TriHealth fires 150 employees for not getting flu shots

page: 6
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join

posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
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


No it isn't and you miss the point. An employer has certain obligations, risks, liabilities, and operational constraints. They put out the policy that they thinks maximizes their efficiency and minimizes risk. If the employee and the employer cannot agree upon the program, they should part ways. This is what freedom of choice means. If one side is forced to comply to the will of the other, then one side is not free.




posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
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
)


And those hospitals are making steps to limit those diseases. If you get fired by a hospital for refusing to wash your hands (still the best way to limit cross contamination) are your rights being violated?

Flu is a disease, just a self limited and usually non-fatal one.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:26 PM
link   
reply to post by samkent
 


scientific study that shows it's possible to "boost your imune system naturally
yes, do you need a link? perhaps you will find what interests you here ... www.immunehealthscience.com...

really ?? there isn't enough money in the world to convince me to work in an ER these days. besides, i have plenty of family that still do.
and, ya know what ??
they don't do flu shots either.
one, in Michigan refuses with a "note from her Dr" ... so, what does that tell ya ?
she has no allergy and it isn't a religious objection either.

another, who is an Anesthesiologist refused annually and subsequently (of own accord) left a cushy job to be "freelance" and is actually doing better than ever.

you know me that well do ya ?
suppose i can call you for advice ?

fyi, i am one of those immuno-suppressed ppl, yet i don't do the vax and i don't suffer the flu ... can you explain that ?
how 'bout this one ... a good friend i share company with frequently is currently battling her 2nd round with breast cancer, yet she claims we are helping her rather spreading germs all over her.

{a side note about her ... she has a dander allergy, yet, she visits with us for hours on end, w/11 felines, without so much as a sniffle ... even she says she doesn't understand why. her BF has 2 felines and she cannot be in the same room with them for more than 15 minutes or respiratory trouble develops ... again, please explain how or why)



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:30 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


you are, of couse, correct. Flu is an infectious disease.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is an interesting thought that you have. Of course a corporation is a "person" under the law and has free will, just like a natural human being does.

So I guess it is up to employees to band together to change policies they don't like or agree with.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.


Worked for me.

I worked in dialysis for 2 years. These people got infectetions at the drop of a hat. I also worked in isolation with infected patients. Never got the flu or any sort of infection. Not once. Never sick my entire nursing career.

Stop eating sugar and wheat, coke and other junk food. Eat real food like raw milk, soups with bone broth from grass fed animals and pastured chickens and home grown vegitables. Get you D3 level up to 50+ng/ml.

Fact is most people will take a shot (that doesn't work) before they change their dietary habits and spend the money and time on Real Food. The addiction to sugar and wheat is too strong.

But it's worth it. I'm actually eating some homemade butternut squash soup now. Grew the squash myself. Made the chicken broth from pastured chicken carcass (ate the chicken and then simmered the carcass for two days with a little apple cider vinigar to leech out the minerals). Used cream from raw milk. Delicious!

I've seen the future of healthcare and I don't want to be a part of it. At least not from the patient end.

But go back to your Hot Pockets and pizza. Just don't whine when you get sick then end up chronically ill. On the other hand, it's job security for me. Thanks for the business.
edit on 26-11-2012 by davjan4 because: spelling
edit on 26-11-2012 by davjan4 because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:37 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 

thanks and if you don't mind (well, even if you do at this point
) i'd like to emphasize and edit your previous statement here ...

As for liability - there is absolutely no way of knowing if someone in hospital got it from recently vaccinated employee, an UNvaccinated employee, a physician who has recently travelled (especially out of country) or a visitor!



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by samkent
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.

contrary to your opinion, i am well aware of what the "flu" is and is not.
not so surprisingly, i am the one called to assist with those infected (and living alone) and seldom contract their contagion. even when i do, it is usually gone within 48hrs and no dr intervention.

i have difficulty overcoming frequent blood poisonings ... any advice ??

germs spread even when we take extreme precautions ... that is life.
ahhhh, you should share that opinion with a former employer who suffered through my last bout with the flu WHILE i worked 6 day weeks and laid down in the bathroom in between customers ... surprise, it happens.
(for me, that was 2006)



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by cantyousee
 

ohhhh, good idea, i'm with you !!!
i'm tired of all this fake entertainment anyway ... live action ... i'm in



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 01:56 PM
link   
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And those hospitals are making steps to limit those diseases
uhuh, and why are they merely limiting occurances rather ELIMINATING the pathogen ??
that is their job afterall.

wahing hands is not intrusive.
the act is not objectionable to anyone.
the act is open policy at the moment of hire, not fanagled into policy without the consent of those involved.

the act of washing hands does NOT ever penetrate the person so no, rights aren't being violated.

any other straw within reach you'd like to present ?

dude, don't make me use the dictionary, i know you're brighter than this
...

