Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices • Hacker News Board

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

#471

Post by shaklee3 » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

chitowneats wrote: post #466

shaklee3 wrote: post #455

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The vaccine has an overwhelming amount of data showing it's effective, and very little showing side effects. At some point it's a national responsibility to get it. If you don't, then there's nothing that says you should have a job at faang.

So effective that we're going back to mask mandates, talking feverishly about boosters, etc. And this is for already vaccinated individuals. Can't blame the boogeyman "anti-vaxxers" for increases in cases and hospitalizations in countries where Pfizer is readily admitting that the "immunity" granted by their product is "waning": https://www.cnbc.com/2021/07/23/delta-variant-pfizer-covid-v... Are we ready to have an a…

They're going back to mask mandates because the numbers are going back up due to unvaccinated people... I thought this was all clear?

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

#472

Post by Steltek » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 1:56 PM UTC

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…

I strongly stand by "idiot".

A vaccinated person is doing the bare minimum to avoid serious complications and the vaccine is extraordinarily good at that. S/he is not an idiot. An unvaccinated person is practically inviting illness. They're idiots, through and through.

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

#473

Post by mjburgess » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 1:57 PM UTC

chii wrote: post #343

mjburgess wrote: post #331

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> All you're saying by declining the vaccine is that you care more about the u-u risk to yourself. which is fine, i think this is a valid position to take. The invalid position is to prevent others from isolating you (who have this position) - for example, by mandating a vaccine passport for certain types of services or activities. You cannot take the position of wanting to protect yourself from u-u risk of vaccines,…

Pretty much every position has its own sort of moral defence.

My issue is the conceptual mistake of ignoring the "unknown unknown" risks you impart on others when you accept one set of "unknown unknowns" yourself. It is a sort of hypocrisy that allows you to dodge the shame of a private decision.

In the end, when rejecting this vaccine, you have to fully own the "shameful aspect":

Taking the vaccine is an act many are taking on behalf of others, and in doing so, accept a private risk for a public good. We ought rightly praise this.

Rejecting the vaccine is a rejection of the priority of this public good which many ought regard as shameful.

Personally, were I so inclined to reject it, I'd simply say: "I do not care about society so much" -- and it would be true -- "shame me all you like, who cares". But the latent hypocrisy here and doublethink makes me believe many are unwilling to say this -- because they dont believe it -- and hence my issue.

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

#474

Post by WhyNotHugo » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:02 PM UTC

This is extremely shady.

I'm in complete favour of vaccination, but I'm amazed that it's even legal for an employer in the US to ask such specific details about one's medical history.

My employer doesn't need to know what vaccines I've taken, or anything else from my medical record, unless I decide to share it.

Mind you, I'll still tell my team "I'll be about this morning for vaccination". But there's a difference between me willing to share information and the company demanding it.

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

#475

Post by newbamboo » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:05 PM UTC

MichaelZuo wrote: post #463

_y5hn wrote: post #447

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting discussions are not one-dimensional back-and-forth such as this one. It is when participants weigh multiple arguments against eachother and try to reach new insights. Discussion of value-systems are just hopeless, as there's no common ground.

That’s a really solid rule for productive discussions. The great difficulty would lie in actually enforcing it on HN. Maybe some sort of cool-down timer for posters, who are otherwise polite, getting too agitated? Some kind of rate limiting for new comments on a controversial submission?

Much better: bots insert fake responses that are calming and neutral. If you want to tailor/manage discussions (manipulate might be a better word), it seems like adding to the discussion is far better than censorship (or rate limiting as you call it). People being shadowbaned or rate limited or whatever just aggravates the problem because it makes people more hostile in general. Don’t censor bad speech, promote what you believe to be better speech.

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

#476

Post by CogitoCogito » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:09 PM UTC

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…

> 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.

There's also a longitudinal risk of covid as well. Given that the future is unknown, why would you count that as a reason not to get vaccinated instead as opposed to a reason to get vaccinated? You should really basically be considering the longitudinal risk as neutral since you don't really have any information saying it's issue.

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

#477

Post by VBprogrammer » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

deanc wrote: post #433

joshuahughes wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But how is this different from previously? Flu, common cold, various other viruses... all present a similar threat to that from covid and spread as easily. What has changed with covid to create so much additional fear and the subsequent authoritarian responses? Any decent person would just keep away from the office if they were ill. What's changed that now a particular course of action has to be mandated with the thr…

> But how is this different from previously? Flu, common cold, various other viruses... all present a similar threat to that from covid and spread as easily. Because covid is more transmissible [1], more dangerous, has far longer lasting effects (long-covid), and because vaccines for non-covid viruses are generally more effective to _immunocompromised people_ as we've had longer to deal with them. Furthermore, flu ha…

I'm personally feeling pretty uncomfortable with comparisons to flu and the cold today.

One of the guys on my team has just got out of hospital, he is in his mid-20s with no underlying conditions. Yet when be caught Covid he ended up in hospital on oxygen, was admitted to ICU, there was talk of him having to be intubated before he started to recover. That doesn't sound like a sniffly nose or a bad case of the runs to me.

I know it's only an anecdote, a single data point, but it means a lot more to me.

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

#478

Post by tmn » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:10 PM UTC

gpvos wrote: post #199

oldcigarette wrote: post #90

I work at google and am vaxxed but this pisses me off. I decided that the vaccine was worth the risk and for the best overall but if someone makes a different calculus I can understand and respect that. IMHO they gone way outside the reasonable scope of an employer - this is a cultural decision at the society level - why the fuck does my employer give a shit about this. Unless the employees are only commuting back an…

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.)

For whatever reason, that’s generally the dividing line for these alternate realities

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

#479

Post by kian » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:15 PM UTC

ViViDboarder wrote: post #422

kkoncevicius wrote: post #309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well this would then apply to the other side too - being pro-vaccine and pro-abortion is the same kind of hypocrisy.

Not necessarily. Many people may generally not want the government mandating or forbidding any kind of procedures, yet still find a compelling argument in public health with a vaccine. That argument doesn’t exist with something like abortion, euthanasia, psychedelics, or even something as benign as wisdom teeth removal. Not every argument can be properly inverted.

The argument used to be quite frequent that sterilizing prostitutes, “mental defectives”, and criminals was in fact a public health and safety measure, as was aborting the unborn of said individuals against their will - that is the reasoning the US and many European countries used to engage in mandatory sterilization for decades in the twentieth century.

Look up the quote “Three Generations of Imbeciles is enough”, if you want to see where public health over individual autonomy lands us.

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

#480

Post by throwaway_12_12 » Thu, Jul 29, 2021, 2:17 PM UTC

CyberDildonics wrote: post #467

throwaway_12_12 wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you propose to do with `anti-vax nutjobs`? They won't listen to you after reading the comment, which you try to completely dismiss and dehumanize them.

It isn't "dehumanizing" someone when they ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence and others point that out.

This is exactly what these people can tell to you too, that you `ignore substantial and overwhelming evidence` - making statements like this does not help to solve the issue.