Mandatory COVID vaccination for all Amtrak Employees

[PRR 60]

I would guess part of the problem is, do those who have had the infection have documentation of it? Is there a database that keeps track of covid infections (names, etc)? At least with the vaccine we have our vaccine cards and they're recorded somewhere. I know the cards can be forged, but it would be easy for people to say 'hey, I've had the infection' even if they have not.

The EU requires medical documentation of prior infection and recovery for issuance of a vaccine passport. They do not accept someones word for it or even antibody testing as sole proof. It has to be a medical record.

 

[Barb Stout]

Pooling works best in scenarios where the positivity rate is lowest, since a positive in a pool means rerunning them individually, slowing down the process and adding cost.. It is also not available in all lab settings. It has been a great help here, the purpose built PRL we built pushes huge numbers of tests daily, at a cost well below commercial averages. I believe the same group partnered with DC to build one there also.

What does PRL stand for?

 

[John Santos]

... We can rail about the unvaccinated all we want, but within a few months, virtually all of them are destined to be inoculated by the Delta version of the virus and their immunity will be slightly superior to that enjoyed by the vaccinated. Delta will continue to circulate, but with the symptoms of a bad cold or the flu.

Vaccine-derived immunity to all strains of Covid (and to many other vaccine-preventable diseases) is BETTER than so-called natural immunity derived from infections. The idea that immunity from infection is somehow stronger than immunity from vaccines is a lie with a long history among anti-vaxxers. Vaccination of previously infected Covid patients provides 234% better protection from re-infection than previous infection alone. Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19...

 

[Exvalley]

Vaccination of previously infected Covid patients provides 234% better protection from re-infection than previous infection alone.

Yes, vaccination provides even greater protection for those who have recovered from COVID-19.

But the assertion was that natural recovery alone is better than vaccination alone, as far as the likelihood of being infected. Recent research shows that natural recovery is indeed better than vaccination. This article explains it well:
https://www.healthline.com/health-n...ay-be-well-protected-vaccines-can-add-a-boost
From the article:
The report, which is the largest real-world observational study comparing natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity, found that people who previously had COVID-19 were less likely to acquire the Delta variant, develop the symptomatic disease, or require hospitalization compared to vaccinated people who had not previously had the disease.

Mind you, this study is not yet peer reviewed. But if it holds up, the level of protection in order is:

1) Vaccinated;
2) Recovered naturally;
3) Recovered naturally and vaccinated

But... compare this to what the CDC has recently said:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html
The major difference in the studies is that the CDC study had fewer than 300 participants whereas the British study had more than 350,000 participants.

 

[jis]

After reading that paper I came to the conclusion that it is an interesting but weak result, which needs to be further corroborated before taking it as fully valid truth. But of course it makes a good headline.

 

[Exvalley]

it is an interesting but weak result

How so?

 

[Devil's Advocate]

Here, an unvaccinated survivor is treated the same as any other unvaccinated person. They can be denied entrance to restaurants, access to sporting events and even employment despite science that suggests that person may be of similar or less risk to the public than a vaccinated person.

The powers that make this possible are based on established case law that allows businesses to refuse service to anyone for any reason not specifically protected. In order for the government to reverse this they would need to make antivaxxers a protected class, which honestly would not surprise me at all at this point.

I am not anti-vax. My wife, kids and I got our doses as soon as we were permitted (second dose for me on March 1), and we will get boosters when released. But, the "vaccine or else" drive seems to be overkill that ignores that now very large group of Covid survivors that may not need it.

It's not "vaccine or else" if we're being honest. For the vast majority of private sector employees there is no vaccine mandate whatsoever. For some who work in a high risk or potential superspreader capacity it's more like "(1) vaccine or (2) testing or (3) spiritual excuse or (4) medical waiver or (5) honor system declaration."

 

[neroden]

The major difference in the studies is that the CDC study had fewer than 300 participants whereas the British study had more than 350,000 participants.

