Slashdot Mirror
Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?
HughPickens.com writes According to Joanna Rothkopf Disneyland is already a huge petri dish of disease with tired children wiping their snot faces on Goofy and then riding log flumes through mechanized rivers filled with the backwash of thousands of other sweaty, unwashed, weeping toddlers. Now John Tozzi reports at Businessweek that five workers at Disneyland have been diagnosed with measles in an outbreak that California officials trace to visitors at the theme park in mid-December. The measles outbreak is a publicity nightmare for Disney and the company is urging its 27,000 workers at the park to verify that they're inoculated against the virus, and the company is offering tests and shots on site for workers who are unvaccinated. One thing Disney won't do, however, is require workers to get routine vaccinations as a condition of employment. Almost no companies outside the health-care industry do. "To make things mandatory just raises a lot of legal concerns and legal issues," says Rob Niccolini. Disney has been working with public health officials, and they've already put some employees on paid leave until medically cleared. "They recognized that they were just a meeting place for measles," says Gilberto Chávez. "And they are quite concerned about doing what they can to help control the outbreak."
Also, mandatorily drug tested.
because I am not anti vax, but i am pro choice. in that people should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies
on the other hand, I do believe that an employer can mandate a safe working environment. I think the issue is not should they be forced to be vaccinated, but to what extent. For example, im not a flue shot kinda guy, i just dont get those. on the other hand, I got all my childhood vaccine, as well as a lyme vaccine in my teens (major tick area and my aunt got lyme)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Snot is a noun. The adjective is snotty.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
No mention of terrorists spreading ebola? This can't be right. Where's the news?!?
I have absolutely no issues with ANY employer to require vaccines. Why? Because people, and the courts, will expect them to be responsible for anything that happens that could have been prevented. Until the courts recognize otherwise, make it mandatory. Let the potential employee sue. If they go to court, then the employer should have the court enforce liability to the employee and NOT the employer
...yes!
That should eliminate the anti-vaccination applicants, without impinging on personal choice.
Gently reply
Horribly off topic, I know.... but where did the "News for Nerds" tagline go? I suppose it is appropriate that it has disappeared, but I don't remember when it went away.
Would this be mitigated by Disney *always* providing paid sick leave? The quote in TFS suggests that this might be the exception rather than the rule. If you encourage employees to come in to work while they're sick, or even hide their symptoms, then I guess you're more likely to see illnesses spread...
Vaccinate things that everyone gets a vaccination for at birth. That is the rational vaccination that everyone should have.
The flu vaccinations are for the very young and the very old. Everyone else at worst gets a sniffle for a few days. And really, the underlying problem is poor hygiene and not vaccines in that case.
I do not get the flu. I have never had it. I have never had a flu vaccine and don't plan on getting one until my body is so frail that the common flu is a threat to me.
Should everyone get the standard immunity shots that babies get before they leave the hospital? Yes.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
who don't deny science.
The rest can consult a homeopath when they get sick.
There's little question that vaccination is a valuable part of health care. That's why the general untrustworthiness of Big Pharma is so frustrating. When a subset of the public learns for example that the Flu Shot is all but useless around half the time, but that the drum-beating and insistence that they need to take it doesn't slack off even in years in which they know this to be the case, they might reasonably become more distrustful of vaccinations in general. And that, friends, is just one of the many reasons why we need to remove the corporate profit motive from health care. There are other mechanisms we can use to progress medical technology.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Let me FTFY.
because I am not anti-hand washing, but i am pro choice. in that people should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies
on the other hand, I do believe that an employer can mandate a safe working environment. I think the issue is not should they be forced to wash their hands, but to what extent. For example, im not a ass wiping kinda guy, i just dont buy tp. on the other hand, I got all my childhood diapers changed, as well as a clean underwear in my teens (major shit area and my aunt got cholera)
Dude, how hard is it to accept that employers don't want their employees making their customers sick?
How would this work out with employees who have "religious reasons" for not being vaccinated? Could they claim discrimination?
" Should Disney Require Its Employees To Be Vaccinated?"
Yes. Any other answer other than that fails to take into account that the year is 2015 and opposing vaccination is a delusional and harmful act both to oneself and any other unvaccinated (regardless of legitimate medical reasons, or bullshit ideological reasons) person they come in contact with.
Fucking idiots.
because I am not anti vax, but i am pro choice. in that people should be free to do as they wish with their own bodies
The problem arises when what you do with your body is a hazard to others. There are many cases where this borderline is fuzzy, but infectious disease is not one of them.
In an ideal, free-market world, the solution would be simple. If you refused to get vaccinated, and contracted measles, you could simply be held legally liable for damages by anyone you passed the disease on to.
The problem is that, though this is theoretically possible, it's practically impossible. The problem then becomes, like that of pollution, one of internalized benefits and externalized costs. The best solution then is for a third party to step in and enforce prosocial behavior.
You should get a fresh sample of hand sanitizer with every post. The world didn't magically become livable when vaccines came around. (cue the hord of ranting germaphobes) I was sick often as a child. Flu every year, pnuemonia once, numerous ear aches, athletes foot, migraines, frequent sore throats, pink eye.... just like most kids.
Now, I eat healthy, my kids eat healthy, I exercise, and guess how often any of us are sick? Almost never. Once every couple years we get a cough for maybe a day.
Choose wisdom over a magic bullet. Choose health and self responsibility, instead of foolishly believing you eat and act how ever you want without consequence. Vaccines are of no use to very strong and healthy people. Try out your circular logic on what a vaccine is supposed to do "boost your immune system's respone"... for who? Strong people, or weak people?
Go ahead and try and prove to me that my behavior has _nothing_ to do with my health, and I will go right back to McDonalds, junk food and vaccines.
If you aren't going to vaccinate your children, then you have no business taking them to a highly international, very crowded space on the East Coast. It's about as stupid as living in DC which has a huge, very cosmopolitan population and not vaccinating. What might be ok in small towns where the population isn't very mobile is utterly insane in such an area.
amazing
"the Flu Shot is all but useless around half the time"
which implies that it is helpful half the time. Seems like a good return on the investment of having one for anyone who would suffer significantly from having flu.
As to the wider issue of replacing the profit driven approach to pharmaceutical R&D, the problem is that this would require a vast level of new expenditure from the government. Admittedly it might work - but the failure of the USSR or China to be major pharmaceutical producers is a hint that it probably won't.
