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."
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."
...yes!
That should eliminate the anti-vaccination applicants, without impinging on personal choice.
Gently reply
it would be a "Jolly Good" way to do something like that given that the Character actors have no visible markings to ID them.
i can see some CSI team sorting out that all the victims had contact with Chip/Dale but they would have next to no idea as to WHICH ONES.
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...
who don't deny science.
The rest can consult a homeopath when they get sick.
drug tests should not even exist let alone be mandatory. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I should not have to prove my innocence, you should have to prove my guilt
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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?
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.
Sounds like you feel entitled to that job...
Innocent until proven guilty is for specific parts of the legal system only - the police and prosecutors have to believe you are guilty to bring a case against you, so its obvious it doesn't apply to everyone, everywhere, for all things. So a company doesn't have to assume you are innocent at all, as neither does your friends, family or random person in the street.
A drug test isn't an assumption of guilt in a court of law. The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials, not for employment. Mandatory drug tests are pragmatically stupid for many reasons in many industries (they are much less likely to catch the hard drugs like cocaine which go out of the system fast than marijuana which lingers, they cost a lot of money), but in the case of Disney where the employees are working on and maintaining rides with many passengers and where people could easily be killed if something goes wrong, drug tests aren't as unreasonable. In general, the real silliness of drug tests is when they are used by things like fast food restaurants or worse when they are used as a condition of welfare (where the evidence is that they cost far far more than they save the state).
drug tests should not even exist let alone be mandatory. what happened to innocent until proven guilty? I should not have to prove my innocence, you should have to prove my guilt
Disney should be able to require it as a condition for working for them. If you don't like it don't work for them.
Companies should be able to drug test you as a condition of employment. If you don't like it don't work for them.
They are both public safety issues.
what happened to spreading diseases that are easily preventable, that if left unchecked, would wipe out thousands of people?
what about personal responsibility?
so, let's say you are unvaccinated against the measles, and catch the measles. those measles you have spread to someone else. that person dies. you're admitting, then, that YOU would be responsible for spreading the measles to that person and causing their death, right? manslaughter charges, civil suit from the family, etc, etc.
"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.
End of discussion.
so where do we draw the line? should we allow an employer to have access to our bank records? to ensure we arent funding terrorists? Should we give them our passwords to all our accounts online? to ensure we are not bad mouthing the company?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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
I would guess that a doctor is a better person to ask than /.
The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
"Somebody has to do something. It's just incredibly pathetic it has to be us."
--- Jerry Garcia
No vaccine is close to 100% effective.
The protection is provides is on the herd level and NOT the individual.
Look up herd immunity to understand how this works.
And a drug test does not proof your guilt if you are guilty?
Why I'm with you on the principle being against mandatory drug tests (luckily illegal in europe anyway), I can not follow your logic :D
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
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.
Someone really didn't want to go to school. I can't speak for you, but I don't recall being sick all the time "just like most kids". As I recall it, most kids were healthy most of the time.
Is the sniffle even part of the symptoms for the flu? Even the toughest will usually be on their ass with heavy muscle pain and cough.
But yes, generally the flu shot is for the young and the old, and _people exposed to them_, since its easy to be contagious before you know you're sick.
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Draw the line wherever you like, you don't have to work for them. I don't work for companies that want to pay me less than I want to be paid - it doesn't take any laws or rules for that to work.
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
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
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.
Sure, why not? If you work for ISIS, you have to give up your first born. Do you work for ISIS?
Support my political activism on Patreon.
Our welfare system is broken. I designed a much better one in a week that solves poverty for roughly the same cost.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
I did, until some clowns decided to start blowing up people in the name of some pedo. rolled back to the CIA now ;)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be an essential part of English/American culture, not just the legal system.
Where did we go wrong?
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.
I think you meant "Innocent until proven guilty." And it's just criminal trials, for the most part. Civil trials are usually preponderance of evidence.
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.
Draw the line wherever you like, you don't have to work for them. I don't work for companies that want to pay me less than I want to be paid - it doesn't take any laws or rules for that to work.
Hope you like living in a tent and scrounging for food in garbage bins.
There are clear lines between what is personal and what affects the job. If you take drugs it'll likely affect your work and health costs (still somewhat paid for by the company) - that means the company has a valid interest. OTOH, your private emails (or facebook posts) between family and friends has very little to no affect on the company - therefore they don't have any valid need for access to it.
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.
You're not being forced. You're perfectly able to choose not to take the job or to quit instead of taking the test if you so choose.
Some jobs require further vetting of candidates, people working in the financial sector typically have to go through credit reference checks to ensure they're unlikely to commit fraud, people in the defence sector often have to go through national security vetting to ensure they're not a security threat, people working with children have to go through criminal records checks to ensure they've got no convictions, people driving company vehicles have to show that their driving record is clean and they're not a reckless driver.
If you don't want to go through these things, then don't go for those jobs.
As much as I hate to defend Disney, it should be well within it's right to ensure the kids are safe from employees who might fuck up and put them in danger because they have a drug problem and brought it to work. It's going to cost them dearly if such an incident does occur so why shouldn't they be able to protect themselves from someone elses problem?
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.
"Innocent until proven guilty" used to be an essential part of English/American culture, not just the legal system.
I always assume you are innocent. I just don't trust you. For the drug testing, where it is important, if you refuse a test I will always assume that you are innocent, but unemployed.
False, false, and false. FUD
Sure, I got the flu a couple times (in my childhood). Sure I had ear aches (however, I have serious ear problems, resulting in multiple surgeries and my being nearly deaf). But: athletes foot? migraines? frequent sore throats and pink eye? pneumonia? Nope, none of it.
I certainly didn't get the flu every year and I definitely didn't get most of the stuff you listed. I've been quite healthy, with the minor exception of the ears being useless. The CDC's own stats support this, with only roughly 20-30% of specimens tested being positive for influenza. That's not "most people". It's significant, sure, but it isn't "most people" and it's definitely not "most people every year".
