cover up of the adverse reactions, not closer vigilance.

There have so far been 11,000 deaths reported on VAERS from the COVID vax, 50% occurring within 48hr of vaccination, 80% within 1 week, and 86% with no other explanation. And many adverse reactions and deaths are never reported to VAERS, so the actual numbers are likely much higher.

The covid vaccines are far worse than any other vax. There are many vaccine experts (very provax) who are very opposed to giving them to everyone.

-8 ( +14 / -22 )

@Raw Beer

Could you post your sources which led you to tell us that Covid burned itself out last year?

13 ( +21 / -8 )

That is still completely false and repeatedly debunked

Then again, how come you can't provide a single source for this? as in a recognized institution of science or medicine that shares your opinion?

I am terribly sorry it is so difficult for you to accept science, but if the scientific consensus contradicts you repeatedly it is not possible to believe they are wrong and only you are right, specially when you provide no evidence of this.

You are suggesting that many of those "people of advanced age and with preexisting conditions" have never gotten a flu vax

No, anybody reading the comment would easily understand that old people with preexisting conditions have never been vaccinated AND followed in such a big scale and amount of detail, which is why the numbers are big in both vaccinated and unvaccinated people, it is there in the CDC information about the vaccine adverse effects report.

COVID vaccines are not bad, much less specially so, only that antivaxxers and other anti-scientific groups are trying to deceive people with misrepresentations of the information and trying very hard to hide the fact that unvaccinated people have the same rates of problems and deaths, which obviously prove the vaccines are not behind them.

4 ( +18 / -14 )

Their body, their choice.

-3 ( +15 / -18 )

Their body, their choice.

Employer's workplace, his choice.

6 ( +19 / -13 )

Their body, their choice.

Yes!

Employer's workplace, his choice.

Would an employer have the right to prevent employees from getting the vaccine?

Would an employer have the right to not hire blacks?

Would an employer have the right to not hire women?

-6 ( +15 / -21 )

Perhaps it should be the employees that get to decide. Just hold a vote of the workforce. Or is that too socialist?

-2 ( +8 / -10 )

Provided they are safe and available, then yes.

0 ( +8 / -8 )

There have so far been 11,000 deaths reported on VAERS from the COVID vax,

Is that deaths "from" the vaccine or reported deaths after receiving the vaccine? I think that would make a huge difference in interpreting numbers. I've come across a number of articles pointing out cases of wrong interpretation of VAERS data.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

For someone living outside society, they get to have a choice. But for someone interacting with others, getting vaccinated is a social duty.

4 ( +14 / -10 )

Would an employer have the right to not hire blacks?

Would an employer have the right to not hire women?

Neither can be considered as posing an increased threat to the workplace.

Would an employer have the right to prevent employees from getting the vaccine?

I guess the opposite situation with an employer opposed to vaccination refuses to hire vaccinated people could be a theoretical case, but as vaccination is considered as reducing risk (to himself, his staff his business, etc) he would look pretty silly to do so...

I also thought that the discussion was about the tyranny of vaccination (e.g. in the workplace)? So, the solution is the tyranny of non-vaccination?

-1 ( +8 / -9 )

The problem is that people (including me) who do not have a problem with other vaccines but are sceptical about the safety, effectiveness and the process surrounding their emergency-use authorization - together with the smearing of demonstrably safe, cheap and effective alternatives and doctors who use them - are being slandered as anti-vaxxers

not really, theproblem is using false, misleading reasons and conspiracy as an excuse to reject safe and effective vaccines and then expect people to respect those false reasons as if they were valid.

No we are providing official numbers of vaccine adverse reactions and deaths associated with the covid vaxxes. Similar numbers are available from France, the EU, and elsewhere. These vaccines have serious risks and their ability to stop the spread are very limited, they mainly just reduce symptoms.

The enless pushing for drugs that have already been found to be worthless against COVID is one of those invalid reasons, it does not makes sense, it is impossible to believe (because it would require countless doctors and scientist to hide those drugs even when they could be used for their own friends and families) and it can easily be proved wrong with scientific data.

No, hundreds of studies have shown HCQ+azithromycin to be very effective. Many studies have also shown a very strong effect from ivermectin.

If there really was a “scientific consensus” that these drugs are “worthless against COVID”, then when Fauci was asked about them, he would have said so. Instead he just said HCQ was politicized and that they had trouble doing a large study on Ivermectin. Doctors are prohibited from using these drugs or talking about them, it’s not that they choose not to use them; many would use them if they were allowed to.

BTW, speaking of vaccines being “safe and effective”, why do so many healthcare workers not get these experimental vaxes. How can we force people to get a vax that many doctors refuse to get it.

