Covid vaccine after having covid

[Montanan]

The CDC just issued a new health advisory regarding another respiratory virus.

The agency is recommending expanded testing for "respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) activity across parts of the Southern United States." "Respiratory syncytial (sin-SISH-uhl) virus, or RSV, is a common respiratory virus that usually causes mild, cold-like symptoms," says the CDC. "Most people recover in a week or two, but RSV can be serious, especially for infants and older adults. RSV is the most common cause of bronchiolitis (inflammation of the small airways in the lung) and pneumonia (infection of the lungs) in children younger than 1 year of age in the United States."

This is an official CDC HEALTH ADVISORY
Distributed via the CDC Health Alert Network
June 10, 2021, 1:30 ET PM

Increased Interseasonal Respiratory Syncytial Virus (RSV) Activity in
Parts of the Southern United States

Summary
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) is issuing this health advisory to notify clinicians and caregivers about increased interseasonal respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) activity across parts of the Southern United States. Due to this increased activity, CDC encourages broader testing for RSV among patients presenting with acute respiratory illness who test negative for SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19. RSV can be associated with severe disease in young children and older adults. This health
advisory also serves as a reminder to healthcare personnel, childcare providers, and staff of long-term care facilities to avoid reporting to work while acutely ill – even if they test negative for SARS-CoV-2.

Background

RSV is an RNA virus of the genus Orthopneumovirus, family Pneumoviridae, primarily spread via respiratory droplets when a person coughs or sneezes, and through direct contact with a contaminated surface. RSV is the most common cause of bronchiolitis and pneumonia in children under one year of
age in the United States. Infants, young children, and older adults with chronic medical conditions are at risk of severe disease from RSV infection.

Each year in the United States, RSV leads to on average approximately 58,000 hospitalizations with 100-500 deaths among children younger than 5 years old and 177,000 hospitalizations with 14,000 deaths among adults aged 65 years or older.

In the United States, RSV infections occur primarily during the fall and winter cold and flu season. In April 2020, RSV activity decreased rapidly, likely due to the adoption of public health measures to reduce the spread of COVID-19. Compared with previous years, RSV activity remained relatively low from May 2020 to March 2021. However, since late March, CDC has observed an increase in RSV detections reported to the National Respiratory and Enteric Virus Surveillance System (NREVSS), a nationwide passive, laboratory-based surveillance network. CDC noted increases in laboratory detections and in the percentages of positive detections for both antigen and PCR testing in parts of HHS Region 4 (Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Tennessee) and Region 6
(Arkansas, Louisiana, New Mexico, Oklahoma, and Texas).

Due to limited testing outside of the typical RSV season, data are limited in some jurisdictions and may be incomplete for the most recent weeks.
Since this elevated interseasonal activity is a deviation in the typical circulation patterns for RSV, at this time it is not possible to anticipate the likely spread, peak, or duration of activity with any certainty. Health
officials also identified increased interseasonal RSV circulation in parts of Australia during late 2020 and in South Africa in early 2021. Still, RSV did not reach seasonal peak levels in most regions or result in widespread circulation.

Due to reduced circulation of RSV during the winter months of 2020–2021, older infants and toddlers might now be at increased risk of severe RSV-associated illness since they have likely not had typical levels of exposure to RSV during the past 15 months. In infants younger than six months, RSV infection may result in symptoms of irritability, poor feeding, lethargy, and/or apnea with or without fever. In older infants and young children, rhinorrhea and decreased appetite may appear one to three days before cough, often followed by sneezing, fever, and sometimes wheezing. Symptoms in adults are typically consistent with upper respiratory tract infections, including rhinorrhea, pharyngitis, cough, headache, fatigue, and fever. There is no specific treatment for RSV infection other than symptom management.

https://emergency.cdc.gov/han/2021/p...y-06.10.21.pdf

[DocBrauer]

Because you get more freedom and ease of travel if your a long distance sailor going to many countries, or even just flying.

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by Montanan

A U.S. federal judge just ruled that over 100 Houston hospital workers may be fired if they don't get the COVID-19 vaccine

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/a-...?ocid=msedgntp

US District Judge Lynn Hughes writing in his order of dismissal Saturday evening that none of the employees were forced or coerced to take the vaccine.