I think you might consider getting your hypochondria checked out.
How could anyone work in a place like Disney without being heavily drugged?
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.
False, false, and false. FUD
Effective herd immunization can eradicate disease completely. See smallpox and polio.
An attenuated virus vaccine does not "spread" between people.
I kept returning to the UN pledge to build a drug-free world. There was one fact, above all others, that I kept placing next to it in my mind. It is a fact that seems at first glance both obvious and instinctively wrong. Only 10 percent of drug users have a problem with their substance. Some 90 percent of people who use a drug—the overwhelming majority—are not harmed by it. This figure comes not from a pro-legalization group, but from the United Nations Office on Drug Control, the global coordinator of the drug war. Even William Bennett, the most aggressive drug czar in U.S. history, admits: “Non-addicted users still comprise the vast bulk of our drug-involved population.”
link - http://boingboing.net/2015/01/...
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
And you KNOW the kinds of injury that can result during a run of, "It's a Small World". ...Talk about dramatic...
To Copy from One is Plagiarism; To Copy from Many is Research.
There are clear lines between what is personal and what affects the job. If you take drugs it'll likely affect your work and health costs (still somewhat paid for by the company) - that means the company has a valid interest.Â
Those lines are not all that clear. What if you are overweight? That too takes a toll on one health. Can a company mandate you exercise regularly and eat only healthy foods? What about medical conditions? Do they have the right to know about a congenital heart condition? These things may be just as likely, or more so, to affect job performance and insurance costs than someone smoking a joint on the weekend.
It's-a smallpox after all.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
my father is, i know how it works. I dont agree with that. i do agree with administering a test after an accident however
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Because not everyone has the option of simply "working somewhere else".
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.
Or have we abandoned personal responsibility?
Do you mean have we become like Wall Street and expect the government to bail us out when we are greedy, stupid and incompetent?
Why is Snark Required?
You are the classic moron. There may be no mass extinction from measles right now, but before there was vaccination, huge numbers of people died or were permanently damaged by it annually.
You are relatively safe for the monent, because the vast majority of people are vaccinated, even in developing countries, except where stupid CIA trickery has discredited the health profession. Don't expect that to last if you manage to persuade many people with your stupid ideas.
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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.
The odds of getting the flu can be as low as 5%, so you can go 20 years without catching it on average.
Just because you've apparently never had it judging by your incorrect comments, doesn't mean you can't get it or wont get it.
Besides, why do you fear getting it? It's really not going to hurt you, but it will protect you and if you are really fortunate enough to be apparently immune to developing flu symptoms from the flu as you imply then it will still prevent you passing it on to others meaning it's still a good thing.
Increasing the range of illnesses your immune system has been trained to cope with is never a bad thing - learn about the history of the smallpox vaccine - someone noticed that milk maids were the only ones not dropping dead left and right to smallpox, this is because they'd mostly all already contracted cowpox at some point which was similar but relatively harmless compared to smallpox. Nevertheless, their bodies gaining immunity to cowpox with little illness also made them immune to smallpox which could've otherwise killed them.
So what possible benefit do you perceive from not getting the flu jab? Whether you feel you need it or not it's still beneficial to you and others either way.
If you work for me, you work for me at my pleasure. If it is my pleasure that you not potentially cost me millions of dollars by infecting the children of my customers with dangerous diseases, I will require vaccinations as a condition of employment. If it is my pleasure that you not potentially cost me millions of dollars by driving my truck into minivan loaded with kids because you nodded off at an inappropriate time, I will require that you occasionally prove that are free from drugs that might cause such things.
If it is your pleasure not to work in such an environment, you may choose to work elsewhere. You are not compelled to do anything against your will.
yes, but should it not be your employers right to do with his capital what he will? it's his money.
Because finding out the dude was high when he forgot to check the safety harness on Space Mountain after someone flies out and dies makes it all better. Suuurrre, he's the one they are going to sue for millions of dollars over negligence and Disney has no right, reason, or interest in ensuring the safety of their customers..
Look, ganjadude, it's FINE that you want to toast your brain. Rock on, dude. Just don't do it at a time or place where your impaired state is likely to affect me in any way whatsoever. In exchange I promise not get wasted on single malt and drive around in your neighborhood.
"Unheard of means only it's undreamed of yet,
Impossible means not yet done." ~~ Julia Ecklar
And in the case of a communicable disease, it needs pathways to spread. Block enough pathways and it cannot spread. This is what herd immunity is. Even if a few % of people cannot be vaccinated they are still surrounded by enough people who are. It is no coincidence at all that when these outbreaks occur it is ALWAYS in areas where the vaccinate uptake is lower than required for herd immunity to be effective.
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.
Really?
Look, I can understand mandatory drug tests if you're the guy piloting the boat in Safari Adventure Land (or whatever the hell it's called), but if your job is dressing up as Goofy or Pluto or whoever....
Mr. Hu is not a ninja.
Exercise: get your measles/pre-vaccination era mortality rates, and crosscheck with your local community records of deaths by measles or complications. Statistically speaking, most of you should get acceptable matching and so keep believing in those rates. If you don't get acceptable results, we're on the same boat.
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
i can tell you i dont know a drug user who would give away his drugs to be funny. drug users dont like to share lol
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Look, ganjadude, it's FINE that you want to toast your brain. Rock on, dude. Just don't do it at a time or place where your impaired state is likely to affect me in any way whatsoever
This times 100 is what I am saying. What one does in their off time is not of any concern to others
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If I HAD to get something from a Disney employee, I'd rather get the clap from one or more of the several Princesses they have running around there.
Lots of fun and then just a shot!
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.
