My CAG can mimic speech, which is what Dr Pepperberg worked with Alex doing. There are no birds that can talk.
Here in Europe they are definitely looking into a vaccine passport for travelling and some countries are considering it for access to bars, events etc.
However, trying to get all of Europe to agree on something is not going to be a fast process - look at what happened with the vaccines themselves - so I’m not holding my breath.
Resistance may diminish if it’s called something other than “passport”. Call it “vaccine verification” or simply “vaccine card”.
Apparently, at least one Walmart pharmacy in California managed to not be aware of this. All they asked me for was my insurance card so my insurance company got to pay any costs in this. Not exactly photo ID.
I just double-checked my appointment email notice for shot 2. They just want that insurance card and my vaccination card issued for shot 1.
It’s not the up to the FDA’s discretion on whether to require the vaccine, it’s the way the law that allows EUAs was written :
In other words, if a mandate were issued it’s pretty likely someone would challenge it, and the court might stay the mandate pending litigation. Getting full approval finesses that mess.
In practice, this might play out differently for:
- a government employer
- a private employer
- hiring a contractor in your home
- a public school
- a private university or school
- a public venue (like the courts or a park)
- a private venue entirely within the US (like a sports arena)
- a private venue regulated by the US, but not within it (like a cruise ship that stops at ports outside the US, which might have varying requirements.)
I think some of these might be able to require some evidence of vaccination even with the EUA, and some might not be able to even with full approval.
I don’t know if that’s the case. But. The cite I provided above was one I posted to the 39% of US Marines refuse COVID vaccine thread, along with a different story that asserts:
The military is definitely a government employer and they seem to think (or the reporter thinks they think) that they can’t mandate vaccinating the troops under an EUA.
I am unable to find anything that states that a government employer can’t mandate vaccines (with the obvious exceptions). I asked someone earlier for any cite that overrules the EEOC’s document that I linked earlier, but they couldn’t provide one. While I wouldn’t be surprised if the military had such a rule (they’ve fucked up in regards to “vaccinations” enough through the years that I wouldn’t be shocked if they have a law that applies just to them), I’m going to continue to assume that the rest of the government as a whole can require vaccinations as a condition of employment until someone shows me a cite that proves otherwise.
I’m sure the military and lots of places can mandate vaccinations. Can they do so under an EUA? Nobody knows, but some argue they cannot.
Well, I think I DO know as I have EEOC guidance that specifically calls out the EUA aspect, and I’m pretty sure this guidance applies to the government (military excepted). I’m just willing to be proven wrong.
I doubt this would be the first time lawyers in different branches of the government came to different conclusions.
By my reading, EEOC guidance you posted doesn’t come out for or against mandates when only EUA vaccines are available. The only time EUA is mentioned is in this section:
It does discuss mandates, but doesn’t affirm or deny the EUA issues surrounding those mandates. Am I missing something you’re seeing?
Here in Washington state, we were advised to bring ID with us, and mine was checked at several points in the process. (This was a mass vaccination site.) The same was true for people I know in Illinois, Massachusetts, Louisiana, California, and North Carolina. I assume nobody would have been turned away for not having an ID, as it’s not officially required. They seemed to be merely checking to ensure I was the person who had the time slot I was assigned. Maybe they also wanted to make sure I was a resident of the county and state???
No clue why it’s been asked for in some states and not others. I can see how it might be an impediment to certain segments of the population.
Neither I nor my father had to do so. I got mine after all age 16+ people were eligible, but he got his under 1-C. He just said over the phone that he qualified due to a preexisting condition.
I suspect that this may be a state-by-state thing. Or maybe ID was considered more important in earlier phases. I do know I’m a more rural area, where we haven’t been hurting for supply for a while. So line jumpers probably weren’t considered a huge risk.
Nope, that (and the linked FDA document) was what I was referring to. I really meant that the guidelines appear to not prevent an employer from mandating and that the guidelines weren’t ignorant of the EUA status when they were written. I did note earlier that it could be seen as unsettled law, but the EEOC and ADA don’t typically hold someone responsible for behavior that they don’t specifically say is problematic. This is pulled straight from the document and immediately follows the EUA section that you quoted:
If an employer requires vaccinations when they are available, how should it respond to an employee who indicates that he or she is unable to receive a COVID-19 vaccination because of a disability?
The question and subsequent answer seem to imply that vaccination requirements are allowed, as long as it isn’t due to legitimate disability or sincerely held religious belief, and it allows us to request supporting evidence to back up the disability or belief. That’s the path we’re likely taking at my company until I see contrary evidence.
Yeah, that is pretty classic “exception that proves the rule” writing. I hope you’re right: I want mandates in as many places as they make sense. Public schools, military, public service jobs, healthcare. I want all those people to have a compelling reason to vaccinate, like “you can’t work here if you don’t.”
I don’t oppose the idea of vaccine passports, regardless of handwaving about a “two tier system”. It’s a sound idea for governments to promote vaccination by opening up opportunities for the vaccinated that have been curtailed by the pandemic.
I’m not so crazy about encouraging concerts where masses of people will be jammed up against each other, potentially facilitating spread of variant forms of SARS-CoV-2 and endangering others, including those who can’t be vaccinated for health reasons.
If Chicago concerts and other fun summer events involve reasonable precautions such as social distancing, then OK. If not, then the idea is…crackers.
My concern is the loosey-goosey religious exemptions that get exploited by anti-vaxxers. People simply say their religious beliefs prohibit vaccination and presto, their kids are allowed, unvaccinated, in schools. If that loophole exists for military, public service jobs, healthcare, hell, even offices and retailers, won’t a lot of people “get religion” and escape the requirements?
That makes me realize that no insurance information was required to get the shots in Hawai’i. Do different states have different rules about who pays for the shot?
I didn’t think anything about the fact I wasn’t charged for getting vaccinated; it seems like good public policy not to make people pay. Is California making people bear the cost, even if it is through their insurance? (Which could still be a cost to the individual, depending on deductibles and co-payments.)
I’m sure that they will be successfully exploited in some cases, but this is actually the excuse we’re expecting in our office. Unfortunately for the person in question, they have taken part in our office flu shots, so we’re not likely to give in. We also happen to know where they go to church, so it will have to be a “sudden conversion” if they want to go that route. The guidance states:
If, however, an employee requests a religious accommodation, and an employer has an objective basis for questioning either the religious nature or the sincerity of a particular belief, practice, or observance, the employer would be justified in requesting additional supporting information.