-5 ( +13 / -18 )

I guess the opposite situation with an employer opposed to vaccination refuses to hire vaccinated people could be a theoretical case, but as vaccination is considered as reducing risk (to himself, his staff his business, etc) he would look pretty silly to do so...

No, the vax mainly reduces risk to the vaccinated, not to others. But if you’re young and healthy, the risks from the vaccination are comparable to that of the virus (for kids it's higher than from the virus).

It does not make sense to force the vax on someone who doesn't need it and for which there is little or no benefit to others.

-6 ( +11 / -17 )

Quoting BertieWooster

For someone living outside society, they get to have a choice. But for someone interacting with others, getting vaccinated is a social duty.

Putting aside the discussions about science, data, sources, etc for one minute.

What clearly transpires from both sides' comments is the vision that people have: about themselves and about society to which they belong (...or not).

Pro-vaccination: "society" as in: a group to which they belong, a group within which they interact, a group they want to protect as a whole, starting with their individual action (here: vaccinate). Key-words: "we", "us", "together", "(social) duty".

Anti-vaccination: "society" as in, well I'm not actually...sure...: a group in which they exist(?), a group where interaction is limited(?) or where interaction is not conscious(?), a group which does not need protection(?), individual actions are not needed/required or are irrelevant(?) (here: vaccination). Key-words: "me", "individuality", "them", "freedom".

Belonging obviously to the first group, I have to say that I do not really understand how the second group "sees/preceives" society. I can only say that the view is totally different (and alienating) to me...

With no common ground, it is therefore no surprise that any discussion is impossible on these terms...

4 ( +9 / -5 )

No we are providing official numbers of vaccine adverse reactions and deaths associated with the covid vaxxes. Similar numbers are available from France, the EU, and elsewhere. These vaccines have serious risks and their ability to stop the spread are very limited, they mainly just reduce symptoms.

False, you are providing half of the necessary numbers and making conclusions that completely contradict the source of the numbers, that is the part where the disinformation comes, misrepresenting the original information in order to deceive others. The numbers of other countries are treated in the same way, showing only the numbers for vaccinated people and hiding the fact that rates are still the same with unvaccinated people.

No, hundreds of studies have shown HCQ+azithromycin to be very effective. Many studies have also shown a very strong effect from ivermectin.

False, many low powered and badly designed studies showed all kinds of effects from HCQ, from positive to deeply negative (more dead people when treated with it), this made necessary to make much better articles to discard the confounding factors and background noise, this proved without any realistic doubt that HCQ has no effect in preventing or curing COVID at any stage, and this is as easy to prove as just seeing the official communications of any medical or scientific institution of the world, all coincide in treating HCQ as a non-treatment, going down to lower evidence just because you don't like the conclusions of the best available evidence is the contrary of what science does, and of course it is completely invalid.

If there really was a “scientific consensus” that these drugs are “worthless against COVID”, then when Fauci was asked about them, he would have said so.

That makes no sense, this is already as well known as infections being caused by pathogens, that one single person do not mention it constantly do not make it less true, that is a completely irrational argument.

BTW, speaking of vaccines being “safe and effective”, why do so many healthcare workers not get these experimental vaxes.

Why do so many health care workers make wrong decisions about health? because being a health care worker is no guarantee to being able to correctly use scientific information, this is the reason why a third of the prescriptions for antibiotics are for things where antibiotics has no use whatsoever. If any of those health care workers had valid evidence for their decision that would make a different situation, but they never do so, just use terribly bad arguments to justify their personal irrational decisions.

No, the vax mainly reduces risk to the vaccinated, not to others.

I already asked you to provide a reference for this, and you brought nothing, your personal opinion is still irrelevant specially when contradicting the health care professionals, even if the vaccines were just able to make more people asymptomatic that by itself would be a reduction of risk of transmission.

4 ( +15 / -11 )

No, hundreds of studies have shown HCQ+azithromycin to be very effective. Many studies have also shown a very strong effect from ivermectin.

False, many low powered and badly designed studies showed all kinds of effects from HCQ, from positive to deeply negative

Hundreds of studies are overwhelmingly positive (https://c19hcq.com/). "Lower powered" just because you say so; because these drugs must be rejected as a condition for the vaxes to get an EUA.

(more dead people when treated with it),

Yeah, the famous RECOVERY trial, funded by U of Oxford who also received large funds for vaccine development. Doctors who treat patients with HCQ all recommend small doses given early, but the RECOVERY trial gave large doses (much higher than the maximum recommended dose!) and they gave the doses late in the infection. It was designed to fail!