I'm almost 40 and got the MMR measles shot when I was a wee baby. But these damn science deniers not getting their kids vaccinated are scary. I had a colleague in my office who had measles a few months ago, and it scared me that I could get it again. After all, vaccinations don't last forever, and the one-time MMR vaccine regimen was based on an assumption of effective herd immunity from everybody playing ball. So, I wonder if to be safe from getting disease from Jenny McCarthy and her scumbag friends I should get a second MMR immunization? Does anyone know how long the one-time vaccine remains effective against measles? And are there any potential risks why I shouldn't get it again "just to be safe?" I don't care if I have to pay because insurance won't cover it.
End of discussion.
Even if 100% of people in the world got measles vaccinations it wouldn't prevent outbreaks completely. Not only is the vaccine not 100% effective (e.g. at least 20%, and some reports say 50%, of the people that got full-blown measles from Disney were vaccinated) the measles vaccine is also an attenuated vaccine, which means it is living and actually spreads the virus via those it immunizes. The vaccine itself can cause what is know as "breakout" cases.
The protection you get from vaccinations is on the "herd" level and not the individual. If the majority of the herd is not vaccinated, the vaccine itself provide very little protection to an individual....
Factually incorrect for most vaccines, which provide a high degree of protection for individuals
Can't legalize stupidity.
Can't legislate being smart.
Schools, Malls, sports arenas, Disney ... same, same.
and Gru is pissed ;-)
... does not mean You cannot be a Carrier. Requiring vaccinations would not prevent the spread of the disease to Others.
drug tests should not even exist let alone be mandatory. what happened to innocent until proven guilty?
Innocent until proven guilty only applies to the State regarding criminal proceedings. It has nothing at all to do with private sector employers. You are free to decline to be tested so nobody's rights are being infringed. Yes, there may be consequences to that decision including not being hired. If a private sector employer determines that use of illegal drugs could cause the company problems (liability and safety in particularly), why shouldn't they have the right to require a drug test as a condition of employment? Use of many illegal drugs can demonstrably impair judgement and coordination in ways that are not always immediately obvious and have demonstrably caused injuries in many a work place. In my company we work with multi-ton presses and other dangerous equipment and we would be idiots to hire someone without taking reasonable precautions to ensure safety and to reduce liability.
There are plenty of employers who do not test for drug use. If you think a drug test is a problem for you (even philosophically) then seek out employment where they don't test. Plenty of companies don't care enough to bother.
http://www.whale.to/v/hadwen.html
Still waiting for anybody, anywhere on the planet, to rebut any of Dr Hadwen's talks...
Secondly, the most laughable thing of all: the Slashdot 'vaccination' crowd think that people who can't be 'vaccinated' because they are allergic to 'vaccines', etc. are 'good', and are okay to have living around you, but people who don't have 'vaccines' because they know the whole thing is a giant scam, are 'bad', and are DANGEROUS to have living around you, because of the laughable myth called 'herd immunity'.
So the THOUGHTS of a person who hasn't had a so-called 'vaccine' are what makes them DANGEROUS or safe, apparently... How laughable.
die in a fire
I did not double check, but heard on the radio news this morning the measles vaccine is 97% effective.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
Employers should not be put in a position where they are giving medical advice or direction. If there is a reason that large, public centered facilities or parks should have required vaccinations, then that needs to be public policy, not corporate policy.
Hospitals require testing and proof of vaccination as a condition of employment. I've worked in one in the past and they wanted proof of certain vaccinations, a TB test, and provided any needed vaccinations free of charge. (I got a booster for MMR and tetanus) I think if a place like a hospital it would be insane not to require the employees to be reasonably secure against likely communicable diseases. At a place like Disney where they have to deal with the general public I wouldn't have a problem with public health policy mandating vaccination as a condition of employment. I don't think people should be forced to accept a vaccine if they are adults and really don't want to (and of course if they cannot due to allergies etc) but I have no problem with certain jobs being closed to them if they are not vaccinated. I think all children should be vaccinated or have proof that they cannot safely be vaccinated before attending any public school.
You can't immunize employees and expect them to be cured of regular paychecks. The only withholding should be employee benefits, salary and morale. If you treat them like people their sense of self worth is inflated, which can be epidemic and highly contagious. Must neuter the anima-tronic flesh-bot slaves, its as simple as ABC and corporate slave policy.
There is a significant difference between vaccinations (which protect all of us) and drug tests (which protect very few).
It is well known that vaccines are not 100% effective (measles is one of the better ones, well over 95%), and there are people who cannot take the vaccine (immune compromised, etc.); In order to have a high enough immune rate in the population that the disease can't spread rapidly, ALL the rest have to be vaccinated.
The exception might be if you are so isolated that you don't come in contact with any other unimmune people: the goal is to make sure that with a high transmissibility disease (e.g. measles, which has very high probability of infection) that you don't transmit the disease to more than one person. If you transmit to two (or 1.5, or some number >1), then you have the possibility for an exponential growth.
And for the folks who comment that hordes of people aren't dying from measles in the unvaccinated world? They are dying. If not from measles, from other diseases, horribly, slowly, etc. Millions of people die every year from epidemic diseases.
I will venture that these folks make the comments are a) young enough that they were not subject to childhood diseases that were essentially eradicated by the 1970s/1980s and b) have never travelled in the third world. These days, it's unusual to run into someone who has direct experience with the ill effects of things like polio, measles, rubella, or even chicken pox; much less cholera, typhus, typhoid, malaria.
Mass vaccination is truly one of the miracles of modern medicine (which is surprising, in some ways, because most of medicine is more art than science, and a lot of guesswork). Immunology and epidemiology and the germ theory is one of those areas where it's actual science.
Rule of thumb: It's not a free choice, if there is a big "or else...." attached.
Free choice does not mean choice without consequences. I am free to speak my mind but that does not mean I shouldn't expect consequences for doing so. I can choose not to vaccinate my children or myself but that doesn't mean I should be allowed to endanger other people by making that choice. I can choose not to be tested for drugs for philosophical reasons but that might mean that certain jobs are closed to me.
Choice almost never comes without consequence.
Healthcare workers are required to be vaccinated because they work with people who are highly vulnerable both to giving & receiving diseases. It's not just vaccines, even health workers who catch the common cold will be required to take time off, as it could be deadly to their patients with poor immune systems.
