TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by lovebeck

Originally posted by Honor93

Originally posted by RottenBeauty
Three pages and no one has brought up the fact that patients in a hospital could be immuno-supressed from advanced HIV, or chemo therapy. The flu could literally kill them.
You're shedding flu virus before you're showing symptoms.

nooooo, all those who GET the flu shot are shedding flu virus ALL OVER the workplace and infecting anyone within reach.

Sorry, you are wrong...The flu shot is not a "live" vaccine, so your argument is dead (for lack of a better word) right there.

oh, so now we have to specify "mist" or "shot" do we ??
since "mist" is the most common application, perhaps i should have been specific.

and, concerning the most common application ... mist/nasal spray ...
you are wrong ... it IS live virus.

need a link? www.flumist.com...

Does FluMist contain a live virus?
Yes. Similar to the chicken pox vaccine, FluMist contains a weakened live virus. The weakened live virus in FluMist is designed not to cause the flu, but to help protect you from influenza through the end of flu season.

pick a brand, i'd bet a majority are live attenuated solutions.

now, concerning "shots" ... you're correct, they are DEAD virus and given that fact alone, why would any body produce anti-bodies to fight a dead virus ??

whose body develops an immunity army to fight a dead invader ??
so yeppers, "shots" are even more useless than the mist.

edit on 26-11-2012 by Honor93 because: format

I'm aware that the mist is a LIVE virus, the shot, is not a live virus. I'm also aware, as are many others, that neither causes the recipient to "shed" the virus all over the place...

I'm SURE I developed the antibodies, with the "dead" virus after I received the shot, quite sure. Regardless, the fact is the annual flu vax DOES more good than it does harm. The fact that your employer can tell YOU what to do with your body is the argument here. And I, for one, do not feel that it is anyone's business to tell me what to do with MY body. It's MY body. If I want to smoke, I'll smoke. If I want to eat 16 gallons of ice cream a day, I'll eat it. If I choose to vaccinate myself for the flu, then I will take the vaccine.

reply to post by lovebeck

I'm also aware, as are many others, that neither causes the recipient to "shed" the virus all over the place

you're welcome to believe such nonsense but many of us know better and there is plenty of medical evidence to the same.

virus shedding begins shortly after receiving the virus/vaccine and continues for the better part of 30-60 days following ... so, imho, that is all over the place, including the workplace.

you can be "sure" all you want but where's the supporting medical evidence ??
there is plenty showing it's non-effectiveness.

[on a personal note, i think it's very possible that the "shots" are merely a placebo effect for those who are adamant about getting one]

for me, the fact is, the flu vax resulted in GBS and i've suffered ever since and that was over 20yrs ago. i've never had a flu vax since and seldom get the flu, mostly because i boost my immune system, naturally.

i have never seen a medical study or absolute evidence that a dead invader (flu or any other) will stimulate anti-body production. if you have access to such a study, please share.

my employers that have tried are no longer my employers.
that is still my choice.

no one is telling you that you can't get a vaccine, however, in that same vein ... no one can be forced, threatened, coerced or extorted to get it either.
agreed, it's MY/YOUR body.

reply to post by OccamsRazor04

I work in a hospital. Every employee can smoke. What are you talking about?

Not for long. Some companies have already stopped hiring smokers and have required that all employees who do smoke to get on a plan to stop smoking or be terminated. This is just the beginning of many new goodies in the healthcare legislation and it's all connected to employment, education system, etc. People want the government to give everyone healthcare then the government dictates what you can and cannot do. Remember not long ago (2008) Pelosi claimed they will micromanage every American's life. She meant it, literally.

This is some ridiculousness how much they pump this poison flu shot. My wife and I just had a baby less than a month ago and do you know how many times they asked us to get this stupid shot. We are very health conscious people who overall eat healthy, organic food and severely limit processed or fast food and we rarely ever get sick and neither do our kids and we have NEVER received a flu shot. It never fails me how obvious and stupid their ploys and tactics are but the reality is in the end the general US population is fairly dim.

reply to post by VaterOrlaag


but its ok for you to breath in fumes from cars and trucks right ?

reply to post by stevcolx


People are getting high blood pressure after getting this....

My mother in law got one and a few days later had high blood pressure ; out of control.

She was previously healthy as an ox.

