Grunt

BYU Hawaii - vaccine required

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Carborendum said:

Why is THAT particular school so important that she's raising this stink?  Has anyone even bothered to ask these questions?  I haven't read it in my limited exposure to this story.

 

Cos $200,000.00

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Carborendum said:

I have no idea why BYU-H would be more preferable than BYU-P as far as academics except for particular fields of study -- even then it's almost a wash. 

You think someone's dream of attending school in Hawaii is because of academics? :)

As for the rest of your post, and a lot of other posts here... it's pretty easy to sit there as an arm chair quarterback in these matters and judge from that throne. I wonder why we aren't more understanding in some of these things. It is natural to defend our institutions I suppose. (Though why people defend BYU is often beyond me. I'm not a fan.) But why don't we lean towards benefit of the doubt. Why aren't we more inclined to mourn with someone who's mourning?

I understand of course. I do the exact same thing. I think I'm a bit on the other side of the fence on this one because I really despise the draconian, nonsensical garbage surrounding the "pandemic". I hate this stuff. I'm actually very much on the girl's side in this case, naturally. Which makes me step back and consider when I'm not on someone's side how holier-than-thou judgmental I might be when I'm not on someone's side.

Of course I accept the potential that she's an evil person attacking the church in bad faith as a spoiled brat. But for some reason I see a separation of "The Church" and the overbearing bureaucratic institution that these colleges are, despite the fact that they're owned by "The Church". On the other hand, were I in a similar situation, whereas my inclination may be to go public and stick it to them as hard as possible in the same way, the fact that they're church owned would probably make me forbear. But I'd secretly feel that was even MORE unfair, like I was being manipulated into being bullied by the bureaucracy of it all because it was "church" owned. It's one of the reasons I've always turned down opportunities to work for the church. Everyone has times they hate their job and their boss. When you work for the church that means..... well, you know. You get a jerk for a supervisor and suddenly you're manipulated into... 

I digress.

Anyhow, either way -- despite the fact that I see this particular issue in a slightly different manner than those here who I might normally agree with (although I admit that my feelings are probably wrong) -- I do wonder why we tend to arm-chair judge these things so easily.

I apologize if this post also sounds judgey. I just thought it would be interesting to consider since I'm seeing things differently here, so forgive me if I came across too harsh or something.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
55 minutes ago, estradling75 said:

I think Trump was a good example of this, many of the faithful thought they should ally with him and his movement.  There was nothing wrong with that.  However too many thought that being an ally meant we shouldn't be trying to lift including making excuses for poor behavior.

FWIW, I don't think it's really that black-and-white. Most debates on the matter I've been in or seen are not someone making excuses for poor behavior, but simply one side accusing the other of making excuses, when the other side is actually in favor of that behavior.

What I mean by that, by way of example, is that I've never seen anyone (though I'm sure it happens...but I doubt with church members) justify Trump's comments about grabbing women by the privates. That sort of thing is viewed by the "excuse makers", as I see it, more like the high-school friend you knew who used to say things like that, but when they actually grew up and matured, are now good, faithful people. You let go of the past poor behavior.

But the broader "making excuses for" is more like this, to my mind: The prophets, and even Jesus Himself, said things that were taken as TERRIBLE by some. They called people names, told them they were children of hell, pointed out the flaws in blunt terms, etc. And there are those who, per my understanding, simply think that more of that actually ought to be happening in the political arena. When someone's a hypocritical, murdering, child of hell, they ought to be called a hypocritical, murdering, child of hell. It's less about making excuses for poor behavior as it is about a strong debate over what behavior is actually "poor".

That's just my take. I could be completely and entirely wrong. I cannot read other member's minds. Only my own. By by golly I quite liked it when Trump ripped certain people a new one, and generally (not always) thought he said what just honestly needed to be said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Welp.

Our little minx seems to have gone whining to Hannity, whence her sob story was picked up and repeated by the Daily Mail.  

There was also a story in the NYTs today about LDS women and garments. I didn’t read it, I was asked about it by a relative. The church is all over the place in the mainstream media. 

Edited by LDSGator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

You think someone's dream of attending school in Hawaii is because of academics? :)

As for the rest of your post, and a lot of other posts here... it's pretty easy to sit there as an arm chair quarterback in these matters and judge from that throne. I wonder why we aren't more understanding in some of these things. It is natural to defend our institutions I suppose. (Though why people defend BYU is often beyond me. I'm not a fan.) But why don't we lean towards benefit of the doubt. Why aren't we more inclined to mourn with someone who's mourning?

