A Fifth of Coronavirus

[Elerond]

35 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Sure, but they are allowed to do that because the antidoping regulations allows them to do it. They didn't self appointed the right to do so on themselves. And still antidoping check is withing the range of their let's call it business which is sport. No other entity have the right to do those to their employees. Local store cannot check the cashiers for using doping or penalize them for doing it. 

It's light-years apart from some company deciding on it's own they will interfere with someone's personal life. 

Basically you are arguing that if a soldier can shoot another soldier on a battlefield then you can shoot your neighbor. 

It's not the same thing. 

There are no special antidoping laws in most of the countries (and in most cases those special laws are that doping is illegal, not that doping test needs special permission), meaning that sport organizations were able to create those antidoping regulations using current laws, meaning that any employer can make similar regulations and they have even easier time as they don't probably don't need do it world wide.

[Zoraptor]

I can't see anti doping as being a great parallel for making vaccines compulsory- since there are so many exceptions to the anti doping rules granted. More than a third of elite cyclists have through dedication and hard work overcome the horrendous handicap of asthma, purely coincidentally, by having to be allowed to take performance enhancing salbutamol.

The obvious comparison is that if you have 33% of cyclists allowed to use salbutamol due to exceptions you end up with... 33% of people allowed not to vaccinate due to exceptions. Which is actually worse than in many countries.

(Personally, I'd sack every last border worker here that refuses a vaccine. It's their choice but it's also their consequence; and they don't have the right to potentially kill several thousand of their fellow citizens)

[Elerond]

3 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

I can't see anti doping as being a great parallel for making vaccines compulsory- since there are so many exceptions to the anti doping rules granted. More than a third of elite cyclists have through dedication and hard work overcome the horrendous handicap of asthma, purely coincidentally, by having to be allowed to take performance enhancing salbutamol.

The obvious comparison is that if you have 33% of cyclists allowed to use salbutamol due to exceptions you end up with... 33% of people allowed not to vaccinate due to exceptions. Which is actually worse than in many countries.

(Personally, I'd sack every last border worker here that refuses a vaccine. It's their choice but it's also their consequence; and they don't have the right to potentially kill several thousand of their fellow citizens)

Question was about medical privacy in sense that person needs to show employer their medical records to proof that they fulfill employer's demands and go through testing demanded by employer in order to have right to work. 

Would mandatory vaccine demand be more acceptable from employer if they offer alternate that person can instead of vaccination records show every morning negative covid test?

[Skarpen]

32 minutes ago, Elerond said:

There are no special antidoping laws in most of the countries (and in most cases those special laws are that doping is illegal, not that doping test needs special permission), meaning that sport organizations were able to create those antidoping regulations using current laws, meaning that any employer can make similar regulations and they have even easier time as they don't probably don't need do it world wide.

Name those countries. I cannot come up with a western democratic country that doesn't have such laws either internally or are a subject of outside regulations but have sports organization doing testing on their own in that country. The international sports organization do follow international laws and regulations when it comes to testing. 

[Skarpen]

24 minutes ago, Zoraptor said:

and they don't have the right to potentially kill several thousand of their fellow citizens

I will repeat the question since no one answered back then. Why only this one? Literally dozens of other viruses and other factors that can kill thousands of people. And since it's so deadly, why not make vaccination mandatory instead of relying on illegal methods to force people into taking the vaccine? 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Skarpen]

16 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Would mandatory vaccine demand be more acceptable from employer if they offer alternate that person can instead of vaccination records show every morning negative covid test?

No. Until it will be legally taken care of employer have no right to those informations, period. 

[Amentep]

7 hours ago, Skarpen said:

Wow. So much for the land of the free, I guess. Are those at least codified somewhere or employers just do it willy nily? In Poland employers cannot even make breathalyser test on employee. They have to call the police if they suspect a person is intoxicated, to check. 