And California and other states should start passing laws and prosecuting parents for child endangerment, harm or even manslaughter if their kid ends up contracting a disease because the parents wilfully failed to vaccinate them.
It's-a smallpox after all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
I've got a WAIS 3 combined cognitive function test score of over 180 (that's all you need to know), and I am against vaccinations where they are not necessary.
Ok, I don't get what the needless bragging about your IQ score is about but most health care professionals would agree with you on this point. If you aren't going to Africa there probably isn't a need to get some of the more exotic vaccines out there since vaccines can have unfortunate side effects. Perfectly reasonable.
Influenza mutates every ten days, rendering vaccinations useless before they're even distributed. My wife got a flu shot in October, she had influenza over xmas. I've not even had so much as a cold since the last time I had a seasonal shot back in 1993 which resulted in me developing pneumonia thanks to influenza. Eight months it took me to recover from that.
You may be smart but you are quite ignorant on this point. Influenza isn't a single virus. It is a family of viruses and yes they mutate fairly often. Every year the CDC looks at the strains of flu viruses out there and how they are spreading and determines the 5 or so most likely strains to be a problem in the US. They then develop a vaccine to cover these strains. This vaccine does NOT make you immune against all strains of flu and you still might catch a strain not covered by the vaccine. And the CDC is often wrong about which strains actually prove to be most problematic since they are really just making an educated guess. If you get the flu vaccine you are more likely to be protected than if you don't against a few strains of flu but it does not and never did mean that you won't get the flu.
Furthermore if you choose not to get the vaccine you might actually encounter the virus but not become symptomatic but still carry it and infect others. The more people that get the vaccine the stronger the herd immunity benefit.
Finally it is highly unlikely that the vaccine caused you to get pneumonia. You seem to be unfamiliar with the latin phrase post hoc ergo propter hoc. Just because the pneumonia followed the vaccine doesn't mean the vaccine caused the pneumonia.
Also, mandatorily drug tested.
I have no idea whether this anonymous coward is trying to be ironic, is putting forth a strawman argument, or is serious. If it's attempted irony, it fails. Irony usually is invisible on the intertubes, since there's so much cluelessness here anyway that it blends right in.
Pneumonia is caused by bacteria, the flu by a virus.
Pneumonia is a description of symptoms relating to inflammation of the lung and can be caused by bacteria, viruses, other micro-organisms, drug reactions and autoimmune conditions. It is an inflammatory condition, not an infection by a specific type of organism.
Millions of illegals crossing each year from poverty stricken South American countries, and this is what the people of this nation-state need to focus upon. Boobus Americans indeed.
The flu vaccinations are for the very young and the very old.
The CDC reccomends everyone over 6 months get the vaccine with certain exceptions. They are better informed on this subject than you are.
I do not get the flu. I have never had it. I have never had a flu vaccine and don't plan on getting one until my body is so frail that the common flu is a threat to me.
Consider yourself lucky. The flu can be quite unpleasant. In fact it sometimes can be so unpleasant that it kills young and healthy people. Your choice to get vaccinated or not but the notion that the flu only affects the weak and frail is demonstrably nonsense.
There are may choices that boost immune function. Eating right with more vegetables and fruits, exercising regularly (including treadmill workstations), sleeping well, laughing more, getting sunshine or vitamin D supplements, getting enough iodine and other vital nutrients, taking certain herbs regularly or drinking elderberry juice, being spiritual in some ways, and many other things all boost the immune system (see Dr. Fuhrman and Dr. Weil and many others). So does nursing children through age two years or further, as recommended by WHO. Periodic fasting may also boost the immune system long-term.
There are many lifestyle choices that also weaken the immune system or increase disease transmission risk. This includes things to avoid like smoking, breathing second-hand smoke, excessive drinking, various addictions and other high risk activities, and so on. Long-term exposure to woodsmoke from older wood-burning stove decreases overall health. Choosing to live in a walkable location with sidewalks increases health overall (see the book/website "Blue Zones"), meaning a choice to live where you are car-dependent increases health risks. Homeschooling reduces the risk of the spread of communicable diseases, since compulsory public schools are a huge disease transmission routes. Even the choice to *optionally* go to big social gatherings like DisneyWorld increases the risk of disease transmission (as in this case). Choosing to commute into a city for work on public transportation rather than work from home also probably increase disease transmission risk.
Many people (most) do not do *all* these good things and refrain from doing all the risky things. Why be so fixated on vaccinations -- especially because some, like an annual flu shot, are clearly debatable as risk vs. reward for meany people? Does your family do all those good things above as applicable and refrain from every one of the bad ones? Every single one? If you don't do even one, for whatever reason, should we ostracize you because you have broken the "social contract"?
BTW on the nuances of promoting widespread vaccination: "Govt. Researchers: Flu Shots Not Effective in Elderly, After All"
http://sharylattkisson.com/gov...
"An important and definitive "mainstream" government study done nearly a decade ago got little attention because the science came down on the wrong side. It found that after decades and billions of dollars spent promoting flu shots for the elderly, the mass vaccination program did not result in saving lives. In fact, the death rate among the elderly increased substantially"
Contrast with: "Vitamin D Proven More Effective Than Both Anti-Viral Drugs and Vaccines at Preventing the Flu"
http://www.worldhealth.net/for...
Have you had your vitamin D level checked recently? If not, should we ostracize you and your family as an increased flu risk? If you have an elderly relative who had a flu shot, should we ostracize them (and you, by connection) because a study suggests it statistically negatively impacted their health?
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Does anyone else believe that this is getting a little out of control? According to the LA Times there have been 70 cases of the Measles that have spread through four states and Mexico.
Southern California alone has 3 million inhabitants and while they don't specify the other states it is a safe bet that we are talking about another several million people. Then there is Mexico with 122.3 million.
So after 70 people get the measles we are already debating whether people should be able to work if they are unvaccinated?
I understand why they need to be vaccinated. And should be.
All I was saying is if they had been properly educated in their chosen vocation there shouldn't be a requirement by law. They would all have voluntarily done so, but alas this is not a perfect world.
Behaviour we consider reckless or dangerous is something we criminalise in our society. Be that driving while drunk, or driving while having a medical condition that could endanger yourself or others.
If someone wants to refuse vaccination, then that's not my problem. Once they start endangering others, especially when it's me or my kids, then it's my problem.
