Live data from Hacker News

OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

whitehouse.gov

111–120 of 1001 posts

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

#111

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...

Many countries with very high vaccination rates, Spain and the UK for example, have much higher case numbers this summer than last:

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-cases

And testing rates are probably even lower now that many people have been vaccinated.

This argument is not going to convince the unvaccinated, who are tired of incoherent "scientific" information that changes every month. The field of virology is apparently in its infancy.

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

#112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

The crucial difference between cardiovascular diseases and severe COVID is that COVID comes in waves. In a very short period of time a large number of people can end up with the virus, thus having a significant chance to develop serious pneumonia. All at the same time, in a very short time span. While lots of people suffer from cardiovascular diseases and cancer every year, they are distributed over the year. You don't usually see thousands of people having strokes in a given area in the span of a week or two, for instance.

It's this sudden surge of people needing ventilators and ICU beds that overwhelms the healthcare system of an area, causing repercussions on those that are sick for other reasons or get injured in accidents. For instance, in Italy cancer screenings on vulnerable subjects have been postponed for months, if not a year, due to the ongoing pandemic. Who knows how many people have now a higher risk of cancer due to hospitals and clinics being overwhelmed by COVID patients.

COVID vaccines are not sterilizing, but it's getting quite clear that they somewhat reduce the circulation of the virus too by reducing the viral load of symptomatic and asymptomatic carriers. At least they greatly greatly reduce the strain on doctors and avoid disruption of society at large, which is by itself a solid choice for mandating them.

The only possible choices here are to a. neglect the virus, with potentially serious social repercussions and loss of human lives, or b. resort to containment measures, which hamper the economy and are deeply unfair towards vaccinated people which objectively risk much less from the virus, or c. mandate vaccination, which is the only choice that avoids lockdowns and (most) deaths.

Also, vaccine mandates aren't anything new. That's how rubella, diphtheria, polio, smallpox, mumps, .. have become a thing of the past. They've been put in place on for decades, and no-vax movements have always been small and irrelevant before before social media came with droves of dubious content.

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

#113
post #85

I'm one shot in but think this is a huge government overreach to require this from businesses.

How is this different from requiring hard hats? A hard hat won’t save you from getting a cut on your head from a dropped hammer but it will save you from having it break your head in two. Should OSHA stop requiring PPE?

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

#114
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...

It’s temporary because formal rule making takes time.

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

#115

Is the federal government going to provide employers with the same legal immunity granted to pharmaceutical vendors via the PREP act? Does this mandate incorporate the Sept 2021 CDC definition of vaccine, https://www.charlotteobserver.com/news/coronavirus/article25... > Before the change, the definition for “vaccination” read, “the act of introducing a vaccine into the body to produce immunity to a specific disease.”…

Do the employers need this if they are just requiring vaccination but not actually administering the vaccine themselves?

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

#116
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...

There is going to be a massive enforcement bureaucracy set up. Unwinding that will be nontrivial. Once people's budgets and fiefdoms at work depend on it, they will fight to keep or grow their power. This will be around in some form for a very long time.

… you realize that we already have the department of labor and OSHA. The bureaucracy is already there and keeping us safe.

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

#118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's "reasonable" in the sense of being slightly less draconian but completely unreasonable from a health perspective. Think about it: two people enter a workplace. One is unvaccinated but recently tested, so it can be said with good confidence they are not infected. The other is vaccinated but may well be sick and spreading it, especially as effectiveness wanes quickly. The other is waved through, the first is penal…

"Recently tested" doesn't mean you definitely don't have the Covid. It could that you weren't far enough along in your sickness at the time you were tested.

It's all about risk. Someone who has been vaccinated has a very low likelihood of being sick with Covid. Someone who has recently been tested also has a low likelihood.

IMO, though, if the tests are a week apart, that's a lot of opportunity for Covid to slip through. There's a reason that 72 hours (and sometimes 48 hours, I think) is the time limit for tests for traveling. Even that isn't a guarantee, though.

I can't find the chart now, but Covid progresses pretty rapidly, so if someone gets tested on Friday and was exposed 1-2 days before that, they can pretty much spread it for an entire week before they get tested on the next Friday.

And even if they were tested on Mondays, they could still be spreading it before the weekend.

Tests prevent someone from spreading it for weeks, but not days.

Vaccines are much more likely to prevent the spread at all.

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

#119

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…

I think of it similarly to being required to wear a hard hat if you're in construction.

It's not just about whether you're willing to get hit on the head, it's about an employer's duty of care, and (if you just look at it cynically) the disruption to work caused by an incident that could have been prevented if someone took appropriate measures.

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

#120
Our largest healthcare provider has already mandated vaccines for their staff and insurance companies are now following suit because they got hammered with life insurance payouts for 2020 and first half of 2021.

Waiting for retailers to announce this as well at some point.

Post reply on HN