Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
vaccinations/health care and product promotions.
Options
Replies
-
paperpudding wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
I don't see someone concluding "This may benefit me" as erasing the voluntary part.
By this logic, any sort of incentive is messing with free will.
Yes it is.
Informed consent should be made without irrelevant incentives.
Life is absolutely crammed with irrelevant incentives. I can only conclude that free will is something you rarely see.6 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?
What does "pretty much required" mean?
There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?
No, I mean REQUIRED, and not by the School, by STATE LAW, administered by State and Local Health Departments. Here's one readily accessible citation, there's at least 49 other versions. There are exemptions for medical reasons, and as I mentioned the occasional anti-vaxer.
So, how would a requirement for a COVID vaccine be any morally or ethically different than these?0 -
janejellyroll wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
I don't see someone concluding "This may benefit me" as erasing the voluntary part.
By this logic, any sort of incentive is messing with free will.
Yes it is.
Informed consent should be made without irrelevant incentives.
Life is absolutely crammed with irrelevant incentives. I can only conclude that free will is something you rarely see.
Not sure how you conclude that.
No I dont think health decisions are crammed with irelevant commercially motivated incentives like this.
At least not everywhere.0 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »YellowD0gs wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
Not directed at me, but I think this will differ between countries/cultures, just like strategies to 'entice' people to get vaccinated.
In Belgium, it's actually illegal to get paid/compensated for donating blood (or sperm or organs,...).
No private companies here are doing anything like Krispy Kreme, not that I know of anyway. I'm not sure it would be well received by the general public, it would be seen as trying to earn money from a crisis.
A (publicly funded) lottery for vaccinated people, that I'm sure of will never happen here. Vaccination willingness is quite high here. But for those who are more reticent or perhaps not well informed (foreigners not speaking any of our languages) there will be information campaigns of all sorts, etc.
No vaccine passports either so far, more likely that any limits on activities will be linked to vaccination status or being tested negative. So no 'pressure' there either.
I actually think that in the very unlikely event of not reaching herd immunity, it's more likely that being vaccinated will be made mandatory for everyone (except when medically not possible). But the situation would need to be really bad for that, a last resort.
I think there are cultural differences at play on top of personal differences, based on reading this thread.
OK, so only directing this at you as you identified being from Belgium, and I don't know the answer to this question: What's the Belgian public's attitude towards children being vaccinated for Measles, Mumps, and/or Polio? Because it's pretty much required here in the US, outside of complicating medical issues or the occasional anti-vaxer.
Just wondering why a requirement for a Covid vaccine would be any different than the other required vaccines?
What does "pretty much required" mean?
There are no required vaccines in Canada, I would be surprised if they were in the US. Schools require proof of certain immunizations in order to attend, but that is not the same as mandating the vaccine itself. Maybe that is what you meant?
No, I mean REQUIRED, and not by the School, by STATE LAW, administered by State and Local Health Departments. Here's one readily accessible citation, there's at least 49 other versions. There are exemptions for medical reasons, and as I mentioned the occasional anti-vaxer.
So, how would a requirement for a COVID vaccine be any morally or ethically different than these?
That says it’s required for school attendance, that is not mandating the vaccine. They have to get it if they want to attend public school- it’s the same here.
1 -
paperpudding wrote: »lynn_glenmont wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
Correct, I do.
Hospitals here do not profit from transplants - these would all be done in major hospitals which are public organisations, not private profit making businesses.
Also in real life, the only kidney transplants from living donors are family doing it for benefit of relatives.
In "real life" in the U.S. people donate kidneys to friends and even to strangers, although that is usually part of a "chain" donation in which someone who is not compatible with a friend or family member gives to a stranger in the same position, and through some variable number of similar linked donations ends up benefiting the incompatible friends or family members of all the donors in the chain.
Does that equate to being "paid" for organ donation? Does that make it a bad thing, even though it is saving lives?
Also, there certainly are cases in the U.S. of individuals donating kidneys to strangers without any such benefit to someone they know. Weird that that happens in the U.S. with all of its ethically questionable provisioning of Krispy Kremes.
Yes of course my real life referred to real life in Australia since that is what I was asked about.
Strangers donating to unknown random recipients isn't a thing here ( talking about living donors)
Last sentence sounds very defensive - no, it isn't weird that different cultures have different ideas of acceptable ethics on different things.