One of my main issues with mandatory drug testing, especially before one even has the job, is it's still unfairly selective. Lets say you had 3 job candidates:
#1 - An alcoholic with a real issue. They sober up the night before the interview/test.
#2 - A cocaine addict who stopped using a few days before the interview/test.
#3 - An occasional marijuana user who smoked a joint 2 weeks ago.
Assuming everything else about those candidates is equal only one of those people is going to fail the test and not get the job. All 3 of them could be perfectly fine at it and never present an issue but some common sense and risk analysis would tell you the one who failed is probably the least likely to present an issue down the line.
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.
Nearly all companies worth working for have drug testing requirements. So it's not as easy as "you don't have to work for them." You effectively can't work for anybody in entire swaths of industry for doing something that is so harmless, several states have decided to legalize it. Do companies check to make sure you aren't violating other laws? Certainly. Do they make you prove your innocence on a quarterly basis? Of course not. That only happens with drug use.
Some employers even have you sign agreements not to drink in public, drive 5 mph under the speed limit, stay under a certain weight, or my personal favorite-- back in to all parking spots. Let's not forget some companies (e.g. church schools) still fire people for being gay. My employer doesn't allow me to post negative comments about my company on forums. Should this shit be legal?
Seems to me that if a person is doing their job well, that a company shouldn't have the right to fire them. I live in an "at will" state. We can fire somebody because the sky is cloudy, and they can't do anything about it. That seems pretty fucked up to me.
Right, because I want to be the customer who has their food spiked by someone who was high or under the influence because they thought it would be funny. Imagine them sprinkling crack or LSD on food and someone has a reaction or leaves in their car and has an accident. That's totally hilarious.
Nice straw man there.The likelihood of someone being high and having these drugs on them means they are probably using them. I seriously doubt a crackhead is going to waste crack by pulling a practical joke on someone they don't even know. I don't even know how diminished the effects of crack would be by ingesting it versus smoking it, but I'd guess it would be considerable. Do you really think such a person is going to waste something that they enjoy or are addicted to in such a way?
If you are asserting that someone would be high on another drug and acquire these first and then take them to work with the intent to do this. It's very unlikely that because a person was high that they would chose to do this. That would take planning and it's pretty unlikely that someone is going to plan all this out simply because their judgement was impaired. They would have to have some serious underlying mental issues to begin with.
A few years back, my family got H1N1. They each were in bed for a week (too weak to get up) before they began to recover. My wife's breathing took months to fully recover due to asthma. (Somehow I escaped despite my son coughing in my face repeatedly.) I'd say the flu is a lot worse than "sniffles for a few days."
My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
Potentially is enough to warrant a drug test.
The entire guilty until proven innocent is for criminal and civil trials
Actually, it's only for criminal trials. Civil trials are decided on the basis of "the preponderance of evidence."
No, I'm pretty sure he had it right. These days you're guilty until proven innocent in both types of trials. Hell, you may not even see a courtroom, if your "crime" fits the narrative of the day. The press will make your life hell anyway. Terrorism, sexual assault, drugs.
No the entire argument is silly. I could just as easily suggest drug test makes sense in fast food because who knows, someone with a drug addled mind might thing its a good idea to wipe the grill down with drain cleaner before cooking my burger.
No business have the right to do whatever they like and require whatever they want as conditions of employment, but they should not be encouraged to reach into the private lives of employees. Drug testing is intrusive, and costly. Requiring it should be a quick way to make sure your company isn't on any of those 'best places to work lists'
What companies should do is simply check their employees arrive for work in state they can do it effectively and safely in. At your fast food restaurant if the Assistant Manager can't be arsed to walk around and make sure workers don't appear to be to 'high' to do their jobs properly you got bigger problems than anything a drug test is going to uncover.
Someplace like Disney has tonnes of pre-open check lists and radio check-ins etc. If lower management can't spot operator that shows up to work drugged out than once again drug tests are not the answer. I have seen guys come it work with fevers before from flu and back fork lifts into other employees etc. Drug tests don't screen for flu. There is no substitute for a quick 'hello' and occasional walk arounds for employees who operate hazardous equipment or work in conditions that may be dangerous to them or others. Does matter if its a roller coaster or fryer filled with scalding oil! It also does not matter if said employee was 'tripping balls' 7 hours ago, it matters they are sober while on the job!
Repeal the 17th Amendment TODAY! Also Please Read http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html
Citation needed. Prove to me that recreation pot use on the weekend is somehow a "public safety" issue for the guy sweeping the floor at the Magic Kingdom. Now vaccinations, on the other hand, really are a public safety issue because the public is harmed by a lack of herd immunity. Just look at the current situation.
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.
to you perhaps, not to me any a large portion of the people here
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Some 90 percent of people who use a drug—the overwhelming majority—are not harmed by it.
But those 10% of caffeine addicts will do anything for just one more shot of espresso.
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).
Thats seriously fucked up. Have you considered emigrating to a free country?
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.
Well, that depends. For example at my company (over 80,000 between employees and contractors - also we are in a whole lot of countries), there are random drug tests in US states that allow that sort of thing. For example in Texas anyone can be tested at random and the company does that. In California (where I am and where the Disney property that is the subject of this article is), this is not legal. The company can only perform this type of testing for workers who can be classified as safety critical (or if they have a documented trail of performance problems). For example a truck driver, a fuel terminal operator, etc. would be classified as safety critical. In the Disney case, the ride operators would be included, but probably not the general office staff or the character actors. So it really depends on the jurisdiction and the local rules. Do companies like to test? Sure. Mine does it where legal. Do they always get to test? Not if the law in your area prevents it.
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.
How about NO? What I do in the privacy of my home, outside of working hours should not be the concern of my employer. If a worker fails to perform up to standard, sure, fire him. But recreational drug use alone as grounds for dismissal or refusing a hire is ridiculous.
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.
