61–70 of 108 posts
I can’t say I personally trust giving the federal government this power. It’s ripe for future abuse.
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
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.
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 agree. 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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
> 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 a…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
> 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…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
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 res…
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
If I were designing a constitutional system for a new country, I'd certainly include freedom of religion as one of the basic rights- while also codifying that there are no religious exemptions to any laws. Regardless of your faith, you are required to follow the same laws as your fellow citizens, without exception. Religious exemptions should not exist. One of my issues with it is that 'religion' can mean whatever yo…
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> We’ve had mandated vaccines forever That’s news to me.
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...