I understand of course. I do the exact same thing. I think I'm a bit on the other side of the fence on this one because I really despise the draconian, nonsensical garbage surrounding the "pandemic". I hate this stuff. I'm actually very much on the girl's side in this case, naturally. Which makes me step back and consider when I'm not on someone's side how holier-than-thou judgmental I might be when I'm not on someone's side.

Of course I accept the potential that she's an evil person attacking the church in bad faith as a spoiled brat. But for some reason I see a separation of "The Church" and the overbearing bureaucratic institution that these colleges are, despite the fact that they're owned by "The Church". On the other hand, were I in a similar situation, whereas my inclination may be to go public and stick it to them as hard as possible in the same way, the fact that they're church owned would probably make me forbear. But I'd secretly feel that was even MORE unfair, like I was being manipulated into being bullied by the bureaucracy of it all because it was "church" owned. It's one of the reasons I've always turned down opportunities to work for the church. Everyone has times they hate their job and their boss. When you work for the church that means..... well, you know. You get a jerk for a supervisor and suddenly you're manipulated into... 

I digress.

Anyhow, either way -- despite the fact that I see this particular issue in a slightly different manner than those here who I might normally agree with (although I admit that my feelings are probably wrong) -- I do wonder why we tend to arm-chair judge these things so easily.

I apologize if this post also sounds judgey. I just thought it would be interesting to consider since I'm seeing things differently here, so forgive me if I came across too harsh or something.

(To clarify, my laugh was a response to your first paragraph; not an attempt to deride your overall point.)

I guess my response would be:  I’m happy to mourn with those who mourn, until they demand that my mourning include the accommodation of their demands to the detriment of others who may be mourning for a whole other set of reasons.

I’ve had my spitting matches with BYU, and frankly I would go so far as to say that some of the most evil people in the Church draw a paycheck from that institution.  But I never tried to subject them to a campaign of public humiliation in order to get my way.  

This lady is just an antivax Kate Kelley.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, LDSGator said:

There was also a story in the NYTs today about LDS women and garments. I didn’t read it, I was asked about it by a relative. The church is all over the place in the mainstream media. 

Matthew 18:7:   “Woe unto the world because of offences! for it must needs be that offences come; but woe to that man by whom the offence cometh!“

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I’ve had my spitting matches with BYU, and frankly I would go so far as to say that some of the most evil people in the Church draw a paycheck from that institution.  But I never tried to subject them to a campaign of public humiliation in order to get my way.

I don't know about the "most evil people in the Church" part, but it may well be true. Other than that, I agree wholeheartedly with the above.

3 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

This lady is just an antivax Kate Kelley.

I dearly hope you are mistaken. I hope she's nothing more than a naive young lady who thinks she's being a heroine. Heaven forbid another precious daughter of God follow Kate Kelley's path.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2021 at 3:28 AM, The Folk Prophet said:

The question is how broadly do we draw the line as to sides.

I think that in purely pragmatic terms, there continues to be some truth in the idea that the enemy of my enemy is my friend. Obviously there are some significant limits as to how far this concept can be extended, but I think it could be a useful starting point. I'm reminded of the useful alliance with the USSR during the second world war. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

(To clarify, my laugh was a response to your first paragraph; not an attempt to deride your overall point.)

I guess my response would be:  I’m happy to mourn with those who mourn, until they demand that my mourning include the accommodation of their demands to the detriment of others who may be mourning for a whole other set of reasons.

I’ve had my spitting matches with BYU, and frankly I would go so far as to say that some of the most evil people in the Church draw a paycheck from that institution.  But I never tried to subject them to a campaign of public humiliation in order to get my way.  

This lady is just an antivax Kate Kelley.

I'm just not sure I can get on board with the idea that publicly calling out a college for a vaccine policy (particularly one that is so politically charged) is right in line with attacking the church itself. 

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

 I’m happy to mourn with those who mourn, until they demand that my mourning include the accommodation of their demands to the detriment of others who may be mourning for a whole other set of reasons.

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Who's detriment? How?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

I'm just not sure I can get on board with the idea that publicly calling out a college for a vaccine policy (particularly one that is so politically charged) is right in line with attacking the church itself. 

I can see why someone might think themselves justified in drawing the distinction (aside from the fact that the Church leadership constitutes the board of directors); but it’s a distinction that the broader population tends to miss.  Harp on BYU, and the ensuing media feeding frenzy will inevitably broaden to include the church as a whole.  

