Acute risks vs chronic risks

Discussions about serious topics, for serious people
sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:39 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:35 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:27 pm

You keep repeating this one. What on earth country is proposing this?
It's happening in the US and I think our current government are mendacious enough to start with 'it's just nightclubs' then expand the use over time. Once it exists, individual workplaces will also try it on (particularly certain US corporations)
It's not happening in the US. I don't think you understand how US government works.
It's happened in the US offices of several large corporations including the one I work for and the Biden administration is attempting to mandate it federally against the resistance of various state governors.

eta: the senior management of many of these companies funded campaigns to prevent voter ID requirements on the grounds that they discriminate on ethnic lines, but they seem completely unconcerned that they're now imposing a much more frequent requirement to check vaccine status on ethnic groups which are disproportionately unvaccinated.
Last edited by sheldrake on Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:07 pm, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:07 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:39 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:35 pm


It's happening in the US and I think our current government are mendacious enough to start with 'it's just nightclubs' then expand the use over time. Once it exists, individual workplaces will also try it on (particularly certain US corporations)
It's not happening in the US. I don't think you understand how US government works.
It's happened in the US offices of several large corporations including the one I work for and the Biden administration is attempting to mandate it federally against the resistance of various state governors.
This is largely false.

You do understand that health and safety rules aren't new?

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:10 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:07 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:39 pm

It's not happening in the US. I don't think you understand how US government works.
It's happened in the US offices of several large corporations including the one I work for and the Biden administration is attempting to mandate it federally against the resistance of various state governors.
This is largely false.

You do understand that health and safety rules aren't new?
This is true https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/busines ... suits.html This is particularly true at the company I work for. Health and safety rules have not previously required you to disclose vaccination status to your employer and be refused entry to your place of work if you aren't vaccinated. This will impact some ethnic groups disproportionately and is, in my view, very disproportionate to the actual level of risk.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:15 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:10 pm
dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:07 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:06 pm


It's happened in the US offices of several large corporations including the one I work for and the Biden administration is attempting to mandate it federally against the resistance of various state governors.
This is largely false.

You do understand that health and safety rules aren't new?
This is true https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/busines ... suits.html This is particularly true at the company I work for. Health and safety rules have not previously required you to disclose vaccination status to your employer and be refused entry to your place of work if you aren't vaccinated. This will impact some ethnic groups disproportionately and is, in my view, very disproportionate to the actual level of risk.
That's because US schools and colleges require vaccination, and so it's assumed that employees are largely vaccinated against established diseases, and so it isn't a health and safety issue. A new disease changes the health and safety situation.

If you have the right to live and work in the US, you were either likely to have been vaccinated against most diseases as a child, as a requirement of school attendance, or you had to demonstrate your vaccination status to USCIS in order to get a Greencard and hence citizenship.

This isn't a new onerous requirement in the general sense. The only difference is that it's the employer having to do the checking.
Last edited by dyqik on Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:17 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:15 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:10 pm
dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:07 pm

This is largely false.

You do understand that health and safety rules aren't new?
This is true https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/busines ... suits.html This is particularly true at the company I work for. Health and safety rules have not previously required you to disclose vaccination status to your employer and be refused entry to your place of work if you aren't vaccinated. This will impact some ethnic groups disproportionately and is, in my view, very disproportionate to the actual level of risk.
That's because US schools and colleges require vaccination, and so it's assumed that employees are largely vaccinated against established diseases, and do it isn't a health and safety issue. A new disease changes the health and safety situation.
Does it warrant this kind of pressure and discrimination though? I'd submit not. Most of us wouldn't tolerate this degree of intrusion to half the risk of heart disease, even though it would save far more lives.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:20 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:17 pm
dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:15 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 3:10 pm


This is true https://www.cnbc.com/2021/10/15/busines ... suits.html This is particularly true at the company I work for. Health and safety rules have not previously required you to disclose vaccination status to your employer and be refused entry to your place of work if you aren't vaccinated. This will impact some ethnic groups disproportionately and is, in my view, very disproportionate to the actual level of risk.
That's because US schools and colleges require vaccination, and so it's assumed that employees are largely vaccinated against established diseases, and do it isn't a health and safety issue. A new disease changes the health and safety situation.
Does it warrant this kind of pressure and discrimination though? I'd submit not. Most of us wouldn't tolerate this degree of intrusion to half the risk of heart disease, even though it would save far more lives.
Yes, it absolutely does warrant it. OSHA has stricter requirements on lower workplace risks.

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:13 pm

Oh, and employers having to collect medical information for health and safety isn't a new thing. I have to have medicals every few years for work, carried out by their doctor.

I had to have the same in the UK, even for a summer internship.

