Required vaccination isn't farfetched for CAP members

Started by RiverAux, January 15, 2022, 08:31:19 PM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

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...

"That Others May Zoom"

RiverAux

Quote from: Eclipse on January 15, 2022, 09:05:02 PM2 - 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.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

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.
"Don't try to explain it, just bow your head
Breathe in, breathe out, move on ..."

RiverAux

Quote from: etodd on January 15, 2022, 11:34:05 PMHow 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

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 16, 2022, 05:20:23 PMI 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

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 16, 2022, 05:56:54 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 16, 2022, 05:20:23 PMI 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

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 16, 2022, 06:44:24 PMOne 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

Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 16, 2022, 06:44:24 PMOne 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.
Dave Bowles
Maj, CAP
AT1, USN Retired
50 Year Member
Mitchell Award (unnumbered)
C/WO, CAP, Ret

Holding Pattern

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

QuoteIf 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

Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 17, 2022, 12:01:11 AMMy wing tried this. The rescission letter went out before the day ended.

QuoteIf 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

Quote from: JohhnyD on January 17, 2022, 01:12:16 AMNear 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.

"That Others May Zoom"

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

Quote from: Spam on January 17, 2022, 02:33:36 AMThere 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

Quote from: Holding Pattern on January 17, 2022, 02:36:47 AM
Quote from: Spam on January 17, 2022, 02:33:36 AMThere 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

Quote from: Dwight Dutton on January 16, 2022, 08:56:37 PM
Quote from: TheSkyHornet on January 16, 2022, 06:44:24 PMOne 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.