(08-26-2021 09:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote: (08-26-2021 09:00 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: Correcting my last post....
Lad, you have latched on to one single line in post 75.... 'No vaccine, no work'... and ignored everything else in that same post... as well as the following posts. Typical of you to remove something from context and then run with that... to the EXCLUSION of everything else that was said.
I'll be very simple for you...
The mandates for CoVid are not the same as the mandates for other healthcare required vaccines. The exemptions are vastly more limited both in scope and in time.,... and NO 'work-around' exists. When someone says they assume that 'reasonable' accommodations are in place, the question now becomes, what it reasonable. I don't know that given the inability of some to get medical advice on a brand new vaccine (except perhaps through an affiliate of their employer) ... that such requirements are necessarily 'reasonable'.
That was essentially line one of post 75 as well as those that followed.
That said.... If 'proof and acceptance of a limited number of exemptions' (medical or religious) is considered 'reasonable' (and that is ALL that is mentioned in the MEthodist policy you brought to the discussion)... then how do we amend/adopt/apply that to situations beyond healthcare, like Rice Stadium?
That was line 2 of it.
NOTHING in there takes the position you've assigned to me.... that I'm being some sort of 'extremist' and claiming that NO exemptions whatsoever exist. That is an interpretation YOU made of a single line in a longer post, REMOVED from all of the context around it.
No vaccine (or APPROVAL of a VERY limited in scope and time number of exemptions), no work. That's NOT the case for flu. Given that RIce is not a healthcare facility and the risk of infection is a small fraction of that in one... are those same rules... proof of a vaccine (or an exemption) reasonable?? Are we going to apply the same 'acceptance by hr' of said exemption?? If so, HOW?? If not, then we're following their rules for the flu... so rather than ask people for proof OR wear a mask... which we can't enforce once they enter... why don't we just require masks??
Pretty simple, really.
Actually, the line that I have been "struggling" with from post 75 is bolded below:
(08-25-2021 09:52 AM)Hambone10 Wrote: (08-24-2021 05:23 PM)franklyconfused Wrote: (08-24-2021 05:04 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote: At this point, aren’t medical and religious exceptions a baked in assumption? When I hear a mandate exists, I always assume that this is the case. Am I off base?
Not at all. Maybe there's some edge cases where that's not acceptable, like a NICU or other sensitive medical facility, but I also assume reasonable exemptions are a standard that nobody is fighting over.
You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case.
I keep going back to how I have assumed that when we talk about vaccine mandates for organizations, exemptions are included in that mandate.
I think you're wrong about the "position I've assigned to you." What I've said is that you seem to disagree that we should assume that exemptions are included in vaccination mandates for organizations. That is NOT saying you think no exemptions exist, or that you're an extremist.
Fine. Either way, it's still 'on you' for not including the rest of the quote. For not considering the comment in its full context but instead, reacting 'line by line'.
Note that I actually responded to Frankly, not you. HE mentioned a NICU and sensitive medical facilities. I noted that the rules apply to the entire hospital... and not just 'sensitive' or 'intensive care' providers.
Here is the entire quote.
Quote:You would assume, but that hasn't really been the case. For the flu vaccine in a healthcare setting, all you have to do is 'decline' the vaccine and then wear a mask while working... No 'test' (religious, medical or otherwise) is required and it applies to everyone from NICU to the guy who waters the plants or pushes paper in an office. For Houston hospitals... this has not been the case for CoVid thus far. No vaccine, no work at some places. Emergency sort of protocols.
That's what I'm getting at. Because this is a pandemic, the rules don't really apply. More below.
OBVIOUSLY I'm differentiating between the rules for CoVid and the 'normal' (and one would assume, generally agreed as REASONABLE) rules (since they are what we do during 'normal' times).
And the rules are clearly different.
The reason it matters is because LOTS of things like this 'sound reasonable' on paper... but when you put them in practice, they start to fall apart. I'm not saying they fall apart for Methodist... I'm saying they fall apart in other settings trying to follow 'best practices'.
Whether or not these specific exemptions exist was NEVER my point, that doesn't mean that ALL 'reasonable exemptions' exist or are built in nor assumed. The government absolutely CAN (and have) suspend(ed) all sorts of 'normal' rules during an emergency.
I think it reasonable that my friend not take the vaccine based on her history... and that she be very careful with her kids who share her genetic makeup. I don't know that she would be able to provide sufficient evidence to convince her company's HR department that the risks outweigh the benefit for her in a timely manner... There certainly ARE people and companies who wouldn't accept her situation. Is that 'reasonable' to you?? My service dog (in full gear) gets denied entry to places ALL THE TIME. It's a violation of Federal and state law, but is it really worth it for me to contest it?? Do I really want to give that place my business anyway?? Can someone just claim to be a practicing Methodist who doesn't believe in vaccines based on their personal understanding of the Gospel?? I KNOW people like that, btw.
That's what I'm talking about in terms of putting such things into context beyond 'the front lines' (since the thread is about RIce and COVID, not Methodist Hospital and COVID.... not that its a problem to discuss Methodist, but the purpose of speaking about them is clearly 'in comparison to' Rice)
and YOU choose to focus on a pedantic point.
If the exemptions in place are for medical or religious reasons only... and subject to review by a PARTIAL third party and not some objective standard... I'd say that the exemptions in place are THE ABSOLUTE MINIMUM... and not 'all reasonable' exemptions that people aren't fighting over.