So, when you get on a train, bus, amusement park ride and get injured or killed because the driver or operator is high and didn't pay attention to what they were doing is OK with you?
How dare you slander the capitalist utopia that guarantees your freedom to work ANY crappy job you want.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Recreational pot use of the guy sweeping the floor, is probably not an issue. But for the guy controlling the ride or driving the bus, it is most definitely an issue!
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.
You entitled... You do realize companies often all but collude on this kind of thing? Once one gets away with it, it quickly becomes the norm "in order to stay competitive". IMO, Your rights shouldn't just apply to government - especially since bigger companies own it at some/any/every level anyway. You can't negotiate from unequal footing. If you say anything even approaching "no", the company will simply replace you without a single thought. Probably with someone cheaper. (Or, even better, give your former coworkers who couldn't afford to walk all of your work. Triple-win.)
Why can't all fpga/microcontroller manufacturers just release free optimizing compilers???
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.
...but being a raging alcoholic is just dandy. They don't test for that.
Those are implants.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
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
its off work time, the job pays for it, but not you for your time
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
not if he is not using on company time or in the few hours before the start of his or her shift.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I wonder if you would give the same answer for, say, mandatory hymen inspections as a condition for employment?
People are entitled to have their private lives, and accepting any kind of end run around that means no one's rights are every going to be safe.
If a company chooses to take upon itself law enforcement, it should bloody well expect to be held to the same standard.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Where did we go wrong?
http://www.rightoncrime.com/2014/01/the-felonization-of-america/
There was an outbreak of measles in 1988. I was at a Walgreen where the cashier was obviously too sick. A few days later I went to the hospital. Not for measles, but for chicken pox. At 19-years-old, I was hit hard by the chicken pox. Six weeks in bed to recover and two months to regain my physical strength.
Hahahaha.... Oh wait, you're serious? Let me laugh even harder! HAHAHAHAHAHA.
I have never met someone in my life that would give out their drugs for free like that. Trust me, I used to go to raves, I know plenty of people that have done drugs.
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.
Keep in mind that such a level of freedom to reject work is an advantage a large percentage of Americans do not have. The idea of market forces being the best or only solution is of great appeal to people who have significant power (and low vulnerability) in that domain, but it is less useful to those who do not.
It is not that dissimilar from people who say that the political process is fine and that if you do not feel represented you are free to engage in personal lobbying or running for office. Theoretically anyone has the ability to steer the government, but realistically the utility of it is pretty minimal to most people.
That is what freedom looks like. Freedom unfortunately also includes the ability to use one's power to infringe the freedom of weaker people.
Unless what you do on your off time affects how well you do your job. Think about a drunk who comes to work hung over. If that person is in anyway responsible for other people's safety, then they should be checked to make sure they are 100% capable of performing their job. Are you willing to risk your life & the life of your loved ones by getting on the bus when its driver is clearly hung over?
If the company you work for relies on it's public perception, then yeah, an person who identifies themselves as an employee should be fired or disciplined when they bad mouth their employer. I mean, do you think Samsung was happen when celebrities endorsed their products from an iPhone? And when that occurred, what do you think happened to either the iPhone or the endorsement contracts?
If what you do has absolutely no bearing on how well you do your job or affects your company in any way, then sure it's none of your employer's business. I don't think my employer cares about Lego or video game hobbies.
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?
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.
You really want someone to spend the time to take apart the lunatic ravings of some random doc who ralfed about vaccines in 1896?
You might be crazier than he was.
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
"Innocent UNLESS proven guilty" was the phrase. "until" implies you're a criminal before the fact and proof of that criminality is just a formality.
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
No company I have worked for has ever tested for drugs.
Seems like this is a problem in your country...
To answer some of your points - yes, a church should be able to sack someone for not adhering to the faith of the church, yes, a company should be able to fire you for posting negative comments about them, I don't have an opinion on the other matters.
Large companies already do this by giving you discounts on health insurance or charging you more depending on your perspective if you adopt "healthy" lifestyle habits. Also I'm sure you'd agree that you shouldn't expect to keep your job as cop if you are severely overweight or want a job as a booth babe etc.
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.
so sorry, I didnt know you, the singular coward is equal to "a large portion". Idiot
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
No, "Innocent until proven guilty" also applies in civil trials. "Preponderance of evidence" vs. "Reasonable Doubt" is a statement of what certainty is required to establish that guilt.
--
JimFive
Please stop using the word theory when you mean hypothesis.
The company will be directly harmed if an accident occurs, that employee is tested by police and found have recently indulged. Right or wrong they probably would be found liable if injured kids were paraded in front of a typical jury.
Next!
No, there's laws against starving on the streets. This being an equal society, those laws apply to rich people too.
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.
Even better. I was a military brat. During my childhood, I lived overseas and in various locations around the US (both coasts, north and south, rainy/wet/cold, hot/dry, and hot/wet).
You know how people go to college and get sick because they're exposed to new infectious agents? (I'm steering heavily into <anecdote> territory here, take it with some salt.) I don't recall an excess of children being sick after transferring in, nor do I remember getting a major illness, with one exception. One of the couple times I got the flu was immediately after moving (we were still in billeting). That said, it was still rare overall to get sick.
I often wonder if moving frequently and receiving vaccinations for everything under the sun (military requirements) helped. But I can't really say. Perhaps the extensive and thorough vaccination did reduce the numbers of sick people, but I don't have data to say either way.</anecdote>
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
Because not everyone has the option of simply "working somewhere else".
Sure, if you're a slave in Sudan. In the developed world, everyone does have the option of working somewhere else.
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.
Define "working somewhere else". If you mean I have the option of quitting my reasonably lucrative position in IT to go work for McDonald's, ok. I do not think that is what most people mean when they say they do not have that option of working someplace else, and that is certainly what I meant when I said it.
