Required vaccination isn't farfetched for CAP members

[RiverAux]

So, knowing that there are at least several reasons why this this thread may not go far (but having new info to impart to the conversation), I think it is distinctly possible that CAP members may soon be required to have the COVID-19 vaccination if participating in some activities. 

Why?  Because CG Aux was told this week that vaccination is required if we come into contact with Coast Guardsmen, other members of the Auxiliary or the general public.  If there are Aux activities that can be done without in-person contact, vaccination is not required.

In particular, I could this this be a requirement for:
1.  Contact with AF personnel though this is possibly less likely since the vast majority of CAP members don't routinely interact with AF personnel. There are obviously a variety of situations where this happens, but a mandate for that sort of rare contact may be more trouble than its worth. 
2.  However, I could definitely see this be a requirement for participation in an AF-assigned mission.  At this point the feds are assuming some responsibility for members health and welfare and since such missions often require contact with other agencies or the general public. 

If the CG is doing this with its volunteers I see no logical reason why the AF might not get around to it for CAP in a limited way.   

[Eclipse]

1 - Some units that meet on DOD facilities already have to deal with this.

2 - Most AFAMS do not involve contact with military personnel, though it's an interesting
premise - Could CAP be held liable for both members, service personnel, or the general public (in either direction)
if someone contracted The Vid during an AFAM (or any activity for that matter).

3 - Good luck with the thread...

[RiverAux]

2 - Most AFAMS do not involve contact with military personnel, though it's an interesting
premise - Could CAP be held liable for both members, service personnel, or the general public (in either direction)
if someone contracted The Vid during an AFAM (or any activity for that matter).

Well, I was going at it more from the point of view that members on AFAMS are most definitely in Air Force Auxiliary status and would be at the most similar to the status of CG Aux members.  Keep in mind that Auxies interacting with other Auxies triggers the mandate. 

[etodd]

How many members would we lose? I'm betting it would be a significant number. More than most would guess.

[Fubar]

Oh man, good luck keeping this thread open...

I would be really surprised if we were handed a vaccine mandate by the USAF. Unlike the CG Aux, who is actually a part of the CG, we're an independent corporation that very, very rarely works to directly support the USAF, let alone along side their personnel (Green Flag is the only exception I can think of).

There are already policies in place for visiting Air Force facilities, where having the USAF treat us like the general public generally works in our favor (compared to contractors or USAF civilians).

I'd be surprised if this was even on the USAF's list of worries right now.

[etodd]

Totally silly, unscientific, random, FB poll out there asking CAP members what they would do. About 15% of the small sample (at this point) say they would leave CAP if vaccination was mandatory and required for membership. Makes one wonder what more accurate scientific poll results would be.

[RiverAux]

How many members would we lose? I'm betting it would be a significant number. More than most would guess.

I have recently heard a relatively highly-placed member of the Aux say that he has had some people that are quite unhappy about this contact him about it. 

[TheSkyHornet]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

There are a lot of unvaccinated members. At the squadron level, we know who some of them are. We are also not allowed to ask who is and who isn't when it comes to mask mandates (i.e., "Masks must be worn by unvaccinated members but may be removed if vaccinated." Suddenly, nobody in the room is wearing a mask...you think they're all actually vaccinated?

[N6RVT]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

I'm already at that point.  I know in my case having to wear a mask through a two hour meeting and having the doors to the building left open "for ventilation" made me stop attending.  I didn't quit and I still do a lot remotely.

Nobody will quit right away because of it.  But they will go inactive and eventually not renew, making it difficult to track why they left.

[TheSkyHornet]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

I'm already at that point.  I know in my case having to wear a mask through a two hour meeting and having the doors to the building left open "for ventilation" made me stop attending.  I didn't quit and I still do a lot remotely.

Nobody will quit right away because of it.  But they will go inactive and eventually not renew, making it difficult to track why they left.

One of the major challenges is the encouragement that non-visiting members (not in person) should be able to continue to participate remotely. It's not feasible for units to provide both an in-person and a remote option, at least not during the same meeting block.

So, if we go the way where vaccines are required, units are really just going to need to adapt to the lower turnout; or CAP will need to recognize the impact it has in comparison to retention.

[N6RVT]

One of the major challenges is the encouragement that non-visiting members (not in person) should be able to continue to participate remotely. It's not feasible for units to provide both an in-person and a remote option, at least not during the same meeting block.

Actually my squadron IS doing that - but the net effect, especially in phase 1, is that of a studio audience at a TV show.

[SarDragon]

One of the major challenges is the encouragement that non-visiting members (not in person) should be able to continue to participate remotely. It's not feasible for units to provide both an in-person and a remote option, at least not during the same meeting block.