If you want to take an action that puts others in danger of severe or even fatal harm, then you need to be prepared to have those people keep you away from them. If you're work requires working in close confines with others, a shop, an office, etc, then not being vaccinated, (except for legitimate, medical reasons) should be grounds for refusing employment. Same for schools, or any other place where many people interact.
I fully support your right to chose not to be vaccinated, as long as you fully support my right to exclude you from anything where your decision might endanger me or my children. I think this is a legitimate example of the "screaming fire in a crowded theatre" exemption.
> According to Joanna Rothkopf Disneyland is already a huge petri dish of disease
Lol, look, Disneyland is gamergate! OMG! (Too bad ABC Nightline is full of liar anti-ethics assholes, so is Joss "The Marvel Disney Movies Director" Whedon)
Disney does have some control over it's employees. Just as it can fire employees for coming to work drunk - or for risking the lives of fellow employees or visitors, so it can take measures that affect their employment in regards to vaccinations and disease outbreaks, from banning un-vaccinated employees access to public spaces to limiting their leaves to making vaccination a condition of employment. (Of course, that doesn't solve the problem of employment practices that penalize people for taking sick-time, etc.) But that's not going to solve Disney's problem because it currently can't discriminate against visitors who aren't vaccinated and so the impression of large theme parks as being a Horrifying Den of Disease is going to persist.
Disney isn't going to want to alienate it's customers by running advertisements asking people who aren't vaccinated to avoid coming to it's parks. It'll just irritate the anti-vaccination crowd and scare off the conventional people who think the anti-vaccination crown is terribly, horribly wrong (and irresponsible enough to visit anyway.)
A trade association COULD run public service messages to the effect that willfully avoiding vaccination is as bad as drunk driving and killing a family in a car accident. The government COULD make vaccination records available on state issued ID cards (drivers licenses, etc.)
This is a public health and safety issue, and like most such issues, practical and efficient solutions can come into conflict with some perceived individual freedoms. Even worse for some people, it involves the dreaded word "compromise". For instance, I give up the freedom to drive a car where ever I want to so that I have some assurance that I'm safe from people driving the opposite direction on the same side of the road I'm on, or on my lawn.
Perhaps the right solution (compromise) would be standardized, opt-in credentials that indicate what kind of conventional (sensible) things I'm willing to abide by, like:
People who think that such assertions are an infringement of their privacy don't need to opt-in. Privately run facilities could make decisions based on those credentials - although Public parks would probably not be able to.
yea because Disney isn't creepily invasive enough in the lives of there employees.
I would never allow a company or government to "require" me to get a vacination. My life belongs to me and I will not compromise on my domain.
Even if it is a plague, as they NWO will soon claim, along with all the other super urgent events that happen to be happening at the same time in the long history, I would still not allow it because if it works, then the people who get vacinated will be safe, and if it doesn't work then why would you allow it to be put into your body?
For those who work dealing with public directly or indirectly (ex.: preparing/serving food), vaccination should be seen as a health precaution like washing hands. It is not an option, it should be mandatory. Mary Mallon (1869-1938) was a cooker and typhoid carrier. She killed 53 people with typhoid just by preparing their food. Nowadays, vaccinated cookers doesn't represent this kind of threat.
There's a lot of double-think in the world, and those in the medical profession are no exception. I could be a bit more empathetic with nurses though - they work in care rather than diagnosis & treatment. I've met a few nurses who are highly trained on paper, but have little idea of *how* the treatments they're applying actually work - that's the Doctor's job.
Which is not 100%......which means you can still get infected.
However when everybody is vaccinated, it is very very very unlikely you will be able to pass the disease along before it runs it's course.
Now lets say you are the only person that is vaccinated, nobody else. If you keep running into people that are infected, day after day, in a place such as Disneyland where thousands visit daily, even with 97% effectiveness, it's only a matter of time before you yourself get infected (of course this is a worst case scenario).
99% Can seem high degree of protection, however if you work in an area where you meet thousands in a day, it will only be a matter of time before you succumb.
Now if everybody is at 99%.....it is as damn near to impossible as you are going to get.
99% Can seem high degree of protection, however if you work in an area where you meet thousands in a day, it will only be a matter of time before you succumb.
Now if everybody is at 99%.....it is as damn near to impossible as you are going to get.
I think you misunderstand. For 99% it works, no matter what the exposure. For the 1% they will succumb whether exposed to viruses from one infected person or hundreds.
All that "hippy stuff" may well have some relevance to flu, but vitamins won't do anything to stop you catching measles if you are exposed and not immune.
There are good arguments against flu vaccine, but measles should be a no-brainer. It is safe and effective. Nothing else is.
perfectly spherical unemployed in a vacuum.
Is that what 97% effective means? I took it to mean there was a 3% chance it wouldn't work at all. i.e. if it works you could not get measles from anyone, and if it fails you could get measles from anyone else who has it. I don't think it means there is a 3% of infection on every exposure.
This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
I will ostracize anyone who believes their own intuition on vaccines is more accurate then what is almost universal consensus among doctors. That sounds like it would include you. As long as the pitri family stays away from any immune suppressed people I have no issue with them. Its when they insist that the little ones should be allowed to spread contagion with no repercussions that I get miffed.
Not being vaccinated means that employees retain slightly more freedom by choosing to work at disney world; at the expense of an increased likelyhood that disease will spread in a popular tourist attraction with alot of traffic. Mandating vaccination for employees would mean that becoming an employee would be giving up slightly more (maybe not really) freedom, in exchange for a job / whatever benefits you perceive; but the benefit is that there would be a decreased likelihood of disease spread. Personally, I think employer mandated vaccination isnt that much of an infringement upon personal freedoms, and that it protects everyone and is worth it; to make a real case for or against though, you'd probably need to do something like Statistically determine how many people die each year from a preventable disease as a result of visiting disney world; weigh that number of deaths against the cost of the freedom of employees to be illness vectors.
I thought measles was eradicated. I have never heard of of an outbreak of measles until 2015.
Honestly, I have a lot less problem with a business mandating vaccination as a term of employment (ESPECIALLY if they are obviously heavily interacting with the public and even more especially children) than the government mandating it.
Maybe that's just me.
-Styopa
If you can legally discriminate based on smoking status and weight, you should be able to discriminate based on disease vector status as well.
tired children wiping their snot faces on Goofy and then riding log flumes through mechanized rivers filled with the backwash of thousands of other sweaty, unwashed, weeping toddlers.
It makes planning my vacation touring the brothels of Thailand just that much easier.