"Land of the Free" typically would apply to freedom from governmental or religious compulsion to do/not do things, not necessarily that one would have no restrictions whatsoever; the idea would be any restriction you have is one you voluntarily agreed to place upon yourself.  With the caveat, of course, that voluntary may be in the eye of the beholder.  This is an important distinction because the relevant laws in the US around medical information (Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act aka HIPAA) is that your medical provider needs your consent to disclose your information, not that your employer cannot ask you to provide medical information (putting the choice on the employee as to whether the benefits of employment are worth the loss of privacy inherent in the terms of the employment).

Note that in all of the cases I'm aware (which is a very limiting caveat), things like drug tests are *not* conducted by the employer, they're *required* by the employer.  Typically a third party administrator (picked by the company or allowed to be the choice of the employer) would work with the company to perform a drug test, and you would have to sign a legal document allowing the third party provider to release the results to your employer.  These results would route through Human Resources and be handled by Human Resources with confidentiality, much as background checks would be done when hiring an employee.  Hilariously, though, since your HR record isn't legally private, any medical records contained within your HR record wouldn't be covered by HIPAA's privacy rules.

The only instance I know of personally involving an intoxicated employee didn't need a breathalyzer as the person also had a bottle of alcohol on them which wasn't allowed on site, so was an automatic dismissal without needing to prove intoxication.  However, I'm not sure the employer could have legally required a breathalyzer, though, as there'd be questions regarding whether the intoxicated employee could consent to release the results (and, AFAIK, the police would decline involvement unless there was evidence an actual law was being broken, like DUI/DWI). All that said, not every business is big enough for an HR department, and also unionization adds an extra layer to everything, so everything can end up being different depending on where you work.  Heck, just working in a right to work state where you can't be required join a union as a point of employment is a different experience from working in one where you could be.

Anyhow, if you're interested here is a couple of links regarding HIPAA for the US that might help understand the distinctions the US makes regarding medical record privacy:

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/employers-health-information-workplace/index.html

https://www.hhs.gov/hipaa/for-individuals/faq/index.html

[Zoraptor]

31 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Question was about medical privacy in sense that person needs to show employer their medical records to proof that they fulfill employer's demands and go through testing demanded by employer in order to have right to work.

Yeah I know, I just can't resist taking comparisons to their logical conclusion.

And unfortunately the logical conclusion from a comparison between covid vaccines and the world's anti doping approach is that you can justify testing and disclosure (etc) using that example, but, you'd also end up allowing a bunch of exceptions to the practical results/ effects of that testing and disclosure based on the same comparison.

15 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I will repeat the question since no one answered back then. Why only this one? Literally dozens of other viruses and other factors that can kill thousands of people. And since it's so deadly, why not make vaccination mandatory instead of relying on illegal methods to force people into taking the vaccine? 

Why indeed. I'm not entirely sure if I were appointed God that I wouldn't make vaccines compulsory, but then I could just vaccinate everyone with a wave of my finger. From a practical political standpoint it almost certainly isn't worth the effort it would take to enforce in the vast majority of situations because vaccine uptake is already high enough.

[Elerond]

29 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Name those countries. I cannot come up with a western democratic country that doesn't have such laws either internally or are a subject of outside regulations but have sports organization doing testing on their own in that country. The international sports organization do follow international laws and regulations when it comes to testing. 

Italy for example has laws that steroid (and some other doping) user can be imprisoned

Finland has laws that forbid importing and selling certain doping substances but actual using isn't illegal

Germany has anti doping law which carries up to three year sentence for athletes that test positive

Austria has law which carries up to 10 years prison time for athletes that test positive   

[Skarpen]

5 minutes ago, Elerond said:

Italy for example has laws that steroid (and some other doping) user can be imprisoned

Finland has laws that forbid importing and selling certain doping substances but actual using isn't illegal

Germany has anti doping law which carries up to three year sentence for athletes that test positive

Austria has law which carries up to 10 years prison time for athletes that test positive   

Umm, you were arguing that there are countries that DON'T have antidoping laws and I asked to provide those countries examples. You are undermining your own argument here. 

[Amentep]

39 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

I will repeat the question since no one answered back then. Why only this one? Literally dozens of other viruses and other factors that can kill thousands of people. And since it's so deadly, why not make vaccination mandatory instead of relying on illegal methods to force people into taking the vaccine? 

