Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

I didn’t even think of that angle, but you are completely correct. Each decision to constrain their ranks in some way makes them less representative of other populations of people, whose information these companies still will control.

A club I attend is now proposing proof of vaccination for continued membership. I tried to inform them of a KISS one time paper proof of vaccination to registry that other businesses I visit practice instead of on prem or 3rd party service scanning of our vaccination cards which contains PII of Real Name, DOB and for some, Medical Record Number, MRN They were too spooked by the need for health safety ("We must have a safe place!") to grasp the implications of building a honeypot ready for exploit or sell off. So now they have name, address, DOB, MRN, CC, what else is missing? I think the other data brokers will fill the gaps. This a business relationship, not an employer. I fear more businesses will go unchallenged with this convenience route.

https://abc7news.com/vaccine-cards-security-covid-19-coronav...

https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2021/04/no-digital-vaccine-bou...

Now let's see where that MRN is embedded... http://dicom.nema.org/medical/Dicom/2016c/output/chtml/part0... http://www.j4jayant.com/2013/02/hl7-identifiers-person-patie...

The vaccine does protect yourself and others, a lot. It is very much worth it. The reported numbers make this very clear.

It's not absolute protection however. But it greatly reduces the probabilities of propagating the virus.

In a population the effect is multiplied more than the effect on an individual, because of the reduced propagation. If enough are vaccinated that multiplier does make it near-absolute protection.

Thus, it protects you, and it also protects each other through the multiplier effect.

It also greatly reduces the chances of hospitalisation and death from infection if you are one of the unlucky ones who gets Covid-19 anyway in spite of vaccination.

> Now we are getting a different message

No, we aren't.

The message from the authorities has been consistent on why people should be vaccinated, including acknowleging that it isn't absolute protection (with reported probabilities), that people should still take care to protect each other in other ways, and that collective multiplier effects mean it's important for nearly everyone to be vaccinated - people protect each other, not just themselves.

Despite not providing absolute protection to an individual who takes it without others taking it, it is believed to be able to provide nearly absolute protection if vaccine takeup is sufficiently widespread and social behaviour stays careful enough - because R Measured likelihoods of infection with the vaccine are reported from time to time, as is the effect of different virus variants. Due to the complex nature of social interactions in different environments, and the fact that data is continuously being produced and analysed, and nothing is static, those reported values are not the same everywhere, and new values keep emerging.

> This is why people develop doubts that the authorities have any real idea what they are talking about.

Different people explain the message in different ways, and emphasise different aspects. It does not mean the authorities are changing their mind on the major points.

But public health messaging is a difficult field of its own: If you spell out all the details and nuances, that some people would like to hear, most people tune out and don't follow the advice no matter how important. They also forget details, then when they hear the same thing put a different way with different emphasis, it sounds different and perhaps contradictory, but isn't really.

It has to be simplified and memorable, for people to follow it, unfortunately.

You're right that when people hear different versions of the same message, it leads people to wonder if what they are hearing is consistent.

I'll try to provide my simplified version:

When you get vaccinated and your grandparents vaccinated and everyone you interact with vaccinated, then wait a while, eventually you will be pretty safe visiting them.

If you only get yourself vaccinated but your grandparents don't, nor any of the people you interact with daily, you will be better protected than them, but they can still give you the virus (with lower probability), and you can still pass the virus on to your grandparents. You'll probably not be too ill because the vaccine protects against severe illness as well, but you might still carry it and pass it on to someone who does gets severely ill. This is why it's so important to have almost everyone vaccinated around you, not just yourself.

>If a small but militant group insists in putting everyone at risk by intentionally and systematically violating basic health and safety precautions then the only hope society has is to mitigate this risk.

Who is militant? And they aren't putting "everyone" at risk. They are putting themselves at risk surely, but the risk doesn't really spread to people who have been vaccinated.

>You need to prove you are vaccinated when you travel internationally

I also need permission from the government of the country I'm visiting to come at all. They can add conditions if they want and I can choose accordingly.

>So why yes, obviously yes. Don't you agree? Or do you actually believe that an individual's whims and irresponsiblr and reckless behavior should simply put everyone else's life at risk just because?

I don't agree. I think people have lost perspective and have very little idea what the risks of various situations are and can't tell the difference between a risk that could kill millions and a risk that could kill hundreds and are happy to charge forwards to try to prevent any risk regardless of how small because "doing something" has become as a religious mandate.

>I mean, if you really valued freedom then wouldn't you be doing your hardest to ensure that everyone around you should, say, not risk death by an easily preventable disease in spite of everyone except you taking basic precautions?

Freedom is not trying to force everyone around me to do what I determine is best for them.

>do you feel the measles or tetanus shots violate your freedom?

Tetanus basically only spreads through deep puncture wounds with soiled implements. I guess if I didn't seem like I was out of my mind I would want my doctor to accept refusing treatment for a painful and life threatening disease that could only ever effect myself... The question "do you think shot violates your freedom?" really shows that you don't understand my point at all and will continue arguing past and around whatever I have to say.

I am opposed to de facto licensing of public activities based on a choice that should be mine to make. (I did indeed get vaccinated) When there was significant risk and incomplete vaccine access, different rules were acceptable, but only because of the large and temporary risk. Now that that risk is avoidable by anyone in the US who wants to avoid it, continuing to enable and enforce restrictions on everyday activities has gone too far, and normalizing the "papers please" activity does serious harm to our future freedoms.

I'm with you except for the sentence about virtue signalling and SJW's; no need to bring the entire culture war into it. (In fact I'm usually on the side of those you call SJW's.)