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

Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

axios.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

421–430 of 442 posts

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#421

Post by native_samples »

pseudalopex wrote: post #419
native_samples wrote: post #406

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Straw man. How is it a straw man? Are you sure you know what this term means? We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. That's exactly what we're discussing. Your herd immunity numbers are just made up. I saw many estimates last year and none were even close to 90%.

> We're discussing a policy in which all Google employees who come into the office are being forced to vaccinate on the grounds that if any do not, it might be dangerous. No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process if they thought even 1 person unvaccinated is dangerous. And basically it's the same policy many schools have for other vaccinations. > Your herd immunity numbers…

No one made that argument. Even implicitly. Google wouldn't have an exception process

Oh come on. They're saying you aren't allowed to come into the office if you're unvaccinated, unless you literally cannot take it. They aren't saying "we must reach at least X% where X is a herd immunity threshold" and it wouldn't make sense if they were because herd immunity isn't a building-level concept.

Fauci in December: "We really don’t know what the real number is. I think the real range is somewhere between 70 to 90 percent."[2]

The man who literally admitted to the NYT that he made up herd immunity numbers based on opinion polls? Who even in this quote says he doesn't know and then makes up another figure anyway? Why are you citing these numbers? They are saying clearly that the whole concept is a fictional one to begin with (meaning: there is no justification for mandating anything at all).

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#422

Post by ericmay »

azangru wrote: post #420
ericmay wrote: post #417

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> airplanes That’s exactly the point. You take these risks all the time. Every day you take these risks, often far more likely and unnecessary. Yet you draw the line at vaccines? That’s irrational. You know the danger. > You mention science a lot in your posts, in a manner that makes me wonder how much of these questions is genuine and how much is just a rhetorical device. > Explain the science behind the concern, yo…

> Why do I need to be interested when you’re advocating that people don’t take the Covid-19 vaccine? What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier. If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state. > What is the risk? What are the…

> If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state.

> There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZeneca over concerns about thrombosis, what would they have done to Pfizer, and what are we, the public, to think of it all?

> "What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier."

Yep. That's totally what you're saying.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#423

Post by conductr »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #260
conductr wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Interesting. I have been on various meetings since the beginning of covid with general counsel telling us of all the pitfalls of hippa issues. I wonder if HHS published this specifically to promote clarification. It’s against the wide spread legal opinions that have circulated. Maybe the impending lawsuit is expensive enough that most attorneys are being overly conservative on the advice.

I dunno what sources you've been looking at, but I haven't seen that for legal opinions from actually informed parties, only from anti-vaxxers and the like.

It's pretty prevalent in corporate general counsel. I've heard the same thing from at least 5 company's I've worked at so I had never done my own research like you have. I figured it was truth. I do not think they are anti-vaxxers but they are conservative people that like to avoid litigation and I believe the laws were a bit ambiguous before this COVID specific clarification was issued by HHS.

I've never heard of any employer asking for any health information of their employee unless it's like a doctor's note saying they were fit to work or something similarly vague.

Prior to COVID, if you asked an employee for, say, proof of HIV negative. And they actually gave you proof of HIV positive. Anything that happens afterwards (termination, promoting another employee, denial of PTO, etc) the employee can sue you because they believe you are discriminating on their HIV status. IANAL and don't care to research it myself but I've heard this sentiment repeated countless times in meetings with senior HR and Legal executives, so I believe it true.

All said, I do work in the healthcare industry. So maybe the HIPPA laws for our patients have been applied to our employees and there is some mixup around that. Either way, after 20 years in the industry this is news to me, appreciate the discourse.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#424

Post by azangru »

ericmay wrote: post #422
azangru wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why do I need to be interested when you’re advocating that people don’t take the Covid-19 vaccine? What are you talking about? I am super happy for people to take their vaccines, the more the merrier. If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state. > What is the risk? What are the…

> If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state. > There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZenec…

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. I did not say a word about whether people should or should not take the vaccine. Obviously, as long as vaccines work, the more people get them the better. This is a statement of fact. What I wrote about in my previous comments is why some people are hesitant.