19 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Can you clarify what you mean by this? Who's detriment? How?

Off-the-bat I can think of at least two groups:  the people who may be exposed to/contract COVID through a more lax policy, and the Church/University/PCC that would have to deal with the physiological, financial, legal, and PR consequences of an outbreak that was traceable to BYUH.

But of course, our young Sister Kelley Junior doesn’t give a flying fig about any of that, so long as she gets hers.  She’s got her $200K in free money and is ready to come to Hawaii to par-taaaaay; and who do these grumpy old coots think they are to deny her all that?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
46 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

Off-the-bat I can think of at least two groups:  the people who may be exposed to/contract COVID through a more lax policy, and the Church/University/PCC that would have to deal with the physiological, financial, legal, and PR consequences of an outbreak that was traceable to BYUH.

Why aren't those people vaccinated?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why aren't those people vaccinated?

I’m assuming you’re aware that *no* vaccine is 100% effective, and that the real power comes from the “herd immunity” that arises once a critical mass of a population has been vaccinated?

And to the extent that some folks haven’t been vaccinated—to be sure, some folks are well-informed and have good reason to avoid various vaccines.  But another part of the problem is bad information and hysteria being willfully disseminated by certain personalities and outlets.  

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Why aren't those people vaccinated?

I just googled "Who shouldn't get the COVID vaccine" and this was the first on list.  It's the CDC, and I understand some may have a problem with them as a source.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/underlying-conditions.html?s_cid=11413:who should not get covid vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

I thought it was really interesting that they say that people with Guillian Barre Syndrome can get the vaccine.  That's what this is all about, right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

I’m assuming you’re aware that *no* vaccine is 100% effective, and that the real power comes from the “herd immunity” that arises once a critical mass of a population has been vaccinated?

That is accurate according to the WHO's new definition of herd immunity, yes. But I'm afraid I don't follow or understand how that answers my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

That is accurate according to the WHO's new definition of herd immunity, yes. But I'm afraid I don't follow or understand how that answers my question.

Frankly, if you aren’t trying to suggest that the vaccine *should be* 100% effective and that vaccinated folks are (or ought to be) unaffected by an individual’s failure to become vaccinated, then I don’t see how your question is relevant.  Are you trying to lead me to a certain conclusion?  If you’ll just tell me the point you’re trying to make, I’ll try to engage with it.

And I’m not sure it’s really fair or accurate to say that concepts like “herd immunity” or new or are being substantially redefined.  I learned about it in high school, which (as @LDSGator will happily tell you) was kind of a long time ago.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Just_A_Guy said:

Frankly, I don’t see how your question is relevant, unless you’re trying to lead me to a certain conclusion.  If you’ll just tell me the point you’re trying to make, I’ll try to engage with it.

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm trying to lead you to a conclusion. The point, I suppose, is that to my best (albeit limited) understanding...if there are 100 people in the room and 99 of them are vaccinated and 1 is not then I believe we have herd immunity there. I don't know what the specifics numbers are, but it does seem to strike me that until there are enough individuals not vaccinated to affect herd immunity then being stringent in the issuing of exceptions doesn't make much sense except as some sort of virtue signaling.

5 minutes ago, Just_A_Guy said:

And I’m not sure it’s really fair or accurate to say that concepts like “herd immunity” or new or are being substantially redefined. 

When they eliminate immunity from previous infection from the definition I'd say it is. But that is probably not relevant to the discussion at hand. Just griping.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dprh said:

I just googled "Who shouldn't get the COVID vaccine" and this was the first on list.  It's the CDC, and I understand some may have a problem with them as a source.

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/recommendations/underlying-conditions.html?s_cid=11413:who should not get covid vaccine:sem.ga:p:RG:GM:gen:PTN:FY21

I thought it was really interesting that they say that people with Guillian Barre Syndrome can get the vaccine.  That's what this is all about, right?

That is a interesting little factoid.  I was wondering what it would take to merit an exception and why someone with something like Guillian Barre wouldn't be.   It seems clear BYUH is following the CDC guidelines...  Now people might agree or disagree with the CDC guideline but it is the legally wise path for an institution.  The Admins at BYUH are not overriding her doctor... the CDC is.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, The Folk Prophet said:

Hmm. I'm not sure I'm trying to lead you to a conclusion. The point, I suppose, is that to my best (albeit limited) understanding...if there are 100 people in the room and 99 of them are vaccinated and 1 is not then I believe we have herd immunity there. I don't know what the specifics numbers are, but it does seem to strike me that until there are enough individuals not vaccinated to affect herd immunity then being stringent in the issuing of exceptions doesn't make much sense except as some sort of virtue signaling.