-7 ( +9 / -16 )

Raw Beer....

BTW, speaking of vaccines being “safe and effective”, why do so many healthcare workers not get these experimental vaxes. How can we force people to get a vax that many doctors refuse to get it.

Complete nonsense, but of course you know that. The vaccine rate of medical staff (doctors and nurses) in Chiba is more than 98%. This is not uncommon in 1st world counties.

4 ( +13 / -9 )

Hundreds of studies are overwhelmingly positive (https://c19hcq.com/). "Lower powered" just because you say so; because these drugs must be rejected as a condition for the vaxes to get an EUA.

That is still false, your source is a well known invalid recopilation of studies that systematically fails to include negative studies while including even the worst kind of reports giving them the same weight as multicentring randomized studies including thousands of participants, if follows none of the well known methodologies to analyze properly the literature and it is uniformerly rejected by every recognized researcher as a clear example of pseudoscience

https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ivermectin-is-the-new-hydroxychloroquine-take-2/

https://ebm.bmj.com/content/early/2021/05/26/bmjebm-2021-111678

Yeah, the famous RECOVERY trial, funded by U of Oxford who also received large funds for vaccine development

No, you would be mistaken also in this, the recovery trial has not been accused of any improper treatment of the data nor the methodology (exactly the opposite from many pro HCQ studies) What I am talking about are the many low quality studies that showed effects all over the place, picking up only those that suit your personal bias is what your source did, only eliminating the bad quality studies that showed negative effects, that is part of the fails of his methodologies.

4 ( +12 / -8 )

Absolutely and positively No.

-5 ( +9 / -14 )

"BTW, speaking of vaccines being “safe and effective”, why do so many healthcare workers not get these experimental vaxes. How can we force people to get a vax that many doctors refuse to get it."

Complete nonsense, but of course you know that. The vaccine rate of medical staff (doctors and nurses) in Chiba is more than 98%. This is not uncommon in 1st world counties.

You have seen all the protests in France, right? It was even here on JT. Many healthcare workers don't want these vaccines.

-4 ( +8 / -12 )

You have seen all the protests in France, right? It was even here on JT. Many healthcare workers don't want these vaccines.

And what percentage of the total do these people represent, and (more importantly) what evidence they presented for their hesitancy? is it enough to contradict the evidence presented by the experts to show the vaccines are much safer than risking the infection?

2 ( +11 / -9 )

You have seen all the protests in France, right? It was even here on JT. Many healthcare workers don't want these vaccines

Yes, seen anti vaccers in Japan too. But not in the medical profession as in France. Many are not happy with the organization, supply chain and government response but as I pointed out 98% in Chiba prefecture. Other prefectures in the Kanto area should be pretty similar by now.

-6 ( +4 / -10 )

The only reason many health care workers are NOW getting VAccinated in Australia is that the Govt has made it mandatory! As in otherwise they will lose their jobs... To date about 50% of health care workers who have special access to vaccines have refused...what does that say abouth their believe in these EAU vaccines???

Vaccinate those most at risk and move on more under 60s in Australia have died from Astra Zeneca than covid!

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

what does that say abouth their believe in these EAU vaccines???

This would talk more about their lack of scientific preparation, after all none have raised valid arguments that would demonstrate any appreciable risk from the vaccines compared with the infection (nor with the cost compared with the current solutions to avoid spreading)

Vaccinating only the people at higher risk is not a solution, experts from all around the world coincide in calling this a terrible suggestion.

-6 ( +3 / -9 )

Sanjinosebleed....

Vaccinate those most at risk and move on more under 60s in Australia have died from Astra Zeneca than covid!

More nonsense...but of course you already knew. Sad that the anti vaccers are now down to making up such comical stories.

1 ( +8 / -7 )

Yes. 100%. Unless medically unsafe for an individual to do so.

@Raw Beer STILL totally continues to misunderstand the role of VAERS.

@sajnonosebleed - That is a depreate argument. No way you can provide credible proof of that.

0 ( +7 / -7 )

*desperate

-1 ( +4 / -5 )

Why are the Worlds most vaccinated nations locking down again and wearing masks?

Maybe if we had efficient vaccines and gave them to the vulnerable and had a better strategy things would work out better.

-4 ( +4 / -8 )

Would an employer have the right to prevent employees from getting the vaccine?

Would an employer have the right to not hire blacks?

Would an employer have the right to not hire women?

No employer can prevent employees from taking medical action. That is just silly.

In addition, no employer can discriminate against a protected class. Being an unvaccinated moron is not a protected class.