The workers were free to accept or reject a vaccine and that they would "simply need to work elsewhere" if they chose the latter. "If a worker refuses an assignment, changed office, earlier start time, or other directive, he may be properly fired. Every employment includes limits on the worker's behavior in exchange for his remuneration," Hughes wrote. "That is all part of the bargain."

. . .

Houston Methodist made national headlines earlier this year when it announced it would require its 26,000 employees to be fully vaccinated against the coronavirus by June 7. "Those who are not vaccinated by that date face suspension and eventual termination," the hospital said in a FAQ page published in April.

The hospital's policy also contained exemptions for workers with sincerely held religious beliefs and certain medical conditions, including pregnancy.

Since then, the hospital system has suspended 178 workers who didn't meet the vaccination deadline. They will be fired if they aren't vaccinated by June 21.

This lawsuit is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Discrimination based on vaccination status will most likely affect a huge percentage of the population and will not go unchallenged. Also, I expect numerous lawsuits against employers in cases of vaccine injury where the employee had to opt for vaccination in order to keep their employment.

University students and parents of school children who fall ill from vaccinations they were coerced into taking as a condition of enrolment may be another group.

What I find repulsive about this case is that all of these medical personal who are now on the firing line risked their lives for over a year working unprotected trying to save the lives of their covid patients and now they are simply disposed of like some dirty laundry due to simply exercising their legal right to informed consent.

Wouldn't be surprised if many of these battles end up in the Supreme Court.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Greg K

This lawsuit is probably just the tip of the iceberg. Discrimination based on vaccination status will most likely affect a huge percentage of the population and will not go unchallenged. Also, I expect numerous lawsuits against employers in cases of vaccine injury where the employee had to opt for vaccination in order to keep their employment.

University students and parents of school children who fall ill from vaccinations they were coerced into taking as a condition of enrolment may be another group.

What I find repulsive about this case is that all of these medical personal who are now on the firing line risked their lives for over a year working unprotected trying to save the lives of their covid patients and now they are simply disposed of like some dirty laundry due to simply exercising their legal right to informed consent.

Wouldn't be surprised if many of these battles end up in the Supreme Court.

FYI:

Relevant Snipet:

https://www.cnet.com/health/your-emp...-what-to-know/

US government says employers can require vaccines
According to the US Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, US employers can require employees to receive vaccinations against diseases that have been recognized as pandemics, like COVID-19. The agency's guidance dates back to the H1N1 (aka "swine flu") outbreak of 2009 but was updated in March 2020 to address the coronavirus pandemic specifically. As was the case in 2009, there are two main exceptions to this rule; keep reading for an explanation of both.

Americans with Disabilities Act protects some people from mandatory vaccination
The Americans with Disabilities Act requires employers to provide "reasonable accommodations" to workers with medical conditions that would make them unable to take a vaccine. For example, the FDA has recommended that people with certain allergies not get a coronavirus vaccine, but there may be other reasons as well, such as having a compromised immune system.

Civil Rights Act also protects people with religious beliefs opposing vaccines
Even if you don't have a medical reason for not wanting to get vaccinated for COVID-19, you may be able to object on other grounds -- Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 protects people who refuse to take a mandatory vaccine on account of sincerely held religious beliefs. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission does not require membership in a church or even a belief in God to substantiate religious objections: Strongly or sincerely held moral or ethical beliefs are also covered by the law.

What happens if you object to receiving a vaccine when your employer requires it?
Just because you have a valid medical or theological objection to receiving a coronavirus vaccine doesn't mean your employer has to let you continue working under the same conditions you've been used to. All of the above objections require employers to make "reasonable accommodations" if an employee objects to receiving a vaccine. Such accommodations could include allowing the employee to work remotely or take a leave of absence.

A 1905 Supreme Court case allows employers to require vaccines

SO BEEN THERE DONE, THAT.