I agree it makes sense, though. Ethics are often considered to begin where the law stops. And we have very different laws from country to country. Not better or worse, just different.2 -
NorthCascades wrote: »paperpudding wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »janejellyroll wrote: »Theoldguy1 wrote: »@paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/
The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?
I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?
Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?
I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).
OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.
I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?
Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?
Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?
I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.
If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
If you live in Ohio and got vaccinated, you have the possibility of winning money. It's not even a likelihood. I hope most people who would make any choice or of immediate desperation for money understand the concept of maybe.
Do you think poor people who need the money should be able to sell blood?
No.
And they can't here.
Blood donation is donating, one receives no financial benefit
I'm guessing you feel the same way about donating organs. This is completely unrelated to the question at hand, but do you think there's any ethical coven about a hospital being able to benefit financially from a kidney transplant and the person who gave up the kidney being unable to? Not a gotcha question, I'm genuinely curious.
I don't see allowing people to buy organs as at all analogous to the vaccine stuff we've been discussing, to be honest, and I do think this would pose ethical concerns such that buying and selling organs is not permitted. (I note that you did not reference selling organs, but that's what compensating the donor at least seems to suggest.)
The hospital performing it or the doctors seems to me totally normal. Hospitals and doctors get to charge for their work, at least in the US where some are for profit. But non-profit hospitals also charge for the services they perform, of course, and pay their doctors, it's just ultimately the money stays in the hospital after expenses. I'm not sure how anyone could find this unethical.
To be fair, I did warn "This is completely unrelated to the question at hand" when I asked.
People fascinate me. I like asking questions about vaguely similar scenarios because it helps me understand where people think the lines are, that can help shed light on their thinking. Sometimes I ask a question because something in a conversation reminded me of something else and I want to know somebody's thoughts on that too. @33gail33 is obviously very intelligent, and has been saying some pretty insightful things, I'm not convinced about all of them and organ donation is an ethically extreme version of the informed consent idea, so it raised my curiosity.2 -
I only agreed to the vaccine for the free lollipops after the shot(s).
Thing is, no lollipops.
Damn them.
I feel cheated, deceived, betrayed and yes... cheap.4 -
Motorsheen wrote: »I only agreed to the vaccine for the free lollipops after the shot(s).
Thing is, no lollipops.
Damn them.
I feel cheated, deceived, betrayed and yes... cheap.
But at least you got great reception now, don't ya?3 -
In Chicago, both professional baseball teams have announced promotions based around vaccines. Both the Cubs and White Sox have vaccination sites on premises. If you have a ticket to the game already, and you get a vaccine at the ballpark on the day of the game, the Cubs will give you a voucher for a free hot dog and drink, and the White Sox will give you a $25 voucher to be used anywhere in the ballpark that day.
I see this as a good way of catching people who simply didn't make it a priority to go out and get vaccinated. But, if they're going to the baseball game anyways, and the vaccines are right there, they don't have to make an appointment or a separate trip, and they get some free stuff out of it, then why not?
There are a lot of unvaccinated people who are not anti-vaxx, but maybe just a little lazy or unmotivated. If we catch people going about their daily business, I think that would help.6 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »There are a lot of unvaccinated people who are not anti-vaxx, but maybe just a little lazy or unmotivated. If we catch people going about their daily business, I think that would help.
Yeah, this is what I've been thinking too.0 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »In Chicago, both professional baseball teams have announced promotions based around vaccines. Both the Cubs and White Sox have vaccination sites on premises. If you have a ticket to the game already, and you get a vaccine at the ballpark on the day of the game, the Cubs will give you a voucher for a free hot dog and drink, and the White Sox will give you a $25 voucher to be used anywhere in the ballpark that day.
I see this as a good way of catching people who simply didn't make it a priority to go out and get vaccinated. But, if they're going to the baseball game anyways, and the vaccines are right there, they don't have to make an appointment or a separate trip, and they get some free stuff out of it, then why not?
There are a lot of unvaccinated people who are not anti-vaxx, but maybe just a little lazy or unmotivated. If we catch people going about their daily business, I think that would help.
