US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System(federalregister.gov)
federalregister.gov
US Fed – Employee Religious Exception Request Information System
https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2022/01/11/2021-28135/privacy-act-of-1974-system-of-records
105 comments
That's not really freedom of religion then, is it? "You can be Muslim (/Sikh/Mormon/etc.), but you can't wear the clothing prescribed by your religion", a la French secularism, is a weak accommodation that allows people to be a little different as long as they aren't too different. It is far short of actual freedom of conscience.
[deleted]
There are various ways around that issue; no prohibitions of purely religious activities, a clause about limiting that no exceptions to laws about health/security etc.
These ways around the problem are not unlike what we have in the US right now.
At that point you are far from "no religious exemptions to any laws."
At that point you are far from "no religious exemptions to any laws."
Someone inevitably becomes responsible for making that judgement call, and a record is thereby built up of the "State's interpretation of your religion"
Ergo, you have freedom of whatever the State decides your religion is... which is not compatible with Separation of Church and State.
These constitutional matters are so much thornier than they appear at first glance. I tell people this often.
Ergo, you have freedom of whatever the State decides your religion is... which is not compatible with Separation of Church and State.
These constitutional matters are so much thornier than they appear at first glance. I tell people this often.
I mean, judges in developed countries make these kind of judgement calls all the time, probably dozens of times a year in a country the size of the US. There's tons of well-developed common law around what is a legitimate expression of religion, what isn't, etc. Easily over 30 Supreme Court cases on this over the last couple of centuries. If I assert that I have a religious exemption to stop signs, taxes, gun laws, anti-discrimination laws, securities laws, etc. etc. judges can & do 'decide [what] your religion is', as you put it.
Unless you assert that literally zero laws apply to the religious, there's just no way around judges actually making these decisions
Unless you assert that literally zero laws apply to the religious, there's just no way around judges actually making these decisions
You are straw-manning the argument as being simpler than it really is. Moderna for example states in their documentation that their vaccine was tested and actively developed with fetus cell lines that were taken (likely from abortion) far back in the 1960s, making taking that vaccine a possible complicity with "Thou shalt not kill." As an example of one argument. My point is that it is not as simple as you think.
Under that same argument, those people should avoid goods transported by truck because trucks kill thousands of people per year and they would be complicit.
You're just trying to keep up the lie that it's about religion at all. There are plenty of people in this thread openly admitting it's not about that, and they just don't feel like they should have to get the vax.
You're just trying to keep up the lie that it's about religion at all. There are plenty of people in this thread openly admitting it's not about that, and they just don't feel like they should have to get the vax.
For my vaccine-hesitant family members, I can guarantee you it is about religion. The world is a lot broader than Hacker News.
Also, there is a difference between something that could cause death, and something that already has from people who were defenseless, but I don't want to get into the whole argument here.
Also, there is a difference between something that could cause death, and something that already has from people who were defenseless, but I don't want to get into the whole argument here.
Why religion and not freedom of belief, philosophy, custom, or venerable tradition? What makes religion special? Except for those exemptions, I mean.
Except that this law isn't preventing religious exceptions, it's a law to identify individuals who are claiming such.
> Except that this law
It isn't a law.
> it's a law to identify individuals who are claiming such.
No, it's an internal data system to track information on employee exemptions. So the employer can look up that someone claimed and was granted an exemption. (The regulation creating the requirement and the rules for exemptions already exists, this is just one agency creating the internal data system to track it's employee information necessary to apply the rules to it's workforce.)
It isn't a law.
> it's a law to identify individuals who are claiming such.
No, it's an internal data system to track information on employee exemptions. So the employer can look up that someone claimed and was granted an exemption. (The regulation creating the requirement and the rules for exemptions already exists, this is just one agency creating the internal data system to track it's employee information necessary to apply the rules to it's workforce.)
> it's a law to identify individuals who are claiming such
Which means that they are now traceable and can be cross referenced against other databases.
Which means that they are now traceable and can be cross referenced against other databases.
What is the rationale for the state to keep track of the religious preferences of its citizens in this manner? This can be used for nefarious purposes.
Not to mention this should not even be required given the supreme court struct down the vaccine mandate for everything except medicare/medicaid facilities. [1]
[Edit] Apparently federal facilities were not challenged. So only struck down for businesses.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-blocks-bid...
[Edit] Apparently federal facilities were not challenged. So only struck down for businesses.
[1] - https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-supreme-court-blocks-bid...
> Not to mention this should not even be required given the supreme court struct down the vaccine mandate for everything except medicare/medicaid facilities
False.
There were at least three federal mandates:
(1) Federal workforce, (2) Federally-funded healthcare facilities, (3) Large businesses
In recent Supreme Court decisions in cases challenging #2 and #3, #3 was struck down and #2 was upheld, #1 was not challenged in those cases.
This database is concerned with #1, since it's an employee database for an agency within the federal government (hence why the employee database has a federal register notice.)
False.
There were at least three federal mandates:
(1) Federal workforce, (2) Federally-funded healthcare facilities, (3) Large businesses
In recent Supreme Court decisions in cases challenging #2 and #3, #3 was struck down and #2 was upheld, #1 was not challenged in those cases.
This database is concerned with #1, since it's an employee database for an agency within the federal government (hence why the employee database has a federal register notice.)
this mandate covers far more than federal employees. In this case, the mandate covers even contractors working for companies that have a federal contract in place, even if they or even their division has nothing to do with the contract.
Eg, several big banks are covered by #1, the way it is written. These banks have as their contractors, large consulting companies - which now enforce on their end.
Eg, several big banks are covered by #1, the way it is written. These banks have as their contractors, large consulting companies - which now enforce on their end.
Thankyou for the clarification and correcting my misunderstanding.
> What is the rationale for the state to keep track of the religious preferences of its citizens in this manner?
