Vaccine Mandates for faculty, staff, and students?

[Caracal]

Why don't you just admit that you're a vaccine skeptic that wouldn't have gotten the vaccine were it not for your employer mandate, which is precisely why such mandates should be far more widespread, because they work. Again, any possible long term risks of mRNA vaccines pale in comparison to the long term effects of actually contracting the virus. Let's also be honest that if we had the long term studies, you'll find some other reason to avoid taking the vaccine if it's not mandated. The reality is that the vaccines have undergone far more scrutiny than just about any other fully FDA approved vaccine. Quit making up excuses and acting like you're persuadable absent a mandate.

I stated in one post that I would never have gotten the mRNA jab if I wasn't being compelled to by my employer. I have colleagues who say they will sue if fired but I'm not willing to go that far. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be hesitant about taking the existing mRNA injections. We are all part of a clinical trial since it has been authorized only for emergency use.

I am part of my institutional governing body and trust me, they are already making plans to quickly switch to remote instruction due to Delta variants and likely dozens of other institutions in my state will follow suit. Things are not looking good for this fall and vaccine mandates will do nothing to change the grim outlook.

In Britain, despite case loads as high as the winter peak, the death toll is dramatically lower. In US states with high vaccine coverage, cases have risen much more slowly and hospitalizations and deaths have either only rose a bit, or in some cases, not at all. Vaccine mandates would help a lot.

There were multiple clinical trials. Stop throwing around terms when you don't understand what they mean. And no, I don't trust you. Based on your claims about vaccines and variants you don't seem capable of evaluating claims and information. What does an institution's "governing body" even mean?

[Caracal]

Probably wise to disengage from this thread. But, if my tone is too harsh, its because this makes me really angry. It makes me angrier because you are vaccinated. You are largely protected from the consequences of this kind of garbage rhetoric. You got a vaccine, but are happy to sit around and repeat BS talking points that the vaccines don't do anything, that they don't largely prevent hospitalization and death.

Are you repeating this kind of crap to unvaccinated family and friends? You might get them killed. You should be fine though, so you can keep spouting garbage about how the dark times are ahead, but there's nothing anyone can do.

There are words for people like that, but most of them are inappropriate on here and fall afoul of the standards on abuse.

[marshwiggle]

It would be interesting to see what colleges would choose to do if they were rich and were not worried about their reputation.

I find this perplexing. I guess some people think the whole students being on campus and learning in person is just some sort of bug, but really it is the purpose of colleges and universities. If that isn't happening, what the hell is the point?

From another thread:

There are other options as well. For instance, design the course so that those who miss class sessions have simple ways to learn the material. If they do the reading, they can pass the tests. If they come to class, they get discussion and an in-depth exploration of the reading, but it doesn't mean the difference between passing and failing. This was the British system when I went through it, and I appreciated it. At this point in history, it's not only simpler for you, it's safer for everyone. Grade on mastery of the material and not on having shown up in person.

Educating students is the point. For some students, that will require being in person. But for others, that will work very well (or even better) by working on their own.

It's a bit of a conceit to believe that my physical presence is somehow essential for optimal learning for every student.

[Caracal]

It would be interesting to see what colleges would choose to do if they were rich and were not worried about their reputation.

I find this perplexing. I guess some people think the whole students being on campus and learning in person is just some sort of bug, but really it is the purpose of colleges and universities. If that isn't happening, what the hell is the point?

From another thread:

There are other options as well. For instance, design the course so that those who miss class sessions have simple ways to learn the material. If they do the reading, they can pass the tests. If they come to class, they get discussion and an in-depth exploration of the reading, but it doesn't mean the difference between passing and failing. This was the British system when I went through it, and I appreciated it. At this point in history, it's not only simpler for you, it's safer for everyone. Grade on mastery of the material and not on having shown up in person.

Educating students is the point. For some students, that will require being in person. But for others, that will work very well (or even better) by working on their own.

It's a bit of a conceit to believe that my physical presence is somehow essential for optimal learning for every student.

Sure, and some students would learn better if I had nothing to do with it and they just had access to a library.

The actual institutions are designed around in person learning. For residential colleges, they are designed to have students living there too. That isn't to say there can't be a role for online classes, but the idea that in person learning is just one modality among many ignores these realities. You can't just switch everything and imagine that it isn't going to be dramatically worse, and it has been.

The rhetoric over the last year and a half has really made it very difficult to actually try to think about risks and benefits and I think that's what we see in some of these conversations. There has also been a massive institutional failure on all kinds of levels, so I can understand the anxiety and cynicism, but at some point it becomes really counterproductive.

[marshwiggle]

Educating students is the point. For some students, that will require being in person. But for others, that will work very well (or even better) by working on their own.

It's a bit of a conceit to believe that my physical presence is somehow essential for optimal learning for every student.

