[News] Coronavirus

A place to discuss the now-global coronavirus outbreak.

Prederick wrote:

Oh Jesus, I am so sorry Australians that American right wingers have seized upon you as literally a dictatorship for handling COVID well.

On the other hand, you did give the world Rupert Murdoch, so six one.

https://www.theshovel.com.au/2021/10...

Please donate to help liberate Australia.

$100 would buy a really nice brunch for 2.

TIL there's a Stan streaming subscription in Australia. If those are not Elysium's Europa Universalis Let's Play videos I'm going to be very disappointed.

dejanzie wrote:

TIL there's a Stan streaming subscription in Australia. If those are not Elysium's Europa Universalis Let's Play videos I'm going to be very disappointed.

About that....

Jowner, for Pfizer, an 80% - 90% drop in circulating antibodies is expected after 6 months post- second dose. The antibodies are the “quick response” cells that fight off the actual infection attempts. However, the memory B cells are not reduced, meaning that they can build up antibodies quickly after the initial defenses are breached. You’re still covered, but without the circulating antibodies you’re more likely to actually get infected. In both cases, you’re well-situated to fight it off, but I think the conclusion is that with active antibodies you are less likely to be infected and thus less likely to infect others before you know you are sick.

Stele wrote:

I thought the initial J&J reports talked about a booster upping the protection into the 90s %. And it doesn't seem to have protection dropoff like the other 2. So with the J&J boost you might be done with boosters for a few years unless the thing mutates crazy. I don't know

I could have sworn I responded to this yesterday but have no idea if I did it in a wrong thread or if my phone ate it before I could post it.

The sum of it was that a J&J study showed that a 2-month booster increased effectiveness against hospitalization to 95%, and a 6-month booster upped it to 100% (though with a massive grain of salt because the sample size was MUCH smaller for the 6-month booster). The panel went with the two month recommendation due to the much larger size of the study.

As for mixing and matching, an independent study showed that the J&J booster had the smallest increase in antibody levels of the three manufacturers (the study only looked at antibody levels, not effectiveness against hospitalization or death). Moderna had the highest increase in levels. The J&J booster did have the levels keep increasing even after 30 days though, while the mRNA ones started dropping off between the 15 day test and the 30 day test.

I had the J&J shot in May. I'm fine getting the J&J booster too, at least, I'm not going to go out of my way to try to get one of the others if that's what's easiest for me to get.

FINALLY.

My company has finally gone to "vax or walk" rules.

Thank you, CEO. You're the best.

Heard some Howard County Parks and Rec guys discussing the COVID vax mandate they just got. One guy is convinced that because he has a latex allergy he can get out of it...

I do wonder how many knuckledraggers will ragequit over it or ask HR for manbaby religious exemptions.

If past workplaces are much indication - a very small portion, under 5%. When faced with loss of paycheck, insurance, etc. a lot of people find a way to rationalize their values.

Especially when they learn that quitting over the vax mandate means they can't get unemployment benefits.

Robear wrote:

Heard some Howard County Parks and Rec guys discussing the COVID vax mandate they just got. One guy is convinced that because he has a latex allergy he can get out of it...

He's thinking of condom use.

Here is the opinion of one of the public sector unions that does the federal government up here in Canada.

Spoiler:

RIGHT TO IMPLEMENT POLICIES

The employer is permitted to implement workplace policies even where those can have significant impacts on employee’s interests and which thus might carry potential administrative consequences. The SP Group collective agreement provides for that right under the management rights clause (Article 5).

Article 5: management rights
5.01 All the functions, rights, powers and authority which the Employer has not
specifically abridged, delegated or modified by this agreement are recognized by the
Institute as being retained by the Employer.

As long as the policies are reasonable and respect workers’ rights under the collective agreement and human rights and privacy legislation, management is legally permitted to implement them.

To the extent that the Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination provides adequate accommodation for protected human rights grounds and that employees’ privacy rights are respected, the employer’s policy does not appear, at first blush, to constitute a violation of human rights.

While the employer has discretion in policy-making they have an implied obligation of reasonableness. Find below an analysis of the elements of the policy that was performed prior to making the determination as to whether the policy is reasonable:

ACCOMMODATION

The policy should allow for accomodation in specific cases, namely:
a certified medical contraindication;
Religion; or
another prohibited ground for discrimination under the Canadian Human Rights Act

As is the case for any accommodation request, an employee who seeks accommodation must agree to disclose the reasons for which he or she needs to be accommodated. Although this might not be information you wish to disclose to your employer, the law on this matter is clear; employees are required to cooperate in the accommodation process by providing documentation required to support their request for accommodation.

