General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsAbout the notion of testing in lieu of vaccinations . . . . . .
. . . . . . it seems to me the cost should be borne by the vax avoider and not the government or even the private organization to which they might belong. Inflict some coercive economic pain.
Make the testing frequency more than weekly. I am okay with daily.
Make the cost of staying unvaccinated too high for comfort.
Irish_Dem
(47,200 posts)Even if it means subsidizing the idiots to some extent.
Stinky The Clown
(67,816 posts)Make the vax cheaper and more comfortable than testing or any other avoidance scheme.
Irish_Dem
(47,200 posts)Which protects co-workers.
But if they have to keep testing maybe they will get the vaccine instead.
Biophilic
(3,685 posts)luv2fly
(2,475 posts)Pay you to get vaxxed.
Mixed results though, some places it's been effective other places not so much.
I'm assuming that is likely a function of the amount they pay. $100 for some people is not very much, so it's not worth it. $1,000, that might bring more people in.
But how much is too much?
Biophilic
(3,685 posts)We had a lottery in Michigan that apparently wasn't successful at all with getting the vaccine. Dang, what does one have to do to save someone's life?
leftstreet
(36,110 posts)Most employers are no longer offering subsidized paid time off for people who test positive or have been in contact with someone who is.
I agree, the vax should be easier and cheaper to get than daily testing