As I understand it, Hawaii is currently a shade over 53% vaccinated, which of course is nowhere near “herd immunity” and I doubt isn’t close even if we count recovered cases.

But, the thought process above seems to reduce to “we shouldn’t incentivize people to get vaccinated until almost everyone has already been vaccinated”, which frankly is a little hard for me to follow.  Am I misunderstanding?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

As I understand it, Hawaii is currently a shade over 53% vaccinated, which of course is nowhere near “herd immunity” and I doubt isn’t close even if we count recovered cases.

So why is the refusal of the 47% in Hawaii to get vaccinated a BYU-H applicant's problem?

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

But, the thought process above seems to reduce to “we shouldn’t incentivize people to get vaccinated until almost everyone has already been vaccinated”, which frankly is a little hard for me to follow.  Am I misunderstanding?

(Edit: Because I know I get in trouble for the way I state things a lot, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you're being convoluted or nonsensical below. I'm saying that (as I'm sure you're well aware, because it was your point) you are reducing my ideas to a sentence that is convoluted and nonsensical. By which you are suggesting that I am expressing a convoluted and nonsensical idea.)

I'm not sure how you're getting that convoluted and actually nonsensical idea out of what I'm saying. I don't think anyone ought to be forcing the Covid vaccine for any reason. Incentivizing? That's tougher.

It's a bit hard for me to discuss this in that I am not sure how I really feel. I don't trust ANYONE! I don't trust the government. I don't trust the CDC. I don't trust the news media. I don't trust "conservative" sources. Everyone's biased and everyone has an agenda. And I don't trust anything or anyone.

So...thanks for that...everybody.

I mean the First Presidency (who I do trust) told us to "...counsel with a competent medical professional..." And I find myself, for the first time in my life, thinking, "Who is that?!" What medical professional, in today's world, can I trust to not have political bias, or not be swayed by one vehement side or the other, or not be corrupted by the severe censorship going on, or not be corrupted by rebellion against the severe censorship going on?*

I honestly don't know what to think. But I do know that I HATE the idea of being forced into something instead of being able to do my best to weed through it all myself and make a decision on my own behalf and on behalf of my children.

In this particular case, I tend to think BYU-H should err on the side of those who don't want the vaccine for whatever reason. And particularly if they've gotten a "doctor's note". 

I grant BYU-H's right to be snots about this. I just think they're being snots. And I think they're being snots because of an overarching narrative that is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous, that instead of being very wary of (or even noting), they seem to be embracing. That narrative is way more dangerous than the pandemic could even pretend to be.

*Edit: Not to mention this idea: If a medical professional told someone to not get vaccinated and then that person or someone they loved died, whoo boy howdy LAWSUIT! But if the Dr. recommend vaccination...everyone's legally immune (pun recognized but not intended). Speaking of incentives and trust.

Edited by The Folk Prophet

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, The Folk Prophet said:

So why is the refusal of the 47% in Hawaii to get vaccinated a BYU-H applicant's problem?

(Edit: Because I know I get in trouble for the way I state things a lot, I want to make it clear that I'm not saying you're being convoluted or nonsensical below. I'm saying that (as I'm sure you're well aware, because it was your point) you are reducing my ideas to a sentence that is convoluted and nonsensical. By which you are suggesting that I am expressing a convoluted and nonsensical idea.)

I'm not sure how you're getting that convoluted and actually nonsensical idea out of what I'm saying. I don't think anyone ought to be forcing the Covid vaccine for any reason. Incentivizing? That's tougher.

It's a bit hard for me to discuss this in that I am not sure how I really feel. I don't trust ANYONE! I don't trust the government. I don't trust the CDC. I don't trust the news media. I don't trust "conservative" sources. Everyone's biased and everyone has an agenda. And I don't trust anything or anyone.

So...thanks for that...everybody.

I mean the First Presidency (who I do trust) told us to "...counsel with a competent medical professional..." And I find myself, for the first time in my life, thinking, "Who is that?!" What medical professional, in today's world, can I trust to not have political bias, or not be swayed by one vehement side or the other, or not be corrupted by the severe censorship going on, or not be corrupted by rebellion against the severe censorship going on?*

I honestly don't know what to think. But I do know that I HATE the idea of being forced into something instead of being able to do my best to weed through it all myself and make a decision on my own behalf and on behalf of my children.