There may be cases where medical exemption accommodations are being denied based on reasons not listed in the Policy, for example a valid disability. A denial of an accommodation for a valid disability/handicap could be seen as discriminatory, therefore in contravention of our collective agreements’ discrimination provisions. The burden of proof in an accommodation situation lies with the employee seeking accommodation, both to prove the existence of a protected ground and to confirm their specific restrictions/functional limitations. If an accommodation is being denied, it should be brought to our attention and it will be examined. After having obtained all of the relevant information from the member, an analysis of the merits will be completed and PIPSC will make a recommendation to the member.

The other prohibited grounds of discrimination are race, national or ethnic origin, colour, age, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, marital status, family status, genetic characteristics, disability, and conviction for an offence for which a pardon has been granted or in respect of which a record of suspension has been ordered. At this time, there is no support for the notion that personal beliefs are somehow protected under human rights legislation. While members may have personal views on the policy (specifically) or vaccination (in general), in order to determine whether their personal situation gives rise to a complaint and to assess the merits of the case, PIPSC needs to consider all the facts surrounding their situation, including vaccination status, location of work and details on the type of work the member is engaged in.

PRIVACY RIGHTS

Generally, when there is a valid employment related reason (ie. health and safety in the workplace), employers have the right to request to collect personal medical information so long as it is managed in accordance with the applicable privacy legislation. The Privacy Act allows for the collection of personal information, such as in this case vaccination status, where it relates directly to a government’s institution’s operating program or activity.

Disclosure of vaccination status is necessary to allow the employer to implement its COVID-19 Policy mandating vaccinations for all employees.

CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGE

At this time, PIPSC is not planning to file a constitutional challenge in relation to the Employer’s policy. Individuals can choose whether or not to get vaccinated. The consequences flowing from a refusal to be vaccinated, in this particular workplace context, are of an economic nature, which have not been traditionally found to to be protected by the right to life, liberty and the security of the person guaranteed by section 7 of the Charter. In addition, it is highly likely that, even if a violation of section 7 rights were established, such a measure would be found to be a reasonable infringement pursuant to section 1 of the Charter.

WORKING REMOTELY

In its Policy, Treasury Board has explained why the mandatory vaccination requirement applies to employees working from home. The Policy notes that even such employees may, from time to time, be required to attend the workplace: training, in person meetings, getting work equipment or material etc. The requirement that employees be “fit to work” requires that they be fit to attend at the workplace when reasonably required (even where such circumstances may be unforeseeable).

Since it can take two weeks for COVID-19 vaccinations to be effective, an arbitrator could find that it would not be reasonable to permit employees to postpone being vaccinated until they are called in to work onsite.

For an employee who can fully perform is whole set of duties remotely, it could be a good question as to whether a credible safety justification exists which would justify imposing a mandatory vaccination requirement on that specific employee. Any grievor would bear the burden of proof on this point, and would need to be able to present clear, cogent, and convincing evidence sufficient to convince an adjudicator that their work could be wholly and satisfactorily
performed remotely.

If the employer could point to a subset of duties that needed to be performed from a physical work location, or mandatory training or other teamwork that had to take place in person, then this argument would not seem to merit pursuit. (The employer only needs to establish “undue hardship” in cases of accommodation on the basis of a prohibited ground, per the CHRA and Article 43). Further, even if a grievor successfully demonstrated a capacity for 100% remote work in their job, an adjudicator may yet find the employer’s policy a reasonable response to the novel COVID-19 pandemic, either on safety grounds or for the promotion of other employer interests (such as an employer desire to have an accessible, adaptable, and safe workforce).

Nonetheless, in circumstances where a member has been remotely working for the duration of the pandemic, there may be merit in a grievance challenging the application of the COVID-19 Policy on Vaccination to that member.

DUTY OF FAIR REPRESENTATION

A union’s duty of fair representation does not require it to file a grievance at the request of one or more members who believe that a mandatory vaccination policy is unreasonable. Instead, a union is entitled to consider the best interests of the bargaining unit as a whole, and balance that against the likelihood of success in bringing a challenge, and the severity of the privacy impact on those who are affected.