In the US a number of vaccines are required* for enrollment in elementary and high schools and college (college is almost entirely for encephalitis).  Most of these are for major diseases (mumps, rubella, etc).  So that by the time the person is employed, they're already inoculated against a number of things.  TB vaccine isn't recommended in the US, no vaccine for colds.  That really just leaves the seasonal flu as the only thing they could require**, but its probably considered more trouble than worth in a benefit analysis.

*but with exemptions for religious belief and such

**Actually some jobs which work in places bacteria or virus may be fostered might have inoculations required to protect the person from the environment they'll be working in, but these would be unique to those jobs and something not even on the radar of other employers

[Skarpen]

13 minutes ago, Amentep said:

the idea would be any restriction you have is one you voluntarily agreed to place upon yourself

And employer requiring you to provide sensitive personal medical information doesn't fit into this definition in my opinion. 

[Skarpen]

2 minutes ago, Amentep said:

In the US a number of vaccines are required* for enrollment in elementary and high schools and college (college is almost entirely for encephalitis)

Required by the schools whim or is it codified in state legislature? 

[Amentep]

Just now, Skarpen said:

And employer requiring you to provide sensitive personal medical information doesn't fit into this definition in my opinion. 

That's why I said it is in the eye of the beholder; obviously one who lives in a small town and 90% of the jobs are tied to a single employer will not feel like they really have a choice not to comply.  But rightly, or wrongly, that's the way the laws are set up. 

[Amentep]

Just now, Skarpen said:

Required by the schools whim or is it codified in state legislature? 

Good question, I believe it is actually state laws that codify this.  But I'm not certain without doing more research.

[Elerond]

18 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Umm, you were arguing that there are countries that DON'T have antidoping laws and I asked to provide those countries examples. You are undermining your own argument here. 

UK, Sweden and Norway for example don't have criminal code against doping, just anti-doping regulations and established anti-doping agency

EDIT: Import and sales bans for certain substances don't necessary need own anti-doping laws, so it is possible that UK, Sweden and Norway have banned imports and sales of growth hormones, anabolic steroids etc. according to Anti-Doping Convention 1989

Edited August 9, 2021 by Elerond

[Skarpen]

1 hour ago, Elerond said:

UK, Sweden and Norway for example don't have criminal code against doping, just anti-doping regulations and established anti-doping agency

So... they do have those regulations and I'm pretty sure in all 3 those agencies are state owned not private. So... you further undermine your claim. 

[Gromnir]

2 hours ago, Amentep said:

Good question, I believe it is actually state laws that codify this.  But I'm not certain without doing more research.

literal every state has vaccination laws, not that such means anything in the present context as is also perfect legal for private organizations to require. from a practical pov, case law v. codified makes a difference 'cause? however, states such as south carolina do in fact leave to whim o' the school district as to implementation questions including which vaccines is required, and florida's desantis is facing troubles with his mask prohibitions in part 'cause is laws in florida which demand that regulation o' health concerns should be left to individual school districts to decide. traditional republican small government stuff, so is unsurprising florida has such, eh? although it appears 2021 republicans has failed to get the regan era memo (not literal) on small government. 

"whim" is also kinda loaded and inaccurate. any vaccination requirement, be it fed, state or local, still needs be reasonable or at least rational. and o' course the school district is gonna codify their health requirements, so the question/concern from skrapen is kinda nonsensical. school district board, however is organized, will need follow process. 

again, we were talking 'bout land o' the free and somehow this is being inverted. "Congress shall make no law..." is government intrusion which bothers Americans. @Guard Dog would be far more likely to get his shorts in a twist over fed or state mandated school vaccinations as 'posed walmart. am also suspecting  he would be more bothered by fed and state mandates on vaccines than he would be regarding local. the further the decision process is removed from the people being immediate impacted by a prohibition, the more likely will be a complaint o' government excess. 

skarpen has somehow made this all  bass ackwards. 