4 ( +8 / -4 )

@thepersoniamnow: Define the worlds most vaccinated nations. Vaccinated would mean that enough people (as in 85-90%) had been double jabbed (or once in the case of J&J)

The vaccines are proven to be efficient. Sadly, there is a small minority providing awful deception and misinformation tactics to prevent us reaching these numbers even in countries where it would be possible.

Day after day in the real press you read about people dying who had refused vaccination after believing what they read and realizing it was the wrong choice all too late.

3 ( +8 / -5 )

I agree, but could be type of job too ......Taking orders at McDonalds ..Yes

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

August 2020; I want to punch Nazis!!

August 2021; Show me your papers.

This poll is what happens when people watch nothing but CNN for over a year.

-3 ( +7 / -10 )

Failure to comply with mandatory vaccinations at companies should result in immediate termination, with it noted on their records. If it is known that they came without vaccination and infected others, they should be charged with a crime.

There are few things sadder in modern society than to see the demise of masculinity.

The west is dying, and one of the main reasons is that men have abdicated their innate responsibilities.

-1 ( +7 / -8 )

I called it a year ago, that other countries would deal with covid, while the US would lag far behind due to the high numbers of anti-vaxxers in the US. And look, Canada above the US is already opening up, even with their extra-cautious approach, as their populace is not made up of anti-vaxxers, and they have reached a high rate of vaccinations.

I predict America will be the last G8 nation to bring their covid numbers to a manageable level, by far.

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

Employers can institute whatever safety rules they want, especially those that are recommended by doctors. Employees who don't like those rules, or who feel they infringe on their freedom, are free to quit. Good riddance, and I hope nobody else hires them.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Employers can institute whatever safety rules they want, especially those that are recommended by doctors. Employees who don't like those rules, or who feel they infringe on their freedom, are free to quit. Good riddance, and I hope nobody else hires them.

Ohhh, our righties aren't going to like that comment. They don't believe that businesses should have the right to determine their own policies, and that government intervention is necessary to force these companies to act according to the will of the government.

You are pushing this progressive idea by which companies are granted the freedom to operate without government oversight. They promote a more CCP-style idea, whereby government oversight determines company policy.

1 ( +6 / -5 )

Absoutely NOT!

0 ( +7 / -7 )

I'm not surprised at the majority yes vote here.

I obviously voted no. It is an infringement of basic human rights.

0 ( +6 / -6 )

So, what about the Hep B, measles, chicken pox, flu and other inoculations lots of employers require, and which employees often have to pay for?

Talk of freedom from oppression, etc. - no such thing as a perfect world, baby!

Why so many people limit thinking to Coronavirus is beyond me.

An overlooked extraordinary feature of COVID vaccines is that in many or most places they are free.

Never had a free flu vaccine in Japan, nor anywhere. But in Kochi I’ve never taken a subway-cum-respiratory-disease-incubator to and from work either.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Definitely yes.

-4 ( +2 / -6 )

You have the right to not get the vaccine, just as an employer has the right to not employee those they deem a threat to both their business and others'' livelihoods. Those with rights often forget that other people also have their rights.

1 ( +5 / -4 )

today in the US, American Airlines, Delta Airlines and Southwest Airlines all announced they will NOT REQUIRE employees to get vaccinated, leaving United as the only airline that will require it starting Oct 25th.

Laugh at these sociopaths calling for fascism as the clowns they are.

-2 ( +5 / -7 )

You have the right to not get the vaccine, just as an employer has the right to not employee those they deem a threat to both their business and others'' livelihoods.

But that's not exactly true, is it? For example, many people would still be reluctant to eat at a restaurant if they discovered that the chef was HIV positive. Some customers might decide that even with an extremely low risk of transmission, the permanent consequences of HIV make it a risk not worth taking. As damaging to the restaurant owner's business as this might be, he still cannot fire or refuse to hire the chef (at least not in many countries). He has to provide reasonable accommodation for the chef to do his job (ie gloves, nylon safety knives etc). The law is usually on the employee's side in the majority of these types of cases.

Even if customers and co-workers are terrified of catching Covid and they're convinced that the unvaccinated are to blame, the employer not only has to show that this fear is justified but also that there are no reasonable alternatives to firing such as working from home or providing protective equipment or segregating the vaccinated from the unvaccinated in plastic bubbles on different floors.

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Don't fear to walk out on a job. Sometimes, the corporations and government offices will even back down:

9 young female employees of a NY court office all oppose C19V (They want kids)They organized & told their supervisor they will ALL walk out on the job if the C19V is mandated. The office cannot run without them. Result: the office is not mandating the shot. 