Up until we went back to Phase 1, we were doing exactly that - in-person for those who chose to attend and Teams for the remote folks. It worked well, given some not always fast enough Internet at our meeting place.

[Holding Pattern]

My wing tried this. The rescission letter went out before the day ended.

If the CG is doing this with its volunteers I see no logical reason why the AF might not get around to it for CAP in a limited way.

Maybe if we stood watches with USAF personnel that would be the case the way CGAUX members can. But we don't, so that's a logical reason why the AF won't get around to doing it for CAP.

[RiverAux]

My wing tried this. The rescission letter went out before the day ended.

If the CG is doing this with its volunteers I see no logical reason why the AF might not get around to it for CAP in a limited way.

Maybe if we stood watches with USAF personnel that would be the case the way CGAUX members can. But we don't, so that's a logical reason why the AF won't get around to doing it for CAP.

That is actually relatively rare.  The average Auxie probably has a much higher chance of coming into contact with a Coastie every now and again, but routine contact is something relatively rare.  In any case, I stated that contact with AF personnel was unlikely to be a primary reason for any such CAP requirement. 

[JohhnyD]

Near zero chance this happens. If it does, it craters the organization.

[Eclipse]

Near zero chance this happens. If it does, it craters the organization.

No argument it's not likely to happen, but it wouldn't "crater" anything. 

At this point, the majority of the US is fully vaccinated.

There's going to be far more attrition due to the cessation of normal ops,
lack of overnight activities, lack of flying, and lack of program
continuity (due to the attrition that's already occurred) then if
vaccinations were simply required so that the ship can leave dock and get sailing again.

[Spam]

There are two issues being conflated here: requirements for shots to perform a specific mission set for a specific customer, versus a blanket mandate for all members to get the jab.

The first (which I believe to be the original question discussed) is fairly probable for some limited missions, a few bases, etc. I think the OP probably consciously avoided the "M" word, there, which I think is smart.

The second, which would mandate "shots for all" and would require intrusive enforcement by our volunteer leaders, is never going to happen. Even if leadership were that foolish, large segments of the team would quit (even though I got the shots, I myself would quit rather than accept an order to enforce such a mandate).

So, I'd recommend pursuing the first discussion rather than the second.

R/s
Spam

[Holding Pattern]

There are two issues being conflated here: requirements for shots to perform a specific mission set for a specific customer, versus a blanket mandate for all members to get the jab.

The first (which I believe to be the original question discussed) is fairly probable for some limited missions, a few bases, etc. I think the OP probably consciously avoided the "M" word, there, which I think is smart.

Interesting thought: Would such a circumstance result in vaccine injury being covered by FECA/FTCA?

[Spam]

There are two issues being conflated here: requirements for shots to perform a specific mission set for a specific customer, versus a blanket mandate for all members to get the jab.

The first (which I believe to be the original question discussed) is fairly probable for some limited missions, a few bases, etc. I think the OP probably consciously avoided the "M" word, there, which I think is smart.

Interesting thought: Would such a circumstance result in vaccine injury being covered by FECA/FTCA?

Thats a really good question Pattern, but I'm not a tort lawyer so I can't say. I design cockpits and weapons systems.

I think that perhaps in a normal world that might go forward. In 'Ronaworld, where we can't see "the science" behind the shots for another 50 plus years, I think the government would absolutely deny liability. I know that I would be laughed off the airbase if I tried to pass an airworthiness review for a fighter by saying sign the papers - that I'd show my math and my engineering documentation in fifty years, just trust me and waiver any liability for me please.

[TheSkyHornet]

One of the major challenges is the encouragement that non-visiting members (not in person) should be able to continue to participate remotely. It's not feasible for units to provide both an in-person and a remote option, at least not during the same meeting block.

Actually my squadron IS doing that - but the net effect, especially in phase 1, is that of a studio audience at a TV show.

We did that during our first Phase 1, and it worked quite well. But that was in an environment when schools were still virtual in an era where most school sports were still shut down.

Fast forward to 2022, and everything but CAP is open. It just won't work this time for us. These guys want to be back in person.

[JohhnyD]

Fast forward to 2022, and everything but CAP is open.

Yep, and that is a real problem.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

There are a lot of unvaccinated members. At the squadron level, we know who some of them are. We are also not allowed to ask who is and who isn't when it comes to mask mandates (i.e., "Masks must be worn by unvaccinated members but may be removed if vaccinated." Suddenly, nobody in the room is wearing a mask...you think they're all actually vaccinated?

People in CAP who lack integrity. Shocker.

[arajca]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

There are a lot of unvaccinated members. At the squadron level, we know who some of them are. We are also not allowed to ask who is and who isn't when it comes to mask mandates (i.e., "Masks must be worn by unvaccinated members but may be removed if vaccinated." Suddenly, nobody in the room is wearing a mask...you think they're all actually vaccinated?

