Pregnant nurse: I was fired for refusing flu vaccine

[Ms. Toad]

59. Did I say they had to grant her the same exemptions?

No. That's why it is a strawman. Responding to an argument I didn't make (they have to grant her an exemption) as if it was an argument I did make is creating and batting down a strawman.

I was addressing (1) the general responses (including yours) which rejected out of hand the possibility of real medical risks on the assumption that her concerns are just "internet nutjobbery" - without reading the article to learn that her doctors support her decision and without bothering to check and see if there might be some evidence to support her concerns and (2) whether a medical waiver should be treated any differently than a religious waiver.

And your further response is a little closer, but still a strawman.

This is a single woman, with a history of multiple miscarriages, whose treating physicians have made the medical decision that it is inappropriate for her to be vaccinated - who is also citing the lack of research about the safety of vaccinations in a very small group of employees (some of which I pointed you to, which indicates that (1) there may well be a risk as two studies found and (2) because of defects in how many studies are populated they miss the population which includes this nurse.

That population (taking all similarly situated employees) is not "half their staff." That population is not "every single employee." That population is not someone who generically "don't wanna get a vaccination, (because) they're scared)" - it is a limited population which has heightened risk for miscarriage anyway and whose decision is supported by the doctors caring for them.

Beyond that (just in terms of evidence and logic), you haven't cited any medical reason why they should want to limit the number of employees wearing masks - you just made a conclusory statement that "they have good reason to." If the institution has determined that a mask is medically sufficient to prevent disease transmission for one person, it does not inherently become insufficient merely because there are 10, or 100 wearing masks - that implicit contradiction (a sufficiently effective individual disease transmission method when used by 1 becomes ineffective when used by many) needs to be supported by evidence and reasoning. I'm not saying it couldn't be done - but you didn't even bother to try.

But even giving you that point - that it would be unreasonable for the hospital to grant unlimited exemptions - nothing I said even hinted that I thought that they should make the vaccination policy optional for all employees (i.e. not limit the number of employees). When you respond as if that was the argument I made, you are battling strawmen of your own creation.

The specific group of employees I was discussing are those who (1) are pregnant, (2) have a history of multiple prior miscarriages, and (3) decline immunization for medical reasons during a specific pregnancy under the care of their obstetrician (and in this case GP), in the face of inconclusive research about the risks of vaccination in view of a history of prior miscarriages (including some studies which have found an increased risk). That is a very limited group of employees - likely far fewer than those currently claiming religious exemption.

Personally, I think it would be reasonable to expand the exemption to any pregnant employee whose doctor recommends she not receive the vaccine until there is more conclusive research. (But even that larger expansion is not the argument I made.)