Vaccines have been readily available to anyone who wants them (in the US) since mid April, even in the highest demand parts of the country. If you are not vaccinated, at this point, there is no excuse.
(edit: obviously, I’m assuming the article is talking about a company in the US, since the article is about the US.)
So, I made a comment about how vaccines are widely available in the US, on an article about the US, and you’re nitpicking it because you have an ideological problem with what I wrote.
I'll paraphrase the reply I put under a post that's about to also get buried in a flurry of downvotes:
Seattle area has had access since mid-April, and I drove 90 minutes to get that shot as early as I could. I hit full vaccination status on Monday of this week, so no outdoor lunches for me last week. But math is hard, amirite?
Only if you are in certain parts of the world. If you aren't, then no. No they are not. For the record: I'm in Norway. Vaccine rollout has been slow - and it hasn't been my turn yet.
At least 10% of Americans don't live within 5 miles of any pharmacy, and nearly 10% don't have access to a vehicle, a number which is higher among no non-white populations.
Depending on what area they're in and local policies, undocumented immigrants may have difficulty getting the vaccine.
Those are just a few examples of situations that, due to your unexamined privilege, you're apparently incapable of imagining.
We've only just reached the 50% mark for vaccinated people. Certainly some percent of those don't want the vaccine, but included in the remainder are people who have difficulty getting time off work, difficulty with transportation, etc.
Similar issues apply for voting. If these factors weren't important, Republicans wouldn't spend so much effort trying to disenfranchise voters by exploiting these factors to make it more difficult for people to vote.
The idea that pointing these issues out is "posturing" is either a sad commentary on your obliviousness, or indicates that you're perfectly aware of the status quo and want it to stay that way. Neither is a good reflection on you.
IANAD, but I'm sure there are some medical contraindications for certain individuals, such as people who are immunocompromised, that may legitimately keep them from being vaccinated. That's why achieving herd immunity is important, and my understanding is that we aren't quite there yet.
Sure, but this thread is about an employer bringing everyone in for a luncheon. People who are not vaccinated for medical reasons should be taking responsibility for their health in these situations and declining to attend an event like this. (If the employer will count this absence against them despite their medical situation, that's a shitty employer that might be violating ADA laws.)
The issue is with the anti-vaxxer types (including people who won't get vaccinated for religious reasons) who seem to be more likely to attend an event like this without caring about their (or others') vaccination status.
I do believe it is true that everyone in the US who both wants and is able to medically tolerate a vaccine should have been able to get at least their first dose by now.
Regarding herd immunity, I'm honestly not expecting that to ever happen in the US. There are too many people who are skeptical of these vaccines, some for the regular disappointing anti-vax reasons, others who do have serious concerns and/or have been swayed by misinformation. The fact that states and municipalities are resorting to crazy incentives like cash lotteries and even stuff like trucks and guns for people to get vaccinated really illustrates how bad it is.
I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed, which means that if you have a staff of 20, it’s possible that vaccines might not be effective when administered to one of them.
It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
> I read that something like 3-4% of the US might be immunocompromised, easily an order of magnitude higher than I would have initially guessed
Wow, agreed, I would not have guessed that high a percentage.
> It’s not just antivaxxers who are at risk from in-person meetings.
Right, and I explicitly said that I would hope people with medical conditions would decline these kinds of in-person meetings if they weren't comfortable with them just yet.
Herd immunity is not a fixed vaccination percentage pulled from Anthony Fauci’s latest media appearance. It’s the immunity level at which cases stabilize and begin to decline. It is defined by observation.
Cases are at all-time lows in the most vaccinated locations, and are dropping rapidly nationwide.
No, it's the level at which people not eligible for vaccination are no longer at risk because most of their peers are incapable of spreading the disease. The political aspects are just some stuff some people made up.
(edit: obviously, I’m assuming the article is talking about a company in the US, since the article is about the US.)