No job, no career, no travel, is worth submitting to the Vaccine Nazi regime. And this is not the first example of an office backing down from an announced vaccine mandate of which I have heard.

Remember, many corporations are struggling because they can't find decent employees, so they're not eager to see their existing ones walk over nonsense like this.

https://twitter.com/ritamollerpalma/status/1422001149264240642

0 ( +6 / -6 )

Yes, you live in a society with other people. If you want your "freedom" to do whatever you want, just move to your own island where you can enjoy doing whatever you want without bothering others.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Only the state through medical organization shall have the right to mandate vaccination.

Your employer has no right about what to put inside your body.

I am all in for vaccines, on medical grounds at national level.

-5 ( +1 / -6 )

Don’t want to wear a seatbelt? Ride a bike.

Don't want to get the jab? Work from home.

Nobody is saying you have to get the vaccination — but being part of society is abiding by social contracts.

-1 ( +3 / -4 )

Your employer has no right about what to put inside your body.

Of course they do:

-You can’t be drunk at work (you would be a danger to yourself and others, just like covid)

-You must be clean and showered at work (basic hygiene, just like the jab)

0 ( +3 / -3 )

Why would someone have to take something that has not been proven effective. If a person has a cold should the employer demand the employee to stay home? If a person has cancer does it mean chemotherapy is going to cure the cancer? Does taking this shot guarantee me that I will not get infected!

2 ( +4 / -2 )

Why would someone have to take something that has not been proven effective.

-- 1) There have been over 4 billion doses given, and it's been proven effective.

-- 2) No one has to take it. There are no government enforced vaccinations that I've seen. People can choose not to take it, they just aren't allowed to participate in the privileges of society if they make that choice.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

They can of course make what they want inside their property as long as it is legal and the rights of others , employees or guests, also aren’t affected. You could also deny unvaccinated bosses entry to your house if they should visit you.

Denying entry or firing are possibilities, demanding or insisting in vaccinations are not. In addition the relationship is usually detailed fixed in contracts or more generalized rules and labor laws. For example, if entry is denied and home office work isn’t possible, they have to pay on the wages or salaries for the duration of the contract. But in this case , the corona pandemic, the vaccination is of course the better choice, employed or not.

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Denying entry or firing are possibilities, demanding or insisting in vaccinations are not. I

Yes it is. They are entirely within their rights to demand that one vaccinates as a condition of entry.

if entry is denied and home office work isn’t possible, they have to pay on the wages or salaries for the duration of the contract.

No they don't. Employees refusing to follow company rules can be let go without penalty.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Not if have already been sick and recovered from the Rona

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Simple yes.

If I own a business where my employees are likely to physically interact with each other and customers, I need to ensure those interactions are safe for all involved for sake of my business’s financial health. Allowing people who are known to be risks to represent my company without taking any steps to mitigate risk is dangerous for my business and it’s reputation.

-2 ( +2 / -4 )

Not if I have immunity already

-1 ( +2 / -3 )

Not until they are proven safe and effective. Thus far, all the vaccines approved in Japan have demonstrated they are unsafe and ineffective.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Not until they are proven safe and effective. Thus far, all the vaccines approved in Japan have demonstrated they are unsafe and ineffective.

So bring the evidence to prove the experts that say the complete opposite from you, you don't expect people just to believe you instead of them, right?

-3 ( +3 / -6 )

It took my idiot boss three separate outbreaks in our office, and three separate bills of ¥2 million - all in July - before he finally acknowledged that his decision to force the unvaccinated workers back to the office wasn't a good idea.

5 ( +6 / -1 )

covid vaccines should be mandatory when they will be officially fully licensed. Right now all covid vaccines are not fully approved and allowed for emergency use only. People can’t be forced or discriminated if they didn’t want to be vaccinated with experimental drugs.

2 ( +5 / -3 )

Not until they are proven safe and effective. Thus far, all the vaccines approved in Japan have demonstrated they are unsafe and ineffective.

Yes! All medicines must be considered unsafe until proven safe. When the FDA awarded the EUA, they had the authority to demand the collection of data on the outcome of all vaccinations. For some reason, they chose not to demand that! So far, they have not been very forthcoming on the safety data.

All we have is VAERS in the US, and comparable systems in other countries. These systems have limitations, but they all show that the Covid19 vaccines have a much higher rate of adverse reactions and deaths as other vaccines, not even close. Furthermore, the Covid19 vaccines are not even effective and reducing the spread, they mainly reduce symptoms.

So there is no valid reason to demand anyone to take any of these risky experimental vaccines.

If you want it, take it and shut up. If you believe it works, you should not worry about others not being vaccinated.