Sure, and some students would learn better if I had nothing to do with it and they just had access to a library.

The actual institutions are designed around in person learning. For residential colleges, they are designed to have students living there too. That isn't to say there can't be a role for online classes, but the idea that in person learning is just one modality among many ignores these realities. You can't just switch everything and imagine that it isn't going to be dramatically worse, and it has been.

There have been successes as well as failures. (There have been lots of discussions on here about what people want to continue even post-pandemic.) In general, the failures have been where people have tried to recreate the in-person experience as closely as possible, whereas the successes have been where people have leveraged the advantages of remote learning, such as asynchrony.

[the_geneticist]

I stated in one post that I would never have gotten the mRNA jab if I wasn't being compelled to by my employer. I have colleagues who say they will sue if fired but I'm not willing to go that far. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be hesitant about taking the existing mRNA injections. We are all part of a clinical trial since it has been authorized only for emergency use.

I am part of my institutional governing body and trust me, they are already making plans to quickly switch to remote instruction due to Delta variants and likely dozens of other institutions in my state will follow suit. Things are not looking good for this fall and vaccine mandates will do nothing to change the grim outlook.

Your "logic" is utter nonsense.  Vaccine are extremely effective at preventing illness, hospitalizations, and death.  If your institution has a very high vaccine compliance, then you will have the added protection of "herd immunity". 
Stop wringing your hands and saying that we shouldn't require the vaccine because people are some people still going to get sick.  The more people that are vaccinated, the fewer the number of people that will be sick.  Do you advocate against other protective health measures - bike helmets, seat belts, car seats, flu shots, no smoking signs, etc?
And, it's GOOD to have plans for what to do if there is an outbreak on campus.  Better to have plans & not need them than to not have a plan.

P.S. "Compelled" is a rather strong word.  You were not physically dragged into a vaccine clinic.  You could have inquired about remote options.  Or quit.  Working for your particular institution is not a right.

[Caracal]

I stated in one post that I would never have gotten the mRNA jab if I wasn't being compelled to by my employer. I have colleagues who say they will sue if fired but I'm not willing to go that far. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be hesitant about taking the existing mRNA injections. We are all part of a clinical trial since it has been authorized only for emergency use.

I am part of my institutional governing body and trust me, they are already making plans to quickly switch to remote instruction due to Delta variants and likely dozens of other institutions in my state will follow suit. Things are not looking good for this fall and vaccine mandates will do nothing to change the grim outlook.

Your "logic" is utter nonsense.  Vaccine are extremely effective at preventing illness, hospitalizations, and death.  If your institution has a very high vaccine compliance, then you will have the added protection of "herd immunity". 
Stop wringing your hands and saying that we shouldn't require the vaccine because people are some people still going to get sick.  The more people that are vaccinated, the fewer the number of people that will be sick.  Do you advocate against other protective health measures - bike helmets, seat belts, car seats, flu shots, no smoking signs, etc?
And, it's GOOD to have plans for what to do if there is an outbreak on campus.  Better to have plans & not need them than to not have a plan.

P.S. "Compelled" is a rather strong word.  You were not physically dragged into a vaccine clinic.  You could have inquired about remote options.  Or quit.  Working for your particular institution is not a right.

It also really does change the ramifications of outbreaks. Its one thing to have classes and students on campus where you could have infections when those infections are unlikely to result in anything worse than people feeling like crap for a week at home. It is entirely different if there are lots of people who could end up in the hospital or worse.

[mleok]

I stated in one post that I would never have gotten the mRNA jab if I wasn't being compelled to by my employer. I have colleagues who say they will sue if fired but I'm not willing to go that far. I think it is perfectly reasonable to be hesitant about taking the existing mRNA injections. We are all part of a clinical trial since it has been authorized only for emergency use.

I am part of my institutional governing body and trust me, they are already making plans to quickly switch to remote instruction due to Delta variants and likely dozens of other institutions in my state will follow suit. Things are not looking good for this fall and vaccine mandates will do nothing to change the grim outlook.

Your "logic" is utter nonsense.  Vaccine are extremely effective at preventing illness, hospitalizations, and death.  If your institution has a very high vaccine compliance, then you will have the added protection of "herd immunity". 
Stop wringing your hands and saying that we shouldn't require the vaccine because people are some people still going to get sick.  The more people that are vaccinated, the fewer the number of people that will be sick.  Do you advocate against other protective health measures - bike helmets, seat belts, car seats, flu shots, no smoking signs, etc?
And, it's GOOD to have plans for what to do if there is an outbreak on campus.  Better to have plans & not need them than to not have a plan.

P.S. "Compelled" is a rather strong word.  You were not physically dragged into a vaccine clinic.  You could have inquired about remote options.  Or quit.  Working for your particular institution is not a right.