HA! Good Fun!

ps many state vaccination laws is open-ended, for obvious reasons. what we mean is, there is typical not an exclusive list o' required vaccines required by schools and state hospital workers or professional care givers or prison workers or... etc. there will indeed frequent be a list o' vaccines required, but is not like the state or fed or local authorities need rewrite laws every time a new disease or vaccine becomes relevant. is invariably language which recognizes that as new vaccines become available, schools, and state hospitals and prisons and whomever may require those employed or custodial wards to be vaccinated. 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Gromnir

[Hurlshort]

3 hours ago, Skarpen said:

I will repeat the question since no one answered back then. Why only this one? Literally dozens of other viruses and other factors that can kill thousands of people. And since it's so deadly, why not make vaccination mandatory instead of relying on illegal methods to force people into taking the vaccine? 

Multiple people answered it back then and multiple people answered it again. You just don't like the answer. What a waste of time.

[Skarpen]

39 minutes ago, Gromnir said:

again, we were talking 'bout land o' the free and somehow this is being inverted. "Congress shall make no law..." is government intrusion which bothers Americans. @Guard Dog would be far more likely to get his shorts in a twist over fed or state mandated school vaccinations as 'posed walmart.

Well the fetishization of corporations that Americans seem to have is something that boggles the minds of people, especially Europeans. The attitude of american corporation "we can do anything because we are big corporation" was quickly verified when they tried this in Europe. It quickly turned out that they do in fact have to follow the rules  and anticonsumer practices that Americans just rolled over for just didn't fly in Europe. Here we believe that it's government job not only to not infringe on the liberties and rights of the people but also to ensure that no schmuck will do the same. That's why we won't bend over just because some CEO said so, something the Americans seems to be willing to do eagerly.

 

1 minute ago, Hurlsnot said:

Multiple people answered it back then and multiple people answered it again. You just don't like the answer. What a waste of time.

Nope, they didn't. You certainly did not and that's fine because I don't think you would have anything worthwhile to say.

[Hurlshort]

2 minutes ago, Skarpen said:

Nope, they didn't. You certainly did not and that's fine because I don't think you would have anything worthwhile to say.

Oh no, I don't have the respect of the anti-vaxxer. Devastating.

[Skarpen]

Spain leads in the way to ensure people rights will not be violated by covidiots:

! Murcia Today - Canaries High Court Rejects Plan To Require Covid Passports For Entry Into Restaurants (spanishnewstoday.com)

[Skarpen]

1 minute ago, Hurlsnot said:

Oh no, I don't have the respect of the anti-vaxxer. Devastating.

Thanks  for proving my point. Why do you think I'm a anti-vaxxer? 

Edited August 9, 2021 by Skarpen

[Gromnir]

Just now, Skarpen said:

Well the fetishization of corporations that Americans seem to have is something that boggles the minds of people, especially Europeans.

has nothing to do with corporations. american citizens has rights. if you own a business, you do not sudden lose rights. in the us (perhaps europe is different, but we hope not) business owners is not legal forced to behave stoopid. +95% o' hospitalizations for covid-19 is 'mongst the unvaccinated. +99% of deaths is amongst the unvaccinated. a business owner who is reasonable, would prefer to not have his workforce hospitalized and or dying from covid. 

is not a corporation issue. 

regardless, is no right to spread disease, whether is a business or individual or individual business. 

HA! Good Fun!

[Gromnir]

we has mentioned numerous times how covid is only different 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. has been many historical US disease outbreaks which resulted in not just mandated vaccinations but compulsory vaccinations. in the past, government authorities has literal been able to come to your home and force you to be vaccinated.  there were a measles outbreak in nyc as recent as 2019 and students and employees were required to be vaccinated. no codification needed to require children be vaccinated. mayor said it were necessary. declared an emergency. kids and adults got vaccinated.

one law were changed btw. previous to the 2019 measles outbreak in nyc, there were a ny state law which allowed an exemption for vaccines based on religious/philosophical basis. that law were repealed.

btw, 

https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/26/politics/donald-trump-measles-vaccines/index.html

how quick folks forget. covid-19 is only special 'cause o' the degree o' pushback. mandatory vaccinations and testing is actual the norm in this country.

HA! Good Fun!