People in CAP who lack integrity. Shocker.

That attitude is extremely common in the general public as well, so CAP is not extraordinary in that regard, just a reflection of the population they come from.

[Майор Хаткевич]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

There are a lot of unvaccinated members. At the squadron level, we know who some of them are. We are also not allowed to ask who is and who isn't when it comes to mask mandates (i.e., "Masks must be worn by unvaccinated members but may be removed if vaccinated." Suddenly, nobody in the room is wearing a mask...you think they're all actually vaccinated?

People in CAP who lack integrity. Shocker.

That attitude is extremely common in the general public as well, so CAP is not extraordinary in that regard, just a reflection of the population they come from.

Agreed. I'd say CAP, because of other venn-diagram overlaps, probably has a higher than average percentage of vaccine deniers. But just like pencil whipping, non-compliance with uniform regs, this is just the continuation of the cognitive dissonance a lot of members have when it comes to their self-perception.

[TheSkyHornet]

I know of a number of members who may not fully quit CAP, but they'd take a break until it starts to get walked back.

There are a lot of unvaccinated members. At the squadron level, we know who some of them are. We are also not allowed to ask who is and who isn't when it comes to mask mandates (i.e., "Masks must be worn by unvaccinated members but may be removed if vaccinated." Suddenly, nobody in the room is wearing a mask...you think they're all actually vaccinated?

People in CAP who lack integrity. Shocker.

That attitude is extremely common in the general public as well, so CAP is not extraordinary in that regard, just a reflection of the population they come from.

Agreed. I'd say CAP, because of other venn-diagram overlaps, probably has a higher than average percentage of vaccine deniers. But just like pencil whipping, non-compliance with uniform regs, this is just the continuation of the cognitive dissonance a lot of members have when it comes to their self-perception.

It's really a matter of simplicity:
Are you vaccinated—yes or no?

We're not even allowed to ask that question out of the concern that we're going to chase members away by getting involved in their private affairs; yet, we're, at the same time, making the claim that their private affairs aren't private when they're at a CAP activity.

Take all of the mask requirements out of the equation. A simple questionnaire asking if the member is vaccinated, and, if not, they cannot be in the building...Is the matter here that we're down the manpower, or that we're no longer being inclusive?

A major outcry in all of this is the subject of inconsistency in the messaging: We can't gather with more than 10 people, but there's a waiver process to accommodate more than 10 people. We can't ask if a person is vaccinated, but we say that unvaccinated persons must wear a mask. All the while, CAP is not reflective of state or local mandates anymore. A number of states have no mandates, while a number of cities require a vaccine to even enter the building at all.

Another concern that a lot of our members have is the question of how far is this going to go in the future? And I think a lot of individuals nationwide have that same sentiment, not just in CAP. But I'll stick with CAP for the sake of discussion here on CT. Are there going to be situations where, if an individual doesn't have their annual flu shot, they have to wear a mask during a CAP activity?

This is an EXTREMELY polarized topic right now in the United States and across the globe. And, unfortunately, organizations need to take a side and really stick to messaging: are they going to go with the mandates, or not go with the mandates? Are the members of that organization going to feel proud that their governing hierarchy took the side of caution, or that they are going way overboard?

I think we need to also respect that the majority of the world, and particularly your local community, spent nearly all of their lives not having mandates much like this and, to many, those mandates were relatively short lived. In some instances, mandates never even existed, yet, here is an organization that they have been a part of for x-number of years now saying, "If you want to continue to stay, you have to do (this)."

One of the points that I have made with my members has to avoid the narrative, "We need to do this for our fellow man." Frankly, there are just too many members who have different opinions on the subject. Rather, the point is "We don't make the rules, and we're here to do a job. We've had challenges before, and we're going to get through this one. Let's just do as we've been asked, and we're going to make the best of a tough time and overcome this eventually. How long? I don't know. But this is what we do—overcome the hard stuff—and we're the best at it."

Honestly, the best thing that we can do as unit leadership is to turn off the debate about should/shouldn't. But, at some point here, the retention just won't hold up. There's only so much people can take. And me shouting "have some integrity" to members isn't going to boost them into getting vaccinated and slapping masks on. You can argue whether or not we need those individuals in the organization, but these are some of the best people on the planet, and the most loyal/dedicated, when they're not in the middle of a mask debate.

The less questions I have to ask about their personal healthcare, the better.

[Shuman 14]

Well a Texas Federal District Judge just slapped an injunction on the VAX Mandate for the entire Federal Civilian workforce, things are headed to the SCOTUS for sure.