I think I found an inconsistency in VR recently announced policy. Here are two paragraphs in the FAQ section of the VR link to the policy.
VR Policy
Are you requiring your staff to be vaccinated?
Yes. We believe the COVID-19 vaccine is the way to end this pandemic, and the best way to keep our employees and guests safe. In compliance with the recent rules announced under the U.S. Department of Labor's Occupational Safety and Health Administration, Vail Resorts will be requiring all employees to be vaccinated for COVID-19, effective Nov. 15, 2021.
What if an employee tests positive for COVID-19?
Any employee who tests positive for COVID-19, along with any unvaccinated employee who is exposed to COVID-19 through close contact, will not be permitted to work, will follow applicable quarantine/isolation protocols, and will be eligible for Emergency Sick Leave as applicable.
How can there be an unvaccinated employee?????
And if I read between the lines: A vaccinated employee who is exposed to COVID-19 through close contact: A) Will still be allowed to work. B) Will not have to quarantine/isolate C) Will not be eligible for Emergency Sick Leave ?????
A lot of the unknown is due to the actual OSHA order isn't finalized or released. I think a lot of this will clear up when that goes out and will just align to that policy.
For discrepency A) I read this to cover the dates up to and through Nov15 effective date. Although the conspiracy theorists can look that this implies some loophole.
For discrepency B) I read your interpretation as materially right idea for the scenario of (a vaccinated employee being exposed through close contact);
However, to exactly match the boolean logic of this rule, your reading also need to include : A Vaccinated employee (who is exposed to covid-19-through close contact) AND (does not have a Positive Test Result) won't hit this rule.
This means your potential inconsistency gap can easily be closed by a requirements of covid test upon knowledge of Exposure(s).
For the strict logicians though. A rule not hitting doesn't mean the counterfactual is true. Just because this 1 event doesn't hit, doesn't mean the opposite is true nor that other rules can't also be simultaneously active; it is just that only that one rule didn't hit.
Last edited: