Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 442 posts

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#211

Post by BHSPitMonkey »

rolobio wrote: post #173
TulliusCicero wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't. We do accept some risks, but in the case of cars, there are quite a few mandatory things involved designed to limit the risk: it's illegal to drive without a license, illegal to drive while drunk, cars are required to have various safety features to be street-legal, etc. Same principle here. Vaccines don't completely eliminate the risk of danger from covid, they only reduce it, just like the car regula…

I can get a job without a car. How soon until I can't get a job without modifying my body?

Some jobs require you to have a car (and a valid license, and an insurance policy). Others don't.

Some jobs require you to work in close proximity with other people. Others don't.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#212

Post by alistairSH »

smueller1234 wrote: post #43
oceliker wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Productivity is (hopefully) not the only metric — employee happiness is important too.

And survival.

Thus the vaccination requirement.

I don't agree with Google on returning to the office (at all, irrespective of COVID), but frankly at this point, almost anything that improves vaccine rates is fine with me. The sooner we're all vaccinated, the sooner we can return to normal life.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#213

Post by tome »

ericmay wrote: post #162
tome wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1) That's not really a convincing response. There were only two viral vector vaccines ever approved for human use before 2020, both for ebola I believe, and therefore probably not widely administered. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector_vaccine 2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. [Full disclosure: I have had one shot of BioNTech and am waiting for my second.]

> 1) That's not really a convincing response. There were only two viral vector vaccines ever approved for human use before 2020, both for ebola I believe, and therefore probably not widely administered. So the concern isn't mRNA or is it? > 2. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Sure, but it also means you need some sort of empirical or a priori starting point. There isn't even a hypothesis to gather evid…

I'm only guessing based on my personal interpretation of azangru, but I think the concern is delivery mechanisms that have never, or only rarely, been used before.

Regarding evidence for "spooky things", well, by their nature there is no or little evidence for them. They are black swans and the means by which they are addressed is the precautionary principle. In particular, by their nature, there can be no evidence about presence or absence of long term effects of novel delivery mechanisms.

Personally speaking, I suspect I'm a lot better off being vaccinated than not but some of the credulity around vaccines is rather surprising to me (especially the fact that many people don't seem to know that J&J uses a novel delivery mechanism too).

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#214

Post by _djo_ »

leereeves wrote: post #193
_djo_ wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Natural immunity is not as well understood as vaccine response and longevity for COVID-19. There's also increasing evidence that newer variants like Delta present a significant reinfection risk for those who were infected with the wildtype or even Alpha six or more months before.

Delta also presents a risk of breakthrough infection for vaccinated people. And that seems likely to lead to the development of new strains against which the current vaccines are ineffective, as the virus mutates in vaccinated people. I'm vaccinated myself, but I don't count on that providing protection for long. I expect it to be more like the flu, for which yearly vaccines are required against whatever strains are…

Breakthrough infections with Delta remain relatively low amongst fully vaccinated people, with most cases not resulting in serious infections.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#215

Post by hereforphone »

hereforphone wrote: post #30
Whatarethese wrote: post #2

Good. Its time to stop messing around with this. The vaccines are tested and are safe.

I have taken both shots. But I wouldn't call them "safe", as they are young and approved under emergency guidelines. They are probably safe, but nobody knows that right now.

I want to also add this to my parent post above. There are several vaccinations. Not all are equal. Sinovac was given to my Turkish relatives and they now have to get a 3rd or even 4th shot as Sinovac's efficacy was found to decline after some amount of months.

That no one mentions each shot may be different is more proof (to me) that there is a lot of politics (as opposed to thoughtful analysis) going on here.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#216

Post by jhauris »

majormajor wrote: post #159
rolobio wrote: post #79

I'm shocked so many people on HN support this. The only way I know to prove someone received a vaccine is for them to turn over their medical history. What if companies start refusing to hire someone because they have a bad medical history (insurance costs anyone)? I'm sure many people will respond to this saying "they don't need to turn over their full medical history!" but once we turn over a part of it, they will…

Before Obamacare, I did have to fill out my full medical history when starting a job in order to get the employer-provided health plan. So we've actually improved on that, thankfully! The pro-vacccination crowd doesn't seem like the crowd that's looking to turn back that clock.

That's interesting; I've been getting health insurance through my employers since that time as well, and never had to provide any health history. I thought that was part of the value of a group health plan.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#217

Post by silicon2401 »

Trasmatta wrote: post #123
giarc wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The venn diagram of unvaxxed, exceptional engineers, willing to move to a new company is probably very, very small.

With the amount of ridiculous anti-vaxxing statements in this thread, I'm beginning to think there may actually be a large contingent of software engineers deciding not to be vaccinated.

What do you find unreasonable about having concerns with taking a vaccine that was rushed through testing, using a technique that has considerably less historical evidence than other vaccines, and that didn't even meet the original definition of vaccine (at least in the US)?

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#218

Post by TulliusCicero »

rolobio wrote: post #173
TulliusCicero wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you don't. We do accept some risks, but in the case of cars, there are quite a few mandatory things involved designed to limit the risk: it's illegal to drive without a license, illegal to drive while drunk, cars are required to have various safety features to be street-legal, etc. Same principle here. Vaccines don't completely eliminate the risk of danger from covid, they only reduce it, just like the car regula…

I can get a job without a car. How soon until I can't get a job without modifying my body?

Some jobs actually do require a car, either explicitly or because no other form of transportation would be practical for an area.

Since higher vaccination rates protect other people, I'm hopeful that vaccines become as mandatory as possible. That this bothers anti-vaxxers doesn't bother me, because why should it? I'm not more bothered by this than the vaccine requirement to enter public schools for kids.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#219

Post by dariosalvi78 »

neither_color wrote: post #20
Whatarethese wrote: post #2

Good. Its time to stop messing around with this. The vaccines are tested and are safe.

I'm vaccinated and I personally don't care if others choose not to do it.

I do care because if enough people refuse to vaccinate we won't get rid of this pandemic, with all it consequences, and we make it easier for variants to develop, which could be even resistant to vaccines.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#220

Post by some-guy »

h_anna_h wrote: post #95
some-guy wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their company, their choice. As an employee, I would very much enjoy the freedom _from_ COVID-19.

Less of this argument please. I would not like companies to have the choice to fire racial minorities just because it is "their company, their choice". Edit: Protected classes is a legal term and is irrelevant to the topic here. If your argument can be used to support a statement or action that you consider incorrect or immoral then it is not a good argument. After all "Their company, their choice." has in fact been…

You can choose to be vaccinated (minus the obvious medical exceptions), you can't choose your minority status.
Post reply on HN