Injuries

[RossMackey]

I'm making decisions based on what I believe is right for me. Not for you. Not for statistics. Not to be politically correct. I'm vaccinated and believe in it. But I'm not supportive of vaccination mandates or keeping people out of places because they're not vaccinated.

A very admirable approach….
At the risk of sending this thread into a totally different direction, the national debate on abortion would be greatly improved if more politicians and jurists understood and at least respected this exact line of reasoning….

More importantly— get healthy quickly, Boilers!!!

 

[Purdue85]

Your point that restaurants are trying to obtain your medical information? Sure, let's break that down. If you use Google's search engine through AT&T internet, there are two huge corporations that have seen every search about obscure skin conditions or rashes or STDs or anything else you type into the computer. When you order your cholesterol meds or insulin or whatever, Siri and Alexa are listening right along. You've given Facebook the rights to access your camera and your microphone and your search history. And forgive me if that's not you, but that's the majority of our population allowing unprecedented access to our private data on a whim. But now Todd the door guy at Appleby's wants you to flash a vaccine card and suddenly it's a steep descent into madness? Come on now.

Sorry, let's just stick with the restaurant. Let's play this out and see how it goes. You enter the building and are greeted by Todd. He asks for a vaccine card, which you reluctantly agree to. Todd hands you a menu and invites you inside. He doesn't care who you are. He's seen 200 vaccine cards today, and Todd really just wants to go home and play video games. Meanwhile, you have entered the building and have opened a tab at the bar. You hand your ID and a credit card to the bartender and breathe a sigh of relief that your precious medical data is once again safely tucked away. Across the room, the bartender has your name, address, drivers license number, height, weight, photograph, signature, credit card number, expiration date, and CVV number. Tell me again about your privacy concerns?

WTH??

Dear lord, you cannot be serious.

Nowhere have I stated any such thing.

You're so dead set on getting all worked up and indignant you cannot even bother yourself with understanding the point.

It's cult-like.

 

[Purdue85]

Depending on the circumstances, perhaps, but you were talking about restaurants, which you always have the option to not patronize. As far as government-mandated vaccinations, we’ve had them for hundreds of years, so I’m not bothered by one more.

Perhaps I was talking about the larger issue, which I've referenced a couple of times today, most notably early in the day, which remains.

 

[Droid12345]

Perhaps I was talking about the larger issue, which I've referenced a couple of times today, most notably early in the day, which remains.

Ok. Probably nothing left to discuss, then. My initial response was only in relation to your suggestion that a restaurant host asking your vaccination status was a HIPAA violation, which it is not. If you were actually talking about something else, then never mind.

 

[SCBoiler1]

If the restaurants were contacting your doctor and got your status without your consent, that’d be a HIPAA violation by your doctor. If they ask you directly, you have the option to tell them or not. This is not a HIPAA violation. They also have the right to refuse service for any reason (save for federal violations of federal anti-discrimination law), including based on your answer to — or refusal to answer — that question. HIPAA says YOU control your medical records and who gets to see them. It doesn’t say no one can ask you about them.

Who can ask about your vaccine status? Here's what you need to know about HIPAA

HIPAA, or the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, protects people’s private health information from being shared by certain health care entities without patient consent. But this 1996 law is far more narrowly defined than most people realize.

www.pbs.org

I really like it when someone comes back with a well researched and supported answer to a not thought out hypothetical question.

 

[SCBoiler1]

The question raised here would be an interesting research project for a grad student. Assuming they could get access to data, it would be interesting to see if Purdue has more injuries than anybody else over lets say a 10 year period. If Purdue does have more injuries then one could try to determine why. One could also research whether perennial good teams (OSU, AL, Oklahoma, Clemson) have the same number of injuries as lower level teams (Vanderbilt, IU, Rutgers, UConn) or whether passing teams have more injuries than run first teams. If so why.

Until we know if Purdue truly does have more injuries there isn't really much use speculating as to why. The answer may be that its just football.

If a team does have significantly more injuries one could try to corollate the rate of injuries to things like the strength of their line play, the type of athlete recruited, the style of play or maybe Purdue fans just don't pray enough (see separate thread )

 

[FirstDownB]

The question raised here would be an interesting research project for a grad student. Assuming they could get access to data, it would be interesting to see if Purdue has more injuries than anybody else over lets say a 10 year period. If Purdue does have more injuries then one could try to determine why. One could also research whether perennial good teams (OSU, AL, Oklahoma, Clemson) have the same number of injuries as lower level teams (Vanderbilt, IU, Rutgers, UConn) or whether passing teams have more injuries than run first teams. If so why.

