The statement:
If vaccination is mandatory at work, any side effects fall into the category of 'occupational accidents'.
Please note: it is a statement that may not stand up to legal conditions
As long as this is not determined by law, you can have your employer sign for it or have it included in your employment contract.
Explanation
It does not matter to society as a whole whether the government, employers or employees are going to bear the risk of possible vaccine damage. The chance of that damage is probably very small but greater than the chance that your house will burn down – and yet people individually have fire insurance.
Taking this into account, imagine yourself in the position of a world government. If you were (also financially) responsible for the possible damage caused by the vaccine, wouldn't you wait a little longer to inject billions of people? No one is responsible in our government, so the choice is easily made there, as far as NL is concerned.
Odds, risks, assumptions, evidence: the gamble
The chance that it will all go well is very high, but that is a bit of a certainty for mass vaccinations of billions of people. There are still many assumptions at play. Similar assumptions were grounds for rejection when previously introduced medication. Probabilities were not accepted at the time, that was 'insufficient scientific evidence'.
Even preventive measures without any side effects have been swept off the table for this reason. That is no longer a problem now, with the vaccine. "It looks good". Max Verstappen also said that before a retirement race (several, by the way).
What has been tested with the vaccine does indeed look amazingly good. What has not yet been tested must be shown by the consequences of billions of vaccinations. In the unlikely event that a small thing is overlooked, permanent damage can occur to tens or millions of people, perhaps more.
In my opinion, that is a good reason to be against a large-scale vaccination campaign at this stage, even if you would stand in line yourself out of covid fear. Not everyone is equally strong in assessing risks and fear campaigns are not good advisors.
Holding employer responsible in the event of a breakdown
Now I saw an interesting angle regarding vaccination coercion: the employer who enforces the vaccination must sign for responsibility for the consequences of the employee and must also be insured against it. With that in mind, a neat sample letter has been drawn up for hospital staff, shared via Facebook. Some now say that it is not legally possible at all, others say that it is possible for every employee.
So I am particularly curious about the ladies and gentlemen lawyers/lawyers. Does anyone dare to make an off-the-cuff assessment of how promising such an agreement is? Or is that perhaps very simple: An employer may take over responsibilities, after all, he does the same with other occupational risks.
It is more of a hypothetical issue because if it negatively affects vaccination coverage, there will be an emergency law to protect employers from the consequences of the vaccination requirement.
If anyone wants to send an e-mail (I will treat it as an anonymous source if desired) please send to info@virusvaria.nl
This is based on a sample letter, shared by Rik Scholten on Facebook:
Dear Employer,
As an employer, you expect me to be vaccinated against COVID-19. No doubt you do this from the conviction that this is the best for this hospital. However, I would like to draw your attention to the following.
The right to inviolability of the body and the right to self-determination are core values in our society. This also means that I can freely decide whether I want to be vaccinated. These rights were never in question until it was decided that everyone should be vaccinated against COVID-19. It was repeatedly emphasized that this would not be mandatory. A motion was passed in the House of Representatives confirming that there will be no direct or indirect vaccination obligation. The pressure you are exerting on me is incompatible with voluntariness.
I am not a principled opponent of vaccinations. For a number of diseases, I see the importance of using vaccines against them. I don't see this importance with COVID-19. After reading the Pfizer package leaflet and the information on this manufacturer's website, I come to the conclusion that the risks do not outweigh the benefits. According to the RIVM, the disease is harmless for 98% of the population. The virus mainly affects the elderly with underlying conditions and a weakened immune system. The vaccine, on the other hand, already appears to have many side effects for many. A number of them are serious.
In addition, according to Pfizer, the vaccine is still in the research phase. Many risks were not investigated. The third phase of the study runs parallel to the roll-out of the vaccination campaign. This means that people who get vaccinated participate in a medical examination.
The Medical Research Involving Human Subjects Act of 1998 sets strict conditions and requirements for this type of research. Article 5 of this law provides that it is prohibited to conduct scientific research with subjects of whom it must reasonably be assumed that, in view of the factual or legal relationship with the person who conducts or conducts the research or the person who recruits the subjects, they cannot freely decide whether to participate in it. That is the case here.
You are putting enormous pressure on me to get vaccinated. If I don't do this, I may lose my appointment. However, I depend on this income. So I am faced with a dilemma.
If I get vaccinated, it will be against my will. In doing so, you force me to participate in a medical experiment. The law makes this punishable by a custodial sentence of up to six months. If damage occurs as a result of this experiment, it can be prosecuted for (aggravated) assault or manslaughter. You can also be held liable for all inherent damage.
I should like to ask you to confirm that you accept this responsibility. I also ask you to confirm to me that you are insured for liability from medical experiments. This means that the research design meets the requirements of Par. 4 of the law.
After receiving your confirmation, I will reconsider my decision.
Sincerely,
The employee.