It's a system for employee information gathered relevant to fulfilling the DC Pretrial Services Agency’s responsibility for health and safety for “individuals who are occupying PSA facilities, attending PSA-sponsored events, or otherwise engaged in official business on behalf of the Agency.”
It's a system for employee information gathered relevant to fulfilling the DC Pretrial Services Agency’s responsibility for health and safety for “individuals who are occupying PSA facilities, attending PSA-sponsored events, or otherwise engaged in official business on behalf of the Agency.”
[deleted]
I can't defend the state tracking this info, but I definitely asked my employer if they had granted any religious exemptions to their vaccine mandate (we are a small company so I don't think we fall under the federal guidelines). They never responded to me, but they also extended the WFH situation until May after Omicron accelerated.
> I can't defend the state tracking this info,
You can't defend a public employer tracking employee exemption information?
You can't defend a public employer tracking employee exemption information?
Oh I didn't realize it was for public employees. I thought it applied to exemptions granted by private businesses.
If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security, I'd love to hear it.
I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.
I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.
> If anyone can offer a reason as to why this system is beneficial to public health, safety or security
Because without it, the PSA can't know which of its employees do and do not have approved exemption requests.
> I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.
It's not a law, it's an internal employer data system for tracking workforce (employer, contractor volunteer, etc.) exemption requests under existing workforce rules.
Because without it, the PSA can't know which of its employees do and do not have approved exemption requests.
> I can only see a detriment to each if this law was put into effect.
It's not a law, it's an internal employer data system for tracking workforce (employer, contractor volunteer, etc.) exemption requests under existing workforce rules.
You are absolutely correct and I was mistaken, it's not a law.
I believe my point still holds as it's more concerned about the system being implemented. You could substitute the word 'law' with 'system', and my meaning and intent is completely unchanged.
Regarding the record keeping argument as being a benefit. I agree there is some value there if there was no existing record to keep track of numbers of exemptions.
Without having more information about the current recording system I'm not able to say whether there is a need to distinguish the types of exemptions being offered, and why religious exemption needed to be focussed on in particular.
I believe my point still holds as it's more concerned about the system being implemented. You could substitute the word 'law' with 'system', and my meaning and intent is completely unchanged.
Regarding the record keeping argument as being a benefit. I agree there is some value there if there was no existing record to keep track of numbers of exemptions.
Without having more information about the current recording system I'm not able to say whether there is a need to distinguish the types of exemptions being offered, and why religious exemption needed to be focussed on in particular.
The point is to provide legal something to refer back to in case a manager gets swapped out and becomes frustrated when the employee says no to doing something they have an exemption for.
Organizations aren't static and change over time, necessitating persistent state.
Organizations aren't static and change over time, necessitating persistent state.
Easy. It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions. This will increase the vaccination percentages, reducing spread and keeping ICUs available for folks who didn't elect their condition.
[edit] I'm sorry, if you choose to prioritize conspiracy theories over your health and that of others, I'm not at all opposed to reasonable barriers to that. We've had vaccines since 1796.
[edit] I'm sorry, if you choose to prioritize conspiracy theories over your health and that of others, I'm not at all opposed to reasonable barriers to that. We've had vaccines since 1796.
> It will dissuade people who don't hold legitimate religious beliefs forbidding vaccination (there are substantially zero of them) from using religious exemptions.
There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state.
If I want to make up a religion (aka a set of assumptions) this second that contradict societal mandates, then my set of assumptions are just as valid as anyone else’s assumptions, whether they be orthodox Jewish, or jehovah, or whatever the hell people claim to be.
But that is why there never should have been any non medical exemptions in the first place.
There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state.
If I want to make up a religion (aka a set of assumptions) this second that contradict societal mandates, then my set of assumptions are just as valid as anyone else’s assumptions, whether they be orthodox Jewish, or jehovah, or whatever the hell people claim to be.
But that is why there never should have been any non medical exemptions in the first place.
> There is no such thing as a legitimate or illegitimate religious belief, assuming there is separation of church and state.
I don't understand the conjunction you're creating between these. The separation of church and state protects the state's independence and autonomy from the church, not vice versa. The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream up.
I don't understand the conjunction you're creating between these. The separation of church and state protects the state's independence and autonomy from the church, not vice versa. The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream up.
You are incorrect.
In fact, religious freedom was originally rooted in protecting religious minorities from State mandated religions. If you look at early American history, many made the original immigration to escape religious prosecution by their former state's religion. The Anglican Church being an example. Religious freedom/separation of church and State were both intended to synergize. You are free to pursue whatever object of worship you please, and the State may not pick and choose anyone's particular target of worship over anyone else's, or force any aspects thereof upon anyone else.
Correspondingly, it also keeps political heavyweights (say the Pope) out of the picture as far as lawmaking goes without going through the proper channels (i.e. getting the populace on board enough for legislators to champion the cause).
Your understanding of separation of church and State actually has a degenerate aspect to it, in that it basically makes secularism the State religion. Which infringes on religious freedom if the State is free to ignore your religious tenets.
The Constitution is a byproduct of getting a large number of the most brilliant minds that could be mustered at the time all in the same room, writing up something to act as a foundation for an entire nascent nation; an undertaking that all present would be willing to be bound by it, and all understanding they'd have to head home and get buy I. From everyone else to ratify it.
I'd caution against underestimating the rigor of the shaking out this language was put through in the drafting. Such a work of drafting is... astounding, to be honest, given the difficulty we all seem to have doing the same thing with just laws nowadays.
In fact, religious freedom was originally rooted in protecting religious minorities from State mandated religions. If you look at early American history, many made the original immigration to escape religious prosecution by their former state's religion. The Anglican Church being an example. Religious freedom/separation of church and State were both intended to synergize. You are free to pursue whatever object of worship you please, and the State may not pick and choose anyone's particular target of worship over anyone else's, or force any aspects thereof upon anyone else.
Correspondingly, it also keeps political heavyweights (say the Pope) out of the picture as far as lawmaking goes without going through the proper channels (i.e. getting the populace on board enough for legislators to champion the cause).
Your understanding of separation of church and State actually has a degenerate aspect to it, in that it basically makes secularism the State religion. Which infringes on religious freedom if the State is free to ignore your religious tenets.
The Constitution is a byproduct of getting a large number of the most brilliant minds that could be mustered at the time all in the same room, writing up something to act as a foundation for an entire nascent nation; an undertaking that all present would be willing to be bound by it, and all understanding they'd have to head home and get buy I. From everyone else to ratify it.
I'd caution against underestimating the rigor of the shaking out this language was put through in the drafting. Such a work of drafting is... astounding, to be honest, given the difficulty we all seem to have doing the same thing with just laws nowadays.
> The state is under no particular obligation to protect or enshrine as religious any ridiculous thing you can dream up.
Exactly, which is why being Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/lotsofpulp’s personal beliefs cannot be a criteria for not abiding by a government mandate. If someone else gets an exemption from government mandate because of their beliefs, then so should I, regardless of how old that belief is.
Exactly, which is why being Christian/Jewish/Muslim/Hindu/lotsofpulp’s personal beliefs cannot be a criteria for not abiding by a government mandate. If someone else gets an exemption from government mandate because of their beliefs, then so should I, regardless of how old that belief is.
To be clear: I individually lean heavily towards the "nobody gets a religious exemption" side of things.
But no, I don't think there's a reasonable normative connection there. The federal government has (historically) largely delegated vaccination policies and their enforcement to the states, which in turn largely recognize their own right to perform "legitimacy" or "good faith" tests for religious exemptions.
The rules for those tests vary widely by state, but among the more common ones are (1) evidence that the individual's views are shared by their broader faith and not a product of individual exegesis, (2) evidence that the individual's request is long-standing (i.e., not merely a product of political winds), and (3) evidence that the individual doesn't belong to a religion expressly for the purpose of acquiring an exemption. None of that seems particularly unreasonable on face value to me, nor is it threatened by or threatening to the US's otherwise extremely strong religious protections.
But no, I don't think there's a reasonable normative connection there. The federal government has (historically) largely delegated vaccination policies and their enforcement to the states, which in turn largely recognize their own right to perform "legitimacy" or "good faith" tests for religious exemptions.
The rules for those tests vary widely by state, but among the more common ones are (1) evidence that the individual's views are shared by their broader faith and not a product of individual exegesis, (2) evidence that the individual's request is long-standing (i.e., not merely a product of political winds), and (3) evidence that the individual doesn't belong to a religion expressly for the purpose of acquiring an exemption. None of that seems particularly unreasonable on face value to me, nor is it threatened by or threatening to the US's otherwise extremely strong religious protections.
Everything in your last paragraph is unreasonable to me. None of those reasons is any business of the government.
I suspect you should let Charles Manson's defense team know.
How is that relevant? Not murdering people is a societal mandate.
Not murdering people by spreading disease is a societal mandate too, in my opinion. People who spread deadly STDs like AIDS can be held liable for attempted murder. It seems we've already decided as a society that knowingly spreading deadly disease is a kind of violence. It doesn't extend here to the same degree because it's obviously much less deadly (and so much is circulating, proving who gave it to you is all but impossible) - however I think the premise holds.
I am confused what you are referring to. I am talking about how people should forced to vaccinate (unless medical exemption) or not forced at all to vaccinate. Letting “religious” people off the hook is nonsensical and contrary to the principles of separation of church and state.
Oh, I'm so sorry, I think we were just talking past eachother. You and I agree.
We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years.
Also there are starting to be plenty of companies requiring boosters. Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
Also there are starting to be plenty of companies requiring boosters. Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
The booster is the same as the original vaccine but in a lower dosage. This may change with future boosters, but I also get a flu vaccine every year (and have for a decade). Those are "new" each year but aren't generally considered dangerous and experimental.
> Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?
As I understand it, the entire vaccine will have left your body will before that point, leaving only your body's reaction to the spike protein. In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
> Do you want to get a new experimental vaccine whose long term effects are poorly known every few months?
Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?
As I understand it, the entire vaccine will have left your body will before that point, leaving only your body's reaction to the spike protein. In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots.
In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects:
> We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was.
[0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...
I'm curious how you reconcile that statement with the various reports of women having way too much menstruation or way too little for several months after their shots.
In a recent article about a study from Boston University[0], the researcher believes that under six months after vaccination would amount to short term side effects:
> We don’t know yet whether vaccination does have an effect on menstruation. So, I think we need to wait and see what the results of these studies come out with. And let’s just say there is an effect, we don’t know if it’s just a short-term effect or a longer-term effect. And so even if we see evidence of short-term effects, it may be that these effects go away and are no longer clinically meaningful or wreaking havoc on women’s lives over the long term, meaning like six months after vaccination. We also need to keep in mind what are the other types of reproductive outcomes of interest like fertility. That being said, I can tell you that I was surprised to see how low the percent vaccinated in our cohort was.
[0] - https://www.bu.edu/articles/2022/do-covid-vaccines-affect-me...
Cynically, the thing you quote shows no evidence of vaccines actually having any effect and the study author wants more funding.
Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstrual cycles. It would surprise me more, but still not incredibly, of a vaccine that provoked an immune response and makes you feel like shit for a day can also throw of your homeostasis for a while. What would surprise me is a f the vaccine did so at a higher rate than covid infection, which is to be clear, not even approached by the linked paper.
All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects.
Edit: also re-reading, I'm pretty sure she's saying they're be multiple months to make sure the stuff goes away. That is, the side effect, if real, is present and detectable in a month or two.
There's just like really no reason to bribe your going to take the vaccine, have no detectable health concerns for a year and then differently develop something.