Also, for some who may be a little on the truly hesitant side, but not full anti, this might be an opportunity for peer pressure to happen. I can imagine a group of friends going to a game, teasing any of the unvaxed friends about turning down free food because they're scared. (Yes, peer pressure could drive the other way, but I think the people influenced in the "no vax" direction were realistically unlikely to get the vax anyway. I think it's more meaningful as a potential to push fence-sitters who are clinging a little, into the "do it" camp.)3 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »In Chicago, both professional baseball teams have announced promotions based around vaccines. Both the Cubs and White Sox have vaccination sites on premises. If you have a ticket to the game already, and you get a vaccine at the ballpark on the day of the game, the Cubs will give you a voucher for a free hot dog and drink, and the White Sox will give you a $25 voucher to be used anywhere in the ballpark that day.
I see this as a good way of catching people who simply didn't make it a priority to go out and get vaccinated. But, if they're going to the baseball game anyways, and the vaccines are right there, they don't have to make an appointment or a separate trip, and they get some free stuff out of it, then why not?
There are a lot of unvaccinated people who are not anti-vaxx, but maybe just a little lazy or unmotivated. If we catch people going about their daily business, I think that would help.
Yes, opportunistic vaccination - we have done things like that with flu vax before, at shows and such (without the vouchers)
I see that as a bit different - people are getting the vaccination there and the vaccination sponsor is providing a voucher.
Bit different to KK who had nothing to do with vaccinating - and were not running a vaccination program but just piggybacking their commercial interests on to a health message.0 -
Saw this...
You could get a chance to win up to $5 million if you get a COVID-19 vaccine in New York State next week.
Governor Andrew Cuomo made the announcement Thursday morning in Buffalo in an effort to get more people to receive the vaccine.
"We know that vaccinations are the vital piece of the puzzle we need to crush COVID once and for all," Governor Cuomo said. "We're doing everything we can to make getting a vaccine as quick and easy as possible, but as vaccination rates slow across the state, we're going to have to get creative to put even more shots in arms. This new pilot program will offer a greater incentive for New Yorkers to get vaccinated by offering a free scratch-off ticket for a chance to win up to $5 million. The more New Yorkers we can get vaccinated, the better our situation and the faster we can return to a new normal, so I encourage everyone who hasn't been vaccinated yet to go to your nearest site and get the shot."0 -
I really wish my country's government would do a lottery for vaccinated people. We're spending NZ$280 per person for everything, that's a lot of money. Just do a $10 million lottery, a lot of people on the fence would be drawn to getting done for that kind of money. The cost would increase to $282.1
-
Our city opened up vaccines for teens today, and my son was very early in line. And besides the medical part, it was quite the production. All the chairs in the waiting area had numbers on them, and they had a raffle based on seat number for various prizes and trinkets donated by many of the local businesses. They went fast enough that every chair was called during a 15 minute waiting period. My son won a free haircut at one of the higher-end places, then wisely traded up for a free season pass to the swimming pool. Local restaurants were giving away gift cards, the big-box stores donated tons of toys and trinkets, free icicle pops, free donuts (and real ones too, not the KK junk), home-made cookies, games to play, etc. etc. Almost like a carnival. I thought of this thread while we were waiting, and I have to admit I didn't see one person put off by any perceived advertising gimmick or act of corporate greed, no ruffled feathers, no ethical dilemmas, no moral crises. Just a bunch of people trying to help make a challenging situation go as smoothly as possible, and a bunch more people smiling and saying "Thank you for the gift." Everybody working together to GET THIS NIGHTMARE OVER and let us have some fun this summer!!10
-
Who knows Australia just may get a lottery or cash incentive, though I'd be surprised if it did. Not because I think the general public may be against it, I don't think the prime minister would support such incentives.
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2021/may/23/lottery-tickets-or-cash-experts-say-australians-need-incentives-to-get-covid-vaccine1 -
Interesting article- but, whilst the owner of an advertising agency may think that, the article is really just his opinion, I dont think it is representative of most people
And I agree, I dont think the prime minister or the public at large would support such.
I would be very surprised too.0 -
Some places are starting to do regret lotteries. Somebody is drawn at random to win a million dollars, if they aren't vaccinated yet they aren't eligible and forfeit the money which is immediately given to someone else.
Humans have a strong aversion to loss, it makes us more unhappy to lose something than getting that same thing makes us. This is a clever way to use psychology for the good of all.7 -
An Australian airline (Virgin Airlines Australia) will be offering a competion for people who have the vaccine...it will be on offer once vaccines open to the wider community, so far, no out cry against it (that I am aware of)... but once open to the general public it will be for those who have the vaccine over those who do not.
https://newsroom.virginaustralia.com/release/va-x-win-virgin-australia-announces-covid-19-vaccination-competition-“millions”-offer
Bring it on...I wouldn't mind those points!!!!
