Open (More or Less) Post on Covid 14

[ecosophia]

The semi-open posts  I've hosted here on the Covid-19 narrative, the inadequately tested experimental drugs for it, and the whole cascading mess surrounding them have continued to field a very high number of comments, so I'm opening yet another space for discussion. The rules are the same as before: 

1. If you plan on parroting the party line of the medical industry and its paid shills, please go away. This is a place for people to talk openly, honestly, and freely about their concerns that the party line in question is dangerously flawed and that actions being pushed by the medical industry et al. are causing injury and death. It is not a place for you to dismiss those concerns. Anyone who wants to hear the official story and the arguments in favor of it can find those on hundreds of thousands of websites.

2. If you plan on insisting that the current situation is the result of a deliberate plot by some villainous group of people or other, please go away. There are tens of thousands of websites currently rehashing various conspiracy theories about the Covid-19 outbreak and the vaccines. This is not one of them. What we're exploring is the likelihood that what's going on is the product of the same arrogance, incompetence, and corruption that the medical industry and its tame politicians have displayed so abundantly in recent decades. That possibility deserves a space of its own for discussion, and that's what we're doing here. 
 
3. If you plan on using rent-a-troll derailing or disruption tactics, please go away. I'm quite familiar with the standard tactics used by troll farms to disrupt online forums, and am ready, willing, and able -- and in fact quite eager -- to ban people permanently for engaging in them here. Oh, and I also lurk on other Covid-19 vaccine skeptic blogs, so I'm likely to notice when the same posts are showing up on more than one venue. 

4. If you don't believe in treating people with common courtesy, please go away. I have, and enforce, a strict courtesy policy on my blogs and online forums, and this is no exception. The sort of schoolyard bullying that takes place on so many other internet forums will get you deleted and banned here. No, I don't care if you disagree with that: my journal, my rules. 

With that said, as rumors fly that the governor of California has been crippled by one of the "rare" side effects of Covid vaccination, and the mainstream media is busy trying to insist that cardiac arrest in children is perfectly normal, the floor is open for discussion. 

Comments

[(Anonymous)]

Hello everyone,

I wanted to give an update to this community about the status of my application for a religious exemption to the C19 vaccines. I work for a large North American corporation that is imposing vaccine mandates with a late November deadline before we are placed on leave without pay, and then fired after a certain number of weeks. The culture is extremely PMC-leaning and no testing alternative was ever provided, and certainly no work from home option. It's pure, unadulterated "jab or job".

I submitted my application after getting in contact with a certain organization mentioned in previous iterations of this series, and they have been very supportive of my application, for which I'm extremely grateful. However, the application process is very demanding. Applicants are essentially "on trial" in front of an unaccountable committee for the privilege of maintaining their bodily autonomy, having to demonstrate a lengthy involvement in their religious organization, and meeting a standard of proof that is set by the committee, whose decisions can't be questioned.

The process is extremely humiliating and makes me want to leave corporate employment forever. Although I'm a good performer and get along with my coworkers, it saddens me that I may be fired for ideological reasons. Unfortunately, I don't have much clout in the organization and could be fired at any moment, but even if I had more seniority, it looks like even veterans with decades of experience in other industries are being laid off for the same reason. It's hard to find a word more appropriate than "purge" to describe this phenomenon. I'm jealous of those who are self-employed in these times, although that carries its own set of burdens.

For what it's worth, I stand in solidarity with everyone fired because of these mandates or having to go through the humiliating exemption process to keep their livelihoods. I judge no one for making a different decision, as everyone has to deal with a unique set of circumstances.

[drhooves]

If someone objects to the Jab due to long-standing and legitimate religious reasons, it seems like anger would be the emotion taking root, and not humiliation. If a religious exemption is applied for as a means to avoid the Jab without a religious belief to back it up, then it's a dishonest approach. It should be replaced by asserting one's rights to remain part of the control group when it comes to this medical experiment.

If faced with this situation, I'd be documenting the process as it occurs, and requesting to see the scientific basis for the policy. In other words, if Covid can be transmitted by the vaxxed, why mandate the Jab?

I haven't confirmed there are very many companies out there that would fire vaxxed employees due to a "non-vaxxed" policy. But it seems to me the burden of proof wouldn't be any different.