Less cynically, infections can throw your body's homeostasis totally out of whack over long periods of time. I've had lingering side effects that lasted nearly a year before I was totally back to normal. It absolutely would not surprise me, at all, if covid screws with some people's menstrual cycles. It would surprise me more, but still not incredibly, of a vaccine that provoked an immune response and makes you feel like shit for a day can also throw of your homeostasis for a while. What would surprise me is a f the vaccine did so at a higher rate than covid infection, which is to be clear, not even approached by the linked paper.
All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true. But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects.
Edit: also re-reading, I'm pretty sure she's saying they're be multiple months to make sure the stuff goes away. That is, the side effect, if real, is present and detectable in a month or two.
There's just like really no reason to bribe your going to take the vaccine, have no detectable health concerns for a year and then differently develop something.
> All that to say, you've provided an unsubstantiated hypothesis. More than likely, it isn't true.
To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after.
> But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects.
I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.
To be clear, my hypothesis is that scientists look for short term side effects on the scale of 6 months rather than the 1 month you stated it would not be possible to have them after.
> But even if it is, it doesn't contradict my initial statement. Because I didn't say there could be no long term side effects, I said that those side effects would be a strict subset of covid side effects.
I'm not arguing with you over whether or not there could be long term side effects; I am arguing with you over the definition of long term.
See my edit. You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe. But that doesn't follow. If the prevalence of some potentially chronic condition is low enough after a month to be safe, that it might be even safer doesn't really matter.
Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.
Right like to recap but remove the word "long term" entirely, you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning. I said that no that's not possible, stuff can't develop suddenly after even just a month or so, because the mechanisms don't exist. You then cited an example of something that developed in under a month or two as a counterexample. When I put it that way, it's clear that it isn't actually a counterexample.
> You're trying to use the definition of long term side effect to show that we need long term studies before we can deem things safe.
This is not my position and I have made no such statements.
You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me.
> But that doesn't follow.
Quite!
> you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning
I absolutely did not -- maybe you have me mistaken with someone else you are currently discussing with.
This is not my position and I have made no such statements.
You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me.
> But that doesn't follow.
Quite!
> you said that there might be issues that develop after years without warning
I absolutely did not -- maybe you have me mistaken with someone else you are currently discussing with.
> You are unfortunately projecting an argument onto me.
As are you, I never used the term "long term" until you did. My initial comment was "Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?"
So now that I've attempted to clarify, let's ask the related question:
if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious.
What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
As are you, I never used the term "long term" until you did. My initial comment was "Can you give a coherent biological mechanism by which the vaccine would have health impacts that aren't detectable over the course of say 3 months?"
So now that I've attempted to clarify, let's ask the related question:
if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious.
What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
My original reply to you quoted your sentence which I will requote here:
> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well.
I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion.
> if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious.
The CDC maintains a list of Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns[0] and at least two of those have long term studies attached to them.
In 1976, a Swine Flu vaccine was provided to people. This caused an increase of 1 in 100,000 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and when 40,000,000 people had been vaccinated, the government stopped vaccinations to prevent this.
> The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS.
This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally.
Similarly, in 2009 and 2010 there was an H1N1 Influenza Vaccine distributed in Europe which produced an increased rate of narcolepsy. While the first cases started showing up in 2010, it wasn't until 2012 and later that this link was shown to be significant. The rest of the CDC text focuses on the subsequent testing of other H1N1 vaccines to show that they do not increase the risk of getting narcolepsy, but that should not detract you from the findings that the oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant called ASO3 that was present in Pandemrix is somehow related.
Even with all of that, we still don't know why AS03 seemed to increase the incidence of narcolepsy, but we don't give that vaccine to people since 2011 or so because of it.
> What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
*Conclusion*: I agree that side effects will generally be seen early on, but I believe we can benefit from "long term" studies because there is a large amount of complexity in the way the human body responds to various chemicals and some of those responses aren't able to be understood even after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
> In other words, the only vaccine side effects possible after a month or so are a strict subset of covid side effects.
At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well.
I don't personally hold any particular view about short or long term studies, but I do enjoy logic and engaging in discussion.
> if we agree that any side effect (short-, or long-term) would be initially detectable in a month or two, and given that the vaccine already meets the bar for safety, what is the point of a long term study? You're not going to detect any new side effects, and the only thing you may find is that existing side effects might be less serious.
The CDC maintains a list of Historical Vaccine Safety Concerns[0] and at least two of those have long term studies attached to them.
In 1976, a Swine Flu vaccine was provided to people. This caused an increase of 1 in 100,000 cases of Guillain-Barré Syndrome (GBS) and when 40,000,000 people had been vaccinated, the government stopped vaccinations to prevent this.
> The Institute of Medicine (IOM) conducted a thorough scientific review of this issue in 2003 and concluded that people who received the 1976 swine influenza vaccine had an increased risk for developing GBS.
This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally.
Similarly, in 2009 and 2010 there was an H1N1 Influenza Vaccine distributed in Europe which produced an increased rate of narcolepsy. While the first cases started showing up in 2010, it wasn't until 2012 and later that this link was shown to be significant. The rest of the CDC text focuses on the subsequent testing of other H1N1 vaccines to show that they do not increase the risk of getting narcolepsy, but that should not detract you from the findings that the oil-in-water emulsion adjuvant called ASO3 that was present in Pandemrix is somehow related.
Even with all of that, we still don't know why AS03 seemed to increase the incidence of narcolepsy, but we don't give that vaccine to people since 2011 or so because of it.
> What reason should I (or you) have to care about "long-term" studies?
*Conclusion*: I agree that side effects will generally be seen early on, but I believe we can benefit from "long term" studies because there is a large amount of complexity in the way the human body responds to various chemicals and some of those responses aren't able to be understood even after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them
[0] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/concerns-history....
> At this point you're just talking past me -- and maybe I am talking past you as well.
Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made.
Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on October 1, 1976 and ended in on December 16th, due to the potential for GBS. In other words, it took ~2 months for the cases to be recognized, studied, and the vaccination program entirely stopped. There was absolutely nothing "long-term" here.
I can't find precise enough dates for the Swine flu vaccine. But it looks like initial trials concluded in late 2009, and the vaccine had been canceled in at least a few countries within a year.
> This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally.
Sure, for learning about things. But it doesn't tell us anything new about safety, the safety concerns were known and acted on within 2 months, without any study, much less a "long-term" one.
There's of course the other issue with these things, which is that these kinds of side effects affect 1-in-50 or 100,000 people. To detect that with any power, you need to dose a million people, and at that point its no longer a trial. It's just "the first part of the vaccine rollout".
> after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them
Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)
Right yes, note how I didn't say anything about "long-term" side effects (or studies). I said that side effects would be present after a short period. That's the only claim I made.
Both of the studies you mention show examples of side effects that were present quickly. The 1976 case was a vaccination campaign that started on October 1, 1976 and ended in on December 16th, due to the potential for GBS. In other words, it took ~2 months for the cases to be recognized, studied, and the vaccination program entirely stopped. There was absolutely nothing "long-term" here.
I can't find precise enough dates for the Swine flu vaccine. But it looks like initial trials concluded in late 2009, and the vaccine had been canceled in at least a few countries within a year.
> This is a very long term study and I think we needed it, personally.
Sure, for learning about things. But it doesn't tell us anything new about safety, the safety concerns were known and acted on within 2 months, without any study, much less a "long-term" one.
There's of course the other issue with these things, which is that these kinds of side effects affect 1-in-50 or 100,000 people. To detect that with any power, you need to dose a million people, and at that point its no longer a trial. It's just "the first part of the vaccine rollout".
> after months or years of study... so we should keep studying them
Certainly, but you appear to agree that there's no reason to wait for those studies before getting vaccinated, which is the context this thread began in (in other words, I don't really care, except in the vague sense that they'll hopefully help us better understand physiology)
The study author on that page says:
> ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes.
This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all.
The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports.
The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
> ... there’s no evidence that the vaccine has any impact on menstruation, fertility, any of these reproductive outcomes.
This is an interesting read, and the folks interviewed run the PRESTO NIH-funded study which tracks all aspects of pregnancy and menstruation. They say they heard a bunch of anecdotes, have some theories on what could cause this (if it in fact exists) - but that there is insufficient data to claim any adverse outcomes at all.
The reality is, to the best of my knowledge (I am a man, so keep that in mind) menstrual cycles are highly variable and do not follow a fixed predictable 28 day cycle. If I had to guess, these menstrual changes were completely uncorrelated but that the women nervous about vaccination self-selected to make these reports.
The PRESTO folks will collect and analyze data via PRESTO and share the results in due time.
My point isn't whether or not there is yet scientific evidence of vaccines causing an impact on menstruation, as opposed to the anecdotal evidence mentioned in the article and by myself above.
My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
Anecdotes aren't useful when the population set is billions. You will be able to find someone who took a COVID vaccine and then X happened. Car crashes, amputations, stillbirths, weddings, job promotions, winning the lottery even. That's just the law of large numbers. They're really not relevant to the discourse - quite damaging actually because of the outsize attention they receive.
> My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
Likely because we know how vaccines work, we've had them for about 300 years. mRNA vaccines have been in development for almost 60 years, and adenoviral vector vaccines for the same period of time give or take. There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used.
The entire world is actively monitoring the roll-out of these vaccines.
> My point is that scientific researchers seem to look at timescales of 6 months for short term side effects rather than 1 month the GP seems to believe is a hard cut off for short term side effects.
Likely because we know how vaccines work, we've had them for about 300 years. mRNA vaccines have been in development for almost 60 years, and adenoviral vector vaccines for the same period of time give or take. There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used.
The entire world is actively monitoring the roll-out of these vaccines.
I feel like you have missed my point still even though you quoted and responded to it.
I quoted and linked to a scientific researcher who is looking for side effects on the time scale of 6 months.
You then respond to tell me "we know how vaccines work... There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used"
Okay, so is the time scale 1 month or 6 months?
I quoted and linked to a scientific researcher who is looking for side effects on the time scale of 6 months.
You then respond to tell me "we know how vaccines work... There's no reason to believe that these vaccines have effects outside the timescales being used"
Okay, so is the time scale 1 month or 6 months?
https://www.statnews.com/2017/01/10/moderna-trouble-mrna/
One of the main reasons Moderna pivoted to vaccine development was because the liquid nanoparticles used to deliver the mRNA are toxic, and the necessary dosages for a therapeutic dose were dangerous. Fortunately, vaccines require smaller doses, and were originally thought of as one-shot deals, so accumulation wasn't a concern.
> Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.
At any rate, we have very poor understanding of the body and biology in general. I don't care what models say about long-term safety - this is an exactly backwards way to look at it, and why technological development has had devastating impacts on the ecosystem and on human health. We don't know what we don't know. And we very often don't worry too much about what we don't know when a "solution" presents itself, especially if someone can profit off that solution, whether it's trans-fats, DDT, or Vioxx.
I care about what long-term safety records say about long-term safety. For similar reasons, I decline to take nearly all medication unless my life is in imminent danger or the expected benefit is very large and the known risks have been tracked for decades. (So - pretty much just antibiotics when I have a severe infection that is not getting better.)
One of the main reasons Moderna pivoted to vaccine development was because the liquid nanoparticles used to deliver the mRNA are toxic, and the necessary dosages for a therapeutic dose were dangerous. Fortunately, vaccines require smaller doses, and were originally thought of as one-shot deals, so accumulation wasn't a concern.
> Yet Moderna could not make its therapy work, former employees and collaborators said. The safe dose was too weak, and repeat injections of a dose strong enough to be effective had troubling effects on the liver in animal studies.
