Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#251

Post by Covzire » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

yupper32 wrote: post #180

rolobio wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm calling it now, they will require all employees to have this, remote or not.

For what reason? Arbitrary control? Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.

Because people are rightfully hesitant to believe anything suspected liars tell them they need to do. The science is far from settled and Google banning doctors for discussing amongst themselves is as big of a red flag as can possibly exist.

If you ask most people on the right how the virus has affected them, their friends or family, they'll tell you the lockdowns and mandates have been 100x more harmful to their entire community, family and friends than the virus has been. This is an extremely common response.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#252

Post by dekhn » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:10 PM UTC

ProAm wrote: post #36

veemjeem wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any vaccines in history that have caused something unexpected 10 years from injection?

> Are there any vaccines in history that have caused something unexpected 10 years from injection? Yes [1] *EDIT* - People are being pedantic saying it's not a vaccine while technically true it was a government approved medication that had horrific side effects discovered after approval. This is why people are wary about taking a vaccine still under approval as 'emergency use'. And also ridiculous to force employees…

BTW, thalidomide is still prescribed, it's a very effective drug.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#253

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

conductr wrote: post #126

mtoner23 wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hippa only applies to medical professionals i believe. Employers can always ask for your medical records. This has always been the case.

Extremely false. Hippa applies to all and is meant to protect people from discrimination on health matters. These policies will end up in court eventually and companies will argue the law moves too slowly for the concerns of the day and they had to make a decision they felt was best for safety of their employees.

> Hippa applies to all and is meant to protect people from discrimination on health matters

No, the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) is not a workplace anti-discrimination act. You are, while also probably misunderstanding the lower-level details, confusing its basic purpose and function with something else, probably the Americans with Disabilities Act.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#254

Post by conductr » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

TulliusCicero wrote: post #182

conductr wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well of course you do get to choose to waive your rights to hippa protections, you can waive any right you want. But you do not have to give your records and they aren’t allowed to obtain them without your consent. They’re also not allowed to “punish” you for failing to provide your health records. In this context, someone in the office may get promoted and someone WFH may think they deserved it. So they’ll sue on gr…

> Well of course you do get to choose to waive your rights to hippa protections, you can waive any right you want. It's not waiving your right to HIPAA protections, because HIPAA protections literally do not apply in this scenario. > 3028 - If my employer requires proof of my COVID-19 vaccination status, does that violate my rights under HIPAA? > In general, the HIPAA Rules do not apply to employers or employment rec…

Interesting. I have been on various meetings since the beginning of covid with general counsel telling us of all the pitfalls of hippa issues. I wonder if HHS published this specifically to promote clarification. It’s against the wide spread legal opinions that have circulated. Maybe the impending lawsuit is expensive enough that most attorneys are being overly conservative on the advice.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#255

Post by summerlight » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:11 PM UTC

Panther34543 wrote: post #156

Ugg, why doesn't anybody, whether it be government officials, employers, whatever, ever consider those with natural immunity? It's like some weird joke. The official CDC estimates over 115 MILLION natural infections in the U.S. alone, and that only accounts for February 2020-March 2021 . It doesn't account for all the infections before February 2020 (I and most of my coworkers in downtown SF got it in January) nor an…

It's because their antibody response is similar to those who got just a single dose of COVID-19 vaccine, which is not enough to protect against Delta variant. I suspect natual immunity played a huge role in prevention of vanilla COVID and Alpha variant but it's not with Delta which probably contributes to the recent spike.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#256

Post by cowl » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:12 PM UTC

majormajor wrote: post #122

h_anna_h wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do they actually reduce spread or do they instead just make people who catch it more likely to avoid hospitalization and increase their survival chances? If it is the first I can see why they do it, if it is the second then I do not see the point of enforcing it. Although I wonder if they will consider workers who passed covid before (and thus have antibodies) as "vaccinated". > The vaccines are tested and are safe W…

From the data I've seen, they are potentially looking more effective at preventing cases than at preventing hospitalization: https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2021-07-22/los-ange... > Among fully vaccinated people, there were about 27 coronavirus infections for every 100,000 county residents in June, according to figures presented Thursday. But among people not fully vaccinated, there were 125 infections for e…

UK statstics show a 20 factor reduction in hospitalisation rates for vaccinated people vs non vaccinated. However what is not considered in all these statistics is the non-symtomatic cases. If hospitalisation rate is 20 times lower it means also that symtomatic infections are way lower than those detected. In your cited statistics for those 27 cases there would be a lot more not diagnosed at all. The risk here is that although they will pass it without notice they will also risk infecting others-hence the recomandation that vaccinated people still need to use masks. There is a great risk on falling into complancy here if we think vaccination is the silver bullet and is enough.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#257

Post by thisiscorrect » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:13 PM UTC

alistairSH wrote: post #212

smueller1234 wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That may not be how things play out. Vaccination may facilitate immune escape[1]

"Given that therapeutics (vaccines and antibody-based therapies) target mainly the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein, the selection pressures that favour the emergence of new variants carrying immune escape mutations generated in chronic infections24,25,26 will be similar to those selecting for mutations that allow reinfections within the wider population27,28,29. Therefore, sequencing of viruses associated with prolonged infections will provide useful information on mutations that could contribute to increased transmissibility or escape from vaccine-mediated immunity."

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41579-021-00573-0

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#258

Post by endisneigh » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

Trasmatta wrote: post #238

silicon2401 wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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)?

The data overwhelmingly shows that the vaccines are safe and effective. The data overwhelmingly shows that COVID has a high chance of either death or longterm complications. I know which of the two I'm going to take my chances with.

To be fair it is possible to both not take the vaccine nor ever get COVID.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#259

Post by dekhn » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #91

How are they going to even know you took the vaccine? Honor system? If they force you to disclose doesn't that break HIPAA? If it doesn't break HIPAA, then doesn't this create a precedent that employers can gain your medical history with arbitrary mandates? Seems like a lose-lose.

Here's a quick comparison of HIPAA and HIPPA (what you original said) that will help clear up the confusion. https://pbs.twimg.com/media/E3dxHFYVcAAM3V8?format=png&name=...

I don't understand why so many people are obsessed how the company can find out whether you got the vaccine. I mean, as an employee you could lie or otherwise misrepresent your status and probably get away with it, at least for a short time, before they terminated your employment.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#260

Post by TulliusCicero » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:15 PM UTC

conductr wrote: post #254

TulliusCicero wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Well of course you do get to choose to waive your rights to hippa protections, you can waive any right you want. It's not waiving your right to HIPAA protections, because HIPAA protections literally do not apply in this scenario. > 3028 - If my employer requires proof of my COVID-19 vaccination status, does that violate my rights under HIPAA? > In general, the HIPAA Rules do not apply to employers or employment rec…

Interesting. I have been on various meetings since the beginning of covid with general counsel telling us of all the pitfalls of hippa issues. I wonder if HHS published this specifically to promote clarification. It’s against the wide spread legal opinions that have circulated. Maybe the impending lawsuit is expensive enough that most attorneys are being overly conservative on the advice.

I dunno what sources you've been looking at, but I haven't seen that for legal opinions from actually informed parties, only from anti-vaxxers and the like.