In this particular case, I tend to think BYU-H should err on the side of those who don't want the vaccine for whatever reason. And particularly if they've gotten a "doctor's note". 

I grant BYU-H's right to be snots about this. I just think they're being snots. And I think they're being snots because of an overarching narrative that is EXCEEDINGLY dangerous, that instead of being very wary of (or even noting), they seem to be embracing. That narrative is way more dangerous than the pandemic could even pretend to be.

*Edit: Not to mention this idea: If a medical professional told someone to not get vaccinated and then that person or someone they loved died, whoo boy howdy LAWSUIT! But if the Dr. recommend vaccination...everyone's legally immune (pun recognized but not intended). Speaking of incentives and trust.

I absolutely agree that it’s hard to know in detail who to trust and what to believe.  Many of the standard “authorities” have not exactly covered themselves in glory here.

That said, I think we know enough to paint some broad pictures, as follows:

1). COVID is responsible for a large number of particularly unpleasant deaths, which are occurring in hospitals whose occupancy rates are significantly higher than they were pre-COVID and whose staffs are getting burned out.

2).  The average US life expectancy has significantly declined over the past year, and there seem to be no plausible candidates causing such a decline except for COVID.

3). The vaccines were developed around a series of scientific theories about how the virus, and the human immune system, function.  When it comes to protecting against the COVID strains for which they were designed, the vaccines appear to be functioning more-or-less as-anticipated—the theory does work in real life.

4). We don’t know a lot—yet—about side-effects.  That said:  My understanding is that the majority of what has been observed, are similar to the effects that a COVID infection itself would produce in the body (which, as I understand it, is not terribly surprising).  I have yet to see a strong case being made that a substantial number of individuals who allegedly died because of the vaccine, had healthy immune systems that would have withstood a full-fledged COVID infection.

5).  As it pertains to the young lady at issue here:  her excuse note was written by a D.O.—an osteopath—who by definition and training focuses on more naturalistic approaches to medicine, and is neither as confident in or as fully trained regarding synthetic medications.  BYUH apparently consulted an MD who took a more nuanced approach about the mechanics of the various vaccines and how each one, individually, could affect persons with the young lady’s condition; whereas the young lady’s doctor was predisposed to—and did—generate a canned bleating about “Big Pharma Bad”.

In this context, with regard to the question about why low vaccination rates are a BYUH student’s problem:  Legally, I would say they aren’t; because individual liberties and “it’s my body, darn it!”  I would certainly argue against a vaccination mandate that was enforced by threat of fine or imprisonment.  (Society’s right, collectively and/or as individuals, to draw back from a nonconformer/perceived threat, is a hairier issue—of course, “banishment” was a thing in colonial America . . .)

But, given all of the above as well as the factor cited in BYUH’s exemption denial letter, I think it’s well within BYUH’s prerogative to say “we feel we have a responsibility to our broader community to play ball here, and we’re going to make this a condition of attendance.”  And at that point, it does become the BYUH student’s problem; just as the facts that per the Honor Code *other* people’s inability to drink responsibly, or sit through a class while a female present is showing excessive skin, or to get a meaningful education without cheating on test scores, all similarly become the student’s own problem.

Edited by Just_A_Guy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few areas of discussion with JAG's post.

1 hour ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I absolutely agree that it’s hard to know in detail who to trust and what to believe.  Many of the standard “authorities” have not exactly covered themselves in glory here.

That said, I think we know enough to paint some broad pictures, as follows:

1). COVID is responsible for a large number of particularly unpleasant deaths, which are occurring in hospitals whose occupancy rates are significantly higher than they were pre-COVID and whose staffs are getting burned out.

I don't think there is anything "particularly unpleasant" about dying of COVID, as opposed to dying of any other respiratory infection. Calling the number of deaths "large" is purely a value judgment. We have not lost 10% of the population to COVID.

Quote

2).  The average US life expectancy has significantly declined over the past year, and there seem to be no plausible candidates causing such a decline except for COVID.

This statement is what the media reports, but it is meaningless. For one thing, life expectancy is calculated from data tabulations extending back for long periods. COVID is still largely a blip on the radar; its statistical effects on life expectancy will be noted in the years to come, not today. For another, "life expectancy" typically is applied to newborns: How long can this newly born child expect to live? What we have been seeing with COVID deaths for the last 20 or so months is mostly old people dying somewhat earlier than expected. To extend this to the 40-and-under crowd as a general "US life expectancy has declined!" is an unjustified scare tactic worthy of Comrade Stalin, Dear Leader Kim, and the 21st-century US news media.

