Jump to content

Recommended Posts

8 minutes ago, yknot said:

... and trying very hard to hit the pause and edit buttons. 

More than once I wished for a delete button ... or a "Way Back Machine" button.  :)

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 35
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Was talking to  scout the other day who was lamenting about the polarization of society. He mentioned other adults in his life who cannot even say hi to each other anymore let alone have a civil discu

I don't think they can do a vaccine mandate.  They could do a mandate that in order to be unmasked you have to be vaccinated but I don't think you are legally allowed to ask that question.  I am not s

It depends on who is asking. HIPAA only applies in the healthcare setting and it merely protects against providers sharing your medical records against your will. An employer, school, business, or any

21 hours ago, 69RoadRunner said:

That changed with the discredited anti-vaxxer movement that claimed vaccines caused Autism.

To be clear, the claim that MMR vaccines cause autism was published in the Lancet, a peer-reviewed journal, in 1998.  It took many years for it to be debunked, and not before the Wakefield study results were all over the evening news.  The "anti-vaxxer movement" didn't create the claim, Dr. Wakefield did, and following the publicity of the study, the movement.  Only later did we find out he was funded by a law firm looking to sue MMR manufacturers.  Those of us who have children with autism, who were of vaccine receiving ages between 1998 and roughly 2004, were forced to make decisions in that maelstrom.  So, let's put the blame where it belongs, Dr. Wakefield's unethical behavior, a peer-review system that didn't catch it, and the sensationalism of the evening news, rather than the sophistry of some anti-vax movement making the claim.

Wakefield’s article linking MMR vaccine and autism was fraudulent | The BMJ

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

Two choices: Vaccinate, or don't participate in society. It assumes there is one way to not die, and the vaccine is it.

My personal experience, as well as years and years of data, tell me that this is not true, but does that matter to the do-gooders and virtue signalers? 

I'm so tired of the two choices narrative. I'm so tired of other people telling me what my risk tolerance should be. Would Scouting be happy if I masked my kids and never let them leave the house, so they could be completely, totally safe? 

Let's vaccinate all the adults. Then let's follow the example of the teachers' unions and demand that kids be vaccinated too. You know what we don't have a vaccine for? Car accidents, lightning strikes, snake bites, drowning. Covid has taught us that NO RISK is acceptable, so let's shut it all down. No more high adventure, no more meetings that you have to drive to, no more poptarts for breakfast on the last day of camp. 

Remember, everyone is the same,  everyone wants the same things, and the people who decide what those things are, are the only ones who are right.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, yknot said:

It depends on who is asking. HIPAA only applies in the healthcare setting and it merely protects against providers sharing your medical records against your will. An employer, school, business, or anyone who isn't affiliated with those entities can legally ask your vaccine status. They as of now can't mandate it, but they can make decisions based on whatever information you supply on whether or not they want to hire, serve, or admit you. In other threads it has been discussed that while BSA may not require a vaccine for scouting participation, a CO certainly can based on what they think their liability risks or even just unique levels of concern are. 

 

Sort of kind of - but there is the privacy rule.  It is specific but also broad.  Not sure a unit would want to go down the road of requiring something and requiring proof of said something.  Not 100% sure how this would apply to a Scout unit and I going to bet a CO would not want to have to find out

HIPAA Privacy Rule
The Privacy Rule standards address the use and disclosure of individuals’ health information (known as “protected health information”) by entities subject to the Privacy Rule. These individuals and organizations are called “covered entities.” The Privacy Rule also contains standards for individuals’ rights to understand and control how their health information is used. A major goal of the Privacy Rule is to ensure that individuals’ health information is properly protected while allowing the flow of health information needed to provide and promote high quality health care and to protect the public’s health and well-being. The Privacy Rule strikes a balance that permits important uses of information while protecting the privacy of people who seek care and healing.

Covered Entities
The following types of individuals and organizations are subject to the Privacy Rule and considered covered entities:

Healthcare providers: Every healthcare provider, regardless of size of practice, who electronically transmits health information in connection with certain transactions. These transactions include claims, benefit eligibility inquiries, referral authorization requests, and other transactions for which HHS has established standards under the HIPAA Transactions Rule.

