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

281–290 of 442 posts

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#281

Post by lancemurdock »

roberttod wrote: post #228
lancemurdock wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

thats an incredibly loose definition and up for manipulation

The FDA decides what counts as an emergency, and if they wanted to manipulate the approval process then that would be the least of our problems. Further, if we can't react to a pandemic which could be even quicker spreading and more deadly than covid because we're unable to lower the risk tolerance for a cure/vaccine then that seems to be complete against any common sense.

I totally agree with you. I just don't agree with forcing/mandating anything. People should be able to decide for themselves what risk tolerance they want to be apart of.

If people perceived covid to be as deadly as it is made out to be, we wouldn't have low vaccination rates. People are not getting the vaccine because they don't see a need too.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#282

Post by endisneigh »

dekhn wrote: post #277
endisneigh wrote: post #271

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. It's not about the vaccine - it's about the normalization of employers knowing your medical history. Personally I wouldn't care if I was…

So... you're willing to have millions of people die to protect some employees from having their employer knowing their medical history? From what I can see, companies are doing this to reduce their exposure to legal risk from employee-employee infection in the office.

> So... you're willing to have millions of people die to protect some employees from having their employer knowing their medical history?

What's the point of this question? I never said that to begin with.

> From what I can see, companies are doing this to reduce their exposure to legal risk from employee-employee infection in the office.

This doesn't make any sense as vaccinated people can and do transmit the delta variant. Mandatory work from home would be the solution to that.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#283

Post by mlindner »

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.

I can't find anything about the Anthrax vaccine that shows it was problematic, just a a bunch of conspiracy theories.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#284

Post by IG_Semmelweiss »

Arnt wrote: post #137
dgs_sgd wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The people resistant to taking them are concerned with potential “long term”effects so by definition argue that it wouldn’t be known by now.

Serious question: Is anyone putting up a real argument that the vaccines may have long-term harm that outweighs the harm done by the risk of the disease in the same timeframe? Say 20 years. Compute the risk of getting covid over 20 years based on, say, the risk seen in North Dakota over the last year and estimate a health outcome based on that. Is anyone putting up a real argument that any of the vaccines might have…

I don't think I find most people saying there is an argument that tilts one way or the other.

what i hear is, they genuinely not know.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#285

Post by summerlight »

hereforphone wrote: post #72

I am saying this as someone who has both shots and generally supports the vaccination. From what I understand Google is known as a company with a "liberal" culture. Is demanding employees accept one side of an argument and adhere to it (or face the consequences) contrary to the definition of "liberal"? That's the problem with Western politics. Liberal vs. conservative is no longer about how permissive we are with ide…

Your understanding on "liberal" seems pretty shallow. Liberal support fundamental civil liberty of course, but many of them also tend to support republicanism in some sense, like economics, welfare, corporate policy and public health to establish social equity and justice. You cannot simply draw a clear line between "liberal" and "conservative" and put everyone in one of either bucket; the real world politic is a way more complicated than that.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#286

Post by majormajor »

halfjoking wrote: post #273
majormajor wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You shouldn't be willing to have any shot if that's your perception of the threat level. Why create a back door when you're literally opening a front door through the shot? Who gives a shit if it claims to be mRNA or not in that scenario? Don't breathe unfiltered air either. Why not just distribute this backdoor as an aerosol?

It's a new technology with new capabilities. That's why VCs are investing billions in RNA tech to treat disease. I'd take the Chinese one because China open-sources their inactive virus vaccine and exports raw materials to other nations to manufacture them: http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2021-01/12/c_139661608.htm A plot to add some "secret sauce" to a vaccine wouldn't work in that scenario. Bill Gates on the other…

You're literally worrying about the security of them and yet claiming someone else being worried about the security of them is spouting BS.

I think there's a major lack of internal consistency. You're hyper-worried about one specific threat that relies on a huge unpublished technological leap to create biological backdoors, yet... you aren't worried about other potential unknown tech (e.g. if the government wants new-tech mind control backdoors, they could also research building them as aerosol viruses instead of injected ones, because then the lack of traceability is very attractive compared even with harder delivery) or about other actors abusing the vector of another shot you want (and let's be real - there are security holes in open source software projects all the time!).

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#287

Post by roberttod »

lancemurdock wrote: post #281
roberttod wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The FDA decides what counts as an emergency, and if they wanted to manipulate the approval process then that would be the least of our problems. Further, if we can't react to a pandemic which could be even quicker spreading and more deadly than covid because we're unable to lower the risk tolerance for a cure/vaccine then that seems to be complete against any common sense.

I totally agree with you. I just don't agree with forcing/mandating anything. People should be able to decide for themselves what risk tolerance they want to be apart of. If people perceived covid to be as deadly as it is made out to be, we wouldn't have low vaccination rates. People are not getting the vaccine because they don't see a need too.

Many more are not getting the vaccine because of mis and disinformation. I agree that people should never be forced, but requiring unvaccinated people to take extra safety precautions or mandating vaccines to come back into the office seems like a good idea. There is also a small percentage of vaccinated people that will die of covid due to contact with unvaccinated.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#288

Post by pb7 »

jakebasile wrote: post #264
pb7 wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

None of those reasons were a public health matter that directly affected other people.

Get vaccinated.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#289

Post by rolobio »

BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #200
rolobio wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well thanks for the downvote. But isn't that card part of your medical history? What if they need proof you are vaccinated against measles? After all, its a proven vaccine...

> But isn't that card part of your medical history? It's the narrowest, most specific data point possible to establish that you won't put other innocent people in the building at risk of a new outbreak. > What if they do other things after this thing? What if dogs had antlers? What if sidewalks were made of cheese?

A dog is not related to antlers. But proof of vaccination is related to vaccination history.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#290

Post by endisneigh »

Trasmatta wrote: post #67

The amount of thinly veiled (or actually outright blatant) anti-vax posts here on Hacker News is really disheartening.

I'm curious, in your mind is someone who wants to be unvaccinated the same as anti-vax? Someone could be unvaccinated and not discourage the vaccinate and simultaneously not want the vaccination for themselves. Would that be an anti-vax position?

full disclosure - I'm vaccinated with moderna.

Post reply on HN