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

841–850 of 1001 posts

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

#841

Post by rualca »

slavboj wrote: post #412
walterbell wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The MMR vaccine required by school is sterilizing, once and done. Intramuscular Covid vaccines provide blood/serum antibodies that can reduce the risk of severe disease or death, but they are non-sterilizing. They never promised to prevent infection and the CDC has updated their definitions to make that clear. Why would employers need legal immunity? Their lawyers may want to look closely at the legal immunity protec…

"They never promised to prevent infection" Are we really going to bother digging up the copious video evidence this is a lie? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8xcur3kwCyg

> Are we really going to bother digging up the copious video evidence this is a lie?

It seems you're either a bit confused or you didn't bothered to even watch the very same video you posted.

I watched the video and nowhere in it does anyone promise anything about infections magically go away.

In fact, the infection disease specialist in the video says quite clearly that the observed reduction in spread was around 60%, and this statement is repeated in multiple occasions throughout the video.

The video was also posted over 7 months ago, prior to some of the major vaccines having been approved and made available to the public.

Please do not throw baseless accusations of anyone lying when the best proof you can come up with just refutes your accusation entirely.

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

#842

Post by buu700 »

amanaplanacanal wrote: post #774
TechBro8615 wrote: post #712

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, one side is contained in a limited number of cities…

But those cities are in every state. I guess we could potentially see the rise of the city state again.

"THIS. IS. BOSTON!"

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

#843

Post by ctrlp »

Jeema101 wrote: post #797
ctrlp wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I also see a familiar pattern with sentiments like yours. There is little to no concern for people whose livelihoods or psychological health were harmed by health policies that prioritize the vulnerable minority over everyone else, including children. Health policy diktats aimed at saving every life will inevitably harm many in subtle and not-so-subtle ways. Will the cumulative harms ever be counted? Not likely as it…

Sure let's count them. Suicide killed 44,834 Americans in 2020. Covid killed half a million Americans from March 2020 to March 2021. Are you sure you're really as concerned about public health as you claim to be?

Suicide is one harm. There are others. If you only care about the binary of life/death then you'd make a good bureaucrat, but you're missing out on a rainbow of human experience.

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

#844

Post by robmccoll »

wikidani wrote: post #675
robmccoll wrote: post #411

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really wish HN had a controversy upvote / downvote ratio - maybe multiplied by number of votes?

That's the kind of stuff that ruined reddit

Fair point. I'd be curious to see it as data points on the range and variance in opinions on the site. I have less interest in which individual comments are "controversial".

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

#845

Post by jasonlaramburu »

moistrobot wrote: post #833
kbos87 wrote: post #754

The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If COVID has proven anything in the US, it's how little control the federal government actually has. They've barely been able to enforce mask mandates. The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water here. I think we can look at the facts - 700,000 people dead, hos…

> The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If COVID has proven anything in the US, it's how little control the federal government actually has. They've barely been able to enforce mask mandates. This is by design. We don't want a strong federal government. > The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water…

>Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight?

The government has been advocating for exercise and general health for decades. Despite this, we remain one of the least fit countries in the world. If the government cannot convince someone to take a safe, free shot that might save their lives, how can you reasonably expect them to convince someone to exercise?

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

#846

Post by steverb »

s1artibartfast wrote: post #732
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...

Your link doesn't address better protection against variants specifically, just better protection against reinfection in general. The linked study specifically states that it does not include delta.

You're correct that link doesn't. Sorry. Let me go find the other one. I'll be back.

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

#847

Post by thomastjeffery »

walterbell wrote: post #2

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.”…

mRNA vaccines do not directly stimulate the immune system. They cause the immune system itself to create protein structures that stimulate the immune system.

The definition change is simply to more accurately include this vaccine method.

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

#848

Post by ctrlp »

ryandrake wrote: post #766
ctrlp wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every anti-mandate person is a anti-vax. Government mandates are a political issue. Depending on the country and its laws, some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny. They may value rule by law or autonomy over their bodies. They may choose to receive vaccine but don't want to be 'forced to choose'. Not every anti-covid-vax person is anti-other-vax. The mRNA vaccine is novel. Many believe…

> Not every anti-mandate person is a anti-vax. Government mandates are a political issue. Depending on the country and its laws, some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny. They may value rule by law or autonomy over their bodies. They may choose to receive vaccine but don't want to be 'forced to choose'. This makes as much sense as a family member I have who wont wear his seat belt. He admit…

To a natural paternalist, the desire for autonomy doesn't make any sense. Regardless of the existential value of 'spite' to your family member, the issue of whether something is legal or not is bigger than 'spite' to those who value rule by law. They are not so ready to trade their legal standing for supposed safety. If you give up your rights so readily it shows how little value they have for you. Don't expect the government to care about them more than you do.

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

#849

Post by furgooswft13 »

UncleMeat wrote: post #682
furgooswft13 wrote: post #529

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Who is trying to get people fired from their jobs because they smoke?

If you come to my workplace and smoke indoors and refuse to stop, you'll be fired. At this point, I'd wager that the large majority of jobs in the US ban smoking indoors at the workplace. There are also various state (and perhaps federal?) laws that prevent indoor smoking in a great many locations.

Clearly I was talking about getting fired for smoking in the privacy of your own home/car etc. Restrictions on locations of smoking are not even close to national Jab or Job policy.

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

#850

Post by ctrlp »

josho wrote: post #733
ctrlp wrote: post #460

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not every anti-mandate person is a anti-vax. Government mandates are a political issue. Depending on the country and its laws, some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny. They may value rule by law or autonomy over their bodies. They may choose to receive vaccine but don't want to be 'forced to choose'. Not every anti-covid-vax person is anti-other-vax. The mRNA vaccine is novel. Many believe…

Thank you for sharing. > some believe mandates are illegal and constitute government tyranny This isn't a vaccine mandate. You are free to choose to be tested or vaccinated. Do you feel being forced to make this choice is tyranny, if so how bad do things have to get before the good of society becomes more important than your personal choice?

I ask you to put your thinking hat on and imagine other scenarios where compulsion is softened by indirection. The 'tested or vaccinated' choice is a temporary choice and unlikely to last. The pressure is firmly in the vaccinate or lose your job direction.

What is the 'good of society' and who decides it? In a pluralistic society there is valid disagreement about which are the goods (plural) of society. It seems you don't agree.

Post reply on HN