Health plans: Entities that provide or pay the cost of medical care. Health plans include health, dental, vision, and prescription drug insurers; health maintenance organizations (HMOs); Medicare, Medicaid, Medicare+Choice, and Medicare supplement insurers; and long-term care insurers (excluding nursing home fixed-indemnity policies). Health plans also include employer-sponsored group health plans, government- and church-sponsored health plans, and multi-employer health plans.

Exception: A group health plan with fewer than 50 participants that is administered solely by the employer that established and maintains the plan is not a covered entity.

Healthcare clearinghouses: Entities that process nonstandard information they receive from another entity into a standard (i.e., standard format or data content), or vice versa. In most instances, healthcare clearinghouses will receive individually identifiable health information only when they are providing these processing services to a health plan or healthcare provider as a business associate.
Business associates: A person or organization (other than a member of a covered entity’s workforce) using or disclosing individually identifiable health information to perform or provide functions, activities, or services for a covered entity. These functions, activities, or services include claims processing, data analysis, utilization review, and billing.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/22/2021 at 12:01 PM, yknot said:

I was about to click thumbs up on your post until I got to your comment about masks. That point is disputed. This is anecdotal, but I regularly monitor several high school district Covid dashboards as part of doing a regional Covid update. There have been multiple outbreaks among high school sports teams.  There were several outbreaks in fall sports on teams that were practicing solely outdoors but had some degree of close contact, e.g., football. Keep in mind, no one is using the locker rooms this is just kids on a field and masked until it's time to run. When the winter season started and masks came off for indoor basketball and hockey, there were more outbreaks. The schools did not see much transmission among masked children sitting six feet apart in classrooms, even during winter months. This indicates there may be some value to mask wearing.

I think  sports has to be kind of a category of its own.  Generally masks outdoors don't do much because the wind makes a buildup of aerosolized virus pretty much impossible.   But when you are playing football and a couple of lineman spend a few seconds forcefully breathing directly into the face of their opponent from a 1 away, maybe a mask might be useful, even outdoors.  Not to mention that many HS athletes were doing things like sharing cars to get to practice, and you can bet most weren't wearing a mask.

On 5/22/2021 at 10:00 PM, mashmaster said:

I don't think they can do a vaccine mandate.  They could do a mandate that in order to be unmasked you have to be vaccinated but I don't think you are legally allowed to ask that question.  I am not sure how HIPA rules work for this.   So I think you can say this is the rule and people should be respectful to follow it, but you can't enforce it.

As someone else mentioned, HIPAA rules only apply to health care providers, health plans and health plan clearinghouses Who must obey HIPAA

1 hour ago, Sniktaw said:

Two choices: Vaccinate, or don't participate in society. It assumes there is one way to not die, and the vaccine is it.

Let's vaccinate all the adults. Then let's follow the example of the teachers' unions and demand that kids be vaccinated too. You know what we don't have a vaccine for? Car accidents, lightning strikes, snake bites, drowning. Covid has taught us that NO RISK is acceptable, so let's shut it all down. No more high adventure, no more meetings that you have to drive to, no more poptarts for breakfast on the last day of camp. 

Remember, everyone is the same,  everyone wants the same things, and the people who decide what those things are, are the only ones who are right.

 

Except that none of those other things you've mentioned are contagious. 

  • Upvote 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
On 5/22/2021 at 5:52 AM, Eagle1993 said:

You could require masks for those unvaccinated when they are indoors (per CDC) but I wouldn’t require the vaccine. 

That's our thoughts too - follow the guidance of the CDC but not requiring more.

We plan to continue wearing masks in close contacts outdoors and no scheduling of indoor activities for the remainder of the year. 

Edited by mncaa
Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, DuctTape said:

Whatever your unit decides, be sure to clear it with your COR. I would recommend, the COR be the final arbiter.

Our COR is present at these meetings. Can a CO ask the mandate from one group (a troop) and not for their other groups (pack, church youth group)?

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, mncaa said:

Our COR is present at these meetings. Can a CO ask the mandate from one group (a troop) and not for their other groups (pack, church youth group)?