Honestly, I'm curious which companies these posters are talking about. I live in America, and the last time I was drug-tested was when I went to work for Intel way back in 2000. Since then, I've had 4 other corporate jobs, including one short-term contract assignment at a defense contractor, and I never had to take a drug test.
You do realize companies often all but collude on this kind of thing?
' And workers collude on what they want as well. Not really seeing the reason to care here. This temporary advantage of employers is due both to the considerable increase in supply of global labor over the past few decades and remarkably short-sighted labor policy in the developed world over that same period.
And this is yet another reason in the huge list of reasons that employers and employment should have nothing to do with healthcare.
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
Keep in mind that such a level of freedom to reject work is an advantage a large percentage of Americans do not have.
Sure, they do. Just because there are mild, short term, negative consequences doesn't mean you don't have a choice. This whining reminds me of PvP games where people complain that someone who has played the game for a couple of years just so happens to be a better player than the person who signed up yesterday. So here's the usual advice given for delicate flowers: man up, L2P, and flush your victim card down the toilet.
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.
That is kinda my point. For you it might be 'mild and short term', for a lot of people it is not. It is easy to call people delicate flowers when one is sufficiently pampered that they can consider unemployment 'mild and short term'. That is a much bigger luxury then people often think.
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"
Just because someone isn't addicted doesn't mean that they can't affect someone else, or affect the company they work for. I haven't had a joint in years. I could have one tomorrow morning on the way in to work. Am I harmed by the drug? No. Am I an addict? No.
But don't extrapolate that to mean I should be fine getting behind the controls of a crane. And having seen someone attempt to reassemble a turbine while baked I fully support drug and alcohol testing at the gate on the way in for all employees.
You want to mess with your own head, do it in your own time, in your own house, where you can't affect anyone.
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.
Until the off time becomes on time.
The number of people we catch on the way in the gate in the morning over the limit after they "only had a few drinks last night" is absolutely incredible. People are a poor judge of what their off time is. Handy hint: Don't have a joint in the car park on before you come in the gate. That joint is not your "off time".
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
I specifically said in this thread that in your own time, not on the job, and not prior to going to the job
I have no problem with alcoholics, but i wouldnt want them working while drunk.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
If you mean I have the option of quitting my reasonably lucrative position in IT to go work for McDonald's, ok.
Yes, that is a choice. You can also start your own business or get IT work elsewhere. Now, if you really are so incompetent that you can't do any better than McDonalds as an alternate job, then your employer deserves your gratitude not your spite for giving you a job so much better than what you could find on your own.
or a lot of people it is not
So what? I tire of this fake helplessness. Sure, it matters to them how things seem. Sure, it matters that there are negative consequences to be overcome. But how much more of our societies can we afford to sacrifice to people who choose not to better their own lives?
That is a much bigger luxury then people often think.
It is a choice that anyone can make in the developed world.
Hiring people actively engaged in breaking federal and state law and putting themselves in a position of incapacitation as a result? I draw the line there. I don't like drug tests but the reality is I dislike hiring people who could potentially screw up my company by 1) bringing illegal substances to my office 2) potentially getting arrested before a big meeting they are crucial to 3) whatever else you might be able to come up with that increases the risk of hiring the drug using person over a non drug user.
That said, I won't provide employers with financial data, nor will I provide anyone that asks information about my personal life outside of work, be it facebook information, linkedin, my hobbies or anything else.
"Growing old is inevitable; growing up is optional."
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
Great. Let's "get IT work elsewhere" shall we?
- oops, nothing available in my immediate area
- something available in the next town over, but I cannot afford the commute
- something available across the country but I cannot afford to sell my house
- something available across the country but I cannot afford the move
- something available across the country but that means wifey has to quit her job
- something available across the country but I can't move the ailing family member in my care
- I'd love that job in California but I'm putting my child through University and had to start bicycling to work to cut expenses
- I tried self-employment but I'm a horrible entrepreneur and lost my savings in my last, and only, venture
etc.
etc.
etc.
To be clear, I have been gainfully employed for 25 years and have never had problems finding work or moving from one job to the next. But I am not so naive as to think that the right work is available to anyone who wants it at any time.
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
The suit should be against the company making the vaccine because it failed to work as advertised. That's if you are actually desiring to blame the party that failed to uphold its own end of the deal (and not other people for failing to agree with you).
http://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vp...
How effective is MMR vaccine?
More than 95% of the people who receive a single dose of MMR will develop immunity to all 3 viruses. A second vaccine dose gives immunity to almost all of those who did not respond to the first dose.
That's what manufacturers advertise, and that's the deal they have to uphold. Something like 1/1,000 people who get two doses will not get immunity. If everybody got two doses of MMR, the viruses wouldn't propagate, and those 1/1,000 people would be safe because of herd immunity. If some stupid, selfish people refuse to get vaccinated, they're putting those 1/1,000 people at risk. Those stupid, selfish people are responsible for the deaths of those 1/1,000 people. They should be forced to choose between getting vaccinated, or being quarantined all their lives like Typhoid Mary. The law on that goes back hundreds of years, to European law.
Most people would be shocked to learn that over 80% of what doctors practice has no scientific basis whatsoever. Evidence-based medicine is a relatively small part of things. It's a classic case of sheeple following authority (oh noes, he said sheeple to describe people who act like herd animals instead of being individuals, that bastard, we hate him now!).
90% of statistics, including yours, are bullshit.
In the UK, doctors work for the government, and NICE reviews the scientific evidence behind every treatment for effectiveness. No effectiveness, no treatment. I've read the NICE studies and they do a pretty good job.
In the US, Medicare, Medicaid and the private insurance companies also review medical treatments for effectiveness, although politics has more influence here. Also doctors who are making money in the free market are more likely to do things just because they can make money out of them. And consumers are mostly stupid. So they give antibiotics to everybody who comes in with a cold.
