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

531–540 of 722 posts

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

#531

Post by blindmute »

jsolson wrote: post #304
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 prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID I'm a little confused by this. I live in King County, WA (and I work at Google). According to data reported by the county (as tabulated by the NY Times), one in 19 residents have contracted COVID[0]. That's >5% -- with a 1.8% case fatality rate in the US[1]. That's a bit below a one in 1000 chance of having died of COVID if you live in my county, including…

For a mid twenties healthy male, the risk of death from covid is 1 in 500,000. That is what you're missing.

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

#532

Post by programmarchy »

bananabiscuit wrote: post #482
CyberDildonics wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Agreed. Let’s not ignore that: different people will have different risk/benefit profiles; that these vaccines are still in fact experimental; that there is no reproductive toxicity report for these vaccines; that there is data showing that the lipid nanoparticles from this vaccine accumulate in the ovaries; the rushed COVID vaccines are responsible for more all-cause deaths than the last 30 years of vaccines combine…

The antibody-dependent enhancement (ADE) is what scares me the most.

While our vaccines were in development, Dr. Fauci described causing ADE as "the worst possible thing you could do" [1] and that you could get a feel for it with animal models, which would be interspersed with human trials. Interspersing the animal models seems incredibly risky to me, and to my knowledge we haven't seen those studies with the vaccines currently in production.

So far, the data does not seem to indicate that we're in big trouble yet -- the vaccines are still effectively preventing death -- but seeing the breakthrough cases gives me pause. I would appreciate if the "establishment" would circle back and address the risk of ADE. Even if it is very unlikely, what is the game plan if new breakthrough strains do start causing this type of response?

Because right now, it seems to me that if humanity puts all its eggs in the vaccine basket, and then ADE occurs with a breakthrough strain, then there is potential for an enormous catastrophe.

[1] https://transcripts.cnn.com/show/sitroom/date/2020-03-26/seg...

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

#533

Post by f6v »

sennight wrote: post #462
f6v wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This reasoning works only if you believe the society isn’t supposed to help the vulnerable. It’s clear that the older you get, the worse your immunity works. A vaccine isn’t 100% efficient in the first place and will work worse on a 70 yo than on a 30 yo. This means that in order to protect the vulnerable, the society has to achieve herd immunity.

> This reasoning works only if you believe the society isn’t supposed to help the vulnerable. This reasoning is used to justify horrific acts. Is there no limit? Obviously your line in the sand is beyond compelled experimental vaccinations... what about throwing virgins into volcanos? That might actually be more productive, as it could be no less effective in combatting the virus - and it might actually sate the powe…

> compelled experimental vaccinations

What exactly seems to be experimental, considering the published clinical trials? You’ve got to have a hypothesis, like “In 5 years mRNA-vaccinated subjects develop chronic explosive diarrhea because of X, Y, and Z.” Then you can go ahead and test the hypothesis, that’s how science works.

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

#534

Post by f6v »

sennight wrote: post #517
f6v wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t have to listen to CDC then, can trust the data that is already published.

> Don’t have to listen to CDC then... heh, yeah - that'll work out great I'm sure. "You don't understand, officer! According to the published research..."

That’s just grasping at straws. If you try to get a holistic overview, no single measure is 100% effective. But you can combine masks, vaccinations, social distancing, etc. till pandemic stops to be a problem.

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

#535

Post by shaklee3 »

chitowneats wrote: post #503
shaklee3 wrote: post #471

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Did you even read the article? Vax rates in Israel are extremely high.

Of course. I've seen that headline in plenty of places. But as soon as you scroll past the headline you see:

"However, the two-dose vaccine still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness, according to the Israeli data published Thursday."

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

#536

Post by zajio1am »

Marcus9 wrote: post #492
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #474

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 be…

It's weird to pretend this is about "one's medical history" when it's clearly about minimizing risk of harm to others. People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society. Spreading disease is unique- unlike assault or robbery or rape or murder it doesn't require the harmer to intend to cause harm, so many…

> that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of socie

Many would disagree with such statement. The core function of society is IMHO preventing people from infriging on rights and freedoms of other people. That is much more complex and multivariadic issue than just 'preventing harm'.

People generally cause harm to others in many interactions that are acceptable and resticting it would be oppresive. Situations where person A causes harm to person B can be classified to four cases:

1) No one is within their rights

2) Person B is within their rights, while person A is not. Examples are classical right violations like assault or robbery.

