Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 722 posts

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

#331

Post by mjburgess »

ReadEvalPost wrote: post #244
mjburgess wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you factoring in risk to others? The aggregate risk of a poorly-vaccinated population is, presumably, still likely much higher than the "longitudinal risks" of vaccines? ie., it seems unlikely to me that vaccines will kill 100,000s (and, with covid continuing, 10s,000s+/yr). Even doing this based on individual preference alone, presumably you have preferences for the safety of (some) others; of your workplace; et…

Yes, of course I think about others. I would never go in with symptoms of any infectious disease. Were I asked to work in a building away from people that are high-risk or are regularly in contact with high-risk people I would easily oblige. There are multiple possible solutions that do not violate my bodily autonomy. I agree with your assessment that major adverse effects are unlikely, but ultimately unknowns are im…

Everything has unknown unknowns (u-u).

You do not know the u-u risk of covid for precisely the same reasons you do not know the u-u risk of the vaccine: they are both on the same timeline.

You also do not know the aggregate u-u risk to others: asymptomatic spread, modalities of spreading, etc.

The aggregate u-u compound the individual u-u of covid. Eg., suppose long-covid occurs at a higher rate than supposed, has a longer lasting impact, has a more severe neurological impact.... then this compounds the u-u risk on spreading (eg., suppose that asymptomatic spread is more severe...).

All you're saying by declining the vaccine is that you care more about the u-u risk to yourself.

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

#332

Post by Broken_Hippo »

blub wrote: post #225
tdeck wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I had to pass a background check to start work at Google, my employer before Google, and my employer after. If anything that was much more intrusive than "prove you're vaccinated".

This goes back to the generally weak worker protections in the US. Background checks are a pretty hostile approach for most jobs, since after all it is assumed that the person which was convicted paid their debt to society. Sure, for certain kinds of positions like working as a lawyer or in a bank, or working with kids perhaps it makes sense, but for programmers working on consumer and B2B software it's a stretch. In…

To be fair: Background checks, in the US, aren't limited to criminal records.

First and foremost, sometimes checks include arrests (without conviction, or a not guilty verdict) if the company chooses the wrong background check company. The government doesn't regulate them very well.

But it can be things like a google search for you (Which means that a protest you went to could mean you "aren't a good fit for the company.").

It can be a credit check: I had to pass a credit check to work at a gas station once. The district manager was convinced that bad credit meant you were more likely to steal.

Very, very often - and more often than a criminal background check - is a drug test. I didn't take a job that did pre-employment hair follicle tests, mostly because the person in the room with me explained she had a drug problem in the past. She had been clean for 2-3 years clean and was willing to take regular drug tests. But they said the tests went back further than that, and no job if the hair follicle test wasn't passed (I think there are now laws that would have protected her).

Urine tests are more common, though. And a slew of employers do random drug tests - some call centers, for example, might do random hair follicle or urine tests (Student loan collections do this in some places). It doesn't matter if it would affect your job or not.

This is all mostly because there is no law protecting it: The behavior would be illegal where I live now.

Now, with vaccinations: Employers do have a little bit of business knowing health concerns if it can affect workplace safety in ways that can make other employees or customers fall sick. They already do this to some degree in, say, foodservice. For example, I know a food factory here (That I worked at temporarily) that requires stool sample tests and time off work if you have any sort of vomiting or diarrhea - you know, because it can make others sick.

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

#333

Post by arn »

joshuahughes wrote: post #317
Steltek wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't it simpler than that? Fewer employees taking unnecessary extended sick leave, which endangers deadlines and complicates project planning. I would be pissed if I need to upend a release if some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU.

> some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU Don't know what it's like over in the US, but here in the UK 'the vaccinated' aren't some tiny percentage of hospitalisations. Actually, they're currently sitting around 40%, which means there's almost as much chance of your VACCINATED colleague "winning himself a trip to the ICU" as the unvaccinated. You might want to use the word 'idiot' more cautiously. https…

But there are more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, so it’s proportionally not “almost as much chance”.

Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated.

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

#334

Post by tpxl »

Pyramus wrote: post #324
ReadEvalPost wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Evolutionary pressure selects for less deadly viruses over time. You're right though, there is still longitudinal risk as this does not preclude a vastly more deadly strain--but at that point the effectiveness of a vaccine is similarly unknown.

