It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
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
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
indeed, most any logical person would.
You would think that preventing the spread of disease would be a logical position for a healthcare group
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 )
yes, do you need a link? perhaps you will find what interests you here ... www.immunehealthscience.com...
scientific study that shows it's possible to "boost your imune system naturally
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.
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!
contrary to your opinion, i am well aware of what the "flu" is and is not.
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.
uhuh, and why are they merely limiting occurances rather ELIMINATING the pathogen ??
And those hospitals are making steps to limit those diseases
Flu does not qualify as a disease, ever.
Flu is a disease, just a self limited and usually non-fatal one
under Obamacare, that is no longer possible.
So I guess it is up to employees to band together to change policies they don't like or agree with
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
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
uhuh, and why are they merely limiting occurances rather ELIMINATING the pathogen ??
And those hospitals are making steps to limit those diseases
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 does not qualify as a disease, ever.
Flu is a disease, just a self limited and usually non-fatal one
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
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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.
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.
wahing hands is not intrusive. the act is not objectionable to anyone.