In 1901, a deadly smallpox outbreak in New England prompted local governments to order mandatory vaccinations for everyone in the area. Some residents, however, objected, and one took it all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court decided in Jacobson v. Massachusetts that the government may impose "reasonable regulations" such as a vaccine requirement during a pandemic, for the purpose of protecting the "safety of the general public."

This court case forms the basis for guidance issued by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which makes clear that employers may make similar demands of their workers.

[Greg K]

And yet here we are... it's finding its way into the courts already. Still a tad too early to call it one way or the other I'd say.

[sagablu]

Originally Posted by Greg K

And yet here we are... it's finding its way into the courts already. Still a tad too early to call it one way or the other I'd say.

I am 100% pro vaccine, but even I'm a little uncomfortable with forcing people to do anything. However, look at it from the hospital's point of view. They have a duty of care to the patients, what happens if a patient who may be compromised contracts Covid from staff member? Even if it's not 100% certain, a lot of liability on the part of the hospital. There is no perfect solution in this circumstance, someone's going to be unhappy

[Greg K]

Originally Posted by sagablu

I am 100% pro vaccine, but even I'm a little uncomfortable with forcing people to do anything. However, look at it from the hospital's point of view. They have a duty of care to the patients, what happens if a patient who may be compromised contracts Covid from staff member? Even if it's not 100% certain, a lot of liability on the part of the hospital. There is no perfect solution in this circumstance, someone's going to be unhappy

A vaccinated employee can also be infectious. So can those who were allowed to decline vaccination for reasons deemed acceptable. How much is the risk of infection for the whole institution reduced by firing these people?

And there are of course other options of mitigating risk such as more stringent testing of unvaccinated employees.

Will they also refuse to offer medical treatment to patients who are not vaccinated?

Lots of issue here in terms of inconsistency.

[Lake-Effect]

Recommending vaccinations for healthcare workers is nothing new. Here's a pre-COVID discussion of vaccination mandates for healthcare workers.

It's a tough issue. It's arguable that in the face of a world pandemic, where healthcare is the front line of battle, every reasonable step to minimize transmission in those settings would be advisable. Of course, maybe the worst is already over. Or maybe, since nearly 600k dead has been met with little more than a yawn, there's little public appetite in the US for continued extreme measures.

[Greg K]

There is also the issue of natural immunity in those who have already been infected. How many of those unvaccinated hospital employees about to be fired have already acquired natural immunity from infection?


And what happens when more and more studies confirm that natural immunity is actually equal to or better than the vaccine itself? Will those fired employees who have antibodies from natural immunity then seek compensation for wrongful dismissal?


Lots and lots of questions. Class action lawyers gonna have field day.

[Montanan]

May 24th, 2021.

The federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) has suddenly backpedaled its policy that employers could potentially be held liable for employees’ adverse reactions to coronavirus vaccines, should they attempt to require workers to receive such injections.

https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/os...ccine-injuries

The original policy put employers on notice that should they attempt to require employees to receive experimental coronavirus vaccines, any resulting adverse reaction could be considered “work-related” for which the employer may be held liable.


OSHA released this linked guidance only on April 20 with its reversal coming just in the last several days. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/em...rus-shots-osha

OSHA’s previous “Frequently Asked Questions” section about the coronavirus included a question about whether an employer that mandates employees receive a coronavirus vaccine is required to record any adverse events as a result of these injections. Such recording requirements of serious work-related injuries and illness may not only leave an employer vulnerable to worker’s compensation claims but such incidents could also impact the employer’s safety record.

The question and answer read in full:

"If I require my employees to take the COVID-19 vaccine as a condition of their employment, are adverse reactions to the vaccine recordable?

If you require your employees to be vaccinated as a condition of employment (i.e., for work-related reasons), then any adverse reaction to the COVID-19 vaccine is work-related. The adverse reaction is recordable if it is a new case under 29 CFR 1904.6 and meets one or more of the general recording criteria in 29 CFR 1904.7."

Following pushback from some trade associations, who had pledged to leverage the intervention of members of the U.S. Congress, OSHA changed its policy stating they would not enforce these recording requirements for at least for another year.

The new question and answer read in full:

"Are adverse reactions to the COVID-19 vaccine recordable on the OSHA recordkeeping log?

DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward."

When the original policy was announced, Brian Turmail, AGC vice president of public affairs, commented, “It's almost like they haven't talked to the rest of the Biden administration about the goal of getting as many people vaccinated as possible.”

[Montanan]

Mandating a Novel Vaccine is a Novel Legal Issue
https://thevaccinereaction.org/2021/...l-legal-issue/

The emergency use authorization (EUA) granted to vaccine manufacturers by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to allow experimental COVID-19 vaccines to be distributed to the U.S. population states that the product is “an investigational vaccine not licensed for any indication” and requires that all “promotional material relating to the COVID-19 Vaccine clearly and conspicuously… state that this product has not been approved or licensed by the FDA, but has been authorized for emergency use by FDA.”1

Because the experimental COVID-19 vaccines have been authorized by the federal government for emergency use only, the Secretary of Health and Human Services must, “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed… of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.” Since the government requires that individuals be given a voluntary choice about whether or not to take the vaccine, how then can an employer mandate that employees receive an experimental vaccine authorized under an EUA, which denies the individual the legal right to “accept or refuse administration” of the vaccine?


Vaccine Mandates at Work Set for Uptick After Full FDA Approval

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/daily-...l-fda-approval

More employers will likely require their workers to be inoculated against Covid-19 once federal regulators upgrade the vaccines from their current approval as emergency products, according to employment lawyers who counsel companies.

Pfizer Inc. and its partner BioNTech SE on Friday asked the U.S. Food and Drug Administration for full approval of their vaccine, which was the first to receive emergency authorization. Moderna Inc., which got emergency approval shortly after Pfizer, could soon follow suit. Johnson & Johnson is further behind.

Although employers generally have the authority to impose inoculation mandates—and enforce such policies under the threat of termination—the vaccines’ emergency use status has been one of several complicating factors prompting many companies to shy away from requirements, attorneys said.

“We expect to see an increase in employer mandates for workforce vaccinations after full FDA approval,” said Christina Janice, an attorney at Barnes & Thornburg LLP. “That increase is likely to occur in first-responder, front-line workplaces, such as health care, emergency services, and schools.”


We are refraining from mandating vaccines until the FDA provides approval, but the employees are on notice that if and when the vaccines are approved that the company will expect prompt full vaccinations and such will be a requirement for future employment, save the usual seriously held religious beliefs or medical exemptions.

[Lake-Effect]

Originally Posted by Greg K

And what happens when more and more studies confirm that natural immunity is actually equal to or better than the vaccine itself?

... don't hold your breath.

That being said, it still seems reasonable to treat proof of prior infection as being equivalent to proof of vaccination.

[Montanan]

Originally Posted by Lake-Effect

... don't hold your breath.

That being said, it still seems reasonable to treat proof of prior infection as being equivalent to proof of vaccination.

Proof of prior infection is one of the methods of availing authorized travel under the EU's covid virtual passport scheme. That a negative PCR test or proof of full vaccination by one of the EU approved vaccines.

Obtaining a jab after having had covid does notably increase antibody levels, not sure about an enhancement of the other methods of defense against disease that the body invokes.

And then there is the issue of whether protection derived from infection with the original wildtype(s) will provide as sound of protection against breakthrough by some of the new variants.

So much still not fully known with this darn bug.

Hope y'all stay healthy and can enjoy this summer.

[Greg K]

[QUOTE=Mike OReilly;3425150]

Cruisers are used to going our ways; sailing against the wind, to force an analogy . But we also accept responsibility for our actions, and don't expect the rest of society to come bail us out if things go sideways.

QUOTE]

Really? Another analogy that falls apart when faced with reality. I wonder how many off shore cruisers here (other than myself currently) DO NOT carry an Epirb so that they can pull it and ask society to come and save their sorry asses?

[Greg K]

[QUOTE=Montanan;3426457]So much still not fully known with this darn bug.

QUOTE]

Or the vaccine. Or natural immunity.

But hey let's plan on firing the unvaccinated even before this experimental vaccine gets full approval... and brag about it here.

Yeah, have a great summer.