-2 ( +3 / -5 )

If you want it, take it and shut up. If you believe it works, you should not worry about others not being vaccinated.

Yes, but the unvaccinated are more likely to clog up the hospitals and put other lives at risk by doing so.

Do you think the unvaccinated should agree not to go to hospital if they become ill from Covid? That would help your argument make more sense.

0 ( +3 / -3 )

The only reason why this is a question and why people are so against vaccinations is because it is essentially a renegotiation of employment conditions. This would not be an issue if there were grandfather clauses in effect, but that can't be done and guarantee the elimination of outbreaks. Those reluctant to vaccinate have done nothing in their contracts that could warrant release so here we are.

The easiest thing for businesses to do would be to mandate masks as part of a uniform policy or code with failure to comply resulting in termination. Then set a policy of not hiring those who are not vaccinated. Conservatives will argue that private business is allowed to discriminate on most issues, vaccinations being one of them. Liberals would say the discrimination is unjust, but will not be able to use lack of access or lack of data to defend the discriminated without having to have the government mandate vaccinations, which is what conservatives don't want.

I would love for those who are not vaccinated and not willing to be vaccinated to come up with a reason they should be employed by a small to medium business with limited resources.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you want it, take it and shut up. If you believe it works, you should not worry about others not being vaccinated.

Yes, but the unvaccinated are more likely to clog up the hospitals and put other lives at risk by doing so.

Hospitals would be almost empty if they allowed the use of Ivermectin or HCQ+azythromycin. Unfortunately, these repurposed safe and effective drugs had to be rejected to allow the use of vaccines.

Do you think the unvaccinated should agree not to go to hospital if they become ill from Covid? That would help your argument make more sense.

Do you think the vaccinated should agree not to go to hospital if they become ill from the vaccination? That would help your argument make more sense.

-3 ( +2 / -5 )

All we have is VAERS in the US, and comparable systems in other countries. These systems have limitations, but they all show that the Covid19 vaccines have a much higher rate of adverse reactions and deaths as other vaccines, not even close. Furthermore, the Covid19 vaccines are not even effective and reducing the spread, they mainly reduce symptoms.

Both things have been repeatedly proven wrong, how come you consider repeating false information something valid to try and convince others of what you say? Can you even get one institution in any country in the whole world that can support your beliefs? this being impossible should help any honest person realize they are wrong.

Hospitals would be almost empty if they allowed the use of Ivermectin or HCQ+azythromycin.

That is still as false as every time you repeat it, none of the drugs you keep pushing appear to have any kind of value in the treatment of COVID, and countries where it was widely distributed like Brazil had extremely high number of deaths and people complicating even when they took it as a preventive measures, in some studies people were more likely to be infected if they also took ivermectin.

There is a reason why not a single respected institution of medicine or science in the whole world agrees with you, and that is because the evidence points very clearly to HCQ to be useless and Ivermectin is getting more and more into the same situation the more it is studied, thanks to the lessons learned from the HCQ scam at least hospitals were able to avoid letting people manipulated by the anti scientific propaganda from intoxicating themselves with it as much as you would have liked.

Do you think the vaccinated should agree not to go to hospital if they become ill from the vaccination? That would help your argument make more sense.

How many people are you imagining go to the hospital from the minor side effects actually related fo the vaccines? it is easy to find many reports of unvaccinated people getting hospitalized by COVID infection, can you do the same for vaccinations?

0 ( +2 / -2 )

I think it is too early to require workers returning to their offices to be vaccinated against the coronavirus.

So far often vaccine is not even available, and there are various drug makers and their vaccines are made out of different recipes and their efficiency and side effects are rather unclear. Many open questions and not enough research data.

Covid-19 vaccines are not even approved as a regular vaccine, just for emergency use.

I got already Pfizer shots 2 x and side effects were the same and very moderate each time - some pain in the left arm and feeling very tired for 2 days. Same with my family members. We are surely not anti-vaxxers.

Some vaccines can be very effective, I was suffering every year with flu and bronchitis over decades, also got one time pneumonia - but after receiving the yearly flu vaccine shot and the 5 year pneumonia vaccine shot since around 2008 I was NEVER sick again - I could not believe it, I was really surprised. Side effects neglectable.

Interesting, nobody talks about obligatory vaccination against pneumonia, despite it is a very dangerous illness especially for elderly people and can be easily transmitted from person to person.

Seasonal flu is harmless but might send you to your bed at home for a few days - sick leave is common but no employer thinks about obligatory flu vaccination for empoyees. But why not?

