![]() |
Originally Posted by Thedude86
(Post 3816800)
I thought the $450K per person seemed crazy until this came out yesterday...
https://sjvsun.com/u-s/woman-gets-70...id-19-vaccine/ Nearly $700k total. $177k in back pay. $500k in punitive damages. “….despite her appeal and explanation that her job did not include regular contact with people.” Big difference. |
Originally Posted by JoePatroni
(Post 3816820)
“….despite her appeal and explanation that her job did not include regular contact with people.”
Big difference. Even if being around people plays a factor in the United case... I'm willing to bet part of the argument will be that Kirby will have to prove his mandate improved the lives of passengers and co-workers. None of the other airlines had such a mandate and they were just fine. United is the outlier here. IMO, the only argument Kirby has is that he was just trying to be safe and going by expert opinion at the time. That's all well and fair except that in January 2022, the vaccine manufacturer's own CEO publicly stated "the first two doses had little effect, if any." Kirby still kept the two dose mandate in place for another 3 or 4 months after that. |
Originally Posted by Thedude86
(Post 3816823)
I agree, but a religious accommodation isn't granted based on what your specific job is or who you interact with. United still had to provide a "reasonable accommodation". Taking away pay and all benefits isn't reasonable just because you work around people. The article's lawsuit wasn't awarded based on her not being a threat to other people. It was awarded on being denied a religious accommodation.
Even if being around people plays a factor in the United case... I'm willing to bet part of the argument will be that Kirby will have to prove his mandate improved the lives of passengers and co-workers. None of the other airlines had such a mandate and they were just fine. United is the outlier here. IMO, the only argument Kirby has is that he was just trying to be safe and going by expert opinion at the time. That's all well and fair except that in January 2022, the vaccine manufacturer's own CEO publicly stated "the first two doses had little effect, if any." Kirby still kept the two dose mandate in place for another 3 or 4 months after that. |
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
(Post 3816900)
I was under the impression the excuse was "to reduce transmission". I don't think the vaccines did that, at all. They reduced symptoms, some of the time, in at-risk populations.
This isn't up for debate or even hair-splitting - it's just the truth. A very simple one. There are a great many opinions about the vaccine itself and associated policy, but how the vaccine worked isn't a mystery at all. |
Originally Posted by JFS 3
(Post 3816977)
The vaccine reduced viral load and symptoms for virtually all populations. This virus is airborne and is largely spread through symptoms - sneezing and coughing. Reducing symptoms and viral load thus reduced the spread of the virus.
This isn't up for debate or even hair-splitting - it's just the truth. A very simple one. There are a great many opinions about the vaccine itself and associated policy, but how the vaccine worked isn't a mystery at all. Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. |
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
(Post 3817012)
A study2 of covid-19 transmission within English households using data gathered in early 2021 found that even a single dose of a covid-19 vaccine reduced the likelihood of household transmission by 40-50%. This was supported by a study of household transmission among Scottish healthcare workers conducted between December 2020 and March 2021.3 Both studies analysed the impact of vaccination on transmission of the α variant of SARS-CoV-2, which was dominant at the time. Vaccines aren’t preventing onward transmission by reducing the viral load—or amount of SARS-CoV-2—in your body. “Most studies show if you got an infection after vaccination, compared with someone who got an infection without a vaccine, you were pretty much shedding roughly the same amount of virus,” says Paul Hunter, professor in medicine at the University of East Anglia. One study,5 sponsored by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), found “no difference in infectious virus titer between groups” who had been vaccinated and had not. Instead, it’s the principle that the UKHSA identified above: if you don’t get infected in the first place thanks to a vaccine, you can’t spread it. Once you’re infected, you still can—although what we know about the window when you’re most likely to transmit the virus to others has improved" Maybe read what you quote? Yes, people that got infected despite being getting the vacine were just as contagious. But a lot of people did not get infected because they got the vacine, and thus reduced the spread. Pretty straightforward. |
Originally Posted by worstpilotever
(Post 3815696)
Im no lawyer, but being granted class action status is a long way from winning a billion dollar settlement.
“I’ve never seen anything this big,” Sherry Walker. Im sure she hasn't. Great. She’s already arrogant enough over her husbands battle star and now she’ll be even more insufferable. Glad I’m not IAH based and dealing with her. |
always fun to revive the pilots pretending to be doctors threads.
|
Originally Posted by AntiPeter
(Post 3816819)
Kirby seems to be a liability when it comes to profit sharing checks (and among other things, perhaps).
|
Originally Posted by worstpilotever
(Post 3817035)
always fun to revive the pilots pretending to be doctors threads.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 07:00 PM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands