As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal. — baker

And again: this is completely wrong.

Last month, before Biden's announcement, many companies had implemented COVID vaccine mandates. Especially after it was FDA approved.

In the United States, which is what I'm talking about, beyond some laws about discrimination, an employee is expected to comply with the terms and conditions of employment. They can be fired for not doing so. Period.

The terms and conditions of employment do not have to be legally mandatory. You can be fired for not wearing appropriate attire, or for a host of other violations of conditions and rules internal to a company. None of it has anything to do with the general laws of the country. There are no laws about wearing green, for example.

Every day, people get fired for being fat, for getting a tattoo, for being of the wrong religion (all of which would be illegal), but the termination document doesn't list those as reasons, but something more general. — baker

It is openly stated that if you are not vaccinated (unless there's a legitimate exemption), you will be terminated. That is not illegal.

But why have so many Republicans refused to take their shots? Some, of course, have bought into the wild claims about side effects and sinister conspiracies that circulate on social media. But they’re probably a small minority.
Almost surely, mainstream right-wing media outlets, especially Fox News, have played a much bigger role. These outlets generally steer away from clearly falsifiable assertions — they have to worry about lawsuits. But they nonetheless want to do all they can to undermine the Biden administration, so they have done their best to raise doubts about the vaccines’ safety and effectiveness.

The effect has been to encourage many Republicans to think of getting vaccinated as an imposition, a cost they’re being asked to bear rather than a benefit they’re being offered — and, of course, something they’re primed to oppose precisely because it’s something Democrats want to see happen. Medical experts may say that going unvaccinated greatly increases your risk of getting seriously ill or dying, but hey, what do they know?

— Krugman, NY TIMES — Xtrix

Good piece. The repukes have managed to politicize a medical issue into yet another identity crisis. So now any wako who thinks of himself as republican opposes vaccination, for fear of losing his republican soul... Criminal, really.

I think there is such a convergence concerning childhood vaccination , despite your naysayers. — Joshs

The JCVI in the UK have just advised against rolling out childhood vaccination, so I don't know where you're getting your 'consensus' from.

No, there are already plenty of polls out there — Joshs

Well then cite one. I've not seen any.

suss out contrarian opinions and see how the medical mainstream responds to them. — Joshs

That's not what you did. You found an article written by a science journalist which disagreed with three professors in epidemiology and the entire UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Why? Because it supported a view you already had - come on, you know this stuff, why have you suddenly become an absolutists about narratives on this one topic. You know about confirmation bias, you know how we build our representations to reflect our expectations and interact with the world to construct our beliefs (or belief/world constructs). I can't think why I'm having to go through all this as if you were a freshman.

I didnt say the dominant paradigm is more useful than all the alternatives , only that it has to be respected for convincing its many adherents that it is the most useful approach. In that sense it has earned its stripes — Joshs

How does this 'convincing' take place? The trial of disinterested peer testing? C'mon, you're not into that crap are you?

The reason we’re dealing with so many climate change deniers and anti-vaxxers is that they don’t believe there is a legitimate consensus. That is, they either dispute the numbers of experts who are on board , or impugn their motives. — Joshs

Really, not anything to do with social roles and membership tokens for their social group then, we'll throw all that sociological understanding out of the window and go back to a fourty year out-of-date model of the hyper-individual rational actor crunching the numbers?

Kuhn did indeed set pen to paper , and what did he say? He said that choice of paradigms was essentially an aesthetic choice. There’s merit in aesthetics. — Joshs

Indeed, so we can drop all the bullshit about weighing up articles and polling the numbers of experts. You know as well as I do that people adopt beliefs as interactive parts of the social narrative and change them only when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal. — baker

Citation, please.

I think there is such a convergence concerning childhood vaccination , despite your naysayers.
— Joshs

The JCVI in the UK have just advised against rolling out childhood vaccination, so I don't know where you're getting your 'consensus' from. — Isaac

Welll , then , there’s your consensus. That’s good enough for me. I was never particularly interested in the topic so just did a cursory search of articles. If I were serious about it I would have been a lot more thorough. I entered the conversation because I was concerned you were promoting the ideas of a minority of researchers over a majority scientific view. Looks like we’re in agreement that the recommendation by members of a well regarded scientific body should be good enough for most people.

You found an article written by a science journalist which disagreed with three professors in epidemiology and the entire UK Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation. Why? Because it supported a view you already had - come on, you know this stuff, why have you suddenly become an absolutists about narratives on this one topic. — Isaac

Since I wasn’t all that that invested in the issue I could have been swayed in either direction. His was just the first one I stumbled on. I knew I’d find others, but apparently I would have had do do more reading to appreciate that the risk-reward issue here, whichever way a particular study comes down on it , doesn’t strongly favor one direction over another. I did notice that the JCVI said the risk reward profile favored vaccination, in contrast to Pegden, but not by enough to justify the risk. So they are situated somewhere between Pegden and my links. It’s not surprising that the situation turns out to be complex and ambiguous.

