@rudyschwartz@dobbs.town @freemo
In terms of general pointlessness, the University of Oregon policy is a good example: https://hr.uoregon.edu/uo-covid-19-vaccination-requirement-employee-process
You have to have been vaccinated twice, but boosters aren't required (any longer?!), and it doesn't matter how many times or when you've had Covid. This really doesn't have any basis in actual science. (But it doesn't have nearly the negative impact of an anti-vax stance.)
In terms of actually getting in the way of employment and delivery of important services, the cases I know about were earlier in the pandemic; I checked the places and they now, at least, list a reasonable policy. I don't have access to the people's personal correspondence, so I can't tell whether they were getting told different things privately than the institutions were saying publicly...but I do know that they weren't against vaccines in general, and also were impeded or unable to do their job. So, anecdote-level; take it for what it's worth.
Note, however, that what is being criticized is not leftism, but a leftist embrace of scientism--you can't assume the latter just because you identify the former. Since I don't live in B.C., I'm ill equipped to get a sense of things there.
@ceoln @rudyschwartz@dobbs.town @freemo
I was talking about two different things.
(1) The UO requirements for vaccination are close to useless for safety and somewhat burdensome but not particularly harmful
(2) Personal anecdotes about medical exemptions NOT being available (e.g. you can't come on campus, and it's not possible to do this work remotely because, say, it's a lab class, so...).
@ceoln @rudyschwartz@dobbs.town @freemo
Okay, that's fair. In part I was extrapolating from older behavior before I'd checked to see what it was currently (always a dangerous thing), and a few of the more egregious things that I'd remembered have since been fixed.
Also, the anti-vax movement was *really* bad. It's hard to compete with that. If we take it as water under the bridge and ask about the ongoing impact *now*.
But it isn't fair to pick a particular slice in time in the past, and compare it to the impact of right-wing anti-science right this second, and I think I was partially guilty of doing that. So, mea culpa. I should have gotten the timeline straight in my head first before giving these examples.
(They're still examples of pulling the wrong way, just well short of what was asked for if placed in proper historical context.)
Note to self: this message is practically incoherent. When sleepy and rushed *just be quiet* rather than failing to express thoughts clearly.
