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

OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

81–90 of 1001 posts

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#81

Post by probably_wrong »

captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it

Became it's not about you, it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from getting treatment for diseases for which there is no accessible, free vaccine to take.

Organizations are expected to do what's best for the majority of those they represent. Sure, some people may not want to wear a helmet all day and would be willing to take the risk. But if one of those people gets impaled and dies it ends up putting a burden in everyone around them, from those picking up the skull pieces and the person's family to the investors.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#82

Post by MagnumOpus »

walterbell wrote: post #49
tfehring wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have a source for the claim that a vaccinated person is more likely than an unvaccinated person to transmit the virus asymptomatically?

That wasn't the claim. The claim was that an unvaccinated person can self-isolate when they observe symptoms. As the CDC said above, absence of symptoms is not a sufficient indicator for a vaccinated person. If a vaccinated person is tested regularly, they can self-isolate upon a positive test result, since they can't rely on symptoms as a signal.

> absence of symptoms is not a sufficient indicator for a vaccinated person

Absence of symptoms is not a sufficient indicator for the unvaxed either, so your argument falls apart.

Why isn't 90% reduction in ICU occupation and 70% reduction in chance of infection a sufficient argument for the public benefits? Just because it is not perfect, you'd rather let the country's hospitals overload and shut down?

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#83

Post by C19is20 »

captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

You'll take up an icu's amount of resources.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#84

Post by konspence »

walterbell wrote: post #8
lalaland1125 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that change liability requirements? My fundamental question is that schools already have tons of vaccine requirements, so why should this one be considered special?

Because it alters the risk/benefit calculus. A sterilizing vaccine that stops transmission in its tracks, has a clear public health benefit to every part of society, even if there are risks. A non-sterilizing vaccine does not provide that society-wide public health benefit, leaving the employer to bear risks without benefit.

You are using the word 'sterilizing' to gain footing, though the difference in most peoples' meaning is negligible

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#86

Post by Ekaros »

tfehring wrote: post #51
TigeriusKirk wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I vaccinated within days of becoming eligible and I'm 100% against this mandate. To such an extent that I'll become a single-issue voter over it.

I would be with you if it weren’t for the “or test” part. “You must get vaccinated” would be problematic, but “you must do a COVID test once a week if you’re not vaccinated” is totally reasonable IMO.

I think more reasonable stance would be to require employers offer sufficient protective gear for unvaccinated employees. Gas masks aren't that expensive. And any private person can at their own cost also buy such device to fully protect themselves.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#87

Post by Ekaros »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #50
dmitrygr wrote: post #3

> OSHA will issue an Emergency Temporary > Standard (ETS) to implement this requirement Is this "temporary" in the same way that the PATRIOT act and our invasion of Afghanistan in 2001 were "temporary"? Well, I guess one should never let a good crisis go to waste...

My concern is why OSHA has not issued emergency mandatory ventilation and air circulation orders, since that's actually within their wheelhouse vs this extension into medical demands which until now had been limited strongly to vague recommendations and couched in informed consent language (e.g. Hepatitis awareness)

Yeah, why not mandate gas masks? They aren't too expensive and work.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#88

Post by blagie »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #9
walterbell wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because it alters the risk/benefit calculus. A sterilizing vaccine that stops transmission in its tracks, has a clear public health benefit to every part of society, even if there are risks. A non-sterilizing vaccine does not provide that society-wide public health benefit, leaving the employer to bear risks without benefit.

But the COVID vaccine does provide a society-wide public health benefit. Our best available data indicates that it reduces the risk of transmission, even for Delta [1]. 1. https://www.acsh.org/news/2021/09/07/covid-19-vaccines-preve...

Even for delta?

The actual study the article claims the summarize:

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/laninf/article/PIIS1473-3...

Find the word 'delta' in the text of the actual study. It ain't there. And look at the dates of the study. Most of the data is pre-delta.

Your linked ACSH article simply fabricates a conclusion based on no evidence.

The scientific establishment sickens me here. The goal is to get people to vaccinate, which is reasonable enough. The outcome is the opposite, though. The lies are common enough and transparent enough that the whole establishment loses credibility, and a huge swath of the world doesn't believe it about vaccines, climate change, and a slew of other issues.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#89

Post by unyttigfjelltol »

probably_wrong wrote: post #81
captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it Became it's not about you , it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from…

This reasoning also would justify mandatory colonoscopies, or requiring a 3 mile daily run, for 100 million people. Yes, that might reduce the load on the health care system long term (except the colonoscopy & PT departments ...), but historically in the U.S. that would have been viewed as a galactic overreach.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#90

Post by huffmsa »

probably_wrong wrote: post #81
captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it Became it's not about you , it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from…

Citizen, our records indicate you ate more than your mandate controlled 100g of chocolate and only ran 2.95mi of your mandatory 3mi on our freely available sidewalks.

Your employment has been terminated. You many apply for unemployment benefits after our records show compliance.

Combating obesity is for the good of society.

Post reply on HN