Originally posted by stevcolx
The fact that the Flu shot does not work and does you more harm than good would dissuade anyone to get it.

Basically this company is using Fascist techniques to poison it's workforce. Can anyone not Sue for Attempted Murder?

LOL. For crying out loud, it is a liability issue: both the for the employee who may get sick and for the patients that may get sick from being exposed to a sick employee. There are many immunocompromised patients due to everything from AIDS to Cancer and an incidental URI can be deadly for them. You would think that preventing the spread of disease would be a logical position for a healthcare group.

reply to post by NavyDoc


NavyDoc

Preventing disease is a very very laudable goal. But lets discuss how far it should go. In this case, 150 people chose not to have a vaccine injected into their bodies. In other health facilities, employees who choose not to the the shot are allowed to wear masks during flu season to protect the patient.

Now we can have some real good discussions regarding the effectiveness of a shot where the composition of the shot is only a "best guess" estimate and most likely will not prevent all strains of the flu vs wearing a mask.

Do you honestly believe that an employer has the "right" to limit liability by taking away the simple human right of a person to say "no, I choose not to have that thing injected into my person".

In short, does health always trump civil rights?

If your argument is that it does - then of what value are civil rights? What if medical science makes a mistake? Who assumes responsibility for the injury?

If health always trumps civil rights, then is there a limit? Can motorcycles be banned because they are a relatively unsafe mode of transportation? Can people be prevented from hurting themselves through activities like mountain climbing, playing sports, skiing? Can obese people, smokers and drinkers be incarcerated, for their own good, of course, until such time as they are thin, non-smokers, non-drinkers?

Does a medical doctor's opinion override a political decision?
Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by Honor93

for me, the fact is, the flu vax resulted in GBS and i've suffered ever since and that was over 20yrs ago. i've never had a flu vax since and seldom get the flu, mostly because i boost my immune system, naturally.

i have never seen a medical study or absolute evidence that a dead invader (flu or any other) will stimulate anti-body production. if you have access to such a study, please share.

Have you ever seen a scientific study that shows it's possible to "boost your imune system naturally"?

You seldom get the flu because most people seldom get the flu. It's mostly colds.
Try working in the emergency room for a winter and see how well that boosted imune system holds up.

reply to post by kronos11

My wife and I just had a baby less than a month ago and do you know how many times they asked us to get this stupid shot. We are very health conscious people who overall eat healthy, organic food and severely limit processed or fast food and we rarely ever get sick and neither do our kids and we have NEVER received a flu shot.

Won't you have to make several trips the doctor for the babies checks and shots?
The baby's not shaking other people's hands. You are.
The baby doesn't open the doors. You are.
The baby doesn't touch all those things in the office that sick people have touched. You do.

If you get the flu YOU will give it to the baby.
Sleep on that thought.

I have never gotten a flu shot, I work in retail so I meet all different kinds of people daily. I have never gotten the flu, and rarely get sick. My landlady on the other hand always gets flu shot, and she seems to get sick every other month. Coincidence?

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc

 

NavyDoc

Preventing disease is a very very laudable goal. But lets discuss how far it should go. In this case, 150 people chose not to have a vaccine injected into their bodies. In other health facilities, employees who choose not to the the shot are allowed to wear masks during flu season to protect the patient.

Now we can have some real good discussions regarding the effectiveness of a shot where the composition of the shot is only a "best guess" estimate and most likely will not prevent all strains of the flu vs wearing a mask.

Do you honestly believe that an employer has the "right" to limit liability by taking away the simple human right of a person to say "no, I choose not to have that thing injected into my person".

In short, does health always trump civil rights?

If your argument is that it does - then of what value are civil rights? What if medical science makes a mistake? Who assumes responsibility for the injury?

If health always trumps civil rights, then is there a limit? Can motorcycles be banned because they are a relatively unsafe mode of transportation? Can people be prevented from hurting themselves through activities like mountain climbing, playing sports, skiing? Can obese people, smokers and drinkers be incarcerated, for their own good, of course, until such time as they are thin, non-smokers, non-drinkers?

Does a medical doctor's opinion override a political decision?
Tired of Control Freaks

No, health does not always trump civil rights. However, we are not talking about the government here, we are talking about a private employer. If the requirements of employment are too onerous, then one is free to seek employment elsewere.