You know about confirmation bias, you know how we build our representations to reflect our expectations and interact with the world to construct our beliefs (or belief/world constructs). I can't think why I'm having to go through all this as if you were a freshman. — Isaac

Becuase you’re missing something vital about how bias, expectations , frames of reference and paradigms organize our thinking.

Kuhn did indeed set pen to paper , and what did he say? He said that choice of paradigms was essentially an aesthetic choice. There’s merit in aesthetics.
— Joshs

Indeed, so we can drop all the bullshit about weighing up articles and polling the numbers of experts. You know as well as I do that people adopt beliefs as interactive parts of the social narrative and change them only when faced with overwhelming evidence to the contrary. — Isaac

That’s not what Kuhn said at all. You’re confusing him with Popper, whose approach is much more consonant with yours than Kuhn’s is. Kuhn insisted that what constitutes ‘evidence’ changes along with paradigms, so we cannot use ‘overwhelming evidence’ as a means of convincing someone to accept our theory. This is the whole point of a theory being an aesthetic product. Evidence doesn’t change minds in situations of competing paradigms. A gestalt shift in outlook is needed. You’re trying to make a distinction between bias and empirical objectivity that Kuhn wanted to dissolve.

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker
Citation, please. — tim wood

Read again. I'm stating a truism.

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker
Citation, please.
— tim wood

Read again. I'm stating a truism. — baker

No, it's not a truism. As I already pointed out -- it's completely wrong.

So I'll re-post:

As long as vaccination is not actually legally mandatory, suspending or firing someone for not being vaccinated is illegal.
— baker

And again: this is completely wrong.

Last month, before Biden's announcement, many companies had implemented COVID vaccine mandates. Especially after it was FDA approved.

In the United States, which is what I'm talking about, beyond some laws about discrimination, an employee is expected to comply with the terms and conditions of employment. They can be fired for not doing so. Period.

The terms and conditions of employment do not have to be legally mandatory. You can be fired for not wearing appropriate attire, or for a host of other violations of conditions and rules internal to a company. None of it has anything to do with the general laws of the country. There are no laws about wearing green, for example.

Every day, people get fired for being fat, for getting a tattoo, for being of the wrong religion (all of which would be illegal), but the termination document doesn't list those as reasons, but something more general.
— baker

It is openly stated that if you are not vaccinated (unless there's a legitimate exemption), you will be terminated. That is not illegal. — Xtrix

No, it's not a truism. As I already pointed out -- it's completely wrong. — Xtrix

Property rights allow a business to fire people who aren't vaccinated. If Baker comes from a very socialist country, there might be more restrictions on firing people.

Property rights allow a business to fire people who aren't vaccinated. If Baker comes from a very socialist country, there might be more restrictions on firing people. — frank

True. But that's why I stressed the United Airlines and the United States, which was the topic to begin with.

Property rights allow a business to fire people who aren't vaccinated. If Baker comes from a very socialist country, there might be more restrictions on firing people. — frank

No, the issue is the exact wording of the termination, not the actual reason for the termination.

The wording has to be in accordance with the law for the termination to be legal.

The actual reason for the termination can be whatever the employer wants it to be, even if it is illegal.

The actual reason for the termination can be whatever the employer wants it to be, even if it is illegal. — baker

In the US you can sue for wrongful termination. Any large employer has guidelines for firing to protect against lawsuits.

You beat me to it! Same here in Australia.

:up:

In the US you can sue for wrongful termination. — frank

Which is extremely difficult to prove, and even if the person wins the case in court, their career in the industry, or altogether, is probably over. Employers know that. Employers don't like potential employees with a track record of suing their employers.

The legal option of a wrongful termination lawsuit is a false hope.

you’re missing something vital about how bias, expectations , frames of reference and paradigms organize our thinking. — Joshs

So help me out. What is it that I'm missing.

That’s not what Kuhn said at all. You’re confusing him with Popper, whose approach is much more consonant with yours than Kuhn’s is. — Joshs

This is why this place fascinates me so much.

I've been in psychology for over 30 years, my views have changed a little over that time (rejecting behaviourism being the most significant) but generally I've been consistent enough that if people I know were to read anything of mine, they'd be fairly unsurprised by it's leanings. I don't seem to have trouble, out in the real world, I don't find even my worst critics have so totally misinterpreted the things I say as to make them appear almost opposite on any given issues. And then there's here... Do I write differently, I wonder, the brevity of the medium? Or perhaps I've always written so poorly but having my name on top of a paper, people know what to expect and interpret my nebulous and inaccurate writing accordingly? Who knows.

Anyway, it's been a pleasure, as always, to write something I thought fairly clearly expressed one thing, only to have it presented as almost the complete opposite by your good offices. It makes, at least for an element of genuine surprise in what can from others be fairly predictable responses. It does also make it quite difficult to actually get to grips with a topic though...