The only difference here is that far more people are subject to it than before, because everyone working around other people is at risk from CoVID, rather than it being a specific job related risk.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:17 pm

Well, maybe you are unusually used to bondage and discipline but this isn't normal for most of us.

User avatar
shpalman
Princess POW
Posts: 8241
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 12:53 pm
Location: One step beyond
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by shpalman » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:28 pm

lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:43 pm
shpalman wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 2:17 pm
lpm wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 1:27 pm

You keep repeating this one. What on earth country is proposing this?
Italy, as of a few days ago.
Italy is mad. It won't happen though.
No, it was proposed several weeks ago, and it started happening a few days ago, not without protest. It was already obligatory for me as a worker in the education sector.

Austria is going to do the same thing as of the 1st of November.
having that swing is a necessary but not sufficient condition for it meaning a thing
@shpalman@mastodon.me.uk

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:39 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:13 pm
Oh, and employers having to collect medical information for health and safety isn't a new thing. I have to have medicals every few years for work, carried out by their doctor.

I had to have the same in the UK, even for a summer internship.

The only difference here is that far more people are subject to it than before, because everyone working around other people is at risk from CoVID, rather than it being a specific job related risk.
It's not just health and safety either. CoVID risks are also an accessibility issue. Not tracking vaccination status or testing is essentially preventing the immunocompromised from accessing the workplace, which is going to give employers serious issues with the Disability Discrimination Act.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:42 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:39 pm
Not tracking vaccination status or testing is essentially preventing the immunocompromised from accessing the workplace, which is going to give employers serious issues with the Disability Discrimination Act.
That was also true for flu.

eta: Israeli data suggests that vaccines have done a great job at reducing severity of infection (reduced hospitalisation rates in the vaccinated), but not such a superb job on actual infection and transmission. As far as I can tell enormous effort is being invested in stopping people from seeing this as 'personal choice' (which is what it would be if vaccines were seen as protection for self rather than others)

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:53 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:42 pm
dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 4:39 pm
Not tracking vaccination status or testing is essentially preventing the immunocompromised from accessing the workplace, which is going to give employers serious issues with the Disability Discrimination Act.
That was also true for flu.
Some risks are larger than others - flu is usually less widespread, possibly less transmissible than delta at least, and somewhat less dangerous if you do get it. And just because CoVID has brought this point forward, it doesn't mean it shouldn't have been done for flu as well.

Also, my employer gives me a flu shot every year, and it's fairly common for people here to get them (they're free with insurance, and freely available).

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:00 pm

Flu is certainly less transmissible and most years' strains are less dangerous than Covid (last strain that may have higher mortality seems like 1951).

How dangerous should something be before triggering these kinds of intervention? This is clearly a value judgement rather than something I can assert is correct with numbers, but presumably you make comparisons to other risks to decide what you'll support as proportionate, Dyqik ?

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:06 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:00 pm
Flu is certainly less transmissible and most years' strains are less dangerous than Covid (last strain that may have higher mortality seems like 1951).

How dangerous should something be before triggering these kinds of intervention? This is clearly a value judgement rather than something I can assert is correct with numbers, but presumably you make comparisons to other risks to decide what you'll support as proportionate, Dyqik ?
I don't see the point, since you'll just be abusive in response to any particular number.

In any case, the risk to employers is based on case law and legal decisions, not numerical risk.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:17 pm

dyqik wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:06 pm


I don't see the point, since you'll just be abusive in response to any particular number.
I think you'd be hard pressed to find an example of me being abusive towards you outside of the Pit. Reflect on that.
In any case, the risk to employers is based on case law and legal decisions, not numerical risk.
Are there cases of employers being sued because they allowed staff into work who had not been vaccinated against Flu ?

User avatar
dyqik
Princess POW
Posts: 7526
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2019 4:19 pm
Location: Masshole
Contact:

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by dyqik » Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:36 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:17 pm
In any case, the risk to employers is based on case law and legal decisions, not numerical risk.
Are there cases of employers being sued because they allowed staff into work who had not been vaccinated against Flu ?
Not that I'm aware of. Different risks and different situation, remember. Government advice and mandates being part of that.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by monkey » Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:05 pm

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:17 pm
Are there cases of employers being sued because they allowed staff into work who had not been vaccinated against Flu ?
I bet someone has at least tried to after their gran caught flu in a hospital and died.

Also, that would be illegal for healthcare workers in some states (generally with exemptions for medical/religious reasons), so the state might give a hospital a fine for allowing it.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:24 pm

monkey wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:05 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:17 pm
Are there cases of employers being sued because they allowed staff into work who had not been vaccinated against Flu ?
I bet someone has at least tried to after their gran caught flu in a hospital and died.