It is their own organization, I would think so.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, mncaa said:

Our COR is present at these meetings. Can a CO ask the mandate from one group (a troop) and not for their other groups (pack, church youth group)?

I was on a church board meeting last week. We are asking childcare staff to continue masking regardless of vaccination status. It was a contentious decision, albeit consistent with CDC guidelines.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2021 at 8:33 AM, walk in the woods said:

... The "anti-vaxxer movement" didn't create the claim, Dr. Wakefield did, and following the publicity of the study, the movement.  Only later did we find out he was funded by a law firm looking to sue MMR manufacturers.  Those of us who have children with autism, who were of vaccine receiving ages between 1998 and roughly 2004, were forced to make decisions in that maelstrom.  ...

The problem long preceded Wakefield's infamous paper. Some of us didn't notice it because we were in communities who put a lot of stock in medical advice -- and understood risks, roughly. When I first met my pandemic guy in the 80's, he was trying understand why minority parents were often vaccine adverse -- which often led to their children more likely to suffer from preventable disease. This storm has been brewing for some time.

But @walk in the woods it was heartbreaking to see families facing autism having their energy wasted spurning vaccines. The very decisive Danish study (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101 ) was aggressively challenged by correspondents who regurgitated stale facts.  The saddest thing that I saw after reading of that article was slightly higher rates of autism in older unvaccinated children. It captures what you've described at the beginning of this century -- as no doubt many parents who had a family member with autism struggled to "protect" their children from the same, and they hoped in vain that not getting vaccinated would do the trick.

However, these are our fellow citizens. They dread "big pharma" to the point where they may fall prey to those who need a population debilitated and dependent on the alternative treatments that they claim to offer.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/23/2021 at 10:22 PM, elitts said:

Except that none of those other things you've mentioned are contagious. 

And if there were a shot (or two shots) that could prevent one from dying (or minimize the danger/damage) from car accidents, lightning strikes, snake bites, or drowning, would anyone be arguing about taking it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
19 hours ago, qwazse said:

The problem long preceded Wakefield's infamous paper. Some of us didn't notice it because we were in communities who put a lot of stock in medical advice -- and understood risks, roughly. When I first met my pandemic guy in the 80's, he was trying understand why minority parents were often vaccine adverse -- which often led to their children more likely to suffer from preventable disease. This storm has been brewing for some time.

But @walk in the woods it was heartbreaking to see families facing autism having their energy wasted spurning vaccines. The very decisive Danish study (https://www.acpjournals.org/doi/full/10.7326/M18-2101 ) was aggressively challenged by correspondents who regurgitated stale facts.  The saddest thing that I saw after reading of that article was slightly higher rates of autism in older unvaccinated children. It captures what you've described at the beginning of this century -- as no doubt many parents who had a family member with autism struggled to "protect" their children from the same, and they hoped in vain that not getting vaccinated would do the trick.

However, these are our fellow citizens. They dread "big pharma" to the point where they may fall prey to those who need a population debilitated and dependent on the alternative treatments that they claim to offer.

I would not be so quick to write things off.  I agree with the studies.  But I also raised four kids.  At the 2 month and 15 month (?? intervals) vaccines, each had fevers or grumpy / irritable after their vaccinations.  I remember two that went from making some pre-speech sounds before vaccine to not making some again for months.  ... I'm not blaming the vaccine.  But vaccines are known to cause fever and grumpy / irritable babies after.  It is not wholly inconceivable that someday a connection will be found saying fever affects ear channels and can slow speech development or has some minor speech.  

I'm pro-vaccine.  The good far out weighs the bad.  BUT, it's arrogant to say something that is known to cause fevers, affect mood, etc does not affect a child that is growing and doing new things daily.  

Anyway, I'm pro-vaccine and pro-defending people who have concerns.  

Edited by fred8033
  • Upvote 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/24/2021 at 6:29 AM, mncaa said:

Our COR is present at these meetings. Can a CO ask the mandate from one group (a troop) and not for their other groups (pack, church youth group)?

Inconsistency would be a red flag to me.   I'd hope CO has all CO's youth groups follow the same direction.  But it's the CO's choice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...