Until we know if Purdue truly does have more injuries there isn't really much use speculating as to why. The answer may be that its just football.

If a team does have significantly more injuries one could try to corollate the rate of injuries to things like the strength of their line play, the type of athlete recruited, the style of play or maybe Purdue fans just don't pray enough (see separate thread )

Theory that is gaining traction is the amount of training required for less talented recruits to compete with players with more natural physical talent. Over training makes the body more susceptible to non contact injuries. The concussions are obviously a different animal.

 

[Purdue85]

Ok. Probably nothing left to discuss, then. My initial response was only in relation to your suggestion that a restaurant host asking your vaccination status was a HIPAA violation, which it is not. If you were actually talking about something else, then never mind.

It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA.

To illustrate, like most people I have dentist I visit regularly. Much of my (extended) family visits this same dentist. He does not know them personally, only professional. As such, he is unable to even admit he knows any of them, out of respect or their "medical privacy", but also for fear of running afoul of HIPAA regulations.

Today, we have these @sshat politicians (among others) who are demanding that I show my personal information (at a minimum, my name), and that I have received medical treatment (i.e., a "vaccine") to perfect strangers who are not bound to confidentiality, nor is there any repercussion/restriction to "sharing" that information.

Now... I'm certain there are all sorts of mental gymnastics one could engage in to justify that violation of privacy. I'm not interested in that.

 

[Tommaker]

Well! this thread definitely went 4 wheeling onto the dirt road, but hey, it hit 2K!

 

[cgtboiler]

It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA.

To illustrate, like most people I have dentist I visit regularly. Much of my (extended) family visits this same dentist. He does not know them personally, only professional. As such, he is unable to even admit he knows any of them, out of respect or their "medical privacy", but also for fear of running afoul of HIPAA regulations.

Today, we have these @sshat politicians (among others) who are demanding that I show my personal information (at a minimum, my name), and that I have received medical treatment (i.e., a "vaccine") to perfect strangers who are not bound to confidentiality, nor is there any repercussion/restriction to "sharing" that information.

Now... I'm certain there are all sorts of mental gymnastics one could engage in to justify that violation of privacy. I'm not interested in that.

Where you're wrong is the fact that not a single person has been forced to do anything. They've been given a choice with consequences, sure, but nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Let's end it at that because you're just projecting your emotions onto everyone else when we're just simply stating where you're wrong.

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

the Week off after Minnesota should help a few players that are injured

 

[Purdue85]

Where you're wrong is the fact that not a single person has been forced to do anything. They've been given a choice with consequences, sure, but nobody is forcing anyone to do anything. Let's end it at that because you're just projecting your emotions onto everyone else when we're just simply stating where you're wrong.

No, I'm not "wrong", but you can repeat that as much as you like, and it won't change it.

As an example, if you live/work in NYC, you are forced to do exactly as I explained.

What's more, you can 'end it' if you like, which can be accomplished by not reading or responding, and going blissfully about your day.

 

[Droid12345]

It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA.

To illustrate, like most people I have dentist I visit regularly. Much of my (extended) family visits this same dentist. He does not know them personally, only professional. As such, he is unable to even admit he knows any of them, out of respect or their "medical privacy", but also for fear of running afoul of HIPAA regulations.

Today, we have these @sshat politicians (among others) who are demanding that I show my personal information (at a minimum, my name), and that I have received medical treatment (i.e., a "vaccine") to perfect strangers who are not bound to confidentiality, nor is there any repercussion/restriction to "sharing" that information.

Now... I'm certain there are all sorts of mental gymnastics one could engage in to justify that violation of privacy. I'm not interested in that.

It wasn’t clear initially, becuase you only talked about a specific example of restaurants. But, there are two problems with this take:

1. You are not forced to engage in activities where you have to provide this information. Your information is still protected, because you can still decide not to reveal it.
2. There has long been circumstances in which you have been required to provide this information (schools, HIV disclosure laws, and I’m sure many others)

 

[PUQBMan.]

No, I'm not "wrong", but you can repeat that as much as you like, and it won't change it.

As an example, if you live/work in NYC, you are forced to do exactly as I explained.