It also really does change the ramifications of outbreaks. Its one thing to have classes and students on campus where you could have infections when those infections are unlikely to result in anything worse than people feeling like crap for a week at home. It is entirely different if there are lots of people who could end up in the hospital or worse.

Indeed, the worst thing which could happen isn't just that we're forced back to virtual instruction, it's that there is a significant death toll associated with our experiment with in-person instruction in the midst of a raging pandemic. Vaccine mandates definitely do a great deal to mitigate that risk. In any case, I no longer have any patience to humor or understand vaccine skeptics like the OP, and I'm all for extremely restrictive policies for people who choose not to be vaccinated.

[Caracal]

[ In any case, I no longer have any patience to humor or understand vaccine skeptics like the OP, and I'm all for extremely restrictive policies for people who choose not to be vaccinated.

It is a good illustration of why mandates for college campuses and other places are so effective and important. OP is grumpy about it, but he obviously decided it wasn't worth losing his job over. That makes his campus a safer place for everyone else. I can't smoke cigarettes (or anything else) in college buildings or bring a grill in to my office and cook sausages. Why should I be allowed to not take precautions against bringing a deadly disease to campus?

[Hibush]

It appears that some schools in Texas have modified their dress code to include a mask.
https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/texas-school-district-makes-masks-part-dress-code-get-around-n1277040

It seems the TX antivax folks are also the ones who really like dress codes. That makes the move extra tasty.

[mamselle]

Not a college campus, but a folk dance camp that had instituted very careful requirements (negative pre-camp test results, vax card, and negative 1st-day test results for a 1-week camp, etc.)

Masking was required the first two days, until test results were back.

Three people refused to wear masks or be tested after their arrival. They communicated the virus to others, and the whole camp had to shut down.

Seeing how the willfulness of the members of the very first "test" cadre to press the limits could have such serious results, and having no other enforcement mechanisms, the rest of the summer session, which entailed the planning of 4 other non-profit entities, all working closely with the camp to provide a safe environment, also had to be closed down.

So selfish.

M.

[marshwiggle]

Not a college campus, but a folk dance camp that had instituted very careful requirements (negative pre-camp test results, vax card, and negative 1st-day test results for a 1-week camp, etc.)

Masking was required the first two days, until test results were back.

Three people refused to wear masks or be tested after their arrival. They communicated the virus to others, and the whole camp had to shut down.

Seeing how the willfulness of the members of the very first "test" cadre to press the limits could have such serious results, and having no other enforcement mechanisms, the rest of the summer session, which entailed the planning of 4 other non-profit entities, all working closely with the camp to provide a safe environment, also had to be closed down.

So selfish.

M.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that be grounds for a suit, given the clear cost of refunds, etc. for having to shut down the camps?

[Caracal]

Not a college campus, but a folk dance camp that had instituted very careful requirements (negative pre-camp test results, vax card, and negative 1st-day test results for a 1-week camp, etc.)

Masking was required the first two days, until test results were back.

Three people refused to wear masks or be tested after their arrival. They communicated the virus to others, and the whole camp had to shut down.

Seeing how the willfulness of the members of the very first "test" cadre to press the limits could have such serious results, and having no other enforcement mechanisms, the rest of the summer session, which entailed the planning of 4 other non-profit entities, all working closely with the camp to provide a safe environment, also had to be closed down.

So selfish.

M.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that be grounds for a suit, given the clear cost of refunds, etc. for having to shut down the camps?

Well, I think the question would be why they didn't enforce their own policies. Seems like if someone shows up and refuses to follow the rules, you need to tell them to go home? I'm sure in practice that might be tricky for a non-profit, but what's the point of having the rules if people can just decide not to follow them?

[marshwiggle]

Not a college campus, but a folk dance camp that had instituted very careful requirements (negative pre-camp test results, vax card, and negative 1st-day test results for a 1-week camp, etc.)

Masking was required the first two days, until test results were back.

Three people refused to wear masks or be tested after their arrival. They communicated the virus to others, and the whole camp had to shut down.

Seeing how the willfulness of the members of the very first "test" cadre to press the limits could have such serious results, and having no other enforcement mechanisms, the rest of the summer session, which entailed the planning of 4 other non-profit entities, all working closely with the camp to provide a safe environment, also had to be closed down.

So selfish.

M.

I'm not a lawyer, but wouldn't that be grounds for a suit, given the clear cost of refunds, etc. for having to shut down the camps?

Well, I think the question would be why they didn't enforce their own policies. Seems like if someone shows up and refuses to follow the rules, you need to tell them to go home? I'm sure in practice that might be tricky for a non-profit, but what's the point of having the rules if people can just decide not to follow them?

True enough. Rules that aren't applied consistently don't get supported by the court.

[mamselle]

Apparently the removal would have required police intervention, and they refused, as I understood it.

It's worth asking the instructor who told me, to confirm; I'll find out.

M.