Have gnu, will travel.
Even with a very effective vaccine, your body could still be overwhelmed by a virus. There are only so many antibodies in your body for a particular virus at one time. If you are exposed to a huge quantity of virus all at once, it could overwhelm the ability of your immune system to fight it. You probably wouldn't get as sick as someone who was unvaccinated, but you could still get sick.
Often overlooked fact is that vaccines are not 100% effective, and the spreding of disease could be, as has been the case, done by people already vaccinated.
If you do not want a particular disease, and you believe vaccines will work, so just get it and shut up.
Additionally, if the vaccines are for the common good, they should be provided free of charge, as to eliminate (minimize) the profit motive.
A health data-base for all vaccinated persons should be established, to track the short and long term effects, good and bad, for the common good, ouside the reach of nefarious interests.
It's hard to take seriously a source that says:
Personally, if I have septicemia or bacterial meningitis/pneumonia, I will take whatever the sensitivities say I should. If you choose to treat your N. meningitidis with Vit D, please stay at home so that you don't force everyone else to take prophylaxis.
-- The Genesis project? What's that?
Were you out sick from school when the immune system was taught?
Nothing (NOTHING) has a 100% infection rate on exposure, largely because your immune system fights off most of the crap that you are exposed to, often without you even noticing. Having a well functioning immune system will indeed improve your odds when you are exposed.
Vaccines work by boosting your immune system. They aren't a magic shield that turns away pathogens before they land on you; they help your immune system respond faster and stronger by teaching it, in advance, how to deal with a pathogen it hasn't seen previously. And they aren't 100% effective either. If they were, no one would give a shit if other people were vaccinated or not. If that last part isn't obvious to you, think about it for a minute or two.
So, in summary, vaccines are one thing, out of many, that help your immune system and reduce your chances of infection. If you assign liability, or worse, criminality, to not boosting your immune system in one way, why not the others too? Or why not to people that do things intentionally that reduce their immunity? (Keep in mind that there exists in the west a protected class of people, membership depending on choosing behavior that has astonishingly powerful negative effects on the immune system.)
See that "Preview" button?
Our bodies are supposed to be the ultimate safe harbor of our rights, forcing people to get something injected into them shouldn't even be a question. No doubt that vaccines have been a major part of the reason for our improved health, but they have their drawbacks and aren't perfect. Providing proper health insurance, sick days and health protocols (washing hands, muffling coughs/sneezes, etc) would provide just as much if not more protection than forced vaccination.
If you are interacting with a large number of people on a daily basis, then yes, the vaccinations should be mandatory as part of the terms of your employment. However, if you're going to mandate your employees get vaccinated, then you damn well better allow them paid time off from work when they need it without harassing or penalizing them about it.
:|
Many employers in the US do not pay their employees " Sick Time ". Those that do, are usually very limited at best. It becomes an issue when Employee X comes into work at the cube farm and gets all of their co-workers sick. They, in turn, take it home and spread it to their families. They'll go into work / school and spread it some more. Thus, it snowballs.
This becomes an exponentially bigger problem if you are working in an industry that interacts with the general public in large numbers. ( Think of folks in the service industry, health professionals, education, etc. etc. ) Especially the lower paying industries where employees make so little they can't afford to miss a days pay. They WILL come to work sick, and infect many who come into contact with them in doing so. The the above scene plays out once again, only this time with far bigger numbers initially.
In addition, there is this stigma in the US about missing work. Folks worry that when it comes time for promotions or new jobs that they'll get passed over by the guy / gal who puts in 80 hours / week and never takes a vacation or sick day. Because they're a " Team Player ".
If you complain about your co-worker sitting at their desk coughing up a lung, you get ignored. A week later, once you're showing symptoms, watch what happens when you try to call in sick. Usually they'll throw the guilt trip at you about how you're putting a burden on the rest of your team by being absent, or they'll make some big deal out of putting it into your record that you took a " SICK " day and try to convince you to use your own vacation or personal days instead.
I'm sure Bennett will come up with a practical solution.
forcing someone to prove their innocence by taking a drug test without any reason to assume so (pre employment and random testing) I have no issue with say a truck driver getting in an accident and being administered a test however
So you think it is a better plan to hire a truck driver who is taking substances that impair judgement/performance, wait for an accident which has a good chance of people getting killed, wait for the inevitable lawsuit that will follow asking why you didn't test a drug problem, and only then bother to see if the person was impaired? I don't think you have a future in risk management or insurance. How about you just pee in a cup and we prevent the accident in the first place saving a lot of pain, suffering and money in the process.
If I'm testing you for drugs I'm not assuming you are doing anything but I'm also would be stupid if I didn't confirm that fact. No, your word does not mean anything. People lie all the time. The problem is that I KNOW for a fact that some percentage of people will do drugs and I do not know which ones they are. Literally over half the temps who apply for work at my company fail a drug test. (Yes I can prove it) Many drugs demonstrably impair judgement and/or coordination. Someone who uses recreational drugs also is indirectly telling me something about their mental state and lifestyle which may present a problem for me as an employer.
I run a business that requires operation of dangerous machinery and uses hazardous chemicals. If I didn't check for drug use and someone was injured with drugs as a contributing factor, the very first thing a lawyer will ask in the lawsuit that follows and accident is "why did you hire someone who used drugs?" And they would be right and I would lose. Judgement for the plaintiff... [/gavel] It's no different than doing a background check to find out if someone has a conviction for embezzlement before hiring them for an accounting job. If you want to use drugs there are jobs that will not test you or you can work for yourself.
I genuinely do not care if you want to get high and I'm not making any moral judgment. I also respect the position that you do not want to be tested but understand that doesn't obligate me to hire you. I'm just not willing to take needless risks on your behalf or risk the safety of others so you can get high. That's your problem, don't make it mine.
Next!
i consider myself a libertarian, but at the same point i believe that what one does on their own time is of no concern to an employer. as such, one should be judged on the merits of their work, not their recreation
I have no quarrel with that. Problem is that I, as an employer (which I am), cannot be certain that your recreational (and probably illegal) drug habit will not present a safety or liability problem for me on the job. I have no problem ethically with an adult getting high on their own time provided it doesn't harm someone else. That last bit is the key though. As an employer I cannot afford to take avoidable risks of people getting harmed. If I don't test for drug use and someone gets injured with drugs as a contributing factor then I have several problems now. First, someone was needlessly injured due to my negligence. Second, there will be a lawsuit that follows and the lawyer is going to ask me "why did you hire someone with a drug problem?" And they will be right and I will lose and very likely have to pay a large settlement. Third, I run a company which operates heavy machinery and someone who is impaired runs a higher than normal risk of getting injured or causing injuries to others.
