T-Mobile Nazis to terminate corporate employees who aren't vaccinated by April

[Sue T-Mobile]

Proof technology companies ignore scientific evidence.


<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff>

T-Mobile US Inc will fire corporate employees who are not fully
vaccinated against COVID-19 by April 2, according to an internal
company memo posted on the independent blog TMOnews.com.

The blog said T-Mobile's new policy was announced on Friday in an
email from its human resource chief to all staff. It follows a U.S.
Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 13 that blocked President Joe Biden's
COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses.

"Employees who have not yet taken action to receive their first dose
and upload proof by February 21 will be placed on unpaid leave," the
blog quoted the memo as saying. "Affected employees who do not
become fully vaccinated ... by April 2 will be separated from T-
Mobile."

The memo, addressed to "all employees (excluding international),"
stated that the vaccine rules do not apply to field technicians and
most in-store retail roles.

In a statement on Saturday, T-Mobile said "we are requiring office
workers (with limited exception for certain roles, locations and
legally mandated accommodations and exemptions) to be fully
vaccinated by April 2." It added that "badge-controlled offices
continue to be accessible only to those who are vaccinated against
COVID-19."

<https://www.foxbusiness.com/markets/t-mobile-to-terminate-corporate-employees-who-arent-vaccinated-by-april>


<https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff>

[John McGaw]

On 1/30/2022 6:06 PM, Sue T-Mobile wrote:
> Proof technology companies ignore scientific evidence.
>

snip...
Looks more like the management at T-Mobile is clever enough to follow and
analyze the statistics involving hospitalizations and deaths among the
vaccinated and unvaccinated populations and then to factor in health-care
costs in making a rational decision.

To quote part of your first reference which you seem to have missed
entirely, giving you the benefit of the doubt as to intentionally cherry
picking:

"During May–November 2021, case and hospitalization rates were highest
among persons who were unvaccinated without a previous diagnosis. Before
Delta became the predominant variant in June, case rates were higher among
persons who survived a previous infection than persons who were vaccinated
alone. By early October, persons who survived a previous infection had
lower case rates than persons who were vaccinated alone."

Which is what the current science suggests: the strongest protection is
held by those otherwise _healthy_ individuals who were infected and then
were fully vaccinated and boosted. Of course even that protection is no
where near 100% effective which explains the need for all of the other
precautions that so many want to ignore for political or religious reasons
(but mostly political) and applies only to those who are otherwise in
near-perfect health.

Get your jabs, wear your mask, keep your distance (especially if you are
old like me and want to get older).

[Andy Burnelli]

On Mon, 31 Jan 2022 00:06:24 +0100, Sue T-Mobile wrote:

> Proof technology companies ignore scientific evidence.
> <https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm>

This is only barely tangentially, if even that, related to smartphones;
where I'll simply state off the cuff the facts as I know them (having read
well over a hundred papers on this stuff) and my assessment of some of those
facts below so that well educated adults can learn from my assessments of
those facts (done hopefully so).

Fear is what this is all about.
Not facts.

Fear.

Having higher degrees in this stuff, I find it odd how _politicized_ a
simple voluntary medical procedure turns out to be, where _politicians_ are
using your medical fears to gain votes - instead of people using
understanding of the factual science to make personal decisions on what
natural or unnatural foreign substances to inject into your body.

Worse, everyone who can read their favorite news station feels they're
qualified to make medical decisions to force others to make the _same_
medical decisions, when almost nobody has the scientific background to make
them on their own.

I won't make that decision for you - since I know one thing about it.

Nobody knows the math for any one individual, for example, so _everyone_ is
making a guess as to which approach is the greater risk.

Bear in mind we do know the math for the population at large though, which
is that 0.2% of unvaccinated infected people die and _most_ people (nobody
knows the actual percentage but it's at least reliably at least about 60%)
are completely and utterly immune to Covid.

That leaves 40% of the population who will "feel something" even if 99.8% of
people will not die from it (these numbers _include_ already the very sick,
very old, and the immunocompromised, etc. high risk groups).

Of course, on average, recent numbers from the CDC show that deaths are
skewed vastly toward the sick and old, where, for example, that 0.2% overall
chance of dying for any one individual lessens dramatically to 0.002% for
children in the USA from October 2020 to October 2021 aged 5 to 11, which
means that the risk of not dying from Covid for any given child is 99.998%
overall.

However, last I checked for those in our age groups, the risks are far
greater, at roughly about 3% for 65 and older, and then roughly doubling for
every ten years of age thereafter.

If anyone wishes to ask _why_ most people are completely immune to Covid
(they don't even _know_ they're infected!) it's likely because the virus
family causes about 1/3rd of all colds, with just three distinct variants.

In an average lifetime, you'll get the coronavirus on average roughly once a
year, although a few times a year is not unheard of (it's been studied since
the 1960s). Contrast those three coronavirus variants with the hundreds of
other families which cause the other 2/3rds of the common cold, and that
tells you how well this virus family has adapted to our ciliated cells.