[(Anonymous)]

OP here. I admit that my approach is somewhat dishonest. I gave a lot of thought to this approach prior to requesting a religious exemption, and I decided that I was willing to make an ethical compromise, seeing no other way out. I wanted to "fight fire with fire". Given the injustice of the mandate itself, I was willing to oppose it with a less severe form of injustice, at least to protect myself. The organization I joined is "occult-leaning", shall we say, and not that far of a stretch from some of my current views, but I'm not opposed to vaccination in principle, only those that are experimental and forced on the unwilling with the weight of corporate and state power. With the abuses of the last 2 years I feel that I have no real options anymore, and I'm sure that many others are in the same position. I'm going to pursue this exemption to the end, hope for the best, and see what comes of it.

I considered doing as you suggest, "requesting to see the scientific basis for the policy", and so on. I decided against it because I figured that it would be such an uphill struggle against the bureaucracy and the management, who are firmly convinced of the benefits of the vaccines and of their right to force everyone else to take it, that it would be futile to try. The prevailing logic is that the government health agency approved the vaccine, therefore it's safe and effective, therefore you have no right to raise any medical/scientific concerns, and all such concerns are evidence of being an antivaxxer. "Personal beliefs" are worth nothing here. The only valid human rights grounds are religious and medical (allergies, etc.) We simply don't have the freedom to choose. Call it pessimism if you want, but I wasn't willing to waste time and energy with theatrics that would ultimately single me out as an outsider to the group and amount to nothing in practice.

Adding to the absurdity of the situation is that the company has done extremely well during the pandemic with the entire workforce being remote. They announced (in my opinion) a premature and unnecessary return to the office, which I suspect is partly due to the fact that management likes to assert their power and control over employees more than they like to make money. I could have easily continued to work remotely indefinitely, but it looks like that's not a possibility.

[(Anonymous)]

Would you happen to also be a fellow FRC neophyte? Cause you basically just described my situation. So far I'm finding the lessons fascinating and whether or not I joined for "the right reasons", I'm happy I did.

[(Anonymous)]

I was in the same boat and I also chose to file for a religious exemption, which I was granted. My immediate supervisor, who knows me well, commented on the skill I used to describe my religious upbringing and its current influences without actually stating I was still a practicing member. In fact, I have become a master equivocator. Not even my immediate family know I am not vixxenated, and for as long as possible, I plan for it to remain that way. Good luck with your exemption!

Viridian Nocturnal Platypus

[scotlyn]

"I'm not opposed to vaccination in principle, only those that are experimental and forced on the unwilling with the weight of corporate and state power."

Is this statement coming from you, or is this part of the "burden of proof" that has been laid on you, I wonder?

The reason I ask is that in a different context, this statement could sound like this:

"I'm not opposed to sex in principle, only [to sex that is] forced on the unwilling..."

And, it strikes me that even there, far too many rape trials have devoted themselves exclusively to proving the accuser had never had any principled objection to sex*... and should rightfully, therefore, be presumed disbarred from objecting to rape.

* instead of - as I would wish to see - devoting such a trial to the question of whether it can be proven or disproven that the accused took definitive steps to prevent the accuser from leaving or refusing - which is what exerts the kind of force that ensures a thing will happen despite the other party's unwillingness.

I guess this may be stretching an analogy further than it should go, but still,

[(Anonymous)]

It's a statement that's coming from me. Arguing in front of the Central Committee(TM) that I'm only opposed to "forced" vaxxes wouldn't hold up, because the default assumption is that you aren't being "forced", you're only making a "choice" which has "consequences", and only an unfortunate pre-existing conflict, such as a longstanding religious conviction or medical issue, can prevent you from making the "right" choice. It's unfortunate, but this is the authoritarian gaslighting dialogue that applicants for an exemption have to navigate.

Obviously, I would never admit anything of what I've said outside of this venue, which is one of the few places on the internet where I feel that a reasonable conversation is still possible. Because nuanced arguments aren't possible and freedom is denied, when arguing for my exemption, my position is that I'm opposed to all vaccination in principle, full stop. Part of their "burden of proof" was to ask me whether I had ever received any vaccines in the past, not just flu shots or the like but also any of the classic childhood vaccines. I suppose that receiving a measles vaccine as a toddler would have meant in their eyes that I have no possible grounds for opposing the C19 vax, therefore my exemption would be denied. I felt that, from a strategic perspective, I had to lie and assert that I had never received any vaxxes, period.

[(Anonymous)]

Friend, what you're going through sounds extremely illegal. I wonder if you would benefit from watching the video I'm going to link here, I must sincerely thank whoever linked this wherever I saw it, this lady is a legend and her passion for RIGHTS is absolutely inspiring.