> Evolutionary pressure selects for less deadly viruses over time. I'm hearing that for the first time, do you have a source? > longitudinal risk With longitudinal I meant the risk of what we have labelled 'long Covid' but really seems to be a conglomerate of different, sometimes chronic diseases in different people, that we still don't really know how to treat effectively (not very frequent in absolute terms, but or…

>> Evolutionary pressure selects for less deadly viruses over time.

> I'm hearing that for the first time, do you have a source?

A virus that kills its host before it has a chance to infect others cannot reproduce.

I cannot remember which virus it was (might have been ebola) but it wiped whole communities so fast it died off because there were no new hosts to infect.

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

#336

Post by machinelearning »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #290
machinelearning wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is no different. To be fair, it actually is different. The mechanism of action and the EUA timelines are different and unlike most other widely available vaccines. It is ok to disagree on the crux of the argument which is whether taking the vaccine is a net good, but non-factual arguments do not help.

Obviously some of the details are different, they're different for every contagion, but the principle is the same: the interest in public health overrides the normal interest in preserving individual bodily autonomy, just like with vaccinations and schooling.

The details are the important part here. If you understand why people are against the vaccine, it is because they are not convinced that the vaccine results in the greatest public health. Whether this is right or wrong, trying to gloss over the differences in the details doesn't work here since the conflict is at the level of details.

And no I don't agree with your point about vaccines being "different for every contagion". That is patently untrue, most vaccines developed in the recent past have either been recombinant, attenuated/inactivated viruses or adenovirus vectored vaccines that have undergone extensive FDA approval by now.

This is especially true for the vaccines required for schooling.

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

#337

Post by fruityrudy »

ReadEvalPost wrote: post #222

I'm really upset with this decision. I have not gotten the vaccine as I prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID over the unknown longitudinal risk of the vaccine. My right to make these personal decisions regarding my bodily autonomy is extremely important to me. Under no circumstances will I yield that decision to my employer! Their demand only further reinforces my desire not to take the vaccine. W…

4 billion people have been vaccinated. Don’t oh think you have your risk numbers wrong?

Do you think you are consistent in your risk judgement across all parts of your life? E.g have you ever taken drugs? Illicit or prescription?

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

#338

Post by VBprogrammer »

colechristensen wrote: post #169
rualca wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> No “papers please” to allow me to participate in normal society where the group in power gets to decide if I’m acceptable. What are your thoughts on individuals contracting and spreading a disease that has killed millions already due to their refusal to comply with the most basic health and safety precautions? Do you believe that someone's refusal to comply with basic sanitary precautions should take precedence ove…

One has to believe at some point that liberty is worth a certain amount of risk. >Do you believe that someone's refusal to comply with basic sanitary precautions should take precedence over my and my family and loved one's desire to not die of a preventable disease? Did you and your family get vaccinated? What unvaccinated people do does not affect your risk profile in any meaningful way. Are your kids too young to g…

> If you're vaccinated or too young to be vaccinated, COVID-19 is over for you. The risk went from 1 in 1000 people dying to no worse than the risk in any flu season, unless that very mild risk makes you think that we should reinvent what personal freedoms in society means, stop turning and ending pandemic into a catastrophe.

I'm not sure this is settled fact at the moment. There are known variants which have shown to reduce the efficacy of at least some of the available vaccines.

The danger isn't from the individual unvaccinated person, it's from pockets of them creating a reservoir of the virus from which new variants can develop. Strong arming people into being vaccinated is the stick with which to try to limit these reservoirs.

Personally, I'm comfortable with limiting peoples ability to attend mass events (which are elective and for entertainment value only) in the tail end of a pandemic without proof of vaccination, I'm less conformable about allowing employers (outside of perhaps those who work with people who are at risk) to do the same.

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

#339

Post by shock »

yosito wrote: post #271
paxys wrote: post #52

One angle that isn't being discussed – having vaccinated employees greatly reduces healthcare costs for the company and its insurance provider. I'm sure they would love to enforce vaccinations, annual checkups, healthy diet, exercise, no smoking etc. among employees as a condition for providing insurance or employment if there wasn't a social pushback for doing so.

One key difference is that a lack of exercise doesn't put your office mates at risk.

Unfit people are more likely to contract the flu and spread it around.

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

#340

Post by tored »

tene wrote: post #103
ds206 wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the point of a right if it can't be exercised?

For example, the right to freedom of association, and choosing not to employ people who are making reckless choices that impact the safety of their coworkers?

Choosing whom to hire is different from whom to fire.
Post reply on HN