I would like to hear @MarginOfError's take on this. I trust his understanding of and judgment about statistics more than I trust my own.

Quote

3). The vaccines were developed around a series of scientific theories about how the virus, and the human immune system, function.  When it comes to protecting against the COVID strains for which they were designed, the vaccines appear to be functioning more-or-less as-anticipated—the theory does work in real life.

I gather that the immunoresponse models have worked pretty accurately. The modeling of spread and infection, not so much.

Quote

4). We don’t know a lot—yet—about side-effects.  That said:  My understanding is that the majority of what has been observed, are similar to the effects that a COVID infection itself would produce in the body (which, as I understand it, is not terribly surprising).  I have yet to see a strong case being made that a substantial number of individuals who allegedly died because of the vaccine, had healthy immune systems that would have withstood a full-fledged COVID infection.

I think the vaccine scare plays into the hands of the duplicitous media. I dearly wish that the many on "my side" that we hear loudly decrying the vaccine as a threat to America's health would just stop it. But in the larger view, their ignorance is certainly no worse in quality than the ignorance of the "other side", which is much greater in scope and much more directly targeted at curtailing liberty.

The anti-vax ignorance displayed by many on "my side" will result in a higher death toll, primarily among the very old. The ignorance displayed by the "other side" will result in a permanent loss of liberty and a ceding of fundamental rights to government whim. I know which of the two I consider to be a far greater threat to my children and my children's children.

Quote

5).  As it pertains to the young lady at issue here:  her excuse note was written by a D.O.—an osteopath—who by definition and training focuses on more naturalistic approaches to medicine, and is neither as confident in or as fully trained regarding synthetic medications.  BYUH apparently consulted an MD who took a more nuanced approach about the mechanics of the various vaccines and how each one, individually, could affect persons with the young lady’s condition; whereas the young lady’s doctor was predisposed to—and did—generate a canned bleating about “Big Pharma Bad”.

A Doctor of Osteopathy (DO) is a physician, just like a Medical Doctor (MD). DOs historically claim to be more "naturalistic" and "holistic" in their medical approach—which no one can reasonably say is a bad thing—while MDs follow "traditional medicine". Both types of physician receive essentially identical training. Both are licensed to practice medicine. AFAIK, neither the law nor the medical community distinguish between MDs and DOs on a functional level. DOs are allowed to go into any specialization open to an MD. You will find DO radiologists, oncologists, psychiatrists, and neurosurgeons.

Now, the fact is that the most respected medical schools overwhelmingly offer MD programs, while many newer medical schools offer DO programs. So there is a perception that DOs are the physicians whose MCAT test scores or grades out of college weren't high enough to get them into a better program. There may be some truth to this broad assertion, but it is indeed a broad assertion and cannot reliably be applied to individual cases.

The fact that it was a DO who wrote the note instead of an MD is utterly meaningless. You could as easily find an MD to write such a note as you could find an MD to write you an excuse for a beard card at BYU. MDs are every bit as politically biased, stubborn, and ignorant as their DO counterparts.

Quote

In this context, with regard to the question about why low vaccination rates are a BYUH student’s problem:  Legally, I would say they aren’t; because individual liberties and “it’s my body, darn it!”  I would certainly argue against a vaccination mandate that was enforced by threat of fine or imprisonment.  (Society’s right, collectively and/or as individuals, to draw back from a nonconformer/perceived threat, is a hairier issue—of course, “banishment” was a thing in colonial America . . .)

But, given all of the above as well as the factor cited in BYUH’s exemption denial letter, I think it’s well within BYUH’s prerogative to say “we feel we have a responsibility to our broader community to play ball here, and we’re going to make this a condition of attendance.”  And at that point, it does become the BYUH student’s problem; just as the facts that per the Honor Code *other* people’s inability to drink responsibly, or sit through a class while a female present is showing excessive skin, or to get a meaningful education without cheating on test scores, all similarly become the student’s own problem.

I certainly agree about the BYU-H aministrators being morally justified in requiring a vaccination, whether or not I may happen to agree with them on the particular issue. I trust that your legal analysis is valid; sounds good to me.

I think this is a losing issue all around for anti-government-encroaching conservatives. I would like to see fewer people getting up in arms over situations like this. If you don't like the policies at BYU-H (or Harvard, or Evergreen College, or Joe's Auto Body Repair and School of Life Sciences), then go somewhere else.

Now if you're talking about a public school, I would be more sympathetic to such objections.

Edited by Vort

Share this post


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