I cannot make these safety and liability concerns go away just because I want to respect what people do on their own time. Some people probably can manage a drug habit safely and without problems but many more cannot. I genuinely do not care if someone wants to smoke weed or do some other drug on their own time. None of my business. But what IS my business is the risk that potentially presents to me and my employees and I can't waive that away, like it or not.
I'm glad to hear that you don't get sick much and so your 25 days of vacation is working out for you.
I'm lucky too and I don't get sick much. However, I'm not confident that'll always be true. I have a co-worker who got cancer and is out for a few days every time she gets chemotherapy.
Could you POSSIBLY see yourself as maybe being unlucky someday, and not being able to cope anymore on the pittiance you're currently "perfectly happy with"? Or are you an invincible superhero?
Me, I've been lucky. So far. I'm downright thankful my employer lets me pile up sick leave in a SEPARATE pool and keep it indefinitely. It spares me from having to purchase short term disability. Because I may need it someday. I'm only human and all my good health that I've enjoyed could be taken from me in an instant.
--PeterM
No vaccine is close to 100% effective.
Demonstrably untrue. Many vaccines are well over 99% effective.
The protection is provides is on the herd level and NOT the individual.
Wrong again. If vaccines did not work on an individual level then there would be no herd immunity. Vaccines don't have to be 100% effective to create herd immunity but they do have to be effective on an individual level in a substantial portion of the population. Herd immunity protects those who cannot (or will not) get vaccinated for whatever reason.
Look up herd immunity to understand how this works.
You first since you clearly have no idea how herd immunity works.
Human health is a complex topic with many interwoven factors that interact with each other. In general, many people who catch many "diseases" don't show significant symptoms because their immune system deals with it and limits the scope of the spread. I was not easily able to find that information about measles from a few minutes of trying though. It seems a bit controversial... Maybe you know if off-hand?
"Risk Analysis for Measles Reintroduction After Global Certification of Eradication"
http://jid.oxfordjournals.org/...
"Convention holds that asymptomatic measles infections are rare, but there is a significant body of published evidence of acute measles infection among people who are exposed to measles virus but who do not develop classic symptoms [3-5]."
When you boost your immune system, you make it more likely the spread will be contained. Even for measles, the degree of symptoms you show and how long they last is in general probably going to reflect your health state (and also genetics though), as suggested in a link a bit further below to a study from CDC researchers. Humans are exposed to all sorts of potentially problematical viruses and bacteria every day -- doctors especially. A healthy immune system shrugs most of them off (with some dangerous exceptions, especially like Ebola).
A study specific to measles and nutrition, from India:
"Interaction between nutrition and measles"
http://link.springer.com/artic...
"Much has been written about the synergestic interaction and infection in turn adversely affects the nutritional status. Although this relationship is well documented with respect to bacterial infections, it is not clear whether nutrition can influence the incidence or course of viral diseases. Measles is one of the most common viral infections that occur during childhood. The interactions between measles and nutritional status acquire considerable importance in situations where as a result of inadequate food intake, chronic malnutrition is widespread among children."
And:
"Undernutrition as an underlying cause of child deaths associated with diarrhea, pneumonia, malaria, and measles"
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/cont...
"Results: The RR of mortality because of low weight-for-age was elevated for each cause of death and for all-cause mortality. Overall, 52.5% of all deaths in young children were attributable to undernutrition, varying from 44.8% for deaths because of measles to 60.7% for deaths because of diarrhea.
Conclusion: A significant proportion of deaths in young children worldwide is attributable to low weight-for-age, and efforts to reduce malnutrition should be a policy priority."
So if 50% of the death rate is from obvious malnutrition, could at least some of the rest be from more subtle dietary issues?
In the USA from 2010, just to show how the USA is in theory increasingly at risk of an epidemic from malnutrition among children:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/...
"According to a new report by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, 17.4 million American families - almost 15 percent of U.S. households - are now "food insecure," an almost 30 percent increase since 2006. This means that, during any given month, they will be out of money, out of food, and forced to miss meals or seek assistance to feed themselves. Even those who get three meals a day may be malnourished. Americans increasingly eat cheap, sugary foods whose production is underwritten by government subsidies for the corn and dairy industries. As the New York Times reported this month, the USDA loudly promotes better eating habits while quietly working with Domino's to develop a new line of pizzas with 40 percent more cheese. [There are healthy fats though, including from ch
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
How would you know the difference between the sniffles caused by the flu virus and the sniffles caused by all of the whiney, little bitch crying you fucking people do over other peoples' decision to not get vaccinated?
Oh, that's right, you wouldn't. So grow the fuck up, and stop trying to tell me what to do.
Why?
Because Big Pharma doesn't like losing money. If the risk is REALLY high that they'll miss the circulating flu viruses and have a poor vaccine, and then NOBODY BUYS IT, they lose all their money.
And POOF, you won't have a Big Pharma company producing flu viruses THAT DO WORK (which they usually do), because of the risk.
If, however, Big Pharma sells flu vaccine regardless of whether they got lucky or not, then we'll get flu vaccine EVERY YEAR, and in MOST years, they'll be good!
So there's good argument for getting flu shots that aren't "the best", because if you don't support the industry when it is down, it won't be around NEXT year.
And this completely ignores the seemingly unsubstantiated but plausible claim that even a bad match of flu shot will make the flu you get less severe.
--PeterM
From Google: "Measles is a highly contagious viral disease that can be very serious or even fatal. It begins with a fever that lasts for a couple of days, followed by a cough, runny nose, and conjunctivitis (pink eye)."
This isn't hard to figure out. The people who choose not to vaccinate are tantamount to a loaded gun waiting to go off. Those same people intentionally choose to become likely carriers and in committing their act of irresponsibility, put the herd-immunity into a compromised situation. More distressingly, the argument they use that MMR vaccines are somehow implicated in autism has been thoroughly debunked.
In my opinion, these people should be tried for manslaughter. for going into public places in an non-immunized state.
