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

311–320 of 442 posts

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#311

Post by TulliusCicero »

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.

Okay, and? Yes, we don't have rules for every single possibly protective thing, but we do have rules for a lot of them.

Your line of reasoning could also be used against seat belt laws or building codes: why have those for public safety if we don't ban alcohol?

edit: also, while I don't support banning alcohol, it wouldn't be a violation of a person's basic rights to ban it. That used to be the law of the land in the US, and even today there are still some dry counties (alcohol cannot be sold).

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#312

Post by sharken »

ryandrake wrote: post #261
sharken wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 polic…

I agree to disagree then.

The No Smoking policy mandates what you should not do, same as there is a Must Wear Clothes policy.

On the other hand you have the vaccine mandate, which forces you to give up control of your body if you want the job.

Such a policy should not be mandated by a private company, at most it should be encouraged and optional.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#313

Post by TulliusCicero »

JeremyNT wrote: post #299
TulliusCicero wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who cares about liberal vs conservative? Trying to ensure employee safety is just the responsible thing to do for an employer.

Vaccination has, sadly, become a partisan issue in the United States. We can't pretend that a reasonable appeal to public safety will work to convince people of the merits here, when there are so many politicians and entertainers who are successfully using opposition to the vaccine as a wedge issue to further their own selfish agendas.

I feel like it's really only partisan for anti-vaxxers. For others, it's the same as stuff like building codes, or health codes for restaurants: just a common-sense protection.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#314

Post by orhmeh09 »

yonaguska wrote: post #209
orhmeh09 wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would a hiring manager evaluate someone who was knowledgeable enough to work for Google but did not get the vaccine and was not valuable enough for Google to retain by other means? The hiring managers I know would take it as something being wrong with that candidate, who may not be so knowledgeable outside very specific fields, and has trouble working with others. So, which companies will be glad to differentiate…

Cool, now we're discussing discriminatory hiring practices as if they should be normal.

Any employer engages in discrimination while hiring. Some categories are deemed legally protected. Some are not — an employer may choose to hire only people who have a bachelor’s degree. Discriminatory hiring practices are normal.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#315

Post by rsynnott »

hereforphone wrote: post #151
BHSPitMonkey wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This policy has nothing to do with opinions and political leanings; it's a physical safety policy for an office. Most offices would also deny you access if you try to get in and stab fellow employees with dirty needles you found by the bus stop. You could argue the merits of Google not allowing employees the option to permanently work from home, but as far as their offices are concerned this is a very sane requiremen…

Theoretically. If you had an office in Pennsylvania or Minnesota and employed a lot of people that were Amish or Muslim (respectively), and for whatever reason would not accept the shot, would you fire them or allow them to work from home?

> He said there will be "an exceptions process for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other protected reasons."

Religion would be a protected reason, I assume.

Incidentally, Islam allows vaccination.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#316

Post by Arnt »

IG_Semmelweiss wrote: post #284
Arnt wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I hear lots of people say there's an argument that tilts one way, specifically that the risk to the vaccinated is >1 orders of magnitude smaller than that to the unvaccinated.

(I also hear lots of non-argument, such as "I don't know what's in…" from people who didn't say that about aspartame or other additives. My question was strictly about whether anyone is advancing a real argument that the risks may be comparable.)

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#317

Post by tome »

ericmay wrote: post #303
tome wrote: post #291

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? 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 calc…

I'm not sure how to respond. Did you miss the part where I said I have been vaccinated? I'm not trying to persuade anyone to go unvaccinated! I'm just expressing surprise that a lot of people either (a) don't know that the mechanisms for all the popular vaccines available in the west are completely new or (b) are completely unconcerned about the risks of giving such new medical interventions to a billion people within the space of months.

Given the grave situation we find ourselves in it seems to me that mass vaccination is the best option for humanity and for individuals. However, there is an unquantifiable downside risk as a result of lack of knowledge.

>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?

Well, we have been defending successfully against that risk for about 18 months.

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

> And what has come of it? ...

I was just a bit surprised because you seemed to be suggesting that vaccine skepticism was a new phenomenon.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#318

Post by jakebasile »

pb7 wrote: post #187
jakebasile wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're vaccinated, and the vaccine works, how does an unvaccinated person endanger you so greatly that you feel the need to discriminate against them?

The variants all come from unvaccinated people. With enough time, a vaccine resistant variant could come around and infect vaccinated folks who are forced to be around you.

So if a company wants to take the other side here and say they only want to work with unvaccinated people, would that be ok too?

What if an employer decided not to employ anyone who had received a different medical procedure, such as a splenectomy?

If unvaccinated employees can just find other jobs, why can't vaccinated employees just find other jobs?

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#319

Post by lancemurdock »

roberttod wrote: post #287
lancemurdock wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To me its a slippery slope that we are just giving more power to the companies & reducing individual choice. Now it's mandate a vaccine, next its take pep pills to overcome poor performance reviews or all employees must abstain for alcohol.

In the future could we argue that since most felons come from low income households, that you need to be of a certain income threshold to reproduce?

These are batshit crazy things but where does it end? You dont really believe that it'll stop with this vaccine?

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#320

Post by chris_va »

freedomben wrote: post #237
est31 wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Some viruses take decades to show harm as well, e.g. HPV, and there are theories that herpes is involved in Alzheimers. Maybe we'll realize in a couple of years that even asymptomatic covid harms your heart so much that affected people lose years of their lives? The vaccine seems like the safer choice to me.

Yep, excellent point. We don't know the long term repercussions of getting covid either, so avoiding the vax because of unknowns may end up being the riskier position.

Agreed, there are only 2 options:

- Lipid nanoparticle delivering mRNA expressing 1 protein (vaccine)

- Lipid nanoparticle delivering mRNA expressing many proteins (virus), that has severe short term side effects

Odds are much higher than the virus has worse side effects, but we will not be able to wait and see. Waiting just defaults to the second option (with all of its known negative externalities).

(yes, there are other types of vaccines too, and a discussion of which vaccine to take seems completely rational)

Post reply on HN