Complication: the British study is looking at the Astra-Zeneca vaccine while the CDC study is looking at Moderna and Pfizer. It is perfectly possible that infection-induced immunity is better than Astra-Zeneca immunity, but Moderna immunity is better than infection-induced immunity.

In fact, we have prior reasons to suspect that this is true! AZ was not working as well as Moderna or Pfizer in the early stages of the pandemic.

Currently, Pfizer appears to be wearing off faster than Moderna, though this is a weak result. But right now, Moderna seems to be the gold standard for getting immunity. (I got Pfizer. Oh well.)

 

[PVD]

What does PRL stand for?

Pandemic Response Lab by Opentrons

It is a partially robotic purpose built lab that provides a very high volume capable lab combining the latest robotics with lab research done by NYU Medical researchers.... it has been rolled out in DC and I know they were looking at other major cities it offers volume, speed, accuracy, and very low costs relative to the market,,,,NYC has contracted for much of their capacity, and it enables PCR tests done at NYC HHC sites, or their mobile site contractor to turn most regular tests in less than 24 hours...so if I get a rapid and regular at the same time, I'll get a text telling me to check the rapid in 20 mins or so, and then again for the PCR the next day. I usually go around lunchtime, the lab samples are turned in at the end of the day, so they sure don't sit around in the lab. I attached a sample from one of the HHC contract mobile units, the HHC sites use a similar report generated by their EMR (electronic medical record) system. both use tet/email notification, but are separate apps.

 

[jis]

How so?

Not clear how random the random sample is. I am sure peer reviews will address those issues, and if they are found credible then further validating studies will happen. But until then at least it is just one study and I would not be quoting these results as well established for anything, and even less so for vaccines that are not called Astra-Zeneca, though it does suggest an interesting direction of further study. But of course you are free to do as you wish and I do not claim to control anything other than how I see it.

 

[Exvalley]

The powers that make this possible are based on established case law that allows businesses to refuse service to anyone for any reason not specifically protected.

It's an interesting legal question. COVID-19 is most definitely a disability as defined by the ADA. And people with a disability are indeed a member of a legally protected class. If the science ultimately proves that natural recovery is more or less as effective as vaccination, there could be some very strong ADA claims brought against businesses. I am not familiar enough with the ADA to know how much protection it gives to people who have recovered from a disability. At a minimum, long haulers have a very credible claim that they are covered under the ADA.

But for now the courts have definitely sided with businesses that impose these sorts of restrictions.

 

[Exvalley]

The sample size may be an issue and not clear how random the random sample is.

So your concerns are more theoretical than anything else. That makes sense. I read the study too and could not find any overt concerns that struck me. But there is always the "possible" in any pre-peer reviewed study.

 

[jis]

So your concerns are more theoretical than anything else. That makes sense. I read the study too and could not find any overt concerns that struck me.

Good for you!! As I said, I am not here to change your or anyone else's mind about anything

 

[PVD]

It's an interesting legal question. COVID-19 is most definitely a disability as defined by the ADA. And people with a disability are indeed a member of a legally protected class. If the science ultimately proves that natural recovery is more or less as effective as vaccination, there could be some very strong ADA claims brought against businesses. I am not familiar enough with the ADA to know how much protection it gives to people who have recovered from a disability. At a minimum, long haulers have a very credible claim that they are covered under the ADA.

But for now the courts have definitely sided with businesses that impose these sorts of restrictions.

A major exception to the concept of reasonable accommodation is when accommodation might jeopardize the health and safety of others... I am attaching info from the US EEO I don't see the ADA defining an infectious/contagious disease as a protected disability, although one could result in a condition qualifying as disability. What You Should Know About COVID-19 and the ADA, the Rehabilitation Act, and Other EEO Laws | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (eeoc.gov)

 

[Exvalley]

A major exception to the concept of reasonable accommodation is when accommodation might jeopardize the health and safety of others... I am attaching info from the US EEO I don't see the ADA defining an infectious/contagious disease as a protected disability, although one could result in a condition qualifying as disability.