2 -
My friends brother got vaccinated twice (both doses) just so he could get the $50 gift card his state was offering.....1
-
We revert back to habits that were formed as we were growing up. You could argue that if we all had washed our hands, we wouldn‘t be in this position. In fact MRSA rates are on the way down and flu infections are way down. So if you take away the barriers of availability to the vaccine, then actually it‘s human behavior that is the biggest barrier to changing outcomes.1
-
This content has been removed.
-
Frig, here in canada we got nothing. we were chomping at the bit to get our vaccines. as soon as they opened up more spots, i moved my sept second dose up to July. Now the vaccine passports are coming so maybe that will nudge a few people along.0
-
My company is now offering 8 hours of vacation time and entry into a drawing for vaccination. However, to me, it slightly stinks of "data mining" since they want a copy of your vaccination card whereas before you could just enter into the HR system that you had been vaccinated. I guess it is good they are promoting it but I am not sure that the incentive will be enough to change a lot of people's minds? Perhaps?0
-
SummerSkier wrote: »My company is now offering 8 hours of vacation time and entry into a drawing for vaccination. However, to me, it slightly stinks of "data mining" since they want a copy of your vaccination card whereas before you could just enter into the HR system that you had been vaccinated. I guess it is good they are promoting it but I am not sure that the incentive will be enough to change a lot of people's minds? Perhaps?
It may get those who are sitting on the fence about vaccination and those who intend to get vaccinated but just a bit slow about booking etc.
My company gives a day's leave as a thank you to those have been vaccinated, we had a high vaccination rate at my work location so probably wasn't needed. At the company's other and much bigger location, vaccination rate was lower.
There have been a number of companies now offering incentives/competitions to the general public to get vaccinated eg Melbourne Airport is giving away $10,000 each month as an incentive (to the winner of the competition); Qantas unlimited free travel for a year to a winner; lots of smaller companies offering smaller incentives too. If it gets more people of the fence, that's great as far as I am concerned.
2 -
My company is requiring vaccination, so the incentive is that you get to keep your job.
I am very much in favor of this.10 -
SuzySunshine99 wrote: »My company is requiring vaccination, so the incentive is that you get to keep your job.
I am very much in favor of this.
I think my company will ultimately do this as well. It's come up a couple of times at meetings since full FDA approval. As it is, the protocols for unvaxed employees make things pretty inconvenient and at times downright difficult for them.
We have a three strikes policy on protocol violations as well which I think some people didn't think would really be enforced...it has been and that's actually getting some employees out to get vaxed as we have a good number on strike 2 at the moment.
With all of the protocol hoops, it's pretty easy to miss something and be in violation...we had some that were being blatantly rebellious (now gone), but most just forget one thing or another and at this point and it's putting their livelihoods in jeopardy. For some of the protocols, I wish there was some kind of "mercy" rule because the violation isn't actually endangering anyone, but all protocols are being treated the same across the board.3 -
I work for a small company but we're all vaccinated. My boss probably wouldn't have but clients got on him and he has to travel.
I'm kinda wondering if losing your job for not being vaccinated is legal, tho. Can they do that?2 -
I work for a small company but we're all vaccinated. My boss probably wouldn't have but clients got on him and he has to travel.
I'm kinda wondering if losing your job for not being vaccinated is legal, tho. Can they do that?
In the US, unless a state manages to make it illegal, at this point it's legal under federal law to require vaccination as a condition of employment.
The employer must make reasonable accommodations for people with religious objections to vaccination, and to those who medically cannot be vaccinated.
The definition of "reasonable accommodation" is likely to vary situationally . . . at least what counts as "reasonable" for accommodating certain disabilities in certain jobs varies depending on how central a particular ability may be to a particular job.
Don't know about outside the US.1 -
I work for a small company but we're all vaccinated. My boss probably wouldn't have but clients got on him and he has to travel.
I'm kinda wondering if losing your job for not being vaccinated is legal, tho. Can they do that?
Yes - the employer's right to set employment conditions was upheld by the courts earlier in the pandemic when a hospital in Houston terminated over 100 people who refused to get vaccinated.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.3K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 442 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 18 MyFitnessPal Academy
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.7K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions