Source: ENR (Engineering News-Record).
“OSHA states that if a vaccine is required [as a condition of employment], then any adverse reaction is considered work-related and therefore it must be recorded.”
The rule makes perfect sense as a matter of bureaucratic logic. Still, one can’t suppress a chuckle. It is almost as if vaccine mandates are forcing Cloward-Piven effects on those who impose them.
The Covid vaccines may be good, but mandating or coercing people to get them is morally wrong. Good on OSHA for standing up for liberty in its rule-making decision.
Tidewater News and Opinion Forum 
If an unvaccinated worker contracts COVID on the job, is that a reportable incident?
If so, the risk to the employer for requiring the vaccine is far less than the risk of employing unvaccinated workers, at least for some positions.
I know if I were still in dental practice, there would be no unvaccinated staff in my office, for their own protection as well as that of the patients.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “If an unvaccinated worker contracts COVID on the job, is that a reportable incident?”
I wouldn’t think so. OSHA-reportble incidents generally involve conditions an employer can control.
RE: “I know if I were still in dental practice, there would be no unvaccinated staff in my office, for their own protection as well as that of the patients.”
If you fired an employee for not getting vaccinated, you might be in the wrong. What federal, state or local law would justify such a firing decision?
LikeLike
I’m pretty sure an employer can define the requirements that need to be met for employment as long as it conforms to civil rights law.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Virginia is an ‘at will’ employment state, I wouldn’t need a reason unless the employee was fired because they were in a protected group.
But in any case, they would be creating a liability issue for the practice, much like an employee who refused to wear a hard hat in a construction zone.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “But in any case, they would be creating a liability issue for the practice, much like an employee who refused to wear a hard hat in a construction zone.”
OSHA has regulations to require hard hats; it has no regulations to require Covid vaccination. I can’t imagine OSHA wants to be the federal agency to create a Covid vaccination mandate, but there’s no telling how this story will play out.
LikeLike
“The Covid vaccines may be good, but mandating or coercing people to get them is morally wrong”
How so? Is mandating the use of seat belts “morally wrong?”
By your logic and values it is “morally wrong” to require children to be vaccinated against polio as a requirement of attending school. If your logic and values lead to nonsense, then you should question your logic and values.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “By your logic and values it is ‘morally wrong’ to require children to be vaccinated against polio as a requirement of attending school.”
You assume too much.
Many factors affect the moral calculus. For example, I would certainly object to requiring Covid vaccination for children since they have almost zero risk of harm from the virus.
More generally, I believe the safety of the Covid vaccines currently in use is not well understood, especially the mRNA varieties. That’s not to say they are unsafe, only that Hippocratic moral issues exist.
These two areas of concern don’t apply to the standard regimen of childhood vaccines.
LikeLike
…”I believe the safety of the Covid vaccines currently in use is not well understood”…
What is your reason for that statement? Just because OWS wiped out a lot of the bureaucratic hoop-jumping for their development, does not mean they haven’t been properly tested for safety. I heard a scientist (I THINK he was an immunologist) from the University of Pittsburgh the other day who said that instead of it being a linear procedure (A then B then C then…), as most other vaccine development has been, it was done in the manner of doing A and B while at the same time doing E and F.
“I would certainly object to requiring Covid vaccination for children since they have almost zero risk of harm from the virus.”
Perhaps, but they can still carry and spread the virus. The little germ factories.
LikeLike
RE: “What is your reason for that statement?”
I posted a Salk Institute press release a couple of days ago announcing a confirmation that Covid-19’s spike protein is a disease agent in its own right, independently of the remainder of the virus. This finding will have profound consequences for our understanding of the virus and its functioning, causing, according to the researchers, Covid-19 to be reclassified as a vascular disease.
I don’t doubt the vaccine safety assessments that have been done so far, but there is still much we don’t know about the virus. With the mRNA vaccines in particular, we have only a few months worth of safety data to base those assessments on.
RE: “Perhaps, but they can still carry and spread the virus.”
So can vaccinated people and dogs and cats. Children spreading Covid-19 isn’t much of a risk to adults.
LikeLike
Unless they are parents or grandparents.