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
To be clear, I have been gainfully employed for 25 years and have never had problems finding work or moving from one job to the next. But I am not so naive as to think that the right work is available to anyone who wants it at any time.
The "right work"? That sounds pretty naive to me right there. My view is merely that you can shop for a better job or merely a different job. Even if you're looking for a characteristic which can't completely go away (such as absence of stress or doing work as you feel like doing it), you still can look for work that is more suited to your desires.
Finally, my observation is based on the bald fact that the developed world, despite the problems it has created for employers, is still a pretty open market for workers. If your current job sucks a lot, you have ready means to look for better work.
And of course, since me breaking my leg will cost the company in the form of training a replacement, at the very least, it has a valid interest to keep me from going skiing, too. Not to mention my vote - a company is affected by legislation, thus it has a valid interest to make sure I vote for whoever it tells me to vote.
Just because a company has a "valid interest" in some matter doesn't mean it has any business putting its proverbial nose there. Companies exist to serve people, not the other way around.
And this is downright absurd. Of course your personal relationships affect your work performance. But you have them so they're off limits.
It's the dishonesty, even moreso than the authoritarianism, of the anti-drug movement that bothers me.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
If your circumstances prevent you from taking an opportunity that you would otherwise take, that is not a "choice".
By "right work" I mean the work a person is qualified to to do and would naturally seek. There is nothing naive about a carpenter looking for work in carpentry. Certainly they are not about to get a job as a vehicle mechanic or a video games developer, and they are unlikely to willingly go looking for menial work. In this sense I think "right work" is a pretty conventional idea. I'm an IT guy. If I am looking for work, then I am looking for work in IT, and specifically within my areas of expertise.
Yes, in the developed world many, perhaps most, workers generally have considerable freedom. But it is not the case the "everyone" has the option of "working someplace else". It is not difficult to imagine how someone's circumstances would leave them with no choice. "everyone does have the option of working somewhere else." is an incomplete statement.
If all you have is the 'sniffles for a few days' I like to say you didn't have the flu, you had a cold.
I don't read AC A human right
take all the money spent on welfare programs, and cut a 1 time check to people to jumpstart their lives (bail out the poor)
That amounts to $20,610 for every poor person in America, or $61,830 per poor family of three.
Now give that money to the individual and let them get back on their own feet, cut the bureaucracy out, cut the reoccurring costs, and let people get back to their lives without interference
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
totally agree with you there. there is a time and place for everything. 90% of users are responsible users (sources in another post i made earlier) so 10% of the users ruin it for everyone??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Actually, all the money spent on welfare, plus about $100bn (not very much), amounts to $7,125 per person per year in 2012. The rough growth is 3.5% per year or something crazy (total amount of personal income increases by roughly 3.5% per year), so estimate $7900 in 2015, or $658/mo in 2015 for each natural-born, resident, American citizen over the age of 18.
Even at over $1/sqft (I paid less than $1/sqft to rent an apartment), a livable, 224sqft apartment can sell for $300/mo, leaving $358/mo for food, utilities (heating 224sqft isn't hard--I heated my living space for $60/mo for 4 years), soap, toothpaste, clothing, and the like.
By using a dedicated flat tax replacing OASDI, we tie it to total income: regardless of wages, operating costs, or price dynamics, we get the same money. If businesses automate and don't lower prices, they make a bigger profit (not paying labor), and the dividend increases by that proportion (10% more profit means 10% more in the dividend); if wages increase, profits slim down, and the rich come closer to the income of the middle class, we're taxing the middle class same as the rich to fund the dividend. No matter what the shape of the economic situation, we get the same amount of money.
$1.28 trillion comes out of the federal budget, and an extra $0.34 trillion imagined from the state's welfare budget. I actually leave that up to the states: there will be less need, therefor they can slim their welfare programs, possibly even eliminate them; but I'm against mandating anything in that regard. $1.62 trillion total in 2012, $1.72 trillion was what I estimated as a minimum; and the current situation probably changes the numbers a bit, such that we can implement a somewhat smaller tax and reach the same market situation (I haven't examined this yet, but it's a distinct possibility).
The total tax difference is some 3% in the worst case, and that's unbalanced; I can get it down to 1% by adjusting the base income tax brackets (which are slashed in half, mostly), and the worst case falls on the high-income earners. The current public disposition is a 50% or greater tax, rather than a 39.6% tax, on this class; I propose a 40%-42% tax, only if necessary to meet my end goals, which is vastly smaller.
It works. It makes the poor and unemployed a continuous profit source, creating a market opportunity to support them and become very rich in the process. It has a 15-year transition plan for social security (after which current retirees are grandfathered), and a risk control in that it doesn't decree the dissolution of state welfare (which largely drops state welfare costs, but leaves states room to catch my miscalculations and implement some sort of food security for large, unemployed families--a thing that shouldn't exist, but the world is a shit hole). It encourages work by continuing to pay out the same monthly dollar amount whether you sit at home watching TV or go CEO for a major oil company making billions of dollars.
Of all the UBI plans out there, mine is the only viable one. The idea is not new, but it's so newly integrated into the political mindset that people treat it like a secret sauce you can pour on top to make everything better. It's a very dangerous and volatile concept, and *will* destroy the economy if implemented incorrectly. I need people to catch up so they can suggest improvements, instead of "hey let's give everyone $20k/year and pay them $5k/year for each kid they have!" stupidity that will only lead to hyperinflation and a Reichmark economy.
Support my political activism on Patreon.
If your circumstances prevent you from taking an opportunity that you would otherwise take, that is not a "choice".
Sure, it is, if they're willing to go through the effort. I don't buy at all the claim that one can't improve their circumstances. I can buy that they aren't sufficient interested in improving their circumstances to go through the effort.
I'm an IT guy. If I am looking for work, then I am looking for work in IT
That's moderately unconventional, actually. I doubt most IT people still work in IT. It's a tough field with tough work conditions which is not for most people.