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Opinions are very divided about the efficiency of these covid-19 vaccines. A heaven for anti-vaxxers.

In Japan it is reported that more than 100 million people received already at least 1 shot, but I do not see any decline of the number of infected patients in all larger cities. Today the count of corona-infected people in Japan is 134,470 and still growing.

It seems these corona-19 vaccines merely reduce the severity of the disease, I noticed a decline of the number of death. Well, that's better than nothing of course. Better vaccinated than not vaccinated...

However there are still a lot of open questions and not enough research data. These vaccines need still improvement, there is already some research going on for oral vaccination, maybe the way to go in future.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

It seems these corona-19 vaccines merely reduce the severity of the disease, I noticed a decline of the number of death.

I think the low death rate we have now is at least partially because it's summer, similar to last summer.

-3 ( +1 / -4 )

I think the low death rate we have now is at least partially because it's summer, similar to last summer.

Not a likely explanation at all, specially with the huge number of new cases we are seeing right now, one thing is to have a reduction of both cases and deaths, another is to have a reduction of deaths with an increase of cases.

It is also something that has been observed in every country where vaccination is progressing smoothly, independently of season.

0 ( +2 / -2 )

@Jimi

Good post about unvaccinated jamming up the hospitals. One of my nieces is a Covid specialist doctor and said it is amazing how those dying are begging for vaccinations but it is too late and she has to tell them so.

In conclusion, those not wanting vaccinations and screaming about how bad they are suddenly see the light on their deathbed. Once again Jimi-san. Good post.

JimizoToday  12:39 pm JST

If you want it, take it and shut up. If you believe it works, you should not worry about others not being vaccinated.

Yes, but the unvaccinated are more likely to clog up the hospitals and put other lives at risk by doing so.

Do you think the unvaccinated should agree not to go to the hospital if they become ill from Covid? That would help your argument make more sense.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Yes. Companies are private institutions and so can demand these things legally. BUT IF they are going to DEMAND that workers coming back to the office get vaccinated, they should at least give them the option from working from home.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Sorry but we can't do that Aly,

If you offer one person in a department the opportunity to work from home, you have to offer everyone in the department the same opportunity. By allowing those who are unvaccinated the option to continue to work from home, the company removes the ability to demand vaccinated workers to return to the office. Vaccinated workers can complain they are being forced to return to the office by a company taking advantage of people choosing to vaccinate. This isn't like a pregnancy, early childhood care, mental health, or chronic illness where situations are out of every party's control. The coronavirus can be mitigated against through vaccination, which is a choice.

0 ( +1 / -1 )

If you offer one person in a department the opportunity to work from home, you have to offer everyone in the department the same opportunity.

Which I fully support.

By allowing those who are unvaccinated the option to continue to work from home, the company removes the ability to demand vaccinated workers to return to the office.

Again, fine by me. NO ONE should be forced to go back to the office. Anyone, vaccinated or not, should have the WFH option. But for those that WANT to go back to the office, the company has a right to demand that they get vaccinated.

Vaccinated workers can complain they are being forced to return to the office by a company taking advantage of people choosing to vaccinate. This isn't like a pregnancy, early childhood care, mental health, or chronic illness where situations are out of every party's control. The coronavirus can be mitigated against through vaccination, which is a choice.

Again, no disagreement there. Anyone who wants to continue working from home should be able to do that- and if they want to do that, whether or not they are vaccinated is no longer the company's business, but when they want to return to the office, the company has the right to demand that.

But NO ONE, in my personal opinion, should be forced to return to the office.

That's what I think.

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Aly your arguments are sound but they are based on a work environment and product that does not require physical interaction with coworkers or customers. It sidesteps products and services that require physical interactions, like a barber, dentist, factory worker, or nurse.

Also, we have to look at the relationship between a business and an employee. When a business hires a person, expectations and responsibilities were explained and agreed upon by both parties. Now because of the pandemic and it's resulting technology, some expectations and responsibilities were temporarily modified. Keyword being temporarily. As the world goes back to a state of normalcy, it is within in the business's right to revert employee expectations and responsibilities back to the original context. If an employee doesn't want to go back, they are free to look for employment elsewhere.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

In my first job out f school, in a smelter, all employees were required to have flu vaccines. Those who refused were fired. We also had to drink a pint of salient solution every day to replace the lost body salts from the heat.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

It sidesteps products and services that require physical interactions, like a barber, dentist, factory worker, or nurse.

Read the above question again-

Do you think employers should have the right to require workers returning to their offices to be vaccinated against the coronavirus?