Flu is a disease, just a self limited and usually non-fatal one
Flu does not qualify as a disease, ever.

Flu isn't even a "cause of death" officially ... pneumonia is another story.

ETA -- ok, fine ... the PC these days is it's a disease ...
didn't used to be.
edit on 26-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 02:07 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


So I guess it is up to employees to band together to change policies they don't like or agree with
under Obamacare, that is no longer possible.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 03:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


you are, of couse, correct. Flu is an infectious disease.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is an interesting thought that you have. Of course a corporation is a "person" under the law and has free will, just like a natural human being does.

So I guess it is up to employees to band together to change policies they don't like or agree with.

Tired of Control Freaks


Well, as the relationship should be one of mutal benefit, yes, they should get together with the policy makers, explain their concerns, and try to reach mutually agreeable conclusions.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 04:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
 


And those hospitals are making steps to limit those diseases
uhuh, and why are they merely limiting occurances rather ELIMINATING the pathogen ??
that is their job afterall.

wahing hands is not intrusive.
the act is not objectionable to anyone.
the act is open policy at the moment of hire, not fanagled into policy without the consent of those involved.

the act of washing hands does NOT ever penetrate the person so no, rights aren't being violated.

any other straw within reach you'd like to present ?

dude, don't make me use the dictionary, i know you're brighter than this
...

Flu is a disease, just a self limited and usually non-fatal one
Flu does not qualify as a disease, ever.

Flu isn't even a "cause of death" officially ... pneumonia is another story.

ETA -- ok, fine ... the PC these days is it's a disease ...
didn't used to be.
edit on 26-11-2012 by Honor93 because: ETA


Sigh.

Don't think they are not trying to eliminate the pathogen? Of course they are, but it is easier said than done. Besides, reducing the spread of a pathogen is PART of the process of eliminating a pathogen. Microbiology is interesting.


What does the "penetration" of a person have to do with an act being a violation of rights or not? You do understand that you can have your rights violated without any physical contact of your person at all, right? It is not a strawman. Handwashing is part of infection control, as is innoculation. A person with allergies, dematitis, and so forth would disagree with you that handwashing is harmless. The comparison is apt. A policy is set forth with the intent of infection control. You are free to choose or not, however, the ramifications of said choice may be not being able to work in a job that exposes you to patients. Hand washing is without consent, you can be fired in some places for violations of the rule.

Dude, Flu is a disease. Fatality has nothing to do with the definition of disease. Here, let me pull out a dictionary for you:



1.A disorder of structure or function in a human, animal, or plant, esp. one that produces specific signs or symptoms or that affects a specific location and is not simply a direct result of physical injury


Flu is a disease (produces specific signs or symptoms) caused by a pathogen, the influenza virus.
Don't take my word for it: open a science text.



Influenza, commonly known as the flu, is an infectious disease of birds and mammals caused by RNA viruses of the family Orthomyxoviridae, the influenza viruses.

A disease does not even require a pathogen. Arthritis is considered a disease state. Coronary artery disease is considered a disease state.

You do realize that influenza is one of the many pathogens that cause pneumonia right?



Common causes of viral pneumonia are:

Influenza virus A and B[3]
Respiratory syncytial virus (RSV)[3]
Human parainfluenza viruses (in children)[3]
Rarer viruses that commonly result in pneumonia include:



You are going on and on about the evils of inoculations, but don't even know the basic definition of disease or how pathogens work? C'mon.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 04:58 PM
link   
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


NavyDoc

There is just one more thought that occurs to me.

In order to differentiate employment from slavery, it occurs to me that any requirements of the employee must also not be more intrusive than necessary to achieve the goal.

Obviously in the case, the goal is to prevent spread of an air-borne infection. Do you have any thoughts as to why vaccination would be necessary if the employee agrees to wear a mask?

If I was to consider the job of an airline pilot or a truck driver, the employer has a definiate interest in ensuring that the employee is not operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol. So the employer sets a policy that you can't work if your blood alcohol is greater than 0.0. That policy is enforced by blood tests, which are, in fact very intrusive.

But when the same employee is away from work for a weekend or an evening, he is free to drink. In short, the employer does not require that the employee NEVER drink alcohol, he requires simply that the employee show up for work with a 0.0 blood alcohol.

What are your thoughts about the concept if minimizing intrusiveness and control to the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the employee.

Tired of Control Freaks



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:05 PM
link   

Originally posted by TiredofControlFreaks
reply to post by TiredofControlFreaks
 


NavyDoc

There is just one more thought that occurs to me.