Because some things are easier and more effective than others, so the reasonableness of the requirement and the benefits of compliance are different. How is this question different from, "You're not allowed to drive while drunk, but why just have that rule and not also a universal speed limit of 2 mph if we care about safety?"
An interesting anagram of "BANACH TARSKI" is "BANACH TARSKI BANACH TARSKI"
I'd agree that reporter overgeneralizes at the end, and perhaps lazy of me to point to that summary vs. the original journal study. But that does not affect the validity of the Japanese study on vitamin D and the flu and kids.
Also, if studies show that vitamin D helps with "N. meningitis", then even if you take *only* conventional treatments, perhaps you should stay home too? :-) It is not either or in many cases.
This is a more realistic statement about that issue (notice use of the word "adjuvant" and "possibility"):
http://www.chiro.org/nutrition...
"Invasive pneumococcal disease, meningococcal disease, and group A streptococcal disease are more common when vitamin D levels are lowest (winter) [79-81] and all three bacteria are sensitive to AMP, [82-84] raising the possibility that pharmacological doses of vitamin D would be an effective adjuvant treatment. In fact, the dramatically increased production of AMPs by vitamin D and the broad spectrum of action of AMP make it reasonable to hypothesize that pharmacological doses of vitamin D are effective adjuvants in treating a large number of infections."
A 21st century issue: the irony of technologies of abundance in the hands of those still thinking in terms of scarcity.
Yes, you can still get infected, but if you keep running into people who are infected with measles, you'll either get a full-blown case, a mild case, or a subclinical unnoticeable case.
97% chance you'll get a subclinical unnoticeable case. That means you GET measles, but the replication is quickly shut down by your immune system, which is primed to fight it. However, having just fought it, your immune system is EVEN MORE primed to fight it.
And measles in particular is so very, very contagious that if ANYONE near you has it, you're going to be exercising your immunity to it.
So, yeah, it's a "matter of time" until you get infected, but your infection is likely to be such that you don't even notice.
People who have such subclinical infections are probably very unlikely to spread the disease.
--PeterM
"A trade association COULD run public service messages to the effect that willfully avoiding vaccination is as bad as drunk driving"
So you're suggesting that someone purposely spread misinformation? No part of any statistic comes even close to putting failure to vaccinate deaths anywhere close to drunk driving deaths. Even if you completely stopped all vaccination nationwide for decades I doubt the increased number of deaths would come close to drunk driving. The pro-vaccine and anti-vaccine crowds have one thing in common, a plethora of nutjobs that are willing to lie, twist statistics, and ignore facts to suit their own narrow minded, ignorant and inflexible viewpoint. Vaccines are definitely a good thing, but most things are when taken in moderation and when reasonable.
I mostly agree with you. There are a few areas where I think drug testing should be.
But given the precedent that drug testing is allowed (for the safety of others!), so shouldn't mandatory vaccination where appropriate.
Like with the drug testing though, if they make it mandatory they have to pay for it.
I don't read AC A human right
For many years, Disneyland has operated without requiring vacinations or anything. And this is the first time something like that has been confirmed to have happened - and it's not clear that doing this would accomplish anything except protecting employees from getting sick. And is no different than any other theme park, sports or music venue, playground, mall, movie theater, ad nauseum.
Do we really have do ANYTHING except use this as a lesson as to why people should get vaccinated, and let everyone make their own decisions?
tl;dr
But I'm going to assume your diatribe promotes alternatives to vaccination. And to strike down your argument all I need to do is point to the numerous preventable infectious disease outbreaks in recent years among anti-vaxer communities. Sure, not scientific, I get it. But the burden is on you to explain to me how not vaccinating wasn't the reason those outbreaks.
Also, people in the developed world who aren't allergic to the preservatives used in vaccines and who don't vaccinate anyway are assholes. They're assholes because they benefit from the practice of vaccination without participating in the shared risk of vaccination and because they increase the risk of infectious disease outbreaks, and therefore death, among the population that can't be vaccinated (compromised immune system, allergic, newborns, etc.). Sure, nothing illegal about being a selfish jerk in our society, but you should be self aware enough to know that you are being a selfish jerk and probably shouldn't try to convince other people to join you.
Disney's just as likely to get sued by employees who get infectious diseases because they didn't take well know, very safe, measures to help prevent their spread.
Not sure if you just mis-typed, but I'd rate the chances of being sued by customers as far higher. All it would take is somebody remembering that the employee 'didn't look well'.
Heck, see if any employees reported in sick shortly before them, and accuse them of being unknowing carriers, but it's the company's fault because they could have required vaccination...
I don't read AC A human right
I'd argue that so isn't food poisoning, and we have plenty of regulations to ensure that our food is as safe as possible.
Think of vaccination a bit like food safety regulations - thoroughly studied and scientifically proven.
I don't read AC A human right
Thank You Jenny McCarthy, you twat
Give him a break, he probably read that on infowars so he can't possibly research it outside of the tinfoil hat herd
I think the answer is "no".
Vaccines are not a known science. Polio was being eradicated naturally when the vaccine was introduced. Vaccines in general aren't necessary, or useful.
Putting something in one's body is one's own choice. Nobody can forcefully insert something into another's body, that violates natural rights, which precede government.
Richard Maybury wrote 17 words to describe it best: "Do all you have agreed to do; do not encroach on others or their property."
Forcing a vaccine into someone is encroaching on them.
Making up scenarios in which the person might be infected or a carrier is just that, a made-up scenario.
.. all of the parents out there that are "anti-vax". That is fine at some level, but that choice they are making inherently comes with the very very real risk that their sons and daughters will be infected with the diseases these vacations have been WELL proven to almost entirely protect children from. Net-net the issue is not with Disney at all. the issue and severe consequences to children are directly their parents fault. Further, Disney should not in any way enforce vaccinations for their employees -- as the employees are adults and actually have even more right then their parents should have had to decide their want to be vaccinated vs the risks.
The vast majority of this effects adults and children (because of their guardians) that have actively chosen to risk this outcome. I say let them have it in its entirety, or as a society take away the right for parents to expose their children to this risk. Now for the small percentage of people that are vaccinated but still exposed, there is no easy solution, only mitigation that can be taken -- like enforcing stay-at-home for ill employees via wellness programs, and consumer inspection at entrance that rejects entry to visibly ill consumers. At some level though, vaccinations are not 100% protections against disease, there is only so much that can be done to reduce risk in an open society.