Watch the video and learn about the rights THAT YOU HAVE, and the limitations on what your employer can and cannot do to you. I ain't no lawyer but it sounds like your employer is meeting the legal definition of things like harassment, creating a toxic work environment.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Uc4VmKSvRmI&feature=emb_title

-Bofur

[(Anonymous)]

Ugh. You have my sympathies.

My request for a religious accommodation was at least acknowledged today, mostly by telling me I filled out the wrong form. Of course, I followed the instructions, and sent in the two forms that were attached to the instructions, when I submitted my request two weeks ago. And the form they sent today looks a lot like the one I remember filling out, so I'm not sure what the difference is. But, hey, it's the Government!

I have until Monday to send in the new form, which means my claim process will be delayed. Which is fine with me. I'm wondering if that's the point? They are trying to buy some time? I'm pretty sure they are overwhelmed by the number of requests.

We had an "All Employee" meeting yesterday to answer our questions. Of course they managed to fill up over half the time with a bunch of Blah Blah Blah ("we respect you", "we know this is a tough decision", blah blah blah). In the end, I think they actually answered about 6 questions. Some really good. ones were piling up in the "chat", but of course, they ran out of time to answer those.

It sounds like unlike you, my case will be decided by a single person rather than a committee. I'm not sure if that's better.

I also got the feeling (they were very careful with their word choice) that they will be very permissive with what counts as a valid religious reason for exemption. I've long thought that if they were smart, they would rubber stamp every single application to avoid losing 10-20% of their workforce and still save face. As I've said, I don't trust them to do the smart thing. But now it occurs to me that they would very much like to do that, but they don't actually know what "reasonable accommodation" will be. Just ignore it, and treat vexed and unvexed the same? Make the unvexed work from home? Make the vexed test regularly at government expense? I don't think they know and none of the three options I just listed is very good (I like the first one, but a lot of vexed will be too afraid).

It also seemed really clear that the Forest Service really hates this, and wouldn't be doing it if we weren't legally required to do so as part of the Executive Branch. The President has spoken! Apparently no one can, or is willing to stand up to him, even if it destroys their Agency. There was a lot of sentiment clearly coming from the vexed worried about how we'll get anything done if we lose a bunch of people. We are already pretty bare bones staffing levels. Are we expected to just do more? Or will we just expect to get a whole lot less done?

Firefighters are particularly reluctant to get vexed. I'm hearing we could lose half of them. There's no way they can recruit and train that many people before next fire season, so that should be interesting. I wonder what the excuse will be.

I'm getting off topic, but I wanted to say stand in solidarity with you! I'm sorry it's humiliating (adding insult to injury, as it were). Hang tight. You are not alone.

Best Wishes,
-Slink

[(Anonymous)]

OP here. I wish I could be as optimistic as you are, but my feeling in this corner is that they're willing to throw absolutely everyone who doesn't comply to the wolves regardless of what it does to departments, companies, industries and public services. They don't care.

I initially thought as you did, that they would be permissive with what counts as an exemption to keep people on board, but this doesn't seem to be the case. The low level enforcers seem to be more enthusiastic to assert their authority than the higher-ups who make the policy. I'm sure we've seen this phenomenon before...

I, too, wish you the best of luck. Perhaps those of us have taken our gracious host's advice over the years and collapsed early can lean on secondary sources of income that don't rely on obedience to arbitrary corporate and government mandates.

[(Anonymous)]

>Of course, I followed the instructions, and sent in the two forms that were attached to the instructions, when I submitted my request two weeks ago. And the form they sent today looks a lot like the one I remember filling out, so I'm not sure what the difference is.

This time keep a copy of what you sent in, so you'll be ready for future delaying tactics. They could always claim never to have received it, and if you kept a copy you can write a letter saying "Well, I sent it, here is a copy"--etc.

[(Anonymous)]

Corporate employment has always had major downsides in terms of freedom and dignity. I hate going through the annual ritual humiliation that they call a performance review. I know it's a farce, the boss knows it's a farce, we each know that the other knows, but we go through it so that the company can have a documented excuse for not paying me what I'm worth. Whatever. I sit through it, knowing that just one of my projects pays for my salary and more, and the rest of the good work I do is just icing on the cake. If they don't like me, they can try to find someone else to do what I do. I know I could get an equivalent job any day of the week, but I stay here because it is close to home.

There is no talk of mandatory participation in the ongoing drug trial yet, but I suspect that one way or another I will eventually be driven out for refusing to bow down and kiss the ring. Then I'll go get a job digging ditches or something and probably be the happier for it.