The key is "reasonable" in "reasonable accommodation." Clearly, if someone is infectious, it is fine to prohibit them from entering your business. This is why I was thinking about people who have recovered (as far as being infectious is concerned).

As for what constitutes a disability, it is a "physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activity." Courts have construed this definition VERY broadly. There are definitely people suffering from long Covid who would fall under this definition - even though they are no longer contagious.

Here is what the EEOC says in regard to employees:
In some circumstances, Title VII and the ADA require an employer to provide reasonable accommodations for employees who, because of a disability or a sincerely held religious belief, practice, or observance, do not get vaccinated for COVID-19, unless providing an accommodation would pose an undue hardship on the operation of the employer’s business.

It stands to reason that customers would not be treated differently under the ADA.

 

[PVD]

That would be a condition caused by covid, not covid itself....

 

[user 6862]

The EU requires medical documentation of prior infection and recovery for issuance of a vaccine passport. They do not accept someones word for it or even antibody testing as sole proof. It has to be a medical record.

Just to add to the European picture we are travelling through 3 EU countries plus Switzerland over the next week or so, the common imperative requirement to enter each country and on some trains is a recognised (by the EU) vaccine passport, not any form of Covid test.

 

[Barb Stout]

Pandemic Response Lab by Opentrons

I enjoyed reading the sample results especially the list of all the caveats. Don't usually see that in lab results reports.

 

[PVD]

I've lived in NYC my whole life, so you know I have a long list of things we have screwed up. It is nice to see something this important that they are doing very well. I just got an e-mail a few minutes ago with all of the details on receiving a 3rd dose, including home administration or free transportation for over 65 or disabled.COVID-19 Vaccines at NYC Health + Hospitals | NYC Health + Hospitals (nychealthandhospitals.org)

 

[AmtrakBlue]

I don't understand how having Covid19 would put someone in the ADA system. Does someone who has bacterial pneumonia also in the ADA "system"?

Yeah, COVID in itself is not a disability any more than pneumonia is. Should it cause a disability then you would claim that disability, not COVID, under ADA.

 

[Exvalley]

Pneumonia is most certainly a disability under the ADA. Covid could be as well, depending on the symptoms.

 

[AmtrakBlue]

Pneumonia is most certainly a disability under the ADA. Covid could be as well, depending on the symptoms.

Citation needed.

 

[Ryan]

Pneumonia is most certainly a disability under the ADA. Covid could be as well, depending on the symptoms.

Go read RINEHIMER v. CEMCOLIFT INC and get back with us.

(I'll excerpt the good part for those that don't want to go hit the law books on a beautiful weekend: "As we discussed above, pneumonia is a temporary condition and is not protected by the ADA. If Cemcolift regarded Rinehimer as having pneumonia, that would not be enough to bring him under the protections of the ADA. On the other hand, if Cemcolift regarded Rinehimer as having asthma, that might be enough to bring him under the protections of the ADA.")

 

[Exvalley]

Go read RINEHIMER v. CEMCOLIFT INC and get back with us.

Getting back with you…

This is a case from 2002 and the ADA was amended in 2008. So the holding in that case is out of date and no longer reflects the law. Nobody should be citing a 2002 case as authority on the ADA’s treatment of temporary disabilities. This is because, as of 2008, the ADA protects persons with temporary disabilities which are “severe.” Prior to 2008 it didn’t protect anyone with a temporary disability, no matter how severe.

Pneumonia can most definitely be severe - which is the type of pneumonia I was assuming, but I should have been more accurate and said that specifically. My bad. (I was more accurate when I said that with Covid it would depend on the symptoms.).

 

[DonNewcomb]

One thing that unions like to get clarified is who's liable for adverse side-affects of vaccines that are required as a condition of employment. Employers like to dodge liability while still requiring the shots. I ran into this with anthrax shots. The Navy wanted to make them required for anyone going to W-PAC but didn't want to make them a condition of employment and accept liability for the consequences. Our union held the agency's feet to the fire and in the end they backed down. They didn't want to go to the table over the issue.