However, not all coronaviruses are the same, where, for example, the
affinity of SARS1 is ten to a hundred times less than SARS2 (I'm using
colloquial terms) due to heparin sulfate, furin, ACE2, and TMPRSS receptor
sites for the three spike proteins giving Covid a colossal ability to
infect.

That colossal ability to infect means that essentially everyone is exposed
with the result that even those who are immune will show antibody titres in
almost all cases, even in the case of the vast majority who are
asymptomatic.

That's important.

That means everyone can transmit this disease for a certain period of time,
whether or not they're naturally immune like most people are to it.

Personally, I advocate for people making their own decisions, but I also am
all in favor of _testing_ being made freely available so that those who do
test positive can isolate themselves.

I also advocate for a test for the one thing that _everyone_ is ignorant of,
which is the simple answer to the question that nobody knows the answer to:
*Am I like most people who areimmune... or am I in the few who get sick?"

Then there is a secondary question if you're in the few who can get sick.
*Will I have a mild or severe reaction as a result of getting sick?*

The fact that extremely few people die means that your overall chance of
dying is negligible (although a small percentage of a very large number is
still a lot of people but most of them will die soon anyway of something,
due to underlying chronic conditions).

HOWEVER...

If you're one of those who are afraid of your own shadow, then even a 99.8%
chance of not dying is too great of a chance for _you_ to take, so that's
something _you_ should consider (but don't shove your math on others).

Use the math of the CDC (personally, I don't trust the WHO because of what
Dr. Maria Kerkhove claimed about asymptomatic transmission being "very rare"
which was just hogwash - the problem being when someone that smart at that
high a position in a scientifically based organization says something she
knows is that stupid, then something else is going on at the WHO if they
expect us to stupid enough to believe what only a fool would believe since
it's just not factually scientifically accurate of a statement she made).

Notice what I'm saying here, all of which I challenge anyone out there to
find a fact being wrong since my belief systems are _based_ on facts.

The numbers above come from memory from reading papers and the CDC reports,
where the biggest problem I see in our society around this issue is how
politicized a medical procedure has become.

Fear has taken over logic.

But worse, everyone thinks they're qualified to make medicical decisions for
other people - and THAT - I assess - is a very dangerous problem.

I don't blame people for getting the shot (it's not a vaccine, BTW, but
let's leave the definition to the CDC) and I don't blame them for not
getting it (since it has ramifications that are unknown for sure).

I don't even blame the government because they put out a shot that
ameliorates the fear in a record short time - but I do _ask_ the governmente
to come up with a _test_ to find out:
a. Am I in the _most_ people category who are completely immune?
b. Am I in the _some_ people category who will get sick?

Couple that (non exitent) test with the existing antibody tests, and we
would be able to solve this problem of some people assessing the risk
differently (which is normal).

Remember...
a. Only a fool disputes facts (that's _why_ they're fools)...
b. But logically consistent people can reasonably assess them differently.

If you have a _scientific_ question to ask, please do (as this was just off
the cuff so I could go on with facts & assessments for hours if need be).

If you just want to troll, I will try to ignore your trolls.

This is a sincere post based on scientific facts & higher degrees in the
stuff where we didn't even get into what this shot is comprised of and how
it works as that's not important for the decision that most people _need_ to
be making - which is a mathematical assessment of their very own fears.
--
You need a decent IQ (at least average) to even comprehend accurate what
I've said above without jumping to conclusions which I didn't say.

[Java Jive]

On 31/01/2022 01:24, John McGaw wrote:
>
> On 1/30/2022 6:06 PM, Sue T-Mobile wrote:

Don't bring your shitty denialist politics in here.

>> Proof technology companies ignore scientific evidence.
>>

>> [snip]

+1

--

Fake news kills!

I may be contacted via the contact address given on my website:
www.macfh.co.uk

[Joerg Lorenz]

Am 31.01.22 um 00:06 schrieb Sue T-Mobile:

> Proof technology companies ignore scientific evidence.
>
>
> <https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/71/wr/mm7104e1.htm?s_cid=mm7104e1_w#contribAff>
>
> T-Mobile US Inc will fire corporate employees who are not fully
> vaccinated against COVID-19 by April 2, according to an internal
> company memo posted on the independent blog TMOnews.com.
>
> The blog said T-Mobile's new policy was announced on Friday in an
> email from its human resource chief to all staff. It follows a U.S.
> Supreme Court ruling on Jan. 13 that blocked President Joe Biden's
> COVID-19 vaccination-or-testing mandate for large businesses.
>
> "Employees who have not yet taken action to receive their first dose
> and upload proof by February 21 will be placed on unpaid leave," the
> blog quoted the memo as saying. "Affected employees who do not
> become fully vaccinated ... by April 2 will be separated from T-
> Mobile."

It is a pitty that they give their employees so much time for this
essential step.


--
De gustibus non est disputandum