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.
when such a "work requirement" does nothing to enhance either performance or objective, it is fascist ... if you cannot see that, you aren't looking.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Artistic
Contrary to popular belief:
To have to be shot up with unknown substances in order to keep a job is NOT freedom but
it is called fascism. I dictator gives an edict and all have to follow or ....
What did we come to when people can't recognize fascism??
Indeed. Now how, pray tell, does having a work requirement for a job that you are completely free to leave at any time fit the definition of fascism?
Originally posted by Artistic
reply to post by NavyDoc
Nonsense?
No
What is next to be required?
I am frightful for America's future
when people CANT see or don't want to see the face of dictatorship
You can disagree all you like
BUT it is dictatorship that requires one to do potential harm and ask NO questions
You can live in a world like 1984 but I will NOT
Originally posted by Honor93
when such a "work requirement" does nothing to enhance either performance or objective, it is fascist ... if you cannot see that, you aren't looking.
Originally posted by NavyDoc
Originally posted by Artistic
Contrary to popular belief:
To have to be shot up with unknown substances in order to keep a job is NOT freedom but
it is called fascism. I dictator gives an edict and all have to follow or ....
What did we come to when people can't recognize fascism??
Indeed. Now how, pray tell, does having a work requirement for a job that you are completely free to leave at any time fit the definition of fascism?
dude, this is such a worn-out and failed argument, why can't/won't you find something relative ?
Where does the demand to refuse work requirements lead? Should not a cook refuse to wash his hands before preparing your food? Why should he be fired if he does not wash his hands after he takes a dump and then makes you a salad. Job requirements are a dictatorship I tell you? (See how your use of reducto ad absurdum sounds coming from the other end?)
free to suffer an unknown, un-communicated consequence is not FREEDOM in the workplace.
Please show me where the people (a minority of employees by the way) were not free to walk away. Please show me where the employees in question were not allowed to question or object.
Originally posted by Artistic
reply to post by NavyDoc
Show me ONE study that shows a flu show decreased the spread of the dreaded flu ...
just one
it never has been, why would it be now ?
You don't think that reducing the spread of a disease in a hospital would be a logical part of the performance or objectives of a hospital?
no, i'm the OLD fart who remembers a time before it was classified as a disease.
Oh, wait, you are the guy who didn't understand the concept of "disease." Nevermind
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
dude, this is such a worn-out and failed argument, why can't/won't you find something relative ?
Where does the demand to refuse work requirements lead? Should not a cook refuse to wash his hands before preparing your food? Why should he be fired if he does not wash his hands after he takes a dump and then makes you a salad. Job requirements are a dictatorship I tell you? (See how your use of reducto ad absurdum sounds coming from the other end?)
hand washing does not penetrate the person.
(if said employee is disgruntled over the flavor of soap/disinfectant, they can bring their own)
i got news for you, cooks, (when working sick), don't wash their hands after vomitting on the line (especially when there is food on the griddle so to speak) ... have seen it 1st hand more times than i'd care to count.
comparing the most common illness preventative in use today, which is non-invasive and common practice is hardly in the same ballpark as vaccinations, which are extremely intrusive, less than effective and are proven dangerous.
if you can find any other relative common demand, let's discuss it.
this argument is failed on so many levels that it detracts from the premise of the thread.
how many ppl have EVER been fired for not washing their hands ??
better question, how many employees have been reprimanded for not washing their hands ?
(any chance there are studies available ? )
how many livelihoods (as medical employees generally aren't HS graduates working part-time) have been destroyed because someone refused to wash their hands ?
Originally posted by Artistic
Those who don't see a problem with this:
SHOW one study that shows a decrease of the dreaded flu in an entire hospital or facility after all employees had the flu shot.
to require a flu shot of all employees ; a facility needs to have these studies....
because if one person dies of a flu shot; due to a "requirement ; I can assure you;
a family will want something ; get it??
so, i did ... and should you.
Read the study-related Reuters article titled “World Needs to Update Its Flu Vaccines.”
thanks, navydoc, appreciate the help
(Reuters) - As Americans line up for flu shots, they should consider that the vaccines may be far less effective than thought, according to a new study.
yet, these are the studies we are supposed to put our bodies in jeopardy over ??
found that the most common flu vaccine in the United States is effective for 59 percent of healthy adults, well below the 70 percent to 90 percent level previously reported.
