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

301–310 of 442 posts

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#301

Post by pb7 »

rolobio wrote: post #292
TulliusCicero wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I did not say any job, I said "a" job. Yes vaccinations will protect other people. Banning alcohol would protect many people, but its a violation of a person's rights to ban it.

>its a violation of a person's rights to ban it

It's literally not. Have you heard of the Prohibition?

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#302

Post by amrcnimgrnt »

roberttod wrote: post #275
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…

Not addressing the harm it might do to vaccinated people - don't we have some responsibility to encourage unvaccinated people to get the vaccine for their own good? It's all very well saying "if they want to take the risk, then that's their decision" but in reality many of them have been manipulated by mis and disinformation. Maybe not the hacker news types that are being skeptical and looking at the data and thinkin…

I understand your point, but saving others from themselves is paternalism writ large. It's not to be taken lightly.

Anyway, the COVID death rates right now are bellow diabetes, smoking [1], etc. On a purely "save people from themselves" COVID ranks really low right now.

You could argue that the vaccine is a small cost to save a person (vs. the cost of banning soda or smoking), but that's pretty paternalistic.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/tobacco/data_statistics/fact_sheets/heal...

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#303

Post by ericmay »

tome wrote: post #291
ericmay wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I think the concern is delivery mechanisms that have never, or only rarely, been used before. What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other? > 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 parti…

> > I think the concern is delivery mechanisms that have never, or only rarely, been used before. > What is this concern based on? That it's new or rarely used? Why would you have prior concern one way or the other? I didn't originate this conversation so I can't speak for the original commenter, but it seems to me it's worth pausing for thought when a billion people are due to receive a medical intervention of a typ…

> I didn't originate this conversation so I can't speak for the original commenter, but it seems to me it's worth pausing for thought when a billion people are due to receive a medical intervention of a type that has never been used before.

Sure... but what makes you think the scientific and medical community haven't done the equivalent of this?

> I'm not opting to defend against that risk but nor do I think the calculus is as obvious as you are making out.

Then how would you describe the calculus? I know what COVID-19 infection numbers and statistics are, at least within some +-% differential.

But I have no knowledge or evidence of any future problem with the COVID-19 vaccine. Why would I accept a known and severe risk against an unknown risk with unknown severity?

So, could you expand on the less obvious aspects of the calculus here? If there's knew information I want to know.

> On the one hand I am very, very glad the vaccines are available because they seem to be significantly suppressing infection numbers and keeping people out of hospital. On the other hand I believe that individuals should not be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine.

I think it's a tough subject, but just as someone shouldn't be coerced by their employer into receiving a vaccine, I'm not sure others should be coerced into having to share space with someone who is willingly unvaccinated from a contagious disease. How do you reconcile that?

> Which people?

Take the total number of people who are now anti-vax, subtract those who became anti-vax before 2020. That remaining population.

> People have been questioning the safety of vaccine delivery mechanisms for at least 20 years.

And what has come of it? Billions of people around the world have received vaccines, untold lives have been saved, we've eliminated insane diseases like SmallPox and Polio... but now I'm supposed to side with the anti-vax people because why exactly? What did the medical and science community do to lose my trust? I guess you could argue the funding of gain of function research in Wuhan (where the virus almost certainly originated from), but that's not going to undo the cumulative history of medicine that has been wildly successful for me.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#304

Post by aaomidi »

UncleMeat wrote: post #196
aaomidi wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably, but it would be a communal requirement rather than a top-down requirement.

I'm pretty confident that AWU supports this policy.

There was a misunderstanding here, I'm also for the vaccine requirement. However, I am also questioning "what can an employer mandate?"

There's something to be said about where the enforcement is coming from and how it's being applied.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#305

Post by tome »

ericmay wrote: post #294
tome wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're welcome to. However, I'm curious why your question is relevant. I can't articulate a scientific reason that thalidomide caused birth defects, for example.

> You're welcome to. However, I'm curious why your question is relevant. I can't articulate a scientific reason that thalidomide caused birth defects, for example. You're admitting that you don't know or understand the science of either COVID-19 vaccines or thalidomide-caused birth defects (really it's going to be for lots of other medical things too let's face it), so why are you questioning only COVID-19 vaccines a…

Huh? What makes you think I'm questioning COVID-19 vaccines more than other things? My general approach is to be cautious around putting anything in the body that humans haven't been doing for thousands of years, although to live in the modern world makes that difficult, sometimes mere years has to be enough.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#306

Post by nabla9 »

veemjeem wrote: post #15
hanoz wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They are not tested long term.

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

The answer is no for any detectable or significant population size. If one in million gets something unexpected, it does not matter.

All mRNA vaccine is gone from the body in few days. Usually, the immune response comes within days or weeks.

Theoretically, there is always a change that vaccination triggers some slowly developing auto-immune disease, but that could be triggered by COVID-19 as well (they have the same mRNA). I would be more worried about Long-COVID symptoms. They might be a sign of something chronic for a significant fraction of the population.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#307

Post by rsynnott »

azangru wrote: post #29
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 human vaccines in history that are based on mRNA?

I mean, if you're that concerned, adenovirus (J&J, AZ) and inactivated (Sinopharm) also exist.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#308

Post by halfjoking »

majormajor wrote: post #286
halfjoking wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yeah I agree I'm worrying too much - it's basically ruining my life. I don't want to sign a lease for an apartment because I think I'm fleeing the country or losing my job.

So I admit it. I am paranoid about the US government - but I have reason to given the Snowden leaks and how they treat Assange.

So let's say they are pure evil, and wanted to do aerosols... well maybe they tried that already, but the chemtrails didn't work out.

Maybe Chemtrails were too inefficient as a delivery mechanism. How would they ensure 100% coverage? When they are manufacturing billions of doses to deploy in planes, how would they justify the cost? How would they get it delivered to citizens of other countries? How would they hide what they're doing from everyone given the huge amount of manufacturing needed?

The only way to insert a biological backdoor is to hide it in plain sight. To make it a vaccine that everyone, worldwide, including those already infected with the virus absolutely needs.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#309

Post by merlincorey »

roberttod wrote: post #107
hereforphone wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Just finished listening to a great podcast that touches on the safety and FDA emergency approval, see https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/making-sense-with-sam-... . Some key points i) we have more data on these vaccines than any other in history ii) though we don't have long term data, there has never in the history of vaccines been side effects that wouldn't be detectable at this stage iii) the FDA is really drag…

Just because you heard it in a podcast, doesn't make it true. Disclaimer: I'm not saying vaccines are bad or not to take them, I'm saying it's wrong to assume there are no risks.

> there has never in the history of vaccines been side effects that wouldn't be detectable at this stage

In Europe several years after the H1N1 Pandemic, it was found that people who had received the vaccine for it were contracting narcolepsy, especially children[1].

Research[2] into it has been unable to determine the exact cause[3], but the conclusion of the CDC is still "An increased risk of narcolepsy was found following vaccination with Pandemrix, a monovalent 2009 H1N1 influenza vaccine that was used in several European countries during the H1N1 influenza pandemic".

[1] https://sciencenorway.no/childrens-health-diseases-sleep/chi...

[2] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccinesafety/concerns/history/narcoleps...

[3] https://www.statnews.com/2018/07/05/flu-vaccine-2009-pandemi...

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#310

Post by CarelessExpert »

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.

> Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm.

Frankly, in the entire history of vaccination, this has proven so extremely rare as to be a non-factor, especially given how these mRNA vaccines work.

This really sounds like FUD at this point...

Post reply on HN