And then someone tests positive. So what? Just because someone does drugs does't mean it affects their ability to work. If drugs are clearly affecting someone's performance, then it should be pretty obvious without a drug test. A drug test is just a feel-good measure.
I have it on good authority that Intel doesn't care about positive pot results. They just don't want tweaks and pill heads.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
1 Month later they come back. 'That was one hell of a party! We need more money.'
Those idiots aren't in the position they are in because they know how to handle money.
John McAfee 'It was like that time I hired that Bangkok prostitute; to do my taxes, while I fucked my accountant'
I am not getting a yearly vaccine to account for the shit immune systems of the elderly or the poor hygiene of people that touch everything and then jam their hand in their eye.
Nearly all the infections happen through the eye. You touch something and you touch your eye.
There was a day when animals were slaughtered in the middle of town and the entrails were thrown into the street to mix with the horseshit.
Why do you think Africa always has the interesting diseases but not other places? Hygiene. They have open wells where animals drink in the same place that humans bath and... humans drink. Same body of water. Shockingly there are parasites, flesh eating bacteria, etc.
People ALWAYS think they're being hygienic. 1000 years ago when people bathed once a month they thought they were being hygienic.
Newsflash. People are frequently gross. Your family, no offense, is probably doing things that got them sick.
Getting mad at me for pointing that out is about as rational as getting mad that someone told you not to drink the water that animals shit in.
If you want to stop getting sick. Pay attention to what you're doing. Do NOT touch random shit especially in a big city and then touch your eye. Get yourself some gloves you find to be fashionable or seasonally appropriate and then wear those when you're walking around town. When you need to touch your eye, first try your sleeve. It is cleaner. If you MUST jam your fingers into your eye, then take your glove off and do it. Then put the glove back on.
That will do far more to protect you from disease then the fucking flu shot.
The flu shot will protect you against the strain of flu they think might cause you a problem. Not touching your eyes with your fingers after you've been touching everything with your fingers will protect you against pretty much all non air/water born diseases.
I am not taking your stupid flu shot because you can't stop touching your fucking eyes after using the public restroom.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Maybe, but I did have to take the drug test. Then again, this was 15 years ago, so things may have changed since then. Intel's a very different company these days, now that Craig is gone.
Then why not vaccinate us for everything? Just give us every vaccination in the world. And then while you're at it, you can give us all the updates to those because god knows they change over time.
I am not getting jabbed with a fucking needle every year just to idiots that have to stick their heads in public restrooms don't get sick.
You think you're being hygiene but people ALWAYS think that. They always have. 10,000 years ago they thought they were being hygiene because they picked lice out of each other's hair.
If you're getting sick it is because you're doing stupid things.
Stop doing stupid things and stop bothering the people that don't get sick because they're not doing stupid things.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Then I've never had the flu in my life and neither has anyone in my family. We get the sniffles if anything.
The last time I had illness related sniffles?... maybe 5 years ago for a day. I drank some OJ, chilled out, and was golden the next day.
The only sniffles I get with regularity is the kind when you're in very cold weather. Your nose runs because your body heat is melting the solidified phlegm in your nasal cavities. I get that which is annoying but not the actual illness.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
No, I'll take all the vaccinations that can be given a couple times in your life and are good there after.
I will not be forced to get jabbed with a needle every year just because you have a shitty immune system or because you can't stop touching bathroom doors and then sticking your dirty fingers right in your eye.
If you get sick all the time it means your immune system is shit or you live like a pig.
Pick one.
Neither conclusion obligates the rest of society to create a sterile environment where idiots can't infect themselves by being stupid.
You play in the storm drain and you're going to get sick. This is not my fault.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Give me a shot I can take a couple times in my life and I have no problem with it.
The vaccinations we give babies are great. And the booster shot when people get older is great too.
The yearly flu shots however are not happening for me. So if you're worried about flu pandemics, consider changing hygiene policies so that people stop accidentally infecting themselves by touching bathroom doors and then jamming their fingers in their eyes.
That is your problem. Not the lack of vaccinations.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
And if it's your pleasure that cute people of the appropriate sex do various sexual things with you....
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
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.
Freedom unfortunately also includes the ability to use one's power to infringe the freedom of weaker people.
No, thats not at all what we mean by a free country. It started 800 years ago with the Magna Carta (the great granddad of the US constitution) which (attempted to) limit the power of the Monarch.
Freedom means freedom of the individual, (and of local authority, originally the Lords).
What you describe is called "anarchy". (Or, in the US, "libertarianism")
Thats very possible. The flu doesn't do permanent damage to healthy adults, but its a fairly serious illness with pretty rough symptoms. Most people never catch it, even though a lot do (googling around, 5-20% of people every year? That a lot less than a cold, so its very likely to never catch it).
I'm pretty sure I only caught it once, and I was a mess to begin with when I did.
From what I can see, it is the same 5-20 percent of the population every year. I mean, is the study making any attempt to filter for that?
If there are 10 people, and 2 of them get the flu EVERY FUCKING YEAR... could I not say "20 percent of them get the flu every year"...
I mean, sure... but that is just the old man that is in poor health these days and that kid that keeps playing with cow pies.
I don't get the flu. No one in my family gets it.
And from what I can see of the literature, most of the infections are self inflicted because people touch something and then touch their eyes. Don't do that.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Actually, "until" assumes that the formalities MUST be observed before you're declared a criminal.
In other words, you must be assumed - and more importantly - treated as - an innocent person right up until the moment that the judge renders the verdict. Granted, you may be incarcerated, brought to the courtroom in shackles and chains and otherwise restrained, but the point is that actual punishment is (or was) forbidden until that final moment. And that in the eyes of the law, at least, no lasting stigma is carried away once found innocent.