In order to differentiate employment from slavery, it occurs to me that any requirements of the employee must also not be more intrusive than necessary to achieve the goal.

Obviously in the case, the goal is to prevent spread of an air-borne infection. Do you have any thoughts as to why vaccination would be necessary if the employee agrees to wear a mask?

If I was to consider the job of an airline pilot or a truck driver, the employer has a definiate interest in ensuring that the employee is not operating machinery while under the influence of alcohol. So the employer sets a policy that you can't work if your blood alcohol is greater than 0.0. That policy is enforced by blood tests, which are, in fact very intrusive.

But when the same employee is away from work for a weekend or an evening, he is free to drink. In short, the employer does not require that the employee NEVER drink alcohol, he requires simply that the employee show up for work with a 0.0 blood alcohol.

What are your thoughts about the concept if minimizing intrusiveness and control to the minimum necessary to achieve the goals of the employee.

Tired of Control Freaks


I guess that an honest answer is that employment is not slavery as long as that employment is not mandatory. If you don't like the rules of the airline on drinking, you are free not to work there. This is why I am against a military draft, because it fits every definition of slavery.

As for masks and viruses, they don't work as well as people think.



Viruses, including the coronavirus that scientists believe may be the cause of SARS, are so tiny that they can easily pass through such barriers. Several studies even have shown that surgical masks fail to prevent transmission of the much larger mycobacterium tuberculosis, which causes TB. While the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention advises that people who have SARS wear these masks, they do not even recommend them for people in contact with those patients unless the infected person can't wear one. Wearing surgical masks outdoors, where virus-laden particles easily disperse, has even less value.

CDC does advise health-care workers working with SARS patients to wear a special mask called an N-95 respirator. But even these masks offer limited protection from coronaviruses. The name of the mask says it all. The "95" means the mask, if properly fitted—and that "fit factor" presents a big if—can filter out particles down to .3 microns 95 percent of the time. (A human hair is roughly 100 microns in diameter.) Human coronaviruses measure between .1 and .2 microns, which is one to two times below the cutoff.

The University of Cincinnati's Sergey Grinshpun has studied N-95 respirators and says it all comes down to "collection efficiency." N-95s made by different manufacturers have different collection efficiencies below the .3 cutoff. In other words, one company's mask, if properly fitted, might filter out 92 percent of coronaviruses, while another might catch only 50 percent.

"It seems to offer better protection than nothing," Grinshpun says. And he notes that viruses often travel on top of larger carrier molecules—like globs of mucus—making it easier to filter them. That's why CDC Director Julie Gerberding last week noted that covering your face with a T-shirt might help if you come in close contact with an infected person.

To efficiently protect yourself from coronaviruses, you would need to wear a full-faced mask with a high-efficiency particle air filter. But such HEPA filter masks cause what Grinshpun calls "quite a discomfort" in short order.

Any mask clearly wards off one bug: fear. Confoundingly, the sight of so many people wearing masks also spreads fear. And there's no measure of collection efficiency or fit factors that can help humans out of that pickle.



They may reduce sputum dissemination, but that's about it.

Another article:



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:08 PM
link   


Facemasks, which refer to disposable masks like the ones health workers occasionally wear, are designed to block large particle droplets, splashes, and sprays from reaching the wearer’s mouth and nose.1 They are intended to be used once (for whatever period of time) and then discarded. Facemasks do not form a tight seal around the nose and mouth and so they can’t protect you from very small particles in the air transmitted by coughs or sneezes (such as virus particles that can be breathed in by the user).2, 3 Another problem with facemasks is that people forget to use them consistently to protect against the flu, sometimes because they find them uncomfortable. For instance, a study conducted in 2008 by researchers in Australia found that facemasks used in households to prevent transmission of the flu virus were not effective, primarily because people didn’t use them regularly.4

Unlike facemasks, respirators form a tight seal to the face. Respirators typically refer to CDC-certified N95 or higher filtering face pieces (meaning that they filter out 95% of airborne particles). They are primarily manufactured for use in construction and industrial jobs that expose workers to dust and small airborne particles.1 In order for respirators to be effective, they must be fitted properly according to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) guidelines.5 Respirators are harder than facemasks to breathe through for extended periods of time and can cause skin irritation. CDC guidelines do not suggest respirators for children or people with facial hair.

A study conducted by Dr. William Lindsley at the West Virginia University Urgent Care Clinic in February 2009 found that a surgical facemask admitted 20% of respiratory particles given off by a coughing simulator (a machine) placed six feet away. In contrast, the N95 respirator blocked nearly all respiratory particles.6 Since airborne biological agents such as viruses are particles, they can be filtered by particulate respirators such as the N95.7 However, it is important to note that there is currently no available scientific data that establishes the effectiveness of particulate respirators in specifically blocking H1N1 virus particles. By the time studies are done to find out how effective respirators really are, flu season is likely to be over.






