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

431–440 of 1001 posts

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

#431

Post by DaftDank »

supergeek133 wrote: post #329
da_big_ghey wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why did we fight a war on keeping them together. Maybe both would be happier if south and middle states split from coast ones.

It's also the urban centers from the rest of some states. For instance I live in MN, the city center is very blue and the rest of the state is not.

From my own personal, subjective experiences, I've found this to be the big one. I've lived in 8 states now, in all regions except the Northeast, from big cities to smaller towns (SF to towns of ~30,000) and the rural vs. urban divide seems to be the most pronounced to me.

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

#432

Post by giantg2 »

md_ wrote: post #354
rmah wrote: post #326

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When I was a youth, most public schools mandated a variety of vaccinations. If you didn't get them, you couldn't go to school. Is that no longer the case?

In the US, all 50 states have some type of mandatory vaccination for public schools ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccination_policy_in_the_Unit... ). Most, but not all, allow religious or similar exemptions; some (including California) only allow medical exemptions. I think your point--which is spot-on--is that a lot of the outraged reactions appear to be from people who are unaware (or unwilling to acknowledge) t…

It's also possible that the dissenters are aware and knowledgeable of the history of compulsory vaccines. The question in their minds might be how society determines which vaccines should fall into that mandatory category and what level of force the government and others should use to enforce it.

For example, should flu vaccines be mandatory to attend school? Historically they have not been in any large degree (to my knowledge). If you look at the IFR for those age groups for flu (varies somewhat by strain) and covid, then you'll see that they are generally very close. So we have to ask what changed, because it doesn't appear to be the value proposition.

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

#433

Post by meepmorp »

SiempreViernes wrote: post #413
da_big_ghey wrote: post #322

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then why did we fight a war on keeping them together. Maybe both would be happier if south and middle states split from coast ones.

If you mean the civil war, that wasn't to "keep them together": it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves. It was not a conflict where two somewhat equal partners work out their difficulties, it was a war where the central government fought down an insurrection and during witch the south got utterly devastated and was under occupation for 10 years.

> it was one side forcing the other to get back in line and give up its slaves.

This is a hilariously skewed understanding of the civil war. Do you also believe the south seceded over states rights?

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

#434

Post by steverb »

cheeseomlit wrote: post #372
steverb wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To trot out an old saw: "Your rights end and the tip of my nose." You do not have a Deity-given right to infect other people with disease.

By that same logic, shouldn't your rights end at the epidermis on my arm? Don't I have a right to be secure in my person, as that phrase implies? That interpretation makes more sense to me than asserting the right to be exempt from natural biological functions like disease.

I would be totally okay with treating it like a driving accident. You're free not to get the shot, but in the case that you contract Covid you then open yourself up to civil liability to everyone you came in contact with.

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

#435

Post by grey413 »

ctrlp wrote: post #351
steverb wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not sure why you think that's a problem. The vaccines offer better protection against variants than having had COVID and recovering. Edit: Apparently this is new information to people: https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-pr...

Please share evidence for this claim.

Getting a vaccine after recovering from covid would be along the lines of getting a booster shot. You'd develop some new antibodies, and strengthen your immune memory for the disease. It'll offer you better protection no matter what.

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

#436

Post by leesalminen »

disneygibson wrote: post #418
robmccoll wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah what's next? Making other behaviors that have a small but established likelihood of endangering the lives of others or their property illegal at little to no cost to the liberty of an individual? Pretty soon I won't be able to drive my car under the influence, or without proper insurance, or while not wearing a seatbelt, or I won't be able to discharge my firearms in my 0.2 acre backyard in a suburban area. 650,…

You really think those death numbers are accurate? There are a ton of incentives present (read: federal $$$) for hospitals and others to exaggerate death counts and case numbers.

Do you have any sources to support your claim of financial incentives to diagnose COVID? I've heard this a lot, but haven't seen any strong evidence.

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

#437

Post by colinmhayes »

dmitrygr wrote: post #44
asquabventured wrote: post #13

I refuse to comply with this over reach and I’m fully vaccinated

Same. My vaccination status is my own damn business. I am prepared to be fired over this, if needed.

except it's not really since you can kill other people if you're not vaccinated.

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

#438

Post by robmccoll »

disneygibson wrote: post #403
1shooner wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> our ancestors sailed across the oceans into the unknown Some of our ancestors were almost completely wiped out from novel disease brought by those that crossed the oceans. They were probably also terrified.

No, it isn’t comparable, because those diseases wiped out 3/4 of the population. That obviously isn’t the case with COVID, even if our terrified-of-everything populace thinks it is.

Have you considered that we took a lot of precautions that made it possible that as relatively few people died as did? Even with shutdowns, lockdowns, and extreme measures in healthcare, we lost about 0.2% of the population. If we had done nothing, we might have reached 1%. If a group was going door to door randomly killing 1 in every 100 people in your neighborhood, would you consider it reasonable to stop answering the door for a while until they left?

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

#439

Post by SergeAx »

drewg123 wrote: post #426

For those of you arguing against getting vaccinated, please go volunteer at a local hospital. I'm currently in the hospital in the "red" part of my purple state. I had an acute appendicitis, and had to wait in a temporary, crowded, understaffed holding area in the ER for over 18 hours before getting admitted for treatment. My roommate in the hospital has an infected foot, and waited over 24 hours to be admitted. He m…

But working in a hospital requires vaccination now, isn't it? Or even was required by many medical facilities before current events?

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

#440

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

disneygibson wrote: post #387
Ekaros wrote: post #258

I wonder should we also start mandating yearly influenza shots from everyone? And bar those who are not tested or vaccinated from work places? It would certainly save some lives wouldn't it?

So we should mandate everything that saves lives, no matter the cost to freedom or infringing of rights? This is the issue with technocratic government: zero understanding of anything deeper than “if it works, do it!”

As in most such trade-offs, the "cost to freedom" and "infringing of rights", to the extent they actually exist, factor into the cost/benefit decision of whether or not to ultimately go through with the mandate

since everybody has their own opinion on where that balance is, there will always be individuals unhappy with what decision makers decide

Post reply on HN