Also, that would be illegal for healthcare workers in some states (generally with exemptions for medical/religious reasons), so the state might give a hospital a fine for allowing it.
Are their concrete examples of either of these things happening?

bmforre
Snowbonk
Posts: 504
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 1:15 pm
Location: Trondheim

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by bmforre » Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:25 am

Monkey and sheldrake: There are cases in Norway where old people have been infected by unvaccinated healtworkers resulting in their death, isolated and alone. Tragic.
Reportage covering one particular case in Norwegian that ought to pass machine translation in understandable form:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/pappa-koronasm ... 1.15696385

Bosses of the fatally infection spreading healtworkers firmly claim to have followed the rules in force so see themselves guiltfree while regretting deaths caused by unvaccinated workers.

Relatives have not gone to court yet AFAIK.

User avatar
bob sterman
Dorkwood
Posts: 1123
Joined: Mon Nov 11, 2019 10:25 pm
Location: Location Location

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by bob sterman » Thu Oct 21, 2021 5:41 am

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:24 pm
Are their concrete examples of either of these things happening?
Well there's certainly a current case of legal action being mooted against someone who claimed that the acute risks associated with COVID are not that great - specifically that it's just a "little flu" that has to be faced “realistically" since "that's life...we're all going to die someday."

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/ ... ty-inquiry

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Thu Oct 21, 2021 8:57 am

I was asking about these kind of legal cases happening with other diseases like flu? A strong assertion was made that this had happened

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by monkey » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:13 am

sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 11:24 pm
monkey wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 6:05 pm
sheldrake wrote:
Wed Oct 20, 2021 5:17 pm
Are there cases of employers being sued because they allowed staff into work who had not been vaccinated against Flu ?
I bet someone has at least tried to after their gran caught flu in a hospital and died.

Also, that would be illegal for healthcare workers in some states (generally with exemptions for medical/religious reasons), so the state might give a hospital a fine for allowing it.
Are their concrete examples of either of these things happening?
Dunno, might be.

The laws have definitely been tested by staff who refused to get vaccinated. As has compulsory vaccination imposed by hospitals and whatnot without a law. Think the only success for the antivaxxers was when there wasn't a religious exemption.

monkey
After Pie
Posts: 1906
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2019 5:10 pm

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by monkey » Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:15 am

bmforre wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:25 am
Monkey and sheldrake: There are cases in Norway where old people have been infected by unvaccinated healtworkers resulting in their death, isolated and alone. Tragic.
Reportage covering one particular case in Norwegian that ought to pass machine translation in understandable form:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/pappa-koronasm ... 1.15696385

Bosses of the fatally infection spreading healtworkers firmly claim to have followed the rules in force so see themselves guiltfree while regretting deaths caused by unvaccinated workers.

Relatives have not gone to court yet AFAIK.
Yes, this is why many healthcare providers will make sure their workers a vaccinated for all sorts, even when the law does not require them to, and it is not illegal for them to do so. It saves lives.

bagpuss
After Pie
Posts: 1695
Joined: Tue Nov 12, 2019 12:10 pm

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by bagpuss » Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:44 pm

monkey wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 11:15 am
bmforre wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 4:25 am
Monkey and sheldrake: There are cases in Norway where old people have been infected by unvaccinated healtworkers resulting in their death, isolated and alone. Tragic.
Reportage covering one particular case in Norwegian that ought to pass machine translation in understandable form:
https://www.nrk.no/norge/pappa-koronasm ... 1.15696385

Bosses of the fatally infection spreading healtworkers firmly claim to have followed the rules in force so see themselves guiltfree while regretting deaths caused by unvaccinated workers.

Relatives have not gone to court yet AFAIK.
Yes, this is why many healthcare providers will make sure their workers a vaccinated for all sorts, even when the law does not require them to, and it is not illegal for them to do so. It saves lives.
A reasonable comparison would be civil engineering companies giving regular compulsory drug tests to their employees. I know of one company in the UK for certain where this happens, or at least did a small number of years ago and probably still does, and given that one does, I wouldn't be surprised if it's fairly standard practice. It saves lives if the people building bridges, tunnels and nuclear waste storage facilities, for example, are not impaired by drugs.

sheldrake
After Pie
Posts: 1819
Joined: Fri Dec 20, 2019 2:48 am

Re: Acute risks vs chronic risks

Post by sheldrake » Thu Oct 21, 2021 2:19 pm

bagpuss wrote:
Thu Oct 21, 2021 12:44 pm


A reasonable comparison would be civil engineering companies giving regular compulsory drug tests to their employees. I know of one company in the UK for certain where this happens, or at least did a small number of years ago and probably still does, and given that one does, I wouldn't be surprised if it's fairly standard practice. It saves lives if the people building bridges, tunnels and nuclear waste storage facilities, for example, are not impaired by drugs.
https://www.gov.uk/monitoring-work-work ... ug-testing

Post Reply