Vaccine info in CV?

[sid]

First time for everything. An applicant’s CV included that she has been fully vaccinated for COVID-19.
It isn’t relevant to our hiring process. What do people think of presenting this info?

[chemteacher101]

Honestly, it's all guesses here, but I for one would not be surprised if this becomes relatively standard. The fact is that this might end up being considered as either a requirement or a plus in terms of immigration and work permit policies in some countries. It could be that this ends up affecting things like whether someone has to do quarantine or not, and this in turn could be a potential cost-saving opportunity for schools, for example. Again, it's all a guessing game at this point, but at least it's not likely going to hurt (I can't imagine a recruiter thinking "Oh gosh, this teacher already had vaccines and shared it, I'm definitely not hiring him/her!").

[sid]

Well, this school in Florida might take a pass: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytime ... e.amp.html

[buffalofan]

Think she is just ahead of the curve. If you think you are getting a work visa (or even getting on plane) once the vaccine is available widespread, you are in for a rude awakening.

[fine dude]

Schools could save on quarantining new teachers or finding subs for unvaccinated folks falling sick right after arrival. It does make sense to include if they could show supporting evidence.

[buffalofan]

[quote="fine dude" post_id=61240 time=1620915805 user_id=105776]
Schools could save on quarantining new teachers or finding subs for unvaccinated folks falling sick right after arrival. It does make sense to include if they could show supporting evidence.
[/quote]

Yeah, I think we will start seeing several different things happening:
*Schools that will have a 100% vaxxed faculty internal policy. Probably not realistic for 21-22, but I can see this happening for 22-23.
*Schools that will not be able to process a work visa for an unvaxxed teacher (vaccination a requirement in the job description)
*If the country has a quarantine policy for the unvaxxed, you will see things written into contracts like "teacher will bear all costs of quarantine in the host country if not vaccinated"

[PsyGuy]

Its going to matter in places where it matters. I tend to agree with @buffalofan except that #1 is going to be rendered moot by #2 and #3. IS policies arent going to matter so much as immigration regulations and quarantines. I cant see how it hurts, in the same way that being white doesnt hurt.

[Illiane_Blues]

Yeah will depend on the country.
For some school having a 100% vaccinated staff will be a selling point, and it would be less hassle for the school, as buffalofan points out.
Of course there's the off-chance that the recruiter is an anti-vaxxer but that would be a bullet dodged.

[PsyGuy]

I doubt it will be a selling point. Having a fully vaccinated staff doesnt mean they cant be carriers or be infected, and those staff are probably going to be less cautious as they are much less likely to develop symptoms.

[Heliotrope]

PsyGuy wrote:
> I doubt it will be a selling point. Having a fully vaccinated staff doesnt
> mean they cant be carriers or be infected, and those staff are probably
> going to be less cautious as they are much less likely to develop symptoms.

Yes, they can still get infected, but as recent research has proven, they are far less likely to pass it on. Having a fully vaccinated staff does make a difference.
Also, the chance of getting seriously sick if you get infected is almost 0%, which is nice for a school to know.
If I worked in a country with lots of Covid cases, I would definitely be more relaxed if my colleagues had all been vaccinated, and my guess is that parents in such a country would feel a lot more safe if they knew their kids' teachers were less likely to have Covid and also less likely to pass it on to their children, and through them to themselves. In some countries I think it would definitely be a selling point. Not for all parents but likely for more than a few.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

There isnt such research, as the data your referring too is in a clinical setting based on assured opportunities for transmission. What it doesnt account for is that the unvaccinated are far more cautious of their socializing and who they come in contact with. whereas those who are vaccinated are much more likely to socialize and increase transmission opportunities.

It is not almost zero, as almost only means not zero.

If you worked in a region with that level of infection you wouldnt be doing F2F learning anyway.

Youre just guessing, they would feel that way.

[Heliotrope]

Nope, real-world study, not clinical setting: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021 ... cines.html

And actually, when they did the vaccine trials, none of the subjects in the group that was given the vaccine was hospitalized or died. So the few that did still get infected in that group only had mild symptoms or no symptoms at all.

There are plenty of regions where the numbers are still high but there's in-person learning.

Yes, I'm guessing they would feel that way, but that guess is based on talks I've had with parents, and on talks I've had with friends who are ITs who have talked to parents about this, some who work at school where they returned to in-person teaching when some parents thought the numbers didn't warrant that and decided to keep their kids home until the vaccination numbers went up.

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

No, those are exactly what clinical transmission is and how it occurs those are individuals who have to come in contact with the infected. It does not measure for the co-variate of individuals who have the option of not coming into contact with infected, thats transmission opportunity.
In the simplest terms. If none of your staff is vaccinated and none of your students are vaccinated in a remote learning setting, the probability of infection between those two groups during instruction is zero. The probability of infection between students and a staff thats 100% fully vaccinated in an in-person learning environment is still higher than zero, because vaccination does not provide perfect immunity, and vaccinated individuals can still carry and transmit the infection and the asymptomatic are not likely to know they are carriers.

They dont know who was asymptomatic but still able to pass the . onto those who werent infected. Asymptomatic is worse than mild symptoms. If you have mild symptoms you at least know something is not right.

You can state your guess is based on a conversation you had with a cactus and a goldfish, guessing is guessing.

[Heliotrope]

Yes, hermits will not get Covid, but online teaching can't go on forever.

A majority of parents is eager for in-person classes to resume (a bit too eager sometimes imo), and most students are very much done with online classes.

If vaccinated teachers have a 90% lower risk of infecting others in real-life situations if they do happen to be infected themselves, as proven by a thorough peer-reviewed CDC-study, then having 100% vaccinated teachers, is a selling point.
And having vaccinated teachers also doesn't mean you have to stop all Covid measures, teachers can still be instructed to keep their distance.

Also, the school is also less likely to lose a teacher, temporarily or permanently (0% chance of severe illness or hospital admission).

[PsyGuy]

@Heliotrope

Online teaching cant go on forever because you say it cant?

Your making my points for me. Parents are eager for F2F teaching and students are "very much done" with online, and then make the leap that 100% vaccination. Students and parents would welcome going back to F2F if there wasnt a vaccine at all.

The risk of infection is not zero, valid data shows that the vaccinated can get infected.

We disagree.