PIPSC supports a vaccine mandate, with the appropriate exemptions for bona-fide Canadian Human Rights Act grounds and appropriate adherence to privacy legislation. Since the consequences for non-compliance with the Policy are very serious, we want to ensure that all PIPSC members are in compliance, either by becoming vaccinated by October 29, 2021 or by receiving accommodation in accordance with the Policy.

Members are entitled to their views and have a right to have their circumstances considered by the union. We have taken the position that we will assess every file on a case-by-case basis, and all reasonable efforts will be made to obtain all the relevant information to a member’s case before making a decision about whether or not we will support a grievance.

POLICY GRIEVANCE

Our analysis is that the employer is within its rights to implement the policy. To the extent the TBS Policy on COVID-19 Vaccination provides adequate accommodation for protected human rights grounds, and that employees’ privacy rights are respected, the employer’s policy does not appear to constitute a violation of human rights.

If the application of the policy leads to circumstances that violate your human rights such as your accommodation request being denied, discrimination on prohibited grounds, PIPSC may grieve. If you have not been treated fairly in accordance with the policy please contact your Employment Relations Officer and we will look at your situation to assess whether there has been a violation of the policy, collective agreement or legislation and will advise and represent you if warranted.

REASONABLENESS OF THE POLICY

Therefore, in the context of the pandemic, the employer’s policy will likely be found to be reasonable. Employee health and safety is a valid and pressing employer objective. The policy unquestionably promotes employee safety, and is a responsible (and possibly necessary) measure for the employer to take pursuant to its obligations to take “all reasonable measures” to ensure the health and safety of employees. The policy does not result in the termination of employees, and their leave-without-pay status will be reviewed periodically and will only last as long as the pandemic. While there may be economic consequences associated with an employee’s choice to not become vaccinated against COVID-19, the employer is entitled (and statutorily required) to manage its operations in a manner that protects employee safety for the duration of the pandemic. Similar to a temporary suspension of an employee during a loss of a driver’s license or professional license to practice, the leave without pay under this policy is clearly administrative rather than disciplinary.

Furthermore, the assessment of the emerging grievance case law from other jurisdictions is that arbitrators have thus far consistently upheld COVID-19 mandatory vaccination policies as a reasonable exercise of management’s rights in the context of this pandemic. This represents a shift away from prior case law (e.g. flu vaccines, H1N1), which was more nuanced. I see no compelling reason for the FPSLREB to deviate in its assessment of the scope of employer rights during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nonetheless, PIPSC will continue to provide advice, guidance, and (where merited) representation to each PIPSC member. Members whose requests for accommodation on the basis of a documented protected ground, or who have been fully teleworking throughout the pandemic and do not wish to become vaccinated, can contact the appropriate Employment Relations Office with their applicable Regional Office to discuss the merits of their individual circumstances and the possibility of a grievance in the usual manner.

While this case deals with an issue between the province of Manitoba and one of their provincial employees, their decision directly impacts anyone in Canada with a collective agreement that spells out how disputes are handled. I threw it in here as there will be a lot of (attempted) court cases in Canada having to do with the vaccine mandate.

https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/sc...

(My tl;dr of their tl;dr - If you have a collective agreement, you can't bypass the grievance process to go to court or to go to another external tribunal like the Human Rights tribunal)

Case Brief from the SCC website:

Spoiler:

The Supreme Court rules that an employment discrimination dispute involving a unionized worker should be settled by a labour arbitrator appointed under the collective agreement, not by a human rights adjudicator.

This case involves a dispute between an employee and her employer. The Supreme Court was asked if the dispute should be heard by a labour arbitrator or a human rights adjudicator.

Ms. Linda Horrocks was employed by the Northern Regional Health Authority (NRHA) in Manitoba. As a unionized worker, the terms and conditions of her employment were set out in a “collective agreement”. A collective agreement is a written contract between an employer and a union.

In 2011, Ms. Horrocks was suspended for being at work while under the influence of alcohol. She disclosed to her employer her alcohol addiction, which is a disability. The health authority asked Ms. Horrocks to formally agree to abstain from alcohol and get treatment for her addiction. When she refused to sign the agreement, she was fired. Her union filed a grievance on her behalf and, as a result, she returned to work on essentially the same terms as the agreement she had refused to sign. Soon after, the NHRA alleged that she had broken the terms of that agreement.

Ms. Horrocks filed a discrimination complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. She alleged the NHRA failed to sufficiently accommodate her disability. A human rights adjudicator was appointed to decide the complaint. The health authority opposed the adjudicator’s jurisdiction. It argued that under the collective agreement, a labour arbitrator should settle the dispute. The adjudicator disagreed because she said the dispute was an alleged human rights violation. She went on to rule that the NRHA had in fact discriminated against Ms. Horrocks.

The NHRA appealed to a reviewing judge who agreed with it. Ms. Horrocks then appealed to the Court of Appeal. It said disputes concerning the termination of unionized workers do fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of a labour arbitrator, even when there are allegations of human rights violations. But in this case, the Court found the adjudicator had jurisdiction and sent the case back to the reviewing judge to decide if the adjudicator’s decision on the complaint itself was reasonable.

The health authority appealed to the Supreme Court. It has ruled that the human rights adjudicator did not have jurisdiction over Ms. Horrocks’ complaint.

A labour arbitrator should decide all disputes under a collective agreement, including human rights disputes, unless another law states otherwise.

Writing for the majority of the judges, Justice Brown said the human rights adjudicator did not have jurisdiction over Ms. Horrocks’ complaint. Justice Brown explained that a labour arbitrator has exclusive jurisdiction when labour legislation provides for settling disputes under a collective agreement, unless another law states otherwise. In this case, Ms. Horrocks’ complaint arose under the collective agreement and within the mandate of a labour arbitrator. Other legislation did not give concurrent jurisdiction to the human rights adjudicator. As a result, the adjudicator did not have jurisdiction over Ms. Horrocks’ complaint.

Summary from CBC:

A Manitoba health-care worker who was fired from her job for drinking alcohol cannot challenge her termination under her province's Human Rights Code, the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled.

The ruling sided with the employer's argument that disputes between a unionized employee and an employer on an issue covered by a collective agreement can only be settled by a labour arbitrator working with both parties.

Thanks, mudbunny. That decision will doubtless head off some cases claiming religious exemption.

Speaking of...

Paleocon wrote:

I do wonder how many knuckledraggers will ragequit over it or ask HR for manbaby religious exemptions.

Manbabyism emphasizes the path of least resistance. The shots are easily available, free, and enhance survivability. Faking vaccination and flouting mask requirements are too much trouble. Mask compliance also provides cover to a lack of desire for incidental social interaction.

From Mudbunny's quoted spoiler, for those who missed the details:

In 2011, Ms. Horrocks was suspended for being at work while under the influence of alcohol. She disclosed to her employer her alcohol addiction, which is a disability. The health authority asked Ms. Horrocks to formally agree to abstain from alcohol and get treatment for her addiction. When she refused to sign the agreement, she was fired. Her union filed a grievance on her behalf and, as a result, she returned to work on essentially the same terms as the agreement she had refused to sign. Soon after, the NHRA alleged that she had broken the terms of that agreement.

Ms. Horrocks filed a discrimination complaint with the Manitoba Human Rights Commission. She alleged the NHRA failed to sufficiently accommodate her disability.

I'm amazed that "you have to let me drink at work because I'm an alcoholic" is a valid legal defense.

It’s way more nuanced than that.

She was diagnosed with alcohol addiction, and said they could not fire her due to her addiction and took the province to court. (Medical conditions are protected classes up here in Canada.)

The court then ruled that given she was covered by a collective agreement, before she could go to court, she was legally obliged, due to prior jurisprudence, to go through the steps in her collective agreement.

My company is paying employees $75 for proof of vaccination, so there is both carrot and stick. And yet folks still persist in being whiney little children about it.

Presented without comment.

Maybe youtube videos about covid cures and immunity should be generally banned? People are dying because of misinformation and page clicks.

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

garion333 wrote:

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

Might want to add a teensy comment, but I see what you did there!

Short answer: Get jabbed up.

Long answer as a gif...