3) Person A is within their rights, while person B is not. In this case person B has to tolerate the harm, as requiring person A to abstain from that action would be infriction of their rights.

4) Both sides are within their rights, in this case society has to find compromise solution and weight both rights against other.

This vaccination issue seems to me like the fourth case.

One one side, there is the right of bodily autonomy, which is important and fundamental human right.

On the other side, there is the right to protection of health. That is also important right but it is relative based on threat level.

Before the society concludes that the second right is more important than the first, and vaccinations of adults may be mandated, there are several questions that should be answered:

Did we used enough non-forcible approaches to improve vaccinations rates (say financial stimulus)?

What is the quantified marginal risk of a small part of population not being vaccinated to others and how does this compare to other health risks that we accept as inevitable part of living in society?

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

#537

Post by Closi »

Marcus9 wrote: post #492
WhyNotHugo wrote: post #474

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 be…

It's weird to pretend this is about "one's medical history" when it's clearly about minimizing risk of harm to others. People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society. Spreading disease is unique- unlike assault or robbery or rape or murder it doesn't require the harmer to intend to cause harm, so many…

> People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society.

Mandating vaccines is going a step further - it's forcing people to do an action, which might reduce their chances of causing harm in the future.

If the sole goal was to prevent people to cause harm to others, we should prevent people from driving (they hit others with their cars) or we should stop people from being drunk (they end up fighting others, and also driving drunk).

So clearly actually, the more nuanced answer is that society is, amongst other things, a balance between protecting others and personal liberty (and these things often fight against each other).

(I'm personally vaccinated, and think as a society everyone should be encouraged to vaccinate, but that it has to be an individual decision and that we shouldn't force people to put things in their body that they don't want to put into it).

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

#538

Post by xyzzy21 »

native_samples wrote: post #429
simondotau wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which can…

No, really, better not. The people who are "captured" by this meme, as you rather condescendingly put it, generally don't trust the vaccine safety statistics, have many valid reasons not to do so, and are also well aware of the statistics around how dangerous COVID is or isn't for themselves. It would take great faith to believe that the institutions are providing reliable data right now in an atmosphere of mass hyst…

There is NO SAFETY data because no COVID vaccines have finished clinical trails yet. That's what "Emergency Authorization" means - we give it to people even though it hasn't gone through the human clinical trials that every other drug normally does! Everyone vaccinated is legally and procedurally part of those clinical trials - it says so on the FDA web site. And those trials are not scheduled to be completed until 2023 - also stated on the same FDA web page.

So "safety" absolutely has NOT been proven or validated yet. Even minimal standard FDA processes have not been completed.

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

#539

Post by cactus2093 »

nindalf wrote: post #184

I’ve typed out 3 comments to 3 separate people before deleting them. I didn’t see the point. Folks, it’s a good idea to heed dang’s warning at the top of the thread. I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here. Just people absolutely convinced of their ideas and principles, shouting past each other. Nothing we haven’t seen on this topic 50 times before. You’re better off goin…

I get what you and dang are saying, but I'm not so sure it's that simple. If I follow this idea to its logical conclusion, I'm left with simply nihilism. You can use this same reasoning about anything. Why go out and march or protest or do anything for ____ (insert any cause here)? Any single action you do is unlikely to solve a big problem. But everyone can't just give up on everything and go for a walk when things seem hopeless or unlikely to change.

Social pressure is an important phenomenon and public opinion can really end up changing a lot over time, and I'm not so sure it's useless to add numbers to your side of an issue and contribute to a sense of societal consensus. It seems very difficult to pick out exactly what kinds of actions move societal opinion over time. E.g. what were the singular actions between the years 2000 and 2015 that were able to shift opinions on gay marriage so dramatically and make it so widely accepted now in America? If everyone that was fighting for this cause over that time had assumed it was hopeless and just given up and gone for a walk instead, it's possible this shift would not have happened.

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

#540

Post by _y5hn »

acituan wrote: post #529
_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.

“Interesting” is not a property of the discussion in itself but created between the reader and the discussion. Maybe the reader is also culpable for the perceived dimensionality reduction? To me heavy disagreement usually makes more interesting of a discussion than mere conformity, and HN is one of the few places where it can take place without bans, kicks, brigades. I can stand all but the arrogance of projecting on…

Posts may be one-dimensional, or strive to find common ground. Failing the latter makes them more irrelevant.

This, in the context of having a moderation system to filter contents in the first place.

Post reply on HN