At any rate, we have very poor understanding of the body and biology in general. I don't care what models say about long-term safety - this is an exactly backwards way to look at it, and why technological development has had devastating impacts on the ecosystem and on human health. We don't know what we don't know. And we very often don't worry too much about what we don't know when a "solution" presents itself, especially if someone can profit off that solution, whether it's trans-fats, DDT, or Vioxx.
I care about what long-term safety records say about long-term safety. For similar reasons, I decline to take nearly all medication unless my life is in imminent danger or the expected benefit is very large and the known risks have been tracked for decades. (So - pretty much just antibiotics when I have a severe infection that is not getting better.)
> We've only had mRNA vaccines for two years.
First off, mRNA was discovered in the 1960s, first used for drug delivery in the 1970s, and vaccines in 1975. [1] The work to create these vaccines has been under way for almost 60 years. It also builds off the work of other coronavirus vaccines that have been in development since SARS and MERS about 20 years ago.
If that's for some reason not sufficient, J&J, Covishield and AstraZeneca vaccines are not mRNA but instead adenoviral vector vaccines that have similar histories.
[edit] Most vaccines take a long time to test due to the low prevalence of the disease in the population but given half of America is currently infected, it takes very little time to determine the safety and efficacy. Most drugs and vaccines were released publicly after a few thousand participants tried it. You're looking at billions of doses administered.
You are not early.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
First off, mRNA was discovered in the 1960s, first used for drug delivery in the 1970s, and vaccines in 1975. [1] The work to create these vaccines has been under way for almost 60 years. It also builds off the work of other coronavirus vaccines that have been in development since SARS and MERS about 20 years ago.
If that's for some reason not sufficient, J&J, Covishield and AstraZeneca vaccines are not mRNA but instead adenoviral vector vaccines that have similar histories.
[edit] Most vaccines take a long time to test due to the low prevalence of the disease in the population but given half of America is currently infected, it takes very little time to determine the safety and efficacy. Most drugs and vaccines were released publicly after a few thousand participants tried it. You're looking at billions of doses administered.
You are not early.
[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02483-w
>given half of America is currently infected
Point of order: the ideal test of a vaccine is:
Given uninfected || infected but early When disease runs course Then Side effects minimized/non-existent Symptoms and severity of disease minimized.
The worst time to test a vaccine is when everyone is in the "Oh snap, infected" situation, as it allows for teasing out of long cycle problems (like say unintentional sterilization or birth defects inducement) before introducing it to the majority of the population.
Life hardly ever is that accommodating however.
Point of order: the ideal test of a vaccine is:
Given uninfected || infected but early When disease runs course Then Side effects minimized/non-existent Symptoms and severity of disease minimized.
The worst time to test a vaccine is when everyone is in the "Oh snap, infected" situation, as it allows for teasing out of long cycle problems (like say unintentional sterilization or birth defects inducement) before introducing it to the majority of the population.
Life hardly ever is that accommodating however.
Even if we assume that there is benefit in this specific case, the utility of this law extends well beyond vaccine mandates.
It may sound great, until a government comes into power with very different world views to your own, and suddenly you're on a similar list.
It may sound great, until a government comes into power with very different world views to your own, and suddenly you're on a similar list.
Sure, I agree, and when we have a bad list we can have that conversation. Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool. I'm not sure the existence of a good list makes a future bad list any more - or any less - likely.
The classic argument is that by the time the 'bad' list is implemented, it's already too late.
The prevailing mentality up until recent times has been to prevent any list being created in the first place, as this guaranteed protection against abuse.
The prevailing mentality up until recent times has been to prevent any list being created in the first place, as this guaranteed protection against abuse.
>Tools can be used for good or bad, and that alone shouldn't preclude the use of the tool.
Might I ask your views on guns?
I ask as I tend to see people making this argument apply it inconsistently between contexts. I've even caught myself doing it, which is why I'm quite sensitive to it.
Just curious.
Might I ask your views on guns?
I ask as I tend to see people making this argument apply it inconsistently between contexts. I've even caught myself doing it, which is why I'm quite sensitive to it.
Just curious.
Good question because that was the first thing I thought of as I typed out the sentence. I'm in favor of allowing individuals to have guns, whether that's for sport or hunting - particularly long guns and shotguns - but not sawed-offs, automatic weapons or handguns except in specific situations.
I don't think a national registry is particularly necessary but could be convinced. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions such mandatory licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and excluding folks with violent histories.
I don't think a national registry is particularly necessary but could be convinced. I am in favor of reasonable restrictions such mandatory licensing, background checks, waiting periods, and excluding folks with violent histories.
I agree. I don’t see how a government keeping a religious registry of its citizens is going to lead to anything good.
> I don’t see how a government keeping a religious registry of its citizens is going to lead to anything good.
This isn't a religious registry of US citizens, it's a workplace mandate exemption registry of the workforce of a particular government office.
This isn't a religious registry of US citizens, it's a workplace mandate exemption registry of the workforce of a particular government office.
That will most likely include their religion…
Good luck quantifying belief.What a dumb fucking idea.The 'issue' is that the employees are employed by the government, thus funded by public money.There are 2 obvious choices here, without the need to dig stupid reasons of "why people won't get vaccinated & how to 'flatted the curve'": The employee simply quits their job, or there is no forced vaccination.Anything else compares the status of 'normal' citizens and government employees being subjected in a different manner under laws & even the constitution.And this attempt of reasoning why people don't want to get vaxxed does nothing but empowers the former entity mentioned: the employer, the government.
Refusing a medical procedure is a legitimate argument for the right to health & liberty just as much as accepting a handed syringe is.You don't even need to bring religion into this, but a certain segment of the population never gets tired of doing it.