I don't know that using the word "unless" makes any real difference except that it doesn't take the before/after time factor into account. Either phrase does tend to imply that you're under suspicion to begin with.
You know, when I get told a story that just doesn't ring true, then I call people on it. And if you really want to be consistent, why don't you take your own advice?
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.
The reason for "unless" is to remove the suspicion of guilt should it not be proven, whereas "until" maintains that suspicion forever, ignoring the trial finding of innocence.
Unless: "Let it go. It doesn't matter what you think, he was found not guilty" "Fine, but I'm not happy about it"
Until: "Let it go." "No way, that's not justice! I want a retrial! He's guilty, I tell you!"
"Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
Until: "Let it go." "No way, that's not justice! I want a retrial! He's guilty, I tell you!"
Not in the USA. Even OJ didn't get double jeopardy. They had to settle for getting him on a separate civil accusation once he was acquitted on the criminal charges.
A retrial isn't something you can demand and get simply for not liking the verdict. You have to prove that the original trial was defective, irrespective of the guilt or innocence of the accused.
You can personally suspect anyone of anything and there's nothing stopping you. Including a verdict of "innocent". But your personal suspicions don't mean squat to the legal process. At best, they can be used by the authorities to initiate investigation, detention, and trial. Legally, whoever you suspect is still supposed to be treated as innocent UNTIL proven guilty, regardless of their actual guilt or innocence. Bur once proven innocent, that's it legally speaking, regardless of your personal assumptions, right or wrong. And the mindset of the USA used to be that personal assumptions of guilt or innocence were similar. We didn't, for example, automatically assume that everyone who walked into the personnel office was a drug-addled illegal immigrant until about 1984.
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.
More BS. Read here - http://www.sciencebasedmedicin...
What we have here is an educated idiot. Unfortunately they're everywhere.
That's a question of the level of the burden to establish guilt: the point is that a starting presumption of innocence is a court-specific thing.
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.
Once a bunch of people spend all that on alcohol and/or drugs, what are you going to do about them?
More importantly, what are you going to do about their kids?
and at that point you tell them too bad
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
You've not really clarified why they're a problem though, you're suggesting they are without justifying it. Are you afraid of needles or something? Getting a jab once a year is way easier than trying to install anti-bacterial handwash installations at every door in the world.
Even this does little though, as it's not just being spread based on touch, you could make everyone wear masks to prevent sneezes or coughs or just general breathing from spreading the disease, but all that does in absence of vaccination is means that we'll suffer even harder when we inevitably face a strain of flu that does work it's way around the things you put in place.
Long story short, vaccinations are the only real answer, and they have other benefits of generally improving your immune response to boot. They're win-win and the only reason to be against them is if you're one of those crackpot anti-vaccination types that thankfully only really seem to infest America.
The above point is relevant for anything but the seasonal flu vaccines.
And again... those exist mostly protect the very old and the very young.
The general population is better served by just having better hygiene.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
Back to the Disney thing, I would think that the character actors would fall under a "think of the children" sort of thing. Can you imagine, "Mommy, why does Mickey smell funny like Uncle Jack?" The funny thing is, I'm actually in favor of companies (or governments, for that matter) requiring immunizations, allowing for medical exemptions.
I can't tell if you don't understand vaccines or what, but you're still failing to expand on why you have a problem with flu vaccines?
They still provide herd immunity, they still make your immune system stronger in general making it better able to cope with other illnesses.
You've still failed to explain why any of that is a problem. Better hygiene doesn't make you more resistant to illness, it just delays the inevitable.
Given that the flu can be spread not simply by touch but by bodily fluids from coughing and sneezing I don't really understand why you think hygeine fixes the problem and yet flu vaccines are useless.
Again, there's no downside to them, they make you more resistant to it and other illnesses and protect others, so what exactly is the problem given that there's no real downside?
I don't have a problem with flu vaccines. They're great. You can take them six times a day from now until the sun burns out.
I wish you well with them. But I do not see why every person in society must take them when only a very small portion of the population is actually at risk from the flu.
If you are in that group, then take the vaccine. I am not.
Here you're going to get silly, so let me hammer home why what you're saying makes no sense.
The "flu" is not one disease. It is possibly hundreds of related diseases that rise and fall from one year to the next. You cannot vaccinate against them all. It isn't possible. It is like trying to get vaccinated for the cold. It doesn't work.
Now, you can get vaccinated for ONE year of the flu. And even that is a GUESS as to what will be going around this season.
Now, let us compare that to the measles or polio... I can get one vaccine with some boosters now and again and I'm good for life. Why? Because there aren't 10,000 fucking versions of those going around.
You get me one vaccine I can take that will last decades at a minimum against the flu and I'll consider it. Short of that, observe some basic fucking hygiene you filthy fucking animals. This issue is mostly an issue because people have bad hygiene. in the same way that washing your hands avoids a lot of medical problems... simply not touching things and then pushing your finger into your eye will also avoid most issues as well.
I don't do that. I don't touch public restroom doors then tough my eyes. Nearly all infections of the flu come in through the eye. Not the nose or the mouth. The eye. Tell people that. Tell them to avoid touching their eyes during flu season after touching public objects. Everything form money to door knobs. Just don't. Wipe your eye with your elbow or your wrist or anything but the finger that just touched whatever.
End of discussion. I'm sure you have a stupid rebuttal... I don't care. Stop wasting my time with this idiocy.
I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
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.
As a rule, in the US you can be terminated for any reason or none at all, except for the special protections: race, gender, age, religion, etc.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.
innocent until proven guilty only applies to criminal prosecution, it doesn't even apply to civil suits, where the preponderance of the evidence is enough to establish a decision. Thus cases such as OJ, where he is not guilty in the criminal court for purposes of criminal punishment, but the civil suit could decide that his responsibility was well established enough that he had to pay damages.
Star Trek transporters are just 3d printers.