People here don't want to agree, in principle. Even when they agree with you, they will find something to disagree with. It's the opposite of your usual anglosaxon meeting in the flesh, where everybody always tries to agree with one another by default. Here they try to disagree with you.

I don't seem to have trouble, out in the real world, I don't find even my worst critics have so totally misinterpreted the things I say as to make them appear almost opposite on any given issues. And then there's here... — Isaac

There's that saying -- "People of substance don't post much on internet forums."
I agree with this, and its obviously ironic implication.

In face to face interactions, people tend to consider the tone to be more important than the actual words, and it's the tone they actually respond to, not the words. Then they take this communication habit online, except that now, since the tone is obviously missing, they fill it in on their own, based on their own prejudices and biases. This can explain the frequent misinterpretations and misrepresentations.

Another factor is that when people communicate online, they often communicate from the privacy of their homes, their bedrooms, sometimes, dressed in their pajamas (or not even that). This is akin to allowing (hostile) strangers into one's privacy and vulnerability. This is bound to have important psychological implications for communication, among other things.

Online communication would probably look quite different if everyone would post from their offices, fully dressed and presentable, with laced shoes.

To be honest, I find the whole notion of agreeing and disagreeing in a medium like this completely baffling, but I'm here to learn.

There's that saying -- "People of substance don't post much on internet forums."
I agree with this, and its obviously ironic implication. — baker

Social media, and the way it shapes social beliefs, is the issue in the social sciences. Any social scientist who isn't deeply invested in finding out how these new modes of interaction work simply isn't doing their job properly, and any who think they can do so from the sidelines alone represents exactly the problem with social science.

Online communication would probably look quite different if everyone would post from their offices, fully dressed and presentable, with laced shoes. — baker

That's is entirely, without fail, the conduct of my posting habits. Except maybe the train or the canteen on occasion.

I find the whole notion of agreeing and disagreeing in a medium like this completely baffling — Isaac

Why? Don't you disagree all the time with me here? Ask yourself where does this compulsion to disagree come from.

Don't you disagree all the time with me here? Ask yourself where does this compulsion to disagree come from. — Olivier5

I was referring to the disagreement/agreement alone. The thumbs up, the "I agree", the throwaway, emoji...

People marking where they stand, for others to know. I don't see a problem.

The legal option of a wrongful termination lawsuit is a false hope — baker

You mean where you live? It's not a false hope here.

not listening — baker

‘The virus is painfully real’: vaccine hesitant people are dying – and their loved ones want the world to listen (Sep 14, 2021) ← to listen

What role, if any, do the machinists of the long-running anti-vaxxer machines play? Do they assume any responsibility (of avoidable suffering/death)? Do they care about the consequences of their yelling? I don't recall them telling the friends/families of ☣ victims that they're sorry anyway.


_{• 12 prominent people opposed to vaccines are responsible for two-thirds of anti-vaccine content online: report (Mar 24, 2021)
• The Disinformation Dozen (Mar 24, 2021)
• Covid anti-vaxxers: 'Shut down fake news sites,' begs daughter (Aug 6, 2021)}

No, the issue is the exact wording of the termination, not the actual reason for the termination.

The wording has to be in accordance with the law for the termination to be legal. — baker

Firing someone for not being vaccinated, here in the US, is completely legal — both in wording and in reason.

That’s now the third time it’s been explained. But please don’t let that stop you from repeating lies.

Firing someone for not being vaccinated, here in the US, is completely legal — both in wording and in reason. — Xtrix

Is there a law in the US -- and do name it, post a link to it! -- according to which covid vaccination is mandatory?


The issue in some EU countries is precisely that: Covid vaccination is not mandated by law, so the whole burden is placed on employers.
State/federal law is one thing, company policy is another thing.

The legal option of a wrongful termination lawsuit is a false hope
— baker

You mean where you live? It's not a false hope here. — frank

You mean there is a country on this planet where suing your employer will not end badly for you in some way?

That’s now the third time it’s been explained. But please don’t let that stop you from repeating lies. — Xtrix

You're not "explaining" it, you're merely stating it. Still waiting for a link to the covid vaccination law.
(And even if the US has one, many other countries don't.)

Ask yourself where does this compulsion to disagree come from. — Olivier5

You should ask yourself that.

I agree with plenty of people on plenty of things.

What role, if any, do the machinists of the long-running anti-vaxxer machines play? Do they assume any responsibility (of avoidable suffering/death)? Do they care about the consequences of their yelling? I don't recall them telling the friends/families of ☣ victims that they're sorry anyway. — jorndoe

The onus is on those who want to persuade others.

The terms of engagement stopped being equal the moment you express the expectation that some other people should be different than they are. So the onus is on you.


And let's not kid anyone: You don't care about the wellbeing of the vocal anti-vaccers. You don't want them to get vaccinated for the sake of their own health. You want them to get vaccinated for your sake, so that they wouldn't be a threat and a burden to you and your camp. They know that, and they're returning the disfavor.

You mean there is a country on this planet where suing your employer will not end badly for you in some way? — baker

Yes. The US.