Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Brian Jojade]

It's a tricky balance of risk-management. Vaccinated people are somewhere between less and much less likely to be infected, so I'm somewhere between less and much less concerned about becoming infected from them.

The problem with that concept is the way the testing numbers are being generated certainly makes it LOOK like being vaccinated reduces risk of getting the virus.  But, there's a huge problem with how those numbers are calculated. First off, if vaccination helped reduce the spread, there should have been some sort of correlation with increased vaccination rates and reduction in cases. The opposite seems to be true.  But raw case rates don't catch everyone with the virus so it's easy to see how those numbers could be skewed based on how many people are tested.  It does seem to be the case that vaccinated people that get the virus are less likely to show symptoms. Therefore, there's little to no reason one would subject themselves to random testing.

BUT, and this is one of the things that really bugs me, is that many venues are requiring either vaccinated status OR a negative test.  So, what that does is skew the number of tests given to non vaccinated people.  Of course if you never test the vaccinated and only test the unvaccinated, your numbers will show more unvaccinated people as having the virus.

[Tim McCulloch]

The problem with that concept is the way the testing numbers are being generated certainly makes it LOOK like being vaccinated reduces risk of getting the virus.  But, there's a huge problem with how those numbers are calculated. First off, if vaccination helped reduce the spread, there should have been some sort of correlation with increased vaccination rates and reduction in cases. The opposite seems to be true.  But raw case rates don't catch everyone with the virus so it's easy to see how those numbers could be skewed based on how many people are tested.  It does seem to be the case that vaccinated people that get the virus are less likely to show symptoms. Therefore, there's little to no reason one would subject themselves to random testing.

BUT, and this is one of the things that really bugs me, is that many venues are requiring either vaccinated status OR a negative test.  So, what that does is skew the number of tests given to non vaccinated people.  Of course if you never test the vaccinated and only test the unvaccinated, your numbers will show more unvaccinated people as having the virus.

We have events that require vaccination proof, masks, and a negative test result 48 hours before top of call, but the "trifecta" isn't common.  Local  rapid result testing is available for free (Wichita State University's Molecular Sciences Lab) in My Faire City and employers/producers are paying for 1 hour of straight time to get tested.  The commute time both ways is 30 minutes for me.  I could go to the Walgreens 6 blocks from my home but might not have results for 72 hours... either way, 1 hour of pay.

If I needed proof of tetanus vaccination, I'd be calling my doc or pharmacist for a jab.  Shots to go overseas?  No problem.  It comes with the turf and there are few complaints.  Not talking about the vaccines themselves, but that until biology and epidemiology became political/social issues relatively few chaffed at the idea of needing shots to do whatever it was they needed to do.

My jobs put me in close contact with strangers for extended periods of time.  I want to work.  Considering the relatively high rate of transmissibility of SARS-CoV-2 (and infectiousness of emerging variants), my job puts me at higher risk, and it's not a risk that is easily mitigated by external means:  masks and distancing and fresh air exchange are the non-invasive tools.  Since I can control only 1 of those I see vaccinations as the primary line of health defense, and using masks and distancing (such as I can) as part of my work flow.  The benefits of the vaccine outweigh the statistically insignificant 'cost' (reactions or side effects) for almost everyone, including me.  The primary benefit to vaccination - I am more greatly protected against significant illness and therefore more able to practice my craft and have an income.

From a legal standpoint, unless one is covered by a personal services contract or a collective bargaining agreement that includes language specific to new or voluntary vaccinations (rather than required, existing ones), likely employers will prevail in court.  I'd be surprised if any such agreements written more recently than a couple of years ago exist, like "streaming income isn't in your 1997 contract, *insert name of artist here*, so we're not paying you."  Time will tell but I don't see most lawsuit or arbitration findings for workers or unions.   Unions are in a particularly odd position of generally advocating for workplace health and safety while challenging the employer's creation of a new workplace health and safety requirement...

The tl;dr -

If you want to work today in our industry, get your shots, wear your mask.  If you're waiting on legal decisions or for employers to back down, you're losing income and whatever benefits you might have.

[Lee Wright]

... First off, if vaccination helped reduce the spread, there should have been some sort of correlation with increased vaccination rates and reduction in cases. The opposite seems to be true. 

I suspect the reason the cases sometimes increase at the same time as vaccination rates is not because the vaccine is ineffective but rather because increasing vaccination rates mean that other measures such as social distancing, masks etc are relaxed at the same time.

[Riley Casey]

Substitute 'fall arrest harness' for vaccination through out this thread and see how it comes off with OSHA and your fellow industry professionals.

[Bill Meeks]

Substitute 'fall arrest harness' for vaccination through out this thread and see how it comes off with OSHA and your fellow industry professionals.

I'm vaccinated myself, so I'm not posting this as an anti-vaxxer. But your example is apples to oranges for this reason -- you don't put a fall arrest harness "in you". You put it "on you", and it most certainly can't interact with your body in a biological sense. There are no lasting medical side effects or adverse internal body reactions to donning a fall arrest harness.

With vaccines, which you either inject or swallow, there is most certainly the potential for adverse reactions. Are they common? No, but they do exist nonetheless. Making vaccines mandatory for employment, and in effect "blacklisting" someone who chooses not to get one, is just plain wrong in my view.

