Reference no: EM133048668
The first article I choose to discuss is the idea of weekly testing and mandating vaccines may seem like a great idea to the government to prevent an increase in cases, but it is an increase cost to get individuals tested weekly that are not vaccinated for COVID-19. The key players in the article are requiring weekly testing for COVID-19 in areas that require a vaccine or weekly testing to keep employment (Gomez & Galewitz, 2021). The clinical issue is the rise of costs due to the unvaccinated not getting tested in the areas where vaccines are mandated, which then requires weekly testing if allowed. Per the Virginia Department of Corrections unvaccinated workers are to be tested every three days, when in crowded settings, and every seven days if in regular settings, the cost is nearly 7,000 dollars a day to test 442 employees in two days in October (Gomez & Galewitz, 2021). The increase amount of money spent is causing state and local governments a hard time to make ends meet. In some cases, they are even using federal covid relief funds to pay for testing (Gomez & Galewitz, 2021). This issue is rising in several counties, cities, and states, and with the increasing rise of mandates and increase of cases with COVID-19, this is an ongoing issue.
In terms of health policy, based on the article, Vaccine-or-Test requirements Increase Work and Costs for Governments, are that suppliers are the organizations that require the covid testing and vaccines. The demanders are the government or organizations requiring the weekly COVID-19 testing or vaccination of COVID-19 for their employees. The last aspect are the community and individuals affected which are the vaccinated because they are lessening the cost by preventing COVID-19 by getting vaccinated, along with the unvaccinated that need to get weekly testing, if they are in the areas that requiring vaccines or weekly testing (Gomez & Galewitz, 2021).
The second article is by Michelle Andrews, discusses death benefits of the unvaccinated. The key players in this article are the COVID-19 unvaccinated that die and the clinical issues that arise from this are that families may not get death benefits due to the fact individuals are not vaccinated against COVID-19, if ruled death by COVID-19 (Andrews, 2021). Per a case in New Bedford, the City Council ruled that it was inappropriate to give the family accidental death benefits, when the employee refused to take a vaccine against COVID-19, that has found to be effective (Andrews, 2021). The issue is recent considering COVID-19 has been going on since 2020 and will continue to occur, with COVID-19 cases rising. This issue is occurring all over the United States and will continue to occur with more vaccine mandates going into effect. In terms of health policy, the suppliers for this issue are the vaccines for COVID-19. The demanders are the organizations requiring individuals to get the COVID-19 vaccine, in order to receive death benefits when the individual dies. The community or individuals affected by this issue are the individuals to get the COVID-19 vaccine, in order to receive death benefits when the individual dies.
(READ THE ABOVE and ANSWER THE QUESTIONS BELOW)
Which ideas or thoughts did you read that you found interesting or insightful? How did these ideas or thoughts inform your own thinking?
Are there any sections that you think you read that could expound upon? (e.g. "I'd really like to hear more about how you think political corruption is a primary factor in this case.")
What thoughts or questions does your reading response trigger for you?