Bans, incarcerations for "your own good," and so forth are actions of the state and are really a whole different ball of wax.

The question is, should a political decision override the decision of the doctor and the patient? With the trend towards nationalization of healthcare, the state will make more and more medical decisions for you. If we want to limit control freaks, we need to start where they mainly live--in the government.

Allow me to point out the REAL fallacy behind this. First of all, IF the flu shot works at all, all that it does is prevent one from succumbing to the effects of being infected by the flu. Antibodies would eliminate the infection before it can take hold and move through its intended cycle. However, it does NOT prevent one from becoming infected and carrying the infection to another and infecting them. Ergo, even vaccinated people can and do carry and transmit flu virus and other bacterial infections. Vaccines CANNOT prevent this. Ergo, the ENTIRE premise for requiring medical personnel to accept the flu shot is pure FICTION! It does NONE of the things the hospital claims.

What it DOES DO, however, is allow for a modicum of control over their employees and promotes subservience. Like freaking lemmings, mankind will likely jump to their own deaths without ever wondering "why"!!!!

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by Chadwickus

 

What is being said in this thread and the current topic of discussion is:

To what degree do employers have the right to interfere or impose their will on their employees?

Tired of Control Freaks

Easy answer. The employer has 100% right to interfere or impose anything they want within the law. Unless the job is unionized, then it's a different story. But we don't like those dirty unions that would probably fight something like this, whereas the non-union employee is at the whim of the employer...

reply to post by NavyDoc


NavyDoc

I disagree with you on one point! The so-called "rights of the private employer". Essentially, what you are saying is that the employers whims override the employees rights to make health choices. How far does that go?

Is employment the same as slavery?

Its fine to say that a private citizen should seek employment elsewhere if the conditions of employment are too onerous. However, in this case, the employer is paid through tax dollars and has no other source of income.

Is it a question of "take the shot or starve"

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by NavyDoc

You would think that preventing the spread of disease would be a logical position for a healthcare group

indeed, most any logical person would.
however, both MRSA and Staph (fatal infections) generally originate in a "sterile" hospital environment. So please, tell us again just how important the spread of disease is to this group ??

and last i heard, the flu isn't a disease.
it is a viral/bacterial infection and generally not fatal (except to corp profits )

reply to post by Honor93


Honour93 - you are making a very very good point.

For most people, the flu is not fatal - lasts 7-10 days. Its uncomfortable but hardly anything like diptheria and polio

The stated purpose for flu shots is to save money in terms of health care dollars and employee sick time. Its is NOT a major health issue.

As for liability - there is absolutely no way of knowing if someone in hospital got it from an employee or a visitor!

Tired of Control Freaks

reply to post by NavyDoc

However, we are not talking about the government here, we are talking about a private employer.

uh ... no, we're not.
we are discussing a PUBLIC employer, you know, the kind taxdollars keep in business. [TriHealth is a public medical management group, not a private one and with Obamacare, there really is no such thing as a private medical provider anymore] www.trihealth.com...

yes, plenty already have sought alternate employment and i'd imagine many more are going to be starting competative ministries very soon.

Bans, incarcerations for "your own good," and so forth are actions of the state and are really a whole different ball of wax

how so ?
Constitutionally, there is no authority provided to the Feds or State to do either.

at least in this ...

If we want to limit control freaks, we need to start where they mainly live--in the government.

i agree completely

reply to post by Honor93

it is a viral/bacterial infection and generally not fatal (except to corp profits )

Unless you take it home to your aging mother or your frail child.
Many keep compairing the flu to a cold or the 24 bug. They are totally different.
You will not 'power' your way throught the day at work.

Originally posted by Honor93
well ain't that just peachy ( /sarcasm ) ... 150 less caregivers/providers [like we need less]
but, but ... "replacement/re-training costs are sooooo expensive"

... i say BS.

pow er, con trol, re peat ... that's what it's all about
put your right arm here, put your left arm there ...
get a little jab, do a little dance, that's what it's all about.
you hokey and they pokey ... all the days of our lives.

i hope someone (or the whole group) sues ... the damages are obvious.
as other medical facilities have made accomodations successfully, TriHealth should as well.

The people ought to get together like in the old days and take these executives out and tar and feather them. If the people do not ban together they will surely die alone. There is power in numbers.