What's more, you can 'end it' if you like, which can be accomplished by not reading or responding, and going blissfully about your day.

You are wrong though. You can repeat that you’re not wrong as much as you’d like, but it won’t change it. For someone that has “worked in HIPAA” for as long as you allegedly have, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is. You keep moving the goalposts and trying to change what you’ve said instead of just admitting that you’re wrong and actually learning something new.

 

[Purdue85]

It wasn’t clear initially, becuase you only talked about a specific example of restaurants. But, there are two problems with this take:

1. You are not forced to engage in activities where you have to provide this information. Your information is still protected, because you can still decide not to reveal it.
2. There has long been circumstances in which you have been required to provide this information (schools, HIV disclosure laws, and I’m sure many others)

I understand all that. There's really nothing new there.
What's more, it doesn't change my point.

 

[Purdue85]

You are wrong though. You can repeat that you’re not wrong as much as you’d like, but it won’t change it. For someone that has “worked in HIPAA” for as long as you allegedly have, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is. You keep moving the goalposts and trying to change what you’ve said instead of just admitting that you’re wrong and actually learning something new.

I'm not wrong in the least.
There's no fundamental misunderstanding.
You can keep repeating that, but what I said is completely true.

 

[cgtboiler]

You are wrong though. You can repeat that you’re not wrong as much as you’d like, but it won’t change it. For someone that has “worked in HIPAA” for as long as you allegedly have, you have a fundamental misunderstanding about what it is. You keep moving the goalposts and trying to change what you’ve said instead of just admitting that you’re wrong and actually learning something new.

it's like talking into the void, he's unwilling to admit he's wrong, then moves the goal posts, then says everyone who disagrees is emotional about it. That's the internet in a nutshell, I just wish people weren't anonymous so everyone can see who people are with the horrible takes

 

[Droid12345]

I understand all that. There's really nothing new there.
What's more, it doesn't change my point.

So, you understand that you are not forced to give up your medical info, but that doesn’t change your point that you are forced to give up medical info?

 

[PUQBMan.]

I'm not wrong in the least.
There's no fundamental misunderstanding.
You can keep repeating that, but what I said is completely true.

I'll ask you point blank then, do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?

Speaking of which, how the HELL is it anyone's business whether or not I've been vaccinated for COVID?? Especially the "host" at O'Charley's, or Friday's or St. Elmo's.

HIPAA, anyone?

Because that's clearly what you've insinuated..

cool story, bro.

Attempting to gain access to my medical info is a HIPAA violation, no matter how you choose to spin it.

..and doubled down on.

 

[Purdue85]

it's like talking into the void, he's unwilling to admit he's wrong, then moves the goal posts, then says everyone who disagrees is emotional about it. That's the internet in a nutshell, I just wish people weren't anonymous so everyone can see who people are with the horrible takes

you've got to have something of substance. I thoroughly clarified my point... in detail.
now you're wanting to dox people that have a different point of view.
That's where we are in society today.

If you have something of value to add to the conversation, great. If not, stay with the ad hominem.

 

[Purdue85]

So, you understand that you are not forced to give up your medical info, but that doesn’t change your point that you are forced to give up medical info?

So, you aren't following my point.

 

[Purdue85]

I'll ask you point blank then, do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?



Because that's clearly what you've insinuated..


..and doubled down on.

You're ignoring this:

It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA.

To illustrate, like most people I have dentist I visit regularly. Much of my (extended) family visits this same dentist. He does not know them personally, only professional. As such, he is unable to even admit he knows any of them, out of respect or their "medical privacy", but also for fear of running afoul of HIPAA regulations.

Today, we have these @sshat politicians (among others) who are demanding that I show my personal information (at a minimum, my name), and that I have received medical treatment (i.e., a "vaccine") to perfect strangers who are not bound to confidentiality, nor is there any repercussion/restriction to "sharing" that information.

Now... I'm certain there are all sorts of mental gymnastics one could engage in to justify that violation of privacy. I'm not interested in that.



You do not see that as, at worst, an intrusion on your privacy? Especially in light of how the same information has been treated as such under HIPAA for 25 years?

 

[PUQBMan.]

You're ignoring this:

It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA.

To illustrate, like most people I have dentist I visit regularly. Much of my (extended) family visits this same dentist. He does not know them personally, only professional. As such, he is unable to even admit he knows any of them, out of respect or their "medical privacy", but also for fear of running afoul of HIPAA regulations.