How many barbers, dentists, factory workers, or nurses do you know have an office? Barbers and Dentists are usually self employed. Nurses OF COURSE SHOULD be required to be vaccinated to do their jobs. Factory workers cannot socially distance so they too SHOULD be vaccinated. This is common sense. So your comment is not really valid with regards to the initial question on the thread.

-1 ( +1 / -2 )

Now because of the pandemic and it's resulting technology, some expectations and responsibilities were temporarily modified. Keyword being temporarily.

Sorry, who determined that? Because there are plenty of businesses that are keeping their employees working from home such as my next door neighbor and he reckons this will be permanent for him. SOME companies are asking their employees back but not all. You are assuming that this was a temp situation across the board and that is not the case.

As the world goes back to a state of normalcy, it is within in the business's right to revert employee expectations and responsibilities back to the original context. If an employee doesn't want to go back, they are free to look for employment elsewhere.

No argument there, but to many employers' chagrin, people are choosing exactly THAT. Its been in the news recently (although not so much in Japan, but more in the west.

1 ( +2 / -1 )

Naw, I'm good, the government should stay away from me as far as they possibly can.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Yes.

Unless the person has already had COvid or has had an antigen test and has the antigens.

Also of the person has a medically proven excuse. Otherwise, get vacced or stay back.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

Aly your arguments are sound but they are based on a work environment and product that does not require physical interaction with coworkers or customers.

We've found out over the year, that it turns out most jobs don't need physical interaction with coworkers or customers.

We shut down one of our offices during covid. We aren't intending to open it again ever - instead we're planning for a rotational office where people come in, but no one comes in every day.

3 ( +4 / -1 )

You are not allowed to smoke at work.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Aly,

Most conservatives would not want a body of officials deciding which employers can require which employees to vaccinate. Most liberals would like to split hairs (your logical argument). This allows most conservatives to say if one does not want to vaccinate, they should look for employment that accommodates that life choice.

Dentist are self employed, but operate under an insurance scheme requiring them to conduct their business in a certain way. An insurance company could simply terminate their relationship with a dentist over a dentist's decision to not vaccinate.

Barbers are self employed but normally operate under the license of the shop owner. This is more of a case of an independent contractor, the holder of the license and shop renting space to the barber. Again, the holder (shop owner) could refuse to use the services of any barber who chose to vaccinate to protect their branding.

Now you say nurses should be vaccinated, so in a sense, you, an individual ( and people with similar logic), have the right to decide which jobs should and shouldn't require vaccination, but a business (likely ran by an individual) shouldn't. It is a bit hypocritical.

As for who determined the need to change working conditions, the company did. And yes I do believe companies have the right to require employees to vaccinate. We are working on a spectrum, some companies need in office workers, some companies can do without, some companies need a combination. However, if I have the option of hiring a person who can work one way and a person who works both ways, I will hire the one who works both ways. Now what I worry about is being sued by someone who is unvaccinated on some type of discrimination angle when I can't hire them for fear of being the origin of a cluster and this is something they do not wish to address.

To Strangland,

What is your company to do if one person on your rotation refuses to vaccinate, and other workers refuse to work with them? If they are permanently put on remote work, how is a project lead supposed to justify this decision to the group.

-1 ( +0 / -1 )

As a more interesting proposition; What is one to do when companies start to tie promotions and bonuses to vaccination?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

What is your company to do if one person on your rotation refuses to vaccinate, and other workers refuse to work with them?

We’re still playing wait and see on policy, as policy is partially dependent upon law. At the moment the law doesn’t seem to be worked out here in Japan, but we are all still working from home with no intent to return to the office anytime soon.

However, behind the scenes my partner and I have discussed, and only one of our staff is indispensable, and he already got both shots. I’d the government allows us to set vaccination as a condition of employment, we will. Anyone not willing to do so will either be let go, or in the situation where their job will not be hampered at all by not coming into the office, we may make a concession until that person leaves, and when we replace them, we will find someone who can come in.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

Yes, yes and 1000 times YES !!..

Antiscience losers must to learn that public health is everyone's business..

0 ( +1 / -1 )

Most conservatives would not want a body of officials deciding which employers can require which employees to vaccinate. Most liberals would like to split hairs (your logical argument). This allows most conservatives to say if one does not want to vaccinate, they should look for employment that accommodates that life choice.

so what?

Now you say nurses should be vaccinated, so in a sense, you, an individual ( and people with similar logic), have the right to decide which jobs should and shouldn't require vaccination, but a business (likely ran by an individual) shouldn't. It is a bit hypocritical.

No. It is STUPID to equate a nurse or other health care worker with other people. If someone doesn't want to be vaccinated then they should not be working in the health care industry.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

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