Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New media
New media comments
Latest activity
Classifieds
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Log in
Register
What's New?
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More Options
Advertise with us
Contact Us
Close Menu
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Upcoming job loss
Search titles only
By:
Reply to Thread
This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Message
<blockquote data-quote="theman4bran" data-source="post: 3648417" data-attributes="member: 41235"><p>Williams here in Tulsa is waiting on OSHA's guidance. They sent the following: "<strong>COVID-19 Vaccinations:</strong> The Executive Officer Team has been very clear that, as a company, we do not support mandatory vaccination. However, if, and when, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), we will comply with the law which likely would require weekly COVID-19 testing of employees who are not vaccinated. Additionally, we do encourage vaccination as we are always focused on keeping our organization safe and healthy, but we do not support government mandates of personal health decisions."</p><p></p><p>Isn't it interesting that management does "not support mandatory vaccination" yet they say "we will comply"? Does anyone else wonder if this administration is paying big corporations tax payer money if they reach certain vaccination goals?</p><p></p><p>In the coming days Williams is hosting a "vaccination campaign" and incentivizing (aka bribing) the workforce (mainly operations) with bonuses.</p><p></p><p>I know I deviated from the question. But had to go on a rant. Williams is allowing medical and religious exemption applications. We will see.</p><p></p><p>IMPORTANT!! I do want to inform everyone:</p><p>See the FDA's latest "Letter of Authorization (Reissued)" here: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine#comirnaty" target="_blank">Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine</a></p><p></p><p>Direct link: <a href="https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download" target="_blank">https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download</a></p><p></p><p>The only FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine is COMIRNATY. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is EUA-authorized. The FDA letter footnote 10 states "The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness."</p><p></p><p>Footnote 12 of the FDA letter states "Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA. Additionally, there are no products that are approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals age 12 through 15, or to provide: an additional dose to the immunocompromised population, or a booster dose to the authorized population described in this EUA."</p><p></p><p>If the approved COMIRNATY is not available, then what is the legal distinction between COMIRNATY and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine? What are the "certain differences" between the two?</p><p></p><p> Do not be tricked, coerced, bribed, forced, or mandated to take the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine as a substitute for the FDA approved COMIRNATRY vaccine. The PREP Act grants Pfizer-BioNTech immunity from legal liability for their EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. See <a href="https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443" target="_blank">https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443</a> and here <a href="https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization" target="_blank">Emergency Use Authorization</a></p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="theman4bran, post: 3648417, member: 41235"] Williams here in Tulsa is waiting on OSHA's guidance. They sent the following: "[B]COVID-19 Vaccinations:[/B] The Executive Officer Team has been very clear that, as a company, we do not support mandatory vaccination. However, if, and when, the U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) issues an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS), we will comply with the law which likely would require weekly COVID-19 testing of employees who are not vaccinated. Additionally, we do encourage vaccination as we are always focused on keeping our organization safe and healthy, but we do not support government mandates of personal health decisions." Isn't it interesting that management does "not support mandatory vaccination" yet they say "we will comply"? Does anyone else wonder if this administration is paying big corporations tax payer money if they reach certain vaccination goals? In the coming days Williams is hosting a "vaccination campaign" and incentivizing (aka bribing) the workforce (mainly operations) with bonuses. I know I deviated from the question. But had to go on a rant. Williams is allowing medical and religious exemption applications. We will see. IMPORTANT!! I do want to inform everyone: See the FDA's latest "Letter of Authorization (Reissued)" here: [URL="https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/coronavirus-disease-2019-covid-19/comirnaty-and-pfizer-biontech-covid-19-vaccine#comirnaty"]Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine[/URL] Direct link: [URL]https://www.fda.gov/media/150386/download[/URL] The only FDA approved COVID-19 vaccine is COMIRNATY. The Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine is EUA-authorized. The FDA letter footnote 10 states "The licensed vaccine has the same formulation as the EUA-authorized vaccine and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness." Footnote 12 of the FDA letter states "Although COMIRNATY (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 years of age and older, there is not sufficient approved vaccine available for distribution to this population in its entirety at the time of reissuance of this EUA. Additionally, there are no products that are approved to prevent COVID-19 in individuals age 12 through 15, or to provide: an additional dose to the immunocompromised population, or a booster dose to the authorized population described in this EUA." If the approved COMIRNATY is not available, then what is the legal distinction between COMIRNATY and the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine? What are the "certain differences" between the two? Do not be tricked, coerced, bribed, forced, or mandated to take the EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine as a substitute for the FDA approved COMIRNATRY vaccine. The PREP Act grants Pfizer-BioNTech immunity from legal liability for their EUA-authorized Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine. See [URL]https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/LSB/LSB10443[/URL] and here [URL="https://www.fda.gov/emergency-preparedness-and-response/mcm-legal-regulatory-and-policy-framework/emergency-use-authorization"]Emergency Use Authorization[/URL] [/QUOTE]
Insert Quotes…
Verification
Post Reply
Forums
The Water Cooler
General Discussion
Upcoming job loss
Search titles only
By:
Top
Bottom