The statement:
Als vaccinatie verplicht is bij je werk, vallen eventuele bijwerkingen in de categorie 'beroepsongevallen'.
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
Het maakt voor de samenleving als geheel niet uit of de regering, de werkgevers of de werknemers het risico gaan dragen van eventuele vaccinatieschade. De kans op die schade is waarschijnlijk erg klein maar groter dan de kans dat je huis afbrandt - en toch hebben mensen individueel een brandverzekering.
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.
Kansen, risico's, aannames, bewijs: de gok
De kans dat het allemaal goed gaat is weliswaar heel groot maar dat is toch wat weinig zekerheid voor massa-inentingen van miljarden mensen. Er zijn nog veel aannames in het spel. Soortgelijke aannames waren bij invoering van eerder aangevoerde medicatie reden tot afwijzing. Waarschijnlijkheden werden toen niet geaccepteerd, dat was 'onvoldoende wetenschappelijk bewijs'.
Zelfs preventieve maatregelen zonder enige bijwerking zijn om deze reden van tafel geveegd. Dat is nu, bij het vaccin, geen probleem meer. "Het ziet er goed uit". Dat zei Max Verstappen ook voor een uitvalrace (meerdere trouwens).
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.
Naar mijn idee is dat een goede reden om in dit stadium nog tegen een grootscheepse vaccinatiecampagne te zijn, zelfs al zou je uit covid-angst zelf wel in de rij gaan staan. Niet iedereen is even sterk in het inschatten van risico's en angstcampagnes zijn geen goede raadgevers.
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.
Dus ik ben met name benieuwd naar de dames en heren juristen/advocaten. Durft iemand zo voor de vuist weg een inschatting te doen hoe kansrijk zo'n overeenkomst is? Of ligt dat misschien heel simpel: Een werkgever mag verantwoordelijkheden overnemen, dat doet hij met andere beroepsrisico's immers ook.
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.