As I stated a long time ago earlier in this thread, the vaccinated (me included) are supposedly protected from serious illness and death. So it is no skin off my back if my co-worker chooses to remain unvaccinated. Why should I rejoice in him being unable to find employment because of a personal choice that really has very little (if any) impact on me. Him coming to work drunk or stoned where his impairment might cause physical injury to me is different. I don't have a "vaccine" against him doing something dangerous and stupid while impaired on drugs or alcohol and injuring or killing me and others in the process.

[Tim McCulloch]

With vaccines, which you either inject or swallow, there is most certainly the potential for adverse reactions. Are they common? No, but they do exist nonetheless. Making vaccines mandatory for employment, and in effect "blacklisting" someone who chooses not to get one, is just plain wrong in my view.

Vaccines are already required in many occupations and industries, and they're required for enrollment in schools or to be admitted to other countries. That many have not been previously employed where such things are mandatory means they are likely to not understand that employers are *required by law* to have a safe and healthful workplace, and that can include requiring vaccination for highly contagious illnesses.

"According to my careful prosthesis, this man has.... the plague." - Fire Sign Theater 'Beat the Reaper'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5AZwkz8zLU

[Bill Meeks]

Vaccines are already required in many occupations and industries, and they're required for enrollment in schools or to be admitted to other countries. That many have not been previously employed where such things are mandatory means they are likely to not understand that employers are *required by law* to have a safe and healthful workplace, and that can include requiring vaccination for highly contagious illnesses.

"According to my careful prosthesis, this man has.... the plague." - Fire Sign Theater 'Beat the Reaper'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r5AZwkz8zLU

I am not personally aware of any job in the U.S. that requires having a vaccine (exempting the COVID mandate for now). That's not to say some don't exist, but it certainly is not a widespread requirement. I was never, in my 40 years in the workforce, asked to show proof of vaccination for any job I held. I also have travelled outside the U.S. nine times in my life. On none of those trips do I recall having to provide any proof of vaccination. I understand there are a few third-world destinations where proving vaccination status is required, but I've not travelled there. My destinations included Bahamas, Jamaica, Mexico, Canada (three times), Ireland, Italy and Greece. Those trips were all pre-COVID. If I were a vaccine objector, I could certainly just choose not to travel to those third-world countries where vaccination was required.

All I'm trying to say is I think this medicine would be easier to get folks to swallow if we stopped some of the iron-fisted tactics. As already evidenced by some of the pushback from airline employees, nurses, teachers, police, and quite a few other industries, we are creating a lot of angst for not much improvement in my opinion. After all, this vaccine does not knock out COVID by granting you long-term immunity. It's basically about as effective as an annual flu shot based on the push now for recurring boosters due to the vaccine efficacy waning after a few months. Are we also going to now mandate the old flu shots for everyone? And while we are doing that, why shouldn't we also mandate Shingles and Hepatitis vaccines for everyone? There is also an adult Pneumonia vaccine. That's a somewhat dangerous and contagious disease. Should that vaccine also be mandated in order to have a safe and healthful workplace? Where do we stop? Yes, I went a little over the top with some of my rhetorical examples, but I can see a somewhat slippery slope developing. And all for just regular employment in the general economy. Should the mandate apply to seasonal migrant workers who pick so much of our produce? If so, how can you police that? My county has a seasonal influx of several thousand migrant workers that come in to pick squash and harvest our onions, cabbage and other crops that must be processed by humans and not machines. Not very many of them have visas -- if you know what I mean.

And how do we handle folks who have had previous adverse reactions to vaccines? Can they get work without being vaccinated, or do they lose their jobs? Case in point is my youngest son. He took a regular flu shot three years ago and suffered a temporary bout of guillain-barré syndrome (GBS) that caused him to lose use of his hand for a couple of days (on the arm where he got the shot). He woke up the next morning and his hand would not work! It terrified him as he had no idea what was up. His doctor explained the reaction was very rare, but not unheard of. For him it passed and he fully recovered. But because of that, he asked his doctor about getting the COVID vaccine and the doctor said "absolutely not!". My son questioned him once more asking about the Moderna RNA vaccine because it was new technology and made differently, but the doctor still said "no, I do not recommend it". He told him the risk of another, even more severe, bout of GBS was possible in his case with his previous history.

[Scott Helmke]

There is also an adult Pneumonia vaccine. That's a somewhat dangerous and contagious disease.

Pneumonia is not actually a disease - it is a condition brought on by varied types of infections.  So I'm not sure how there would be a specific vaccine for it.

[Bill Meeks]

Pneumonia is not actually a disease - it is a condition brought on by varied types of infections.  So I'm not sure how there would be a specific vaccine for it.

Here it is (from the CDC):  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/public/index.html. I didn't know it existed either until I stumbled upon it searching for adult vaccines. It is for a specific type of pneumonia, but there is a vaccine for it nonetheless.

[Scott Helmke]

Here it is (from the CDC):  https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/pneumo/public/index.html. I didn't know it existed either until I stumbled upon it searching for adult vaccines. It is for a specific type of pneumonia, but there is a vaccine for it nonetheless.

Interesting, thanks.  Aside from a similar-looking name, it's not the same thing as "Pneumonia" other than it could also produce those symptoms.

[ProSoundWeb Community]