Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines • Hacker News Board

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#261

Post by ryandrake » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

sharken wrote: post #207

ryandrake wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies can mandate no smoking as a condition for entering their buildings. Is this also an example of the company having an unreasonable say in what happens with your body?

I wouldn't compare a vaccine to a no smoking rule, it's not the same.

They are very similar. They are both workplace safety policies. They both reduce danger to other employees. They both place conditions on entering the workplace based on whether or not you put something into your body. You could say the same thing about a "no intoxication at work" policy, especially if work involves heavy machinery.

Whether it's mandating what goes into your body or what doesn't, the aim of the policy is the same: Preventing the reckless behavior of one person from harming other employees.

EDIT because I can't reply:

I don't understand what you mean by "give up control of your body". There is no evidence that taking a COVID vaccine results in loss of control of your body or limbs, or remote control of it by someone else. Hundreds of millions of people have taken it, and they all remain fully in control of their bodies.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#262

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

endisneigh wrote: post #245

dragonwriter wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I thought either HIPAA (thanks for the correction), FMLA or ADA protected employees from being asked about medical information that could result in they being discriminated against in regards to employment things. ADA does for some things, but not all things. Vaccination status is apparently not among them, though many of the things that would be involved in a medical reason not to vaccinate are.

> ADA does for some things, but not all things. Vaccination status is apparently not among them, though many of the things that would be involved in a medical reason not to vaccinate are. Right - this is my point that I poorly presented. If you say you cannot be vaccinated for medical issues, obviously they must be presented proof otherwise any anti-vaxxer would say that. However if said proof would be constitute inf…

> However if said proof would be constitute information under ADA then you wouldn't have to share it no?

Most workplace privacy/anti-discrimination rules have exceptions for sufficient safety or other necessity, very few (despite popular general portrayals) are completely unconditional bars; not sure exactly how this applies to ADA here.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#263

Post by tablespoon » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

amrcnimgrnt wrote: post #240

I don't mean this polemically, or rhetorically. I'm honestly asking because I've given this some thought, and it's not entirely obvious to me. "Who are the unvaccinated hurting, exactly?" It appears to me that a pandemic of the unvaccinated harms the unvaccinated. "Those who cant get the vaccines" Now, some people will point out that some can't get the vaccines. Except that ppl with HIV, GBS, autoimmune etc are all e…

> "Who are the unvaccinated hurting, exactly?"

My kids, who are too young to be vaccinated. I don't appreciate you being blase about their health.

My father, who is quite possibly immunocompromised, and may not have acquired a strong immunity from his vaccine.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#264

Post by jakebasile » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #176

jakebasile wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Literally all characteristics? I think there are some which are protected by law and generally considered not cool to discriminate on. I'm just asking which ones are ok to discriminate on since apparently submission to medical procedures is one of the good ones. I wonder how people would feel if an employer required other medical treatments, or the inverse: if an employee had a medical procedure the employer doesn't…

Vaccines have been required for public schools (with government compelled attendance) for decades. This is nothing new.

For years employers discriminated against people for reasons that are now illegal and considered uncool at best. Just because something is legal doesn't mean it is morally right or just.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#265

Post by bitsoda » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:16 PM UTC

freedomben wrote: post #56

giarc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been nearly 4 billion shots delivered across the world in the past 8 months. I suspect if they were to cause great harm, we would have known by now.

Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm. See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.

That tiny bit of room for doubt is still much smaller than that for the virus itself.

For example, once you get over chickenpox, the virus remains dormant in your nerve cells and could rear its head in the form of shingles later on in life. Who knows what long-term effects COVID will have? History shows for the overwhelming amount of vaccines no random side-effects after ~3 months.

There are outliers, of course, but since Delta looks like it will makes its rounds and infect many people, it's not quite the same in terms of anthrax exposure which is why I'm cool with Google mandating the COVID vaccine from a risk/benefit perspective.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#266

Post by TulliusCicero » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

hereforphone wrote: post #239

TulliusCicero wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's 'deeper' for the anti-vax community, for everyone else it's just a basic employee/public safety issue.

"Everyone else" is pretty broad and the kind of categorization I wouldn't expect from someone with an open mind

Was there a larger point to using that personal attack?

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#267

Post by bradstewart » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:17 PM UTC

sharken wrote: post #199

bradstewart wrote: post #144

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand this argument. This isn't the first time vaccines have been required. For instance, every state has required vaccines for school attendance--from kindergarten through college. Here's the list for Texas: https://dshs.texas.gov/immunize/school/school-requirements.a... Are you opposed to those mandates as well, or is this one different?

This one is different. In my country in 2018, deaths caused by the flu was more than 50% of all registered Corona deaths. Just that season alone. Now some wants to mandate Corona vaccines, but then what about flu vaccines ?

Understood. I rarely get a straight answer to that question from people who make the "it's my body" argument, so I appreciate the reply.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#268

Post by Covzire » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:18 PM UTC

MattGaiser wrote: post #69

What form do these mandates take? What kind of proof do they ask for? As I thought that vaccine information was private medical information. Couldn’t someone presumably just lie?

IANAL, but the precedents set by all the battles that were fought in previous decades over diseases likes AIDS/HIV seem to make it very hazardous for employers to demand medical records. Liberals once fought hard to keep medical records out of employers hands, and won overwhelmingly, so I don't see how Google or any employer can actually enforce this without serious risk of a class action lawsuit.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#269

Post by dekhn » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:19 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.

you misunderstand this law. the law is confusing but the terms are well understood.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#270

Post by jakebasile » Wed, Jul 28, 2021, 6:19 PM UTC

some-guy wrote: post #220

h_anna_h wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Of course you can, a minority is determined by population. There are other populations to move to where any given human would no longer be in the minority.

This is the same argument being presented here: the employees can just choose to work for another employer.