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

541–550 of 722 posts

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

#541

Post by benlivengood »

zajio1am wrote: post #536
Marcus9 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There's a further complication; in most countries hospitals are required to treat (emergency) patients. This directly puts medical workers in conflict with people who ignore their advice and then require an ICU bed. There is no autonomy for hospital workers; they must quit the field or take the additional risk. This isn't a sustainable situation nationally because the government is not likely to either force them to work or rescind the laws requiring all hospitals to treat all emergency cases. Arguably something else in the rights tradeoff should give way before the medical system is dismantled from the inside or mandatory emergency care is abandoned.

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

#542

Post by zajio1am »

native_samples wrote: post #437
White_Wolf wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only re…

"One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that?" It seems fairly clear that many COVID related policies are not justified by any physical or medical theory. It may appear that way on the surface but as you observe, it only takes a few moments to discover internal contradictions that some people are trying to cover up. The cause looks li…

> My mask protects you, your mask protects me". There is no physics behind this, masks aren't one way barriers, were never studied or sold as such, nor are they capable of stopping the sort of explosive air pressure caused by a cough.

The proposed mechanism is that during exhalation (or more importantly speaking and coughing) there are relatively large droplets of saliva/mucus containing viral particles, and these droplets can be catched by masks (they are big and move more balistically, so masks need not be airtight).

But once these droplets are in air, they dry to (much smaller) aerosol that cannot be catched by masks, you would need properly fitted FFP2/3 respirator.

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

#543

Post by raxxorrax »

wanderingmind wrote: post #391
blub wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Two more options: * lobby for laws which forbid corporations from violating employee's privacy and mandate medical procedures. * move to a country which already does the above

Yes you can try to lobby although the chance is virtually non existent in this case. I still think very few countries cherish individual rights and privacy as the US

On questions relating to healthcare, drug tests and background checks? Pick any developed nation.

Maybe not on the question of vaccination, but in general you could prick a random first world country.

The US started the war on terror, that wasn't really about civil liberties and the course hasn't changes as far as I know.

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

#544

Post by throwaway_12_12 »

CyberDildonics wrote: post #498
throwaway_12_12 wrote: post #480

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

And what is "the issue"? Is it people saying they are being "dehumanized" because the propaganda they watch makes them feel uncomfortable with something that has already had four billion doses given out? https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations?country=OWID_W...

I believe the real issue is the state of mind, where two sides of dispute cannot find a consensus and tension keeps growing over time. Situation like this is leading to physical extermination of one of the sides. We have seen this in the history of humanity.

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

#545

Post by nicolashahn »

n_io wrote: post #161
belltaco wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nowhere near entirely. Not to mention diminished brain health issues, quality of life decreases due to loss of smell, fatigue, long covid etc.

Sounds a lot like the obesity epidemic to me. One that kills 1,794 people in the United States DAILY, year… over… fucking… year. Also completely preventable. And before you call BS here’s the data: https://www.cdc.gov/heartdisease/facts.htm

Obesity isn't contagious

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

#546

Post by throwaway_12_12 »

FooBarBizBazz wrote: post #483
throwaway_12_12 wrote: post #464

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is result of tribalism. People chose to divide into two groups on important matter, you can chose to belong to the group by sharing their belief system or not. Why belief system? We read leaflets listing what are painkillers made from and what side effects might come out from taking them and yet we don't read leaflets when we take vaccinations. I personally don't know a single person who would read the d…

Yes it's tribalism, and yes everyone is acting on faith, but only one side has been tricked by the Pied Piper into avoiding a vaccine that could save their lives. I wonder why that is. (You know Trump himself got vaccinated, right?) Pied Piper to one side. Rodeo clown to the other. Protect yourself. Don't walk into the trap.

What would you propose to those who don't want to belong to tribe or act on faith?

I stand on the ground where people who chose not to take the risk, no matter how "the tribe" will see it, should not be forced to follow the tribe's ways. If we don't start treating each others with respect our future looks very dark, we have seen it almost century ago where certain group of people was accused of spreading plague. End everyone was waving scientific proofs. Those people ended up in camps and gas chambers, I hope this is not what's going to happen again.

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

#547

Post by acituan »

_y5hn wrote: post #540
acituan wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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.

At the risk of being repetitive, “finding common ground” cannot be a one sided action, else it is seeking mere conformity. And the reader is a side to this; if the reader is stuck at a perspectival narrowing, they will feel like the argument is not working towards common understanding with them while it might as well be their narrowness preventing them from being receptive.

Also common ground is not a geometric mean; eg in an imaged conversation for and against capital punishment, common ground is not killing the convict just a little. It is about showing the work that lead to people to their own conclusions, which usually tend to have more in common than people expect.

Not being conclusive is OK for such discussions, and people have a right to defend their positions, as long as it doesn’t degrade to name calling and other conversation killers.

The most dominant name calling in this thread right now is from people that condemn all participants for not being sophisticated or conciliatory enough. That is the performative contradiction I’ve been talking about.

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

#548

Post by disgruntledphd2 »

off_sounder wrote: post #501
Marcus9 wrote: post #492

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Your wrong. That's like saying a taxi cab driver who drove a criminal to a place where he committed a murder is partly responsible for the crime. The virus is the thing that's causing harm. You can't blame an individual for being skeptical about a vaccine (that has more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw) that's experimental, and unapproved. Also, the science is in on th…

> more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw

Given the amount of doses administered, we would expect this, right?

Or are you making the claim that the proportions are higher?

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

#549

Post by colechristensen »

wait_a_minute wrote: post #495
colechristensen wrote: post #303

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious. If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic d…

Is this the same with antibodies from having had covid already?

There is less signal to noise when it comes to reinfections because the data is just harder to come by, but the preliminary evidence shows that reinfections do happen, but quite rarely (some numbers from a few waves of infections showed only 1 out of 150 positive results were from people who had tested positive previously). There has also been evidence that intensity of infection is correlated to post-infection immunity (i.e. if you were asymptomatic you have less immunity than if you were hospitalized)

It is reasonable to believe that having had an existing infection will boost your immunity against future infections and that both vaccines and previous infections will protect you on a diminishing basis, say, for a year or two. (based on existing covid evidence and the behavior of immunity to other coronaviruses which are common in humans which are usually very mild and referred to as a "cold")

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

#550

Post by colechristensen »

ngc248 wrote: post #330
White_Wolf wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only re…

If they don't vaccine and don't venture out it is fine. But if they don't take the vaccine and do go to work etc, the risk of them catching corona is higher. They in turn can spread to others. We have seen the kind of snowballing effect 1 or 2 infected can cause. Of course vaccines do not have 100% efficacy rate, but the risk of getting corona and its effects is at least a bit reduced if you get vaccinated.

>is at least a bit reduced

Reporting is that almost no intensive care patients in the US these days have been vaccinated.

We're not scared of covid-19 because it'll make us feel shitty for a few days, we're scared of it putting people on ventilators or killing them. There is a very strong signal that vaccination makes the rates of severe negative outcomes of infection very very small - down to the levels of many other rarely severe diseases which don't justify significant action.

Post reply on HN