- snip -
There is also a lack of information about how well the vaccine works in children and in adults over the age of 65, he said. These two groups are most at risk from flu-related illness or death.
- snip -
They narrowed their analysis to 31 studies that tested for the presence of flu in laboratory tests rather than counting an increase in flu antibodies -- a faster method but one that researchers say tends to overestimate the vaccine's efficacy.
They also limited results to those that used randomized controlled trials or other observational methods that did not have "selection bias," which could lead to sicker people getting excluded from the study.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
it never has been, why would it be now ?
You don't think that reducing the spread of a disease in a hospital would be a logical part of the performance or objectives of a hospital?
for years (decades really), infectious patients weren't even isolated, so what's your point ?
stated goals and intended ones are seldom the same.
as a navy man, surely you already know this ?
no, i'm the OLD fart who remembers a time before it was classified as a disease.
Oh, wait, you are the guy who didn't understand the concept of "disease." Nevermind
illness, sickness, condition ... all of the above, however, it was not classified as a disease until much later.
and to be totally honest, it is a sub-classification ... it is an infectious disease.
but i suppose the general perception is as a "doc", what you say counts, right ?
it never has been, why would it be now ?
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
:lol that's a good one ... journalistsresource.org... ... ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly why we now have journalists vs reporters.
for those who want a good chuckle, read the link titled "Teaching Notes".
in which you'll notice the very first instruction BEFORE all others is ...so, i did ... and should you.
Read the study-related Reuters article titled “World Needs to Update Its Flu Vaccines.”
for your enjoyment --> the opening line reads ...thanks, navydoc, appreciate the help
(Reuters) - As Americans line up for flu shots, they should consider that the vaccines may be far less effective than thought, according to a new study.
more from the link ...yet, these are the studies we are supposed to put our bodies in jeopardy over ??
found that the most common flu vaccine in the United States is effective for 59 percent of healthy adults, well below the 70 percent to 90 percent level previously reported.
- snip -
There is also a lack of information about how well the vaccine works in children and in adults over the age of 65, he said. These two groups are most at risk from flu-related illness or death.
- snip -
They narrowed their analysis to 31 studies that tested for the presence of flu in laboratory tests rather than counting an increase in flu antibodies -- a faster method but one that researchers say tends to overestimate the vaccine's efficacy.
They also limited results to those that used randomized controlled trials or other observational methods that did not have "selection bias," which could lead to sicker people getting excluded from the study.
Randomised controlled trials are the most rigorous way of determining whether a cause-effect relation exists between treatment and outcome and for assessing the cost effectiveness of a treatment. They have several important features:
•Random allocation to intervention groups
•Patients and trialists should remain unaware of which treatment was given until the study is completed-although such double blind studies are not always feasible or appropriate
•All intervention groups are treated identically except for the experimental treatment
•Patients are normally analysed within the group to which they were allocated, irrespective of whether they experienced the intended intervention (intention to treat analysis)
•The analysis is focused on estimating the size of the difference in predefined outcomes between intervention groups.
Other study designs, including non-randomised controlled trials, can detect associations between an intervention and an outcome. But they cannot rule out the possibility that the association was caused by a third factor linked to both intervention and outcome. Random allocation ensures no systematic differences between intervention groups in factors, known and unknown, that may affect outcome. Double blinding ensures that the preconceived views of subjects and clinicians cannot systematically bias the assessment of outcomes. Intention to treat analysis maintains the advantages of random allocation, which may be lost if subjects are excluded from analysis through, for example, withdrawal or failure to comply. Meta-analysis of controlled trials shows that failure to conceal random allocation and the absence of double blinding yield exaggerated estimates of treatment effects.1
Selection bias is a statistical bias in which there is an error in choosing the individuals or groups to take part in a scientific study.[1] It is sometimes referred to as the selection effect. The term "selection bias" most often refers to the distortion of a statistical analysis, resulting from the method of collecting samples. If the selection bias is not taken into account then certain conclusions drawn may be wrong.
Originally posted by Honor93
reply to post by NavyDoc
i'm well aware what a disease is and what it is NOT.