he media, big tech, and politicians are in cahoots and see this as an opportunity for profit and power
By taking sides? They certainly are not all locked in-step for the solutions - nor should they be.
IMHO - there is more polarizing volatility. There are those that benefit from volatility......
The Dakotas are much different than the Northeast states - shouldn't each be able to make the choices for their citizens,
assuming they have the ability to measure the ramifications of their choice?
A companies vax mandate, for example, is driven by liability or CYA. A company does not care about your health, at least only enough to not hurt their pockets.
Sure - wouldn't you be if you were in-charge?
Couple of deaths that can be traced directly back to company policy outside the CDC recommendations might set a precedent
that benefits a few families at the expense of "many" - workers losing their jobs because the co goes OOB, people losing their retirement
cause their 401k was in co stock (don't ever do that past 5% please - employer wants to see you are invested, but you can't be "all in")
What if it could be directly attributed to one person making that decision?
On the flip side, there is immunity for the pharma against the vax having a problem. Is there immunity for the decision makers that say it is required?
It isn't as adversarial as presented. It is the "current knowledge, and trade-offs" - with the worker shortage, it would seem like job choices are plenty?
On the flip-side, should workers be compensated for being "required" to do something - as that is a change in terms of employment.
Back to experimenting - cause still in the learning stage. Do companies that require vax see lower employee absence? And by extension healthier families,
cause they don't need to stay home and take care of the kid? I don't know, but a couple years from now it will be interesting to do the post-ex.
---
Gotta run - good topics to chat about. No right answers - lots depending on where one is standing.