IMAGE(https://media3.giphy.com/media/3orif4MkvS0CvfvN6M/200.gif)

garion333 wrote:

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

With the amount of drama i have in my personal life, with relatives forwarding youtube videos as though they were peer reviewed case studies, the short answer is that no, i didn't. For my own mental health. Even if the videos agree with me and my position, I don't see youtube videos as reliable sources.

garion333 wrote:

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

I did. I remember the character in Harry Potter who taught the history of magic. He was a ghost who was so dull that he died, and just got up as a ghost and went to class to continue teaching. .... I imagine he was more exciting than the video linked.

But he did have a fluffy cat.

SallyNasty wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

With the amount of drama i have in my personal life, with relatives forwarding youtube videos as though they were peer reviewed case studies, the short answer is that no, i didn't. For my own mental health. Even if the videos agree with me and my position, I don't see youtube videos as reliable sources.

Fair enough. This doctor is reviewing the studies related to natural immunity and vaccines. His conclusion, based on the conclusion of the studies, is that natural immunity is more comprehensive than vaccines because the vaccines mostly only target the spike protein. He further touches on limitations of the studies. He also talks about natural immunity + vaccine boosters being the best way forward, which is exactly what the studies concluded.

The articles and studies are linked in his video and they're legit studies and whatnot being done by real scientists. Heck, the one was posted in Nature. Of all the clickbait on YouTube, and there's a lot, this guy is continuing to do newer videos as more and more data is collected. And his conclusions continue to be even keel and I can't find a whiff of disinformation around this doc. If anything, use him as a push back against your family members.

farley3k wrote:
garion333 wrote:

Didn't watch it before replying, eh?

I did. I remember the character in Harry Potter who taught the history of magic. He was a ghost who was so dull that he died, and just got up as a ghost and went to class to continue teaching. .... I imagine he was more exciting than the video linked.

It wasn't meant to be exciting. Is that what we're here for? Pure entertainment?

garion333 wrote:

It wasn't meant to be exciting. Is that what we're here for? Pure entertainment?

Certainly not. But somewhat seriously - good delivery makes a video more watchable which in turn gets more people the information. So while it isn't a requirement it is important.

I'm not buying anything some doc, who I have zero knowledge of (legit MD? Licensed and in good standing? Epidemiologist? Quack? Other?) telling me a bunch of stuff I have no way to verify.

Let's assume he's a good faith actor. Cool. I can get legit analysis from trusted sources. And I'm not going to dive deep into this guy's background/credentials.

That's what I've got my health care system for, the CDC, Fauci and numerous mainstream news outlets for.

YouTube is an advertising machine that exists to make others (not me) wealthy. So unless I already know the presenter from other forums, I'm not going to listen to someone's statements. The veracity of their claims is irrelevant.

He posted links to the studies.

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1...

This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s415...

The notable evolution of neutralizing breadth after infection with SARS-CoV-2 and the robust enhancement of serologic responses and B cell memory achieved with mRNA vaccination suggests that convalescent individuals who are vaccinated should enjoy high levels of protection against emerging variants without a need to modify existing vaccines. If memory responses evolve in a similar manner in naive individuals who receive vaccines, additional appropriately timed boosting with available vaccines should lead to protective immunity against circulating variants.

I'm more than happy to read these studies, and I did, but found his straight forward explanation in the video a bit more palatable.

Can we now have a discussion about how people who had Covid but don't feel the need to get a booster shouldn't automatically be shunned?

Yes, I understand the overlap between folks who haven't gotten the vaccine and those who are anti-vax is especially high at this point, but it was suggested to cut folks who had Covid but not a vaccine from our lives. I'm attempting to counter that suggestion by saying "yes, it's probably okay to see these people at Christmas because the time between their current (literally, here) infection and Christmas is not enough time for them to lose immunity (assuming their current infection doesn't kill them since they didn't get the vaccine)".

polypusher's in-laws are the people in question and cutting them out of their lives means potentially putting his marriage in jeopardy. Is it worth it? Is it worth adding conflict into your life with your inlaws because they are vaccine hesitant? Like, not disagreeing with them, but straight dropping them from your life? How does this impact grandchildren, if any? It seems like a huge negative to cut people out simply because they didn't get a vaccine. Huge, life-changing ramifications based on their stance on the Covid vaccine. And since they had Covid, they do have added protection built into their system, so why now cut them out? Don't cut them out. Visit them on Christmas. Remind yourself that relationships with others are worth having even when you disagree with them.

And then remind them that a booster would confer even more protection.

Not that they'll listen.

But at least you planted that seed.