Not only is a violation of individual liberties to forcefully medicate someone, VACCINES DO MORE HARM THAN GOOD! Look up the SV40 virus as it relates to the original polio vaccine. When vaccine manufacturers can be held liable for side effects, I will reconsider.
Your understanding was correct, 97% chance to develop immunity.
Some vaccines effectiveness fades over time if you are not exposed again occasionally (either directly or through another injection), but the op is just misapplying statistics.
If you were vaccinated and developed immunity, then were constantly exposed again you should keep good immunity to it.
I'm a signature virus. Please copy me to your signature so I can replicate.
There are those who say we should not be responsible for seeing to it that the least-earners among us have health care, sick days, etc. But that whole petri dish thing... that's the result.
Joe the McDonald's window guy has flu/whatever, but he can't take a day (or 3 days) off (might not be allowed to, but can't afford to anyway so, the former is moot.) So Larry goes for lunch, and comes away with whatever Joe had as a bonus. And that goes on all day, for several days. While everyone else in the McDonald's catches it too, thereby extending the event even further, basically until every employee's immune system have handled the problem. And of course, there will be the occasional person who can't manage it -- for whatever reason... compromised immune system, preexisting disease process that complicates matters, old age, whatever. For them, matters can be much worse.
Either we admit that we need to take care of everyone, for everyone's sake, or we'll just keep running into situations where transmissible diseases have far more chance to spread than would otherwise be the case.
Odds are excellent that the only thing unique about the Disney event is that someone noticed it. Most people have probably been on the receiving end of such "petri dish events" many times. Anywhere you have a person with a transmissible disease in a condition suitable for transmission (usually not the entire course) that faces the public, the potential exists.
Anyone in that state should be in bed, properly isolated and medicated. Every time that doesn't happen, we're just shooting ourselves in the foot.
I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
Even in Australia, where the vast majority is pro vaccination, do we also have people 'choosing' not to. Even though the AMA is very vocal in its derision of such a choice, and continuously shows there is no link between vaccinations and things like autism. In my eyes, if you work with children, there is no excuse - you should be mandated to be vaccinated - just make it part of your background check.
Increase the diseases which were eradicated in the US. Force vaccines.
Most of the outbreaks you hear about are happening in groups with very high vaccination rates. I highly recommend Vaccine Illusion by Dr. Tetyana Obukhanych.
As the title implies, the book details the reasons behind Dr. Obukhanych’s gradual disillusionment with vaccines – a direction no one seems more surprised about than Dr. Obukhanych herself. “I never imagined myself in this position,” she writes, adding that she was “very enthusiastic” about vaccines in the beginning.
Dr. Obukhanych has studied immunology in some of the world’s most prestigious medical institutions – she earned her PhD in Immunology at Rockefeller University in New York and did postdoctoral work at Harvard Medical School and Stanford University. Vaccine Illusion a handbook for parents that draws on her formal training.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8h66beBrEpk
I work in an industry where I travel outside the US fairly often for work. Since many countries REQUIRE vaccinations for quite a few things just to get a visa, and quite a few more are recommended, I do not find it especially onerous that Disney might require vaccinations for appropriate diseases, which of course will make Disney responsible for the cost. I would assume at this point that Disney's insurance carriers will require this as the liability will likely be high and they may be considered negligent. Measles can cause pregnancy loss, bronchitis, laryngitis, pneumonia, and ear infections (which could cause long-term hearing loss). I don't get a choice about drug tests and even if the drugs I am found taking are legal in the state I am located in, I am still just as fired if I fail the test. How is requiring vaccinations from diseases that you are almost certain to catch if exposed to and not vaccinated against any different in principle (i.e. public/worker safety) than requirements for drug testing?
Just to add to that, there are a couple of characteristics of measles that makes it much more appropriate to require vaccination than say a flu shot. Measles virus is transmitted through the air, and can have a very long latency time in the air. The original carrier can contaminate a room and then be gone for two hours or more while the infectious virus remains in the room. Plus, the measles carrier does not have to exhibit symptoms yet for the virus to be communicable. Washing your hands is not going to protect you from measles.
Disneyland is nextdoor to anti-vac Central. Just for those that don't know California geography. Disneyland is within 15 minutes of several groups of snotty / new money / no class / neighborhood enclaves of southern California. Newly affluent jerks with some of the lowest vaccination rates in the whole country. They all buy their kids annual passes.
http://effectivehealthcare.ahr...
Casteism
What's this wailing again about measles again?? It is much better to get measles once and be immune for life than to be innoculated many times and risk the change of being poisoned by some nefarious substance in the vaccine!
I had measles as a child and have no fear whatsoever of the little disease. People are so dumb and uneducated these days. John Taylor Gatto is now proven correct more than ever.
and enough % of the population will be resistant to avoid epidemics. Those who are physically or mentally hypersensitive can still remain unvaccinated, even if they work at Disney. I guess wearing a Mickey head and gloves is also a good barrier.
*sigh* Every vaccination debate we get this ignorant argument. Vaccinations, like everything in life, aren't 100% guaranteed. They're very effective, but they don't *always* work. Also ,there are people who can't have a vaccine for legitimate reasons (often a compromised immune system). The people for whom the vaccine doesn't take, and the people who legitimately can't get vaccinated are protected if enough people *are* effectively vaccinated because there aren't enough viable carriers. This is called "herd immunity."
I'm not sure you realize that when you say "herd immunity", you really mean "herd immunity theory?"
Speaking as an immunologist, you're wrong about some points here.
Measles has something like a 99% infection rate on exposure, though. It's probably the single most contagious disease we know about. Having a functioning immune system will help you get over it faster and have less severe symptoms, but you can still spread it.
Some vaccines actually do induce sterilizing immunity, which means the pathogen never actually infects you and you can't spread it. No vaccine is 100% effective, although the HPV vaccine hasn't had any breakthroughs yet.
Sh'yeah.
Longer answer?
SHIT YEAH.
---------------------------------------
Rotate the pod, please, HAL....
The liability issue alone should be enough to make vaccination mandatory. Liability both ways; employees who sue Disney after they catch measles from a customer, and customers who catch measles from an employee. No court is going to argue against that. But we live in an era when a US senator can argue that it's an infringement on the rights of a business to require it to require employees to wash hands after going to the bathroom; and that the remedy for this government overreach is for the government to require them to post a sign saying that they don't require employees to wash their hands. So apparently the issue isn't government regulation, it's just washing hands that worries him.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.