UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home • Hacker News Board

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#111

Post by dang » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 8:42 PM UTC

sennight wrote: post #36

minikites wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would love it if the government required vaccination but the last time the government did something controversial, a bunch of looters and thugs stormed the US Capitol and killed several police officers.

> ...killed several police officers. lol, nothing has ever not happened more than this. If this isn't a parody representation of somebody who definitely shouldn't have any say about anybody else's health decisions, but an honest reflection of what you really believe... you should really think on how you came to be so badly mislead - and to what end.

You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their ideology, because it's destructive of the intended use of this site.

I'm not going to ban you for this right now because we haven't warned you before, but your account is way over the line for bannability. (The criteria we apply are explained in past comments here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme....) Seriously not cool. If you keep this up, we will have to ban you, so please stop and use HN as intended.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#112

Post by dang » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 8:45 PM UTC

TMWNN wrote: post #100

minikites wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're omitting part of the story: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Brian_Sicknick#D.C._m... >Diaz told the Washington Post that there was no evidence that Sicknick had an allergic reaction to chemicals or was otherwise injured, but stated that "all that transpired played a role in his condition." >Dr. Cyril Wecht, a forensic pathologist, said that Sicknick's manner of death could have been classified as accide…

"all that transpired played a role in his condition" just means that when something medical happens to someone, obviously everything before the event is evaluated. That doesn't change the fact that a) Sicknick was never hit by a fire extinguisher, contrary to the early frenzied media reports—corrected weeks after the fact, if at all—that linked such a blow to his death (and contrary to his family, which always insist…

Please stop using HN for political and ideological battle. We've already had to ask you this. If you keep it up, we're going to have to ban you, because it's destructive of what this site is supposed to be for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#113

Post by nathias » Fri, Sep 03, 2021, 9:44 PM UTC

otherme123 wrote: post #32

nathias wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Vaccines don't prevent transmission, you are not helping anyone but yourself with the vaccine, except for not making yourself into a burden for the medical infrastructure.

It could be better, but it seems to be some transmission prevention: https://www.eurosurveillance.org/content/10.2807/1560-7917.E... .

my bad, I guess things changed with more data, neat

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#114

Post by sennight » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 12:22 AM UTC

dang wrote: post #111

sennight wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...killed several police officers. lol, nothing has ever not happened more than this. If this isn't a parody representation of somebody who definitely shouldn't have any say about anybody else's health decisions, but an honest reflection of what you really believe... you should really think on how you came to be so badly mislead - and to what end.

You've been using HN primarily for political and ideological battle. We ban accounts that do that, regardless of their ideology, because it's destructive of the intended use of this site. I'm not going to ban you for this right now because we haven't warned you before, but your account is way over the line for bannability. (The criteria we apply are explained in past comments here: https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate…

I disagree. Do what you gotta do senpai.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#115

Post by nomdep » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 1:55 PM UTC

nickthemagicman wrote: post #103

nomdep wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should go back to your bunker now.

Thanks for the kind words! A bunker would be great for a person to quarantine themselves off from covid too! Don't leave quarantine ever! Stay home, stay safe, and keep granny safe!

You clearly had lived a pampered (and single) life if you think just granny is at risk.

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#116

Post by nickthemagicman » Sat, Sep 04, 2021, 4:11 PM UTC

nomdep wrote: post #115

nickthemagicman wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the kind words! A bunker would be great for a person to quarantine themselves off from covid too! Don't leave quarantine ever! Stay home, stay safe, and keep granny safe!

You clearly had lived a pampered (and single) life if you think just granny is at risk.

is your definition of pampered: 'looks at statistics'?

Re: UBS CEO: Those who don’t want the vaccine can work from home

#117

Post by chadash » Thu, Sep 09, 2021, 8:36 PM UTC

native_samples wrote: post #101

chadash wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I hope this gets settled by the labor board or the Supreme Court rather than companies takin that mantle to impose a mandate themselves. Generally, the default is that private companies can discriminate however they please. In certain cases we've decided that that's not good for a society (race, religion, ethnicity), so we restrict their ability to do that. But why shouldn't private companies be allowed to make the…

People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge. Which answers your question: companies should not be able to discriminate in this way for the same reason they aren't allowed to discriminate based on gender, sexuality, etc, even though some surely would. Because it would be irrational and wrong.

> People not taking a vaccine does not change the risk faced by their coworkers. I don't think you really believe that, hence the "psychological perception" hedge.

I don't believe that. The science clearly isn't 100% settled, but I believe that when the dust settles, we'll find that vaccinated people are less likely to get ill and therefore less likely to spread Covid. I could be wrong, but until the science is settled, I don't see what's wrong with discriminating on this basis.