>Topic #1: Putting at-risk employees in jeopardy
- You can't win arguments with these people using logic and facts. You have to play by their rules; not your's.
All doctors, and the vaccine manufacturers themselves, all state that the Covid vaccines DO NOT prevent people from catching or spreading the virus. The reason for the vaccines is so that when a vaccinated person catches the virus they will have fewer and less severe symptoms, and be less likely to end up in hospital overwhelming the medical system.
Therefore, allowing people to come into work without a mask after being vaccinated is in fact FAR MORE DANGEROUS. Vaccinated people are FAR MORE LIKELY to be asymptomatic and spreading the virus without realising it, than if they had not received the vaccination. After receiving the vaccine, a vaccinated person is FAR MORE LIKELY to show up to work while infected and contagious without realising they are infected and contagious.
Because the vaccinated will still catch and spread the virus, and because the vaccines make it harder for the vaccinated to identify when they are infected and contagious, the vaccinated NEED TO follow stricter restrictions and be more closely monitored after receiving their vaccination.
I am side stepping whether vaccines are effective because you will sound like a nutjob to normies. There is a strong regulatory argument here which basically says that vaccinated employees do not reduce risk for the business, and effectively increase their risk. You can make that case, and management will actually consider it, or you can sperg about vaccines, "which have been proven safe and effective..." Good luck with that. Facts do not matter, but your business being ground up between the finer points of ambiguity between CDC and OSHA, well that does matter to management. So does discrimination based on sex, race, and health.
Edit: if you research masks as source control you may be able to put something together along your line of thinking but you will need to clearly establish that masks are for source control maybe from the EUA. Then using published endpoints for vaccine design you can make the case that source control is still necessary for vaccinated people, but this is an argument that CDC is wrong which would be a heavy lift for your employer. Much easier to show where they get spitroasted by OSHA and CDC if they don't deal with the at-risk definition I discuss in the post.
>I am side stepping whether vaccines are effective
Like I said before, you have to play by their rules. Doctors, "scientists", but most importantly the vaccine manufacturers (in other words, their sources, the sources they listen to and are willing to believe) have stated that the injections don't prevent you from catching Covid. That they only prevent people from clogging up the healthcare system. - Point this out to the brainwashed, and they'll be forced to agree.
You can't debate them. You can't use facts. But what you can do is use what they believe against them.
>if you research masks as source control
You'll never convince them. They can't blow out a candle while wearing a mask. So they believe that they can't breath viruses out of their mask. Facts, truth, their holy "peer reviewed studies" can't change that.
The only way to win is to play by their rules. To out virtue signal the virtuous. To be safer and save more lives. They've spent the last year and a half demonising others for not being safe enough. And because of that, they will do anything they can to avoid having others say that they aren't being safe enough, that they're everything that they've been told to hate.
Good job on the whole - You're a racist if..... - part of your case though. That's what forced them to actually listen.
"...systemic and multidimensional discrimination..." Lol
(post is archived)