#BoycottStarbucks trends after vaccine reversal

[PartySick 174,166]

8 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

antivaxer in intensive care does not really burden the State.

No, but it does burden other citizens when they have other medical needs but antivaxers are eating up all the resources. There's still hospitals in the US turning away serious issues 'cause specialists themselves contracted covid.

10 minutes ago, jezze0410 said:

Research in the UK, which is probably the closest to the US in terms of a belief in bodily autonomy (UK doesn't even have any mandatory childhood vaccinations, unlike much of its European neighbours), has shown that the vast majority of people yet to receive the vaccine are not militant antivaxers but people with genuine concerns or underlying mental/emotional issues, and these people are likely to be further put off if vaccination is mandated.

And on the flip side, there are people who aren't opposed to vaccination but don't care to actually get the shot unless they have to. I personally work with two people who wouldn't have gotten their shots if they weren't required by our employer (anecdotal, I know, but still ).

About 20% of Americans actually say they're either somewhat or totally against vaccines yet our vaccination rate isn't 80%, it's 63%. That 17% likely just doesn't care either way and would only get their shots if they had to. And I bet a good portion of that 20% would end up getting their shots too.

The messaging needs to be better to coax those that are uneasy about getting vaccinated, 100%, but the mandates would convince the apathetic to get vaxxed and force the antivaxxers to either get their shot or get another job.

Imo, we have three solutions here:

1) We give up, allow idiots to overload our hospitals and infect our doctors and nurses until there's a total breakdown of healthcare in this country.

2) We tell people who aren't vaccinated despite being able to that they made their choice and will live with it and you don't treat them in the hospital - period.

3) Enforce vaccine mandates. Super simple, nothing new, it's been done before, and it's necessary to relieve the burden that's been crushing healthcare providers for two years now.

I pick 3 but my petty ass is good with 2 as well  that one creates moral issues but antivaxxers aren't the peak of morality anyway so who cares

[ProfessionalClown 10,647]

As a barista I hate this. We get exposed to so many people and the protocol is very minimal and so many antivaxxers (surprisingly) work for Starbucks (from the barista group I’m in) and it sucks ass 

[Whigney Houstan 1,250]

6 hours ago, Mindblown said:

I know this woman!  She looked me straight in the eye, spit in my drink and handed it to me with a smile.

 

It was delicious.

[jezze0410 395]

Phew--when I saw there was a reply I feared that it would be from someone calling me a crazed antivaxxer (one never knows on this cult site ). Thanks for your well thought out reply!

9 minutes ago, PartySick said:

No, but it does burden other citizens when they have other medical needs but antivaxers are eating up all the resources. There's still hospitals in the US turning away serious issues 'cause specialists themselves contracted covid.

The UK has been experiencing the same issue due to staff shortages, but again, staff shortages are caused by high prevalence, which is something a vaccination mandate will not improve significantly--or at all, considering that, if you impose a mandate right now, what little protection against infection/transmission vaccination offers won't kick in until 2 weeks later, by which point case numbers will already be at/near the peak.

14 minutes ago, PartySick said:

About 20% of Americans actually say they're either somewhat or totally against vaccines yet our vaccination rate isn't 80%, it's 63%. That 17% likely just doesn't care either way and would only get their shots if they had to. And I bet a good portion of that 20% would end up getting their shots too.

I would assume the 17% includes under 5s, kids of antivax parents without the right to consent to vaccination themselves, people with valid medical reasons not to receive the vaccine, as well as people who suffer from anxiety/trypanophobia/agoraphobia/other mental issues. I don't deny that a mandate would cause a significant proportion of the currently unvaccinated, whatever their reasons may be, to receive a vaccine, but I really do think that, especially in the US, the marginal benefits a mandate would bring would be far outweighed by the societal damage it will cause. 

23 minutes ago, PartySick said:

1) We give up, allow idiots to overload our hospitals and infect our doctors and nurses until there's a total breakdown of healthcare in this country.

2) We tell people who aren't vaccinated despite being able to that they made their choice and will live with it and you don't treat them in the hospital - period.

3) Enforce vaccine mandates. Super simple, nothing new, it's been done before, and it's necessary to relieve the burden that's been crushing healthcare providers for two years now.

The below should not surprising given my expressed views :

1) I disagree with the very premise that enforcing a vaccination mandate will have much of an effect on healthcare. To reframe my points, transmission and infection pretty much cannot be stopped or reduced to any significant degree, vaccinated or otherwise (again, see Denmark/France/UK), and serious illness/death is greatly reduced BOTH by vaccination AND natural infection. The only thing that can reduce healthcare pressure is the spread the peak of this wave over a longer period through non-pharmaceutical interventions like lockdowns of varying severity, but from what I can see from the US data I don't think this is necessary (they might have been useful a few weeks ago, but not now).

2) I think not treating the unvaccinated is going a bit far, since, again, not all the unvaccinated are antivaxxers. But increasing insurance premiums for the unvaccinated who don't have valid medical justification for refusing would be something I support.

3) Yes there have been vaccine mandates, but for illnesses that are far more serious (the least serious, browsing the list, is measles, with 25% of cases resulting in hospitalisation), and for vaccines that are more successful at preventing infection/transmission. Furthermore, it is possible that COVID will behave like influenza, with a new vaccine required every year, and like flu it is likely that, going forward, only vulnerable groups will be advised to receive the COVID vaccine. I don't know of any precedents for vaccine mandates for vaccine with regular doses.

The reality is, with Omicron's transmissibility and high prevalence, if you interact with many people daily (as Starbucks baristas do), you are likely to get COVID at some point regardless of the vaccination statuses of the people with whom you interact. So one should get a vaccine so that when it does inevitably hit, it hits less hard. 

[SharkmanthaC 115,194]

5 hours ago, JRCF29 said:

I wonder if they expected to lose a significant chunk of the workforce? That's the most reasonable explanation imo

My thoughts exactly. Starbucks tends to be more “forward thinking” with its policies and endorsements. This makes me think it’s a staffing issue. 

[Guest]

5 hours ago, ssslyboy said:

No I’m saying the more important big picture problem and where we should be focusing our concern and effort at this point is how do we get vaccines to the rest of the world, not being outraged at what Starbucks is or isn’t doing regarding mandates. 

Exactly this. Instead we fight each other here

[alsemanche 97,825]

7 hours ago, ssslyboy said:

No I’m saying the more important big picture problem and where we should be focusing our concern and effort at this point is how do we get vaccines to the rest of the world, not being outraged at what Starbucks is or isn’t doing regarding mandates. 

ORRR we can do both?  Just because people are p*ssed at businesses acting like there's no pandemic and lifting vaccination mandates doesn't mean they aren't also outraged by the unequal distribution of vaccines and the gatekeeping of "intellectual property" that would allow vaccines to be produced all over the world. I'm not sure how one thing cancels the other.