LikeLike
…”Covid-19’s spike protein is a disease agent in its own right, independently of the remainder of the virus. “…
My understanding is that the mRNA vaccines attack the spike, and that explains the efficacy of those types of vaccines.
LikeLike
RE: “My understanding is that the mRNA vaccines attack the spike, and that explains the efficacy of those types of vaccines.”
Close, but incorrect. The mRNA vaccines cause your body to produce small amounts of Covid spike protein, which your natural immune system then attacks. This allows your body to learn how to protect against Covid spike proteins, which in turn confers immunity from the virus.
I doubt that causing your body to produce the disease agent (spike protein) is a significant cause for concern. It is more significant in my view that we implemented a vaccination strategy before we understood the basic functionality of the virus. It is possible that we took a calculated risk that will blow up in our face.
LikeLike
I’m personally more comfortable with the mRNA vaccines because they do not involve live virus, a la the flu shots.
Too each his own. If you want the love virus version, take the J%J. You aren’t a young woman susceptible to the blood clots.
LikeLike
“You assume too much”
Your go to response when the implications of what you opine are pointed out.
There is really and truly no arguing with people who deploy “facts” like this whopper . . .
“[Children] have almost zero risk of harm from the virus.”
Approximately 2% of children who develop Covid-19 require hospitalization. And that says nothing about the long term effects on their health even after a “mild” case.
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2020/11/kids-covid-cases-rise-most-are-mild-new-data-show
LikeLiked by 1 person
2% of how many?
LikeLike
“2% of how many?”
The most recent data I found is that there have been roughly 3,780,000 diagnosed cases of Covid-19 in children to date.
Click to access AAP%20and%20CHA%20-%20Children%20and%20COVID-19%20State%20Data%20Report%204.29.21%20FINAL.pdf
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “The most recent data I found is that there have been roughly 3,780,000 diagnosed cases of Covid-19 in children to date.”
I’d say your numbers, including the child mortality and hospitalization tables, support my assertion that children “have almost zero risk of harm from the virus.”
LikeLike
And, I would say they don’t. Tens of thousands of hospitalizations, hundreds of deaths and unknown long term damage amounts to more than zero harm.
And whatever the risks of virus infection, they are almost certainly higher than the risk of vaccination. And then there is the goal of “herd immunity.” To reach it, children must be either infected or vaccinated. Vaccinated is better.
Finally, as someone who apparently refuses the vaccine, you given up the moral authority to talk about what is “morally wrong” in the field of public health policy. IMHO.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “Tens of thousands of hospitalizations, hundreds of deaths and unknown long term damage amounts to more than zero harm.”
There are about 70 million children in the U.S. Hundreds of deaths are statistically insignificant. It is legitimate to describe the risk to children as almost zero.
LikeLike
“There are about 70 million children in the U.S. Hundreds of deaths are statistically insignificant.”
Tell that to the parents. “Sorry Mr. and Mrs. Huffenpuff, but your child’s death is statistically insignificant.”
LikeLike
You compare the deaths so far from 4 million cases to the total at risk population of 70 million. NOT a valid comparison. Obviously.
How many more hospitalizations and deaths will occur as the remaining 66 Million unvaccinated children one by one become infected? 2% of 66 million means another 1.3 MILLION hospitalizations. And 200 deaths will become something on the order of 10,000 – 20,000.
That is a tremendous AVOIDABLE amount of pain, suffering and death. For what reason? Because some people who are afraid of vaccines say it is “morally wrong” to require they be vaccinated? NOT a valid reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
RE: “You compare the deaths so far from 4 million cases to the total at risk population of 70 million.”
Please try to be honest. The observation is that 200 deaths per year in a population of 70 million is a minuscule number.
LikeLike
“Please try to be honest. ”
You can shove that up your ass. Or better yet, take your own advice.
Of course, 200 deaths is a very small number compared to 70 million. But that is not the legitimate – and honest – comparison for you to make while you advocate not vaccinating children. The legitimate comparison is with 3.7 million infections suffered SO FAR. There 200 deaths is far more significant. And that 200 will be far higher if we let all those 70 million children get infected as you are advocating.
LikeLiked by 1 person