Today, we have these @sshat politicians (among others) who are demanding that I show my personal information (at a minimum, my name), and that I have received medical treatment (i.e., a "vaccine") to perfect strangers who are not bound to confidentiality, nor is there any repercussion/restriction to "sharing" that information.

Now... I'm certain there are all sorts of mental gymnastics one could engage in to justify that violation of privacy. I'm not interested in that.



You do not see that as, at worst, an intrusion on your privacy? Especially in light of how the same information has been treated as such under HIPAA for 25 years?

Quit dodging, and answer the damn question. Do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?

But I will point out some inaccuracies in your reply anyways.

"It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA."

Again, a restaurant asking for this information is not protected under HIPAA. Not now, and not for the past "25 years". So that is inaccurate. Also the example you provided doesn't apply at all. A dentist is providing a healthcare service to you and is subject to HIPAA. The hostess at a restaurant is not. THAT is your fundamental misunderstanding. But again, quit dodging and answer the question so we can put this all to bed. Do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?

 

[PUBV]

85, I’d ask you how you are feeling today, but I don’t want to commit a HIPAA violation😄

 

[Droid12345]

So, you aren't following my point.

Apparently not, since you seem to have acknowledged that my point is correct, and yet, also state that my point is incorrect. Others have jumped in to try to get clarification, so I'll take my answer off the air.

 

[Peabodius]

I understand all that. There's really nothing new there.
What's more, it doesn't change my point.

The longer this conversation goes, the less I understand what your point actually is. I thought it was HIPAA violations, but there are no HIPAA violations. You keep saying there are, but every time someone asks for proof you change the subject. Then I thought you were concerned about privacy, but I listed a dozen different ways we give up our privacy every day and you shrugged it off. So what point are you trying to make?
Can you at least tell us what you think is going to happen if we have to show proof of vaccination? I am sincerely concerned about all the ways we carelessly release our personal data every day. But I can’t think of a single way that a restaurant could benefit from knowing my vaccination status. I can’t think of a single way that information could be used or profited from. I can’t think of a single way releasing that information could harm me. So please, feel free to enlighten us. Seriously, I’m all ears.

 

[Level 42]

I can’t think of a single way that information could be used or profited from. I can’t think of a single way releasing that information could harm me.

Simple. You ever had a loan or something opened in your name? That is just one example. I have had my credit card info stolen from a local place of business by a local employee and you somehow thing giving them even more information is a good thing?

Why stop there? How about we start asking people at the door whether they have HIV. How about an abortion. Ever had a miscarriage? All are free game at this point. Once it starts, it doesn't stop.

And I'll take it a step further, if this is all so important to know, why aren't we applying the same rules at the border? It's all a money grab and effort to control you.

You shouldn't have to show more "papers" to get in to a restaurant than you do the southern border.

 

[Peabodius]

Simple. You ever had a loan or something opened in your name? That is just one example. I have had my credit card info stolen from a local place of business by a local employee and you somehow thing giving them even more information is a good thing?

Why stop there? How about we start asking people at the door whether they have HIV. How about an abortion. Ever had a miscarriage? All are free game at this point. Once it starts, it doesn't stop.

And I'll take it a step further, if this is all so important to know, why aren't we applying the same rules at the border? It's all a money grab and effort to control you.

If you read my whole post, I mentioned there are many legitimate concerns about privacy. But I’m pretty sure nobody is going to open up a loan with your vaccination card, right?

You mention having your credit card stolen. So now you don’t want to show a vaccine card (which has no valuable data on it), but you still take your credit card to restaurants. Does that sound about right?

 

[FLAG HUNTER]

Maybe there should be another Forum called Arguing About Whatever

 

[Level 42]

If you read my whole post, I mentioned there are many legitimate concerns about privacy. But I’m pretty sure nobody is going to open up a loan with your vaccination card, right?

You mention having your credit card stolen. So now you don’t want to show a vaccine card (which has no valuable data on it), but you still take your credit card to restaurants. Does that sound about right?

You asked for examples of what could happen. I gave those. Every extra bit you give, makes it all easier for you to be scammed. And actually no, I don't use credit. Haven't for years since I can pay cash for everything. It really is just that simple so sorry that was over your head.

So we'll simplify it further and reiterate it shouldn't take more papers to get in to a restaurant than it does the southern border.

 

[Level 42]

Maybe there should be another Forum called Arguing About Whatever

Yep this discussion is not meant for here, so I will refrain and let others do as they will.

 

[Woodsa]

I am not Vaccinated but self-identify as Vaccinated, so I'm transvac.

 

[Poprudy]

Can someone tell me....if true. Dorue having lupus got sick after getting his first COVID shot and is out indefinitely? Or is this a HIPAA violation? My apologies if so....

 

[Purdue85]

The longer this conversation goes, the less I understand what your point actually is. I thought it was HIPAA violations, but there are no HIPAA violations. You keep saying there are, but every time someone asks for proof you change the subject. Then I thought you were concerned about privacy, but I listed a dozen different ways we give up our privacy every day and you shrugged it off. So what point are you trying to make?
Can you at least tell us what you think is going to happen if we have to show proof of vaccination? I am sincerely concerned about all the ways we carelessly release our personal data every day. But I can’t think of a single way that a restaurant could benefit from knowing my vaccination status. I can’t think of a single way that information could be used or profited from. I can’t think of a single way releasing that information could harm me. So please, feel free to enlighten us. Seriously, I’m all ears.

goodness, brother. It's been laid out to you in black and white. Not sure how much clearer this can be. It's almost like you're looking of way to be unreasonable and argumentative.

Answer these questions, as if you're a health care provider:

• Is a patient's personal information (example, my name) protected health information? (Hint: it is)
• would the administration of medication (in this case, inoculation or vaccination) be considered the administration of health care (i.e., "provision")? (Another hint: it absolutely is.)
• Would the public disclosure of either of the above (especially, both of the above) be considered a violation of the standards of privacy, and subject the facility to significant penalty? (Hopefully you're catching on now, and recognize that, without a doubt, it would be.)

Today, if go out in public, and I'm asked to disclose my name (i.e., proper identification), and the evidence that I have received a vaccination (i.e., medical care), would that be same information as outlined immediately above? (Another hint: it would be exactly that.)

We're almost home now, folks! Since that is exactly the same information that has been substantially protected, with the weight of significant financial penalty for those who violate this trust ......... (and here we are) we are now in an environment in which "elected officials" believe it's okay to demand people share that protected information with the general public, solely to have access to basic goods and services.

There's nothing there that is arguable, unless you're simply trolling for an argument. (A distinct possibility.)

You can argue that you have a choice to disclose, and that's certainly correct, and beside the point. We continue to see more and more discussion about more and more restrictions, unless you publicly disclose that information that PREVIOUSLY was deemed protected health information.

 

[Purdue85]

Apparently not, since you seem to have acknowledged that my point is correct, and yet, also state that my point is incorrect. Others have jumped in to try to get clarification, so I'll take my answer off the air.

Probably best.

 

[Purdue85]

85, I’d ask you how you are feeling today, but I don’t want to commit a HIPAA violation😄

I feel great, and it's not a problem that you ask. Only if you behave as a troll.

 

[Purdue85]

Quit dodging, and answer the damn question. Do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?

But I will point out some inaccuracies in your reply anyways.

"It should have been abundantly clear, I was talking about being forced to show what, for 25 years, has been considered protected health information under HIPAA."

Again, a restaurant asking for this information is not protected under HIPAA. Not now, and not for the past "25 years". So that is inaccurate. Also the example you provided doesn't apply at all. A dentist is providing a healthcare service to you and is subject to HIPAA. The hostess at a restaurant is not. THAT is your fundamental misunderstanding. But again, quit dodging and answer the question so we can put this all to bed. Do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation?

See my last response. If you still are unclear, the problem likely isn't on my end.
To be even more clear, I'm quite simply comparing what's being asked today, in public, to what has been protected information (by HIPAA) for 25 years.

 

[PUQBMan.]

Answer these questions, as if you're a health care provider:

• Is a patient's personal information (example, my name) protected health information? (Hint: it is)
• would the administration of medication (in this case, inoculation or vaccination) be considered the administration of health care (i.e., "provision")? (Another hint: it absolutely is.)
• Would the public disclosure of either of the above (especially, both of the above) be considered a violation of the standards of privacy, and subject the facility to significant penalty? (Hopefully you're catching on now, and recognize that, without a doubt, it would be.)