Refusing a medical procedure is a legitimate argument for the right to health & liberty just as much as accepting a handed syringe is.You don't even need to bring religion into this, but a certain segment of the population never gets tired of doing it.
The “US Fed" part of the headline is confusing. Its notice in the Federal Register of the D.C. Pretrial Services Agency establishing a tracking system for employee information. While it is a component of the federal government, it's not tracking information about general public, but of people who work for the agency, relative to exemption from a workplace requirement.
Religious exemptions from vaccination are bullshit.
1)Objections based on "fetal cell lines" being used in development apply to such a large swath of drugs that anyone who held that view "legitimately" would be unable to accept almost any form of modern medical care - including "when you get home, take a tylenol for the pain."
2)No major religion supports vaccination exemptions. Most religious leaders have expressly prohibited their subordinates from granting religious exemptions. Even the Christian Scientists, who are literally an anti-medicine cult who think you get sick for sinning and prayer cures all, are pro covid vaccine.
3)Religious exemptions grant favorable/special privileges to people who claim to hold a particular religious view. That is not separation of church and state. That is endorsement of church, by the state.
1)Objections based on "fetal cell lines" being used in development apply to such a large swath of drugs that anyone who held that view "legitimately" would be unable to accept almost any form of modern medical care - including "when you get home, take a tylenol for the pain."
2)No major religion supports vaccination exemptions. Most religious leaders have expressly prohibited their subordinates from granting religious exemptions. Even the Christian Scientists, who are literally an anti-medicine cult who think you get sick for sinning and prayer cures all, are pro covid vaccine.
3)Religious exemptions grant favorable/special privileges to people who claim to hold a particular religious view. That is not separation of church and state. That is endorsement of church, by the state.
1) assumes that all levels of 'cooperation' with what you perceive to be evil are equivalent. I happen to agree that both testing medication and using cell lines to develop it are more or less equally distal to the original problem (as it is perceived), but not all people do. (The distinctions between formal and material cooperation, and proximal and distal cooperation, are relevant to many ethical systems, even outside of religion.)
2) is irrelevant to people not in the camps of 'most religious leaders' or a 'major religion.'
I mostly agree with you on 3). I think some positions are simply not open to some people with certain religious beliefs. A devout Muslim cannot work at a liquor store. An evangelical cannot be the JP anymore. An anti-COVID vaxxer (even for religious reasons) can't work for the federal government. So it goes.
However, these considerations are only tangentially relevant to a consideration of the morality of a register on these exemptions.
2) is irrelevant to people not in the camps of 'most religious leaders' or a 'major religion.'
I mostly agree with you on 3). I think some positions are simply not open to some people with certain religious beliefs. A devout Muslim cannot work at a liquor store. An evangelical cannot be the JP anymore. An anti-COVID vaxxer (even for religious reasons) can't work for the federal government. So it goes.
However, these considerations are only tangentially relevant to a consideration of the morality of a register on these exemptions.
There's more of a moral maze when it comes to forced, mandated vaccination, which I think this is about.
For example, it can be argued that it is an individuals right to choose what happens to their body, healthcare should be voluntary and people should expect no penalty in a healthy free society.
That's different than if a vaccine is morally ok to choose voluntarily.
For example, it can be argued that it is an individuals right to choose what happens to their body, healthcare should be voluntary and people should expect no penalty in a healthy free society.
That's different than if a vaccine is morally ok to choose voluntarily.
No it’s not. We’ve had mandated vaccines forever and no one cared until it became political during covid.
People made it political and people are avoiding vaccines for politic. blaming it protecting freedoms i stead harming public health for politics is a less morally corrupt stance to take.
People made it political and people are avoiding vaccines for politic. blaming it protecting freedoms i stead harming public health for politics is a less morally corrupt stance to take.
[deleted]
This comment would read better if it were to admit that yes it is a different moral question to be forced to do something compared to doing something voluntarily but that in this context of the vaccine it's a not bad choice.
Being forced to do something, yes is a different moral question.
Being forced to get a vaccine is a moral question we answered a long time ago, however.
Being forced to get a vaccine is a moral question we answered a long time ago, however.
> We’ve had mandated vaccines forever
That’s news to me.
That’s news to me.
My state requires about a half dozen vaccines (polio, HepB, MMR, ...) to attend any public school from K to college. For some reason there's some sort of collective amnesia about this and people are acting like this is the first time there's been a vaccine requirement.
That's different in several ways.
First, it isn't truly a "mandate". It applies to the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those people comply without complaint, true - but it's possible to avoid it if that's your intent.
My wife and I homeschool our children. While vaccination requirements have absolutely nothing to do with our decision to do so, it has given us the opportunity to consider which vaccinations we feel make sense for our children, and which we feel don't. I'd have to go back through their records to be sure which ones we decided against, but there are some things we vaccinate against as a society where the both the incidence rate and potential severity are extremely low, and the risk of serious side effects - while also extremely low - outweighs the potential reward in our eyes. Through this process, we also decided that it made sense to use a different vaccination schedule than is typical, and to do separate injections for things that are usually "bundled" (e.g., MMR).
Second, those measures effect children, not adults. While I don't agree with this position, it's generally accepted that the state has greater latitude in protecting the health and safety of minors than with adults.
Finally, there are people who vocally oppose at least some of the childhood vaccination requirements. Merck lobbied for the inclusion of an HPV vaccine (Gardasil) in the requirements for school, which got a lot of flack from the right. IMO, their rationale was silly ("It promotes sexual activity!"), but that's still an example of people strongly opposing a vaccine requirement.
First, it isn't truly a "mandate". It applies to the vast majority of people and the vast majority of those people comply without complaint, true - but it's possible to avoid it if that's your intent.