These face masks have a filter to ensure the virus particles, which are particularly small, cannot pass through and healthcare staff are trained in their proper use such as how often they need to be changed.

Sir Liam said: "The scientific advice on face masks is that they are of very little value. They get moist which enhances the risk of transmitting the virus. and because the virus is so small it can go through the pores. They can also give a false sense of security."

He said the key message was to cover your nose and mouth when cough and sneezing, dispose of the tissue carefully and wash hands with soap and water or antimicrobial gels.





It’s the surest sign that an outbreak of illness or infection has grown serious: People on the street wearing face masks as they hurry to work, crowd into the subway or walk their dogs.

Such images have been ubiquitous this week in Mexico, where a swine flu epidemic may have sickened 6,000 and is suspected in more than 150 deaths.

And now, in the U.S., where the new flu strain has killed a 23-month-old child in Texas and been confirmed in at least 93 people in 11 states, worried residents have started stocking up on masks and wondering whether to wear them, especially in places like New York and Texas, where the outbreak appears to be expanding.

But health officials here are hedging answers to the simple question: “Do face masks really work?”

It turns out that protection is possible, but the degree depends on what kind of mask you choose, what kind of environment you're in and how willing you are to use it consistently, experts say.

“The CDC does not have a firm message on this,” said Dr. William Schaffner, chair of preventive medicine at Vanderbilt Medical Center in Nashville, Tenn., and a spokesman for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.

Guidelines posted this week by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention recommend that people avoid close contact and crowded conditions rather than relying on face masks for protection from infection during a flu pandemic. But they also suggest that face masks might reduce risk if it’s impossible to avoid crowds or people who are already infected.

."Very little is known about the benefits of wearing face masks or respirators to help control the spread of pandemic flu," the CDC notes.




posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:09 PM
link   
It is a matter of pore size: viruses are much smaller than bacteria and those paper masks you see people wearing during flue season have pores that are much larger than the virus and don't work at all. HEPA filters are expensive, uncomfortable, only work a limited time, and are not effective without a perfect fit.



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:17 PM
link   
Vaccines are almost entirely useless. I think they just want to undermine our health and get people used to getting them for when they add the microchips. Move slowly and no one will see the ultimate tyranny coming.

Yes, people, flu vaccines still contain thimerosal: "As a precautionary measure, most vaccines administered to children or pregnant women do not include thimersosal, but the flu vaccine is a significant exception. "Thimerosal-preserved flu vaccines are necessary to ensure sufficient supply at a reasonable price," according to the judgment."

www.courthousenews.com...



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by NavyDoc
No it isn't and you miss the point. An employer has certain obligations, risks, liabilities, and operational constraints. They put out the policy that they thinks maximizes their efficiency and minimizes risk. If the employee and the employer cannot agree upon the program, they should part ways. This is what freedom of choice means. If one side is forced to comply to the will of the other, then one side is not free.


What if employers decide they don't want their employees to go drinking after work because it leads to bad decisions that may impact productivity in the future? How about employees having girlfriends/boyfriends/spouses because it can take attention away from work? Sometimes an employee is going to have productivity reduced because they're thinking about what their kid did. If you want to take things to their logical conclusion maximizing productivity from employees means they shouldn't have social contact with non employees, they shouldn't have recreation time, they shouldn't have significant others, they shouldn't have kids, and they should be on very strict diets.

It's all for the benefit of the employer, they deserve the right to dictate these things to their employees right?



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:23 PM
link   


wahing hands is not intrusive. the act is not objectionable to anyone.


Actually, that's wrong. I do object to washing hands, because antibacterial soaps have carcinogens and endocrine disrupters. Although I do understand why employees are forced to wash their hands in certain professions, but why can't they use something harmless like, say, H2O2?



posted on Nov, 26 2012 @ 05:42 PM
link   
What thinking ; intelligent individuals need to ask themselves is;

> how far does this go? Will it lead to other "mandatory" things dependent on employment?

> Is this all realistic? In other words, do vaccines REALLY guard against illness/disease or is there some other agenda at work here?

This s**** is never going to stop and it IS going to get worse.

People need to rise up and demand their rights back!!! One is the right to work in a safe environment. The answer can go both ways.

If I work in a hospital ; care center I have the right NOT to have to inject myself with potentially harmful things I know not what they might do to my body.

Everyone reacts differently to vaccinations.


Our society is allowing the communists /facists to take control of our world.

WHat kind of a world do you want to live in??





new topics
top topics
 
22
<< 3  4  5    7  8  9 >>

log in

join