You are correct in your responses if they are answered from the perspective of a health care provider. The answers would be different from the perspective of a patient (e.g. you).

Today, if go out in public, and I'm asked to disclose my name (i.e., proper identification), and the evidence that I have received a vaccination (i.e., medical care), would that be same information as outlined immediately above? (Another hint: it would be exactly that.)

This is where you're wrong. It is not even close to "exactly that" because they are asking you, not your healthcare provider, for this information. If they asked your doctor to provide the proof of immunization, and they do that without your consent, then yes it would be subject to serious penalties. If you "work in HIPAA" as you have claimed, then this is common sense. If it is not for you, then I highly suggest you reach out to your supervisor for some retraining on who is/isn't covered by HIPAA. Anyways..

See my last response. If you still are unclear, the problem likely isn't on my end.
To be even more clear, I'm quite simply comparing what's being asked today, in public, to what has been protected information (by HIPAA) for 25 years.

You still have not answered my question, and you seem to be pretty experienced in talking around an answer so you can move the goalposts later and claim you were misquoted. This is a yes or no question. It requires a one word response. Hopefully that is easy enough for you to understand. Please quit dodging the question and answer this, do you think a restaurant asking for you to show proof of vaccination is a HIPAA violation? (answer hint: it is either Yes or No).

 

[Droid12345]

One last response, since I now understand your position better:

goodness, brother. It's been laid out to you in black and white. Not sure how much clearer this can be. It's almost like you're looking of way to be unreasonable and argumentative.

Answer these questions, as if you're a health care provider:

• Is a patient's personal information (example, my name) protected health information? (Hint: it is) Yes, we agree!
• would the administration of medication (in this case, inoculation or vaccination) be considered the administration of health care (i.e., "provision")? (Another hint: it absolutely is.) Yes, we agree.
• Would the public disclosure of either of the above (especially, both of the above) be considered a violation of the standards of privacy, and subject the facility to significant penalty? (Hopefully you're catching on now, and recognize that, without a doubt, it would be.) Yes, we agree.

All of the above points are fine if we're actually talking about the responsibility of a healthcare provider to protect your information. But in the restaurant example that started this whole thing, there is no healthcare provider that is a party to the proceedings. A healthcare provider disclosing that information without your consent violates HIPAA. Someone asking you to voluntarily disclose it, does not.

As an analogy, banks are prohibited from disclosing your account information, such as credit card numbers in accordance with the FDIC privacy rules. But if you want to buy something with a credit card, you have to disclose your card number. Is it a violation of FDIC privacy rules if a retailer asks you for your credit card number which is protected information?

Today, if go out in public, and I'm asked to disclose my name (i.e., proper identification), and the evidence that I have received a vaccination (i.e., medical care), would that be same information as outlined immediately above? (Another hint: it would be exactly that.)

We're almost home now, folks! Since that is exactly the same information that has been substantially protected, with the weight of significant financial penalty for those who violate this trust .........

YOU providing that information does not violate anyone's trust. You're free, and have always been free, to disclose your protected information if you want to.

(and here we are) we are now in an environment in which "elected officials" believe it's okay to demand people share that protected information with the general public, solely to have access to basic goods and services.

For decades, we've already been in an environment "in which 'elected officials' believe it's okay to demand people share that protected information with the general public, solely to have access to basic goods and services." As I've pointed out previously, one must disclose vaccination status to public schools. Technically, that's worse isn't it? We have compulsory education in this country and not everyone has the option of going to a private school or homeschooling. EVERYONE has the option to not eat in a restaurant.

You can argue that you have a choice to disclose, and that's certainly correct, and beside the point. We continue to see more and more discussion about more and more restrictions, unless you publicly disclose that information that PREVIOUSLY was deemed protected health information.

The information in question is still protected to the exact same extent it always was. The only thing that's changed is there's now a compelling reason why people might ask you your status in some places where they wouldn't have before. Even before COVID, a restaurant host asking you your MMR vaccine status would not have been a HIPAA violation. In fact, a restaurant requiring you to have the MMR vaccine in order to be served would not have been a HIPAA violation. They just didn't have a compelling reason to ask you, nor did the government have a compelling reason to require them to ask. You have exactly the same right to medical privacy as you did two years ago, nothing has changed in that regard.

 

[BBG]

Soooo injuries... I hate em. Anyone else? Fry? Bueller?