LiTeRalLy 1984!
I know that sounds too forceful, but there is a crisis of ignorance in america, and you should fight against it with some decisive measures.
America has a bunch of vaccines for all the wrong reasons, not sharing the vaccines to other countries, including third world ones, all to provide the scarce resource to their people; meanwhile people are rejecting the vaccines because they read on an Instagram post that there is a communist conspiracy led by Bill Gates.
I am torn on this one. On one hand, those who can get vaccinated should get vaccinated. On the other, it is is rather unconstitutional to mandate it esp. for an employer.
I agree. More effort should be emphasized on transparently matching scientific understanding to the general public. It’s not fair to punish people in an age where disinformation is so widespread.
Sometimes, and when i say sometimes i mean quite often, people don’t listen, regardless of what the experts say.
And that is because, it’s easier for them to look at conspiracy theories and gossip than to learn the truth, they are not uninformed, they are misinformed, but they have decided to be like that.
And so you’d rather treat them like children and rob them of agency? Unrestricted authority is a slippery slope. I wouldn’t be so quick to jump on coercing people without broader efforts that focus on discussion and transparency. Otherwise, how can we expect to live in a cooperative society if we just bully each other?
Laws are pretty much a coercion mechanism, and in some places doing things that are not prohibited by laws still can get you kicked out of said place, rather than treating them as children, i assume that getting the vaccine is a matter of common sense, and if you don’t want to because you trust conspiracy theories more, then there is nothing wrong with not being allowed to be in some places where common sense is mandatory.
I understand that laws are by definition coercive. Ideally they would be minimally so, that way we can achieve a maximum amount of social good with minimal coercion. I also don’t disagree with the choice to pursue non-association with those who are unvaccinated by those who deem the risk too high.
My point is that if you use a hammer approach, i.e. mandating vaccination so quickly and especially when many individuals could come from marginalized communities whose skepticism may arise from a legitimate history of mistrust (for example, the US has and still has a long history of government-led abuse towards various communities, one example is forced sterilization ). Rather than succumbing to authoritarian approaches, the long-term reward is greater when putting the effort in methods that value and respect individual agency, build trust and can lead to mutually agreeable outcomes.
I belong to a marginalized group, and i pretty much can guarantee you that if marginalized people rejected the vaccine, it would be for the same reasons that non marginalized groups would. Ignorance.
Marginalized groups tend not to know their own history, so although i understand your point, i think in this case ignorance acts in the same way for all groups. Don’t get me wrong, taking a more conciliatory approach should be the way to go, but in a case like the coronavirus one, taking short term measures is better than long term measures, it’s literally the difference between life and death.
I also belong to a marginalized group. I agree that belief in conspiracy and lack of knowledge is a big driver, but what legitimizes belief in conspiracy, at least from conversations I’ve had with others, seems to stem from government mistrust.
I also agree with you that urgency is key in dealing with Covid. I am just hesitant to impose top-down restrictions without enough community support. I’ve seen enough instances of top-down impositions back-fire because there was not enough understanding of the primary motivations of why people behaved the way they do. I can name several countries that right now are currently dealing with high death tolls, even though they have tried strict lockdowns and do indeed have some access to vaccines. In these cases, it appears to me that the primary reason for low compliance is a broader lack of faith and trust in government. Whereas community led organization can be far more effective, for example, among indigenous groups in the US.
Please cite the passages from the constitution that deny employers the ability to fire whomever they wish for whatever reason they wish. Protected classes aren’t even a part of the constitution, nor does it apply to this situation.
Capitalism kills, maims, and destroys the only known habitable planet, but when it fires people for endangering others, it’s “unconsitutional.” Throw in “socialism” and “but her emails” and you’ve got yourself an airtight argument.
Sorry if I was unclear on this, but my comment was far broader than just this particular case with CNN. Also sorry if I forgot while writing my previous comment, that the US constitution does not always exactly lign up with e.g. the constitution of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. We have (had) similar discussions here during this pandemic and the constitution thing was brought up even by moderates. So I suppose I did not entirely think that through, given this thread is more specifically about the US.
Edit: where I live (Netherlands), Chapter 1 section 11 states:
Ieder heeft, behoudens bij of krachtens de wet te stellen beperkingen, recht op onaantastbaarheid van zijn lichaam.
I do not know whether the US has got anything like that, even though I assumed it and that was perhaps a mistake.
Who’s constitution?
Zambia clearly
if an employer can fire you for smoking a joint why not for putting all your coworkers at risk? not saying i think this was a good thing, just that i dont see where the constitution fits in
You would potentially put people at risk smoking that joint (just before or during work, also dependent on the kind of work and whether/how one does commute to it). Constitutionally you may take the joint though, just within reason. When it comes to vaccines, no-one can force you to take it because an individuals rights to their own body. It is however bl**dy inconvenient (as @jelbana@lemmy.ml already pointed out) that there is so much disinformation turning peoples minds to mush. Thus, it is harder and harder to convince them to do “the right thing” through persuasion. Trying to persuade first is important though, including attempts to hear from them on why they do not wish to take the vaccine. I mean, in this case at CNN one expects that the vast majority of staff know how reasoning/arguments work. Okay, maybe not everyone (like janitors*) but those would more likely be under contract with an external company (giving CNN no rights to make decisions on the employees in question).
- I do not mean to disrespect those people
Fully vaccinated people with Delta variant breakthrough infections can spread the virus to others. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/variants/delta-variant.html
What’s the point if you can still get covid? NO thanks. https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/why-covid-19-vaccines-should-not-be-required-for-all-americans
Because getting infected while vaccinated is not the same as getting infected without a vaccine.
In all cases the vaccine triggers antibodies that combat the virus, but in some cases you can still get infected. The risk of dying with the vaccine is close to cero.
It should be noted that even though breakthrough infections may happen, the amount of these cases is small. Smaller compared to how many unvaccinated people get infected.
And NaturalNews? That is not a reputable source for anything, more like fearmongering far-right anti-vaxx garbage.
CHEH