My wife and I homeschool our children. While vaccination requirements have absolutely nothing to do with our decision to do so, it has given us the opportunity to consider which vaccinations we feel make sense for our children, and which we feel don't. I'd have to go back through their records to be sure which ones we decided against, but there are some things we vaccinate against as a society where the both the incidence rate and potential severity are extremely low, and the risk of serious side effects - while also extremely low - outweighs the potential reward in our eyes. Through this process, we also decided that it made sense to use a different vaccination schedule than is typical, and to do separate injections for things that are usually "bundled" (e.g., MMR).
Second, those measures effect children, not adults. While I don't agree with this position, it's generally accepted that the state has greater latitude in protecting the health and safety of minors than with adults.
Finally, there are people who vocally oppose at least some of the childhood vaccination requirements. Merck lobbied for the inclusion of an HPV vaccine (Gardasil) in the requirements for school, which got a lot of flack from the right. IMO, their rationale was silly ("It promotes sexual activity!"), but that's still an example of people strongly opposing a vaccine requirement.
If you or your parents want you to go to Public School in America, most places require vaccinations unless there is a medical exception.
Religious exceptions in many places would lead to home schooling because the Public School is not required to accept your child.
The CDC has a nice polar graph displaying the state-by-state exemptions for Public School: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinations.htm...
Religious exceptions in many places would lead to home schooling because the Public School is not required to accept your child.
The CDC has a nice polar graph displaying the state-by-state exemptions for Public School: https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinations.htm...
That isn’t a mandate. Just as we presently don’t have a mandate in America. Just limits on aspiring typhoid Mary’s.
And none of the COVID vaccine rules are mandates then. If you want to go to public school, you need vaccines. Now, if you want to go to public work, you need vaccines. You can be a hermit at home and not get any vaccine in america and no one is going to come around with a needle and force it in you.
I can’t say I personally trust giving the federal government this power. It’s ripe for future abuse.
> I can’t say I personally trust giving the federal government this power.
The power for a particular office to track whether it's employees have been granted an exemption to a workforce requirement that allows exemptions for certain causes?
> It’s ripe for future abuse.
How?
The power for a particular office to track whether it's employees have been granted an exemption to a workforce requirement that allows exemptions for certain causes?
> It’s ripe for future abuse.
How?
I wonder if even a majority of people who file one have a legitimate religious objection instead of abusing this ability to get out of mandates.
I think most of it is abuse. Of course, I can’t measure it so we don’t know. But anecdotally I can say that my wife uses it. She is very religious and while our religion doesn’t specifically forbid vaccines (how could it - the texts are quite old) she doesn’t want the vaccine so she finds scriptures to back up her position. They are vague passages that _could_ be seen as being specific to vaccines, but of course that’s impossible because they didn’t exist.
All said to say, you can use scripture to justify anything you want or don’t want. Just examine…all of history?
All said to say, you can use scripture to justify anything you want or don’t want. Just examine…all of history?
If one is young and already had Covid before vaccines were available, there is an ethical argument to be made that you should be allowed to give up your spot in line to the poor who are still waiting all around the world.
If you want other people to make your ethical decisions for you when it comes to your own body, we know where that leads.
If you want other people to make your ethical decisions for you when it comes to your own body, we know where that leads.
There is no global waiting list, so whether one in the US takes a vaccine or not isn't going to result in someone else being able to get that same vaccine.
Societies make decisions about health of its members all the time in many ways. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with religion and the topic on hand.
Societies make decisions about health of its members all the time in many ways. Which, by the way, has nothing to do with religion and the topic on hand.
As of now, Africa is still waiting for vaccines: https://www.kuow.org/stories/for-the-36-countries-with-the-l...
It would be disinformation to suggest there is an over-abundance globally.
It would be disinformation to suggest there is an over-abundance globally.
I didn’t suggest there was a global over-abundance. I’m suggesting that distribution logistics and business models don’t mean leftover vaccines end up going to Africa.
Go get vaccinated if you can. For so many reasons that are very well documented.
Go get vaccinated if you can. For so many reasons that are very well documented.
I wonder if the governments enforcing mandates have a legitimate reason to enforce them.
There FTFY.
There FTFY.
I believe that would fall under the General Welfare Clause of the US Constitution.
Let's maintain a list full of what we perceive are our ideological enemies. Great!
Why assume that they are ideological enemies? I’m sure there are plenty of govt officials who filed such requests and many many more who, though they don’t object to vaccination, want to ensure that religious rights are protected and want to make sure that when they feel the need to object to something or ask for an exemption, that that will be honored.
Certainly it’s worth collecting statistics on who requested what to guide in future rule making. I do think this kind of data collection should be conducted by the census bureau, which does have an expertise and practice on privacy-protecting statistics collection and analysis.
Separately, it does appear that very few people care about their privacy at this level. People accept driving around with huge serial numbers attached to their vehicle for all to see; driving licenses with names and addresses on them; an inability to get an anonymous PO Box; electronic tolls that collect driver information rather than being anonymous…I could go on at great length.
Certainly it’s worth collecting statistics on who requested what to guide in future rule making. I do think this kind of data collection should be conducted by the census bureau, which does have an expertise and practice on privacy-protecting statistics collection and analysis.
Separately, it does appear that very few people care about their privacy at this level. People accept driving around with huge serial numbers attached to their vehicle for all to see; driving licenses with names and addresses on them; an inability to get an anonymous PO Box; electronic tolls that collect driver information rather than being anonymous…I could go on at great length.
[deleted]
arcticbull(1)
imperio59(2)
One of my issues with it is that 'religion' can mean whatever you want it to mean. There are absolutely zero, to my knowledge, religions whose founders or holy texts preached against vaccination. When did Christ or Mohamed say vaccinations were outlawed, exactly? And millions of believers take vaccines- but then some of them also claim that it's 'against their religion'. How is it against your religion, when none of the founders stated this, and the majority of people in your own religion are using vaccines without issue? Why not say that paying taxes or stop signs are against your religion next?
Exemptions allow bad faith claims that one's personal preferences are their 'religion'. They should be constitutionally outlawed