That you chose to read my comments as an instruction for people on how to act, is entirely on you.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#425

Post by ericmay »

azangru wrote: post #424
ericmay wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If there's anything I am advocating for it is for them to do so willingly with the full understanding of risks and benefits rather than be forced to do so under duress from the state. > There is a paper, submitted in April 2021, which estimates that the risk of thrombotic events for Pfizer recipients is even greater than for those who received AstraZeneca [1]. So if those over-cautious agencies suspended AstraZenec…

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. I did not say a word about whether people should or should not take the vaccine. Obviously, as long as vaccines work, the more people get them the better. This is a statement of fact. What I wrote about in my previous comments is why some people are hesitant. That you chose to read my comments as an instruction for people on how to act, is entirely on you.

Yep. Totally take the vaccine but beware of the risks.. wink wink.

Meanwhile the risks are negligible at best, especially when considering the alternative which might be getting a disease we know for a fact has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone.

But hey let's focus on the totally big deal risks of vaccines. Right? It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks... here's a link to the one in 5 million "probability" of something bad happening.

Yep. That's totally on me.

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#426

Post by azangru »

ericmay wrote: post #425
azangru wrote: post #424

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is exactly what I am saying. I did not say a word about whether people should or should not take the vaccine. Obviously, as long as vaccines work, the more people get them the better. This is a statement of fact. What I wrote about in my previous comments is why some people are hesitant. That you chose to read my comments as an instruction for people on how to act, is entirely on you.

Yep. Totally take the vaccine but beware of the risks .. wink wink. Meanwhile the risks are negligible at best, especially when considering the alternative which might be getting a disease we know for a fact has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the United States alone. But hey let's focus on the totally big deal risks of vaccines. Right? It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you shou…

> Totally take the vaccine but beware of the risks.. wink wink.

> It's like someone talking about flying for the first time - oh you should do it but beware of the risks...

You keep framing this ("totally take the vaccine", "oh you should do it") as if I were trying to convince somebody on what they should do. Or, earlier, as if I were trying to change your mind on vaccine safety. While what I was talking about was something that a hesitant person might say, or feel, or think.

Turn your airplane metaphor around. In it, if I were extremely scared of flying, and if I tried to explain to you why I were afraid of flying, I would not be doing it with the purpose of keeping you from flying, but so that you did not drag me on that god damn plane, and also, hopefully, did not make my life on the ground miserable. While you keep interpreting it as "oh, so what you are saying is that people shouldn't fly?".

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#427

Post by moeris »

freedomben wrote: post #56
giarc wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's been nearly 4 billion shots delivered across the world in the past 8 months. I suspect if they were to cause great harm, we would have known by now.

Some vaccines take years or even decades to show harm. See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the covid vax. I got Pfizer myself as soon as it was available. But there is still room for doubt.

> See Air Force pilots and Anthrax vaccine history. Rare but devastating consequences.

Do you have a source? Paul Offit, at least had said that we don't see vaccines causing long-term harm which aren't apparent within the first couple weeks. (In his interview on Oh No! with Ross and Carrie.)

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#428

Post by PKop »

tfehring wrote: post #280
bruceb wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you are young and in shape, then the likely hood of you dying is extremely low.

Yeah, mortality risk is only part of the picture, and probably not the most relevant part for young and healthy people. But there are lots of other medium-term (at least) impacts of COVID that have already been observed, and at this point I think it's really unlikely that the expected long-term harm from the vaccine is anywhere close to the expected long-term harm from COVID even in young, healthy people. The cogniti…

This study does not show a before and after cognitive decline from having COVID. It shows correlation between people with lower cognitive levels having COVID vs those who do not have COVID.

The causality could of course be going in the opposite direction from what you are implying (lower IQ -> more likely to get COVID).

Re: Google Offices to Mandate Vaccines

#429

Post by themeiguoren »

Panther34543 wrote: post #156

Ugg, why doesn't anybody, whether it be government officials, employers, whatever, ever consider those with natural immunity? It's like some weird joke. The official CDC estimates over 115 MILLION natural infections in the U.S. alone, and that only accounts for February 2020-March 2021 . It doesn't account for all the infections before February 2020 (I and most of my coworkers in downtown SF got it in January) nor an…

I’d expect natural immunity to be more robust to future covid mutations than vaccination, since our bodies will have been exposed to and responded against all parts of covid’s biology rather than just the spike proteins.
Post reply on HN