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

IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

arstechnica.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 39 posts

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#11

Post by asguy »

Latty wrote: post #9
asguy wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the vaccine and masks work, why do people who have taken it and wear them, need to worry? What is this narrative we’re pushing today? You’re acting like by not taking the vaccine, they’re directly violating people who did take it. How do you square that circle? P.S. I’m vaccinated. I’m also not worried about being around people who aren’t.

This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue). Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if every…

> This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive

If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available.

Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond his limits and operating a motorvehicle, and then making a massive mistake by running a red light and t-boning me. That has no similarity to someone unvaccinated breathing next to me. Based on what I’ve read someone could be vaccinated, and still infect me with a “breakthrough case”. So all I can do is protect myself using the tools available. If the tools don’t work, well, the unvaccinated might be just as doomed as I am.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#12

Post by jinpa_zangpo »

Latty wrote: post #7
throwawayfear wrote: post #3

Why would they? They are interested in reminding the workers who the boss is, who fires who for any reason, and who tells you what to put into your body if you want to put bread on your table. The shareholders should fire every single person who is pushing these policies, if they want to retain their best talent. Why are flight attendants being treated like pets or animals while some fat cat boss on an island somewhe…

An employer that allows some employees to endanger others is negligent, most importantly in terms of ethics, but also in terms of productivity. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. If you want to work with people, you have to take reasonable measures not to harm them. An employer that is willing to tell me to come in to work with people who refuse to get vaccinated is one that doesn't care about my well-bei…

1. Vaccine mandates ignore the science by not recognizing people with naturally acquired immunity to Covid.

2. They ignore the science by not recognizing that the vaccinated also transmit Covid.

3. They are unjust because they do not recognize some people declined the second Covid shot after a bad reaction to the first and are therefore considered unvaccinated.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#13

Post by [deleted] »

throwawayfear wrote: post #3

Why would they? They are interested in reminding the workers who the boss is, who fires who for any reason, and who tells you what to put into your body if you want to put bread on your table. The shareholders should fire every single person who is pushing these policies, if they want to retain their best talent. Why are flight attendants being treated like pets or animals while some fat cat boss on an island somewhe…

[deleted]

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#14

Post by Latty »

asguy wrote: post #11
Latty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue). Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if every…

> This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available. Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond hi…

What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety.

Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#15

Post by Latty »

short12 wrote: post #10
Latty wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue). Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if every…

Is drunk driving more dangerous than being unvaccinated? Just glancing at the stats drunk driving is significantly safer than being unvaccinated

I honestly don't know, my instinct is that in terms of danger to others (which was the topic at hand) it probably is, but either way, that wasn't really relevant to my point.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#16

Post by spaceisballer »

jinpa_zangpo wrote: post #12
Latty wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An employer that allows some employees to endanger others is negligent, most importantly in terms of ethics, but also in terms of productivity. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. If you want to work with people, you have to take reasonable measures not to harm them. An employer that is willing to tell me to come in to work with people who refuse to get vaccinated is one that doesn't care about my well-bei…

1. Vaccine mandates ignore the science by not recognizing people with naturally acquired immunity to Covid. 2. They ignore the science by not recognizing that the vaccinated also transmit Covid. 3. They are unjust because they do not recognize some people declined the second Covid shot after a bad reaction to the first and are therefore considered unvaccinated.

The jury is still out on natural immunity to COVID and how well it protects individuals. There’s lots of variability (same with vaccine immunity). The data are showing that if you had COVID and also got the vaccine you have robust protection. As to point two, the mandates aren’t about not spreading it, it’s about reducing severity and death. I guess because vaccinated or unvaccinated can spread it we throw up our arms? The mandates are that it makes us all safer (including mostly yourself). As to point three medical exemptions exist so not sure what you are going on about especially when you are talking about a very small number of adverse reactions.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#17

Post by asguy »

Latty wrote: post #14
asguy wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available. Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond hi…

What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety. Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.

It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different.

I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#18

Post by Latty »

jinpa_zangpo wrote: post #12
Latty wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

An employer that allows some employees to endanger others is negligent, most importantly in terms of ethics, but also in terms of productivity. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. If you want to work with people, you have to take reasonable measures not to harm them. An employer that is willing to tell me to come in to work with people who refuse to get vaccinated is one that doesn't care about my well-bei…

1. Vaccine mandates ignore the science by not recognizing people with naturally acquired immunity to Covid. 2. They ignore the science by not recognizing that the vaccinated also transmit Covid. 3. They are unjust because they do not recognize some people declined the second Covid shot after a bad reaction to the first and are therefore considered unvaccinated.

1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased protection. If studies show otherwise, then policy makers should change the mandates, not an inherent issue with the core concept.

2) This point makes no sense. Yes, of course they can, but at hugely reduced rates. Something not being perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable or necessary. Seatbelts are not perfect, but they are mandatory because they save lives.

3) If someone has a medical issue with the vaccine, they are exempt from every mandate I have ever seen. If that is not the case, then change the mandate. It's not an inherent issue with the concept. They are the very people who most need mandates, as the people who cannot have it themselves need as many others to be vaccinated as possible.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#19

Post by lsaferite »

asguy wrote: post #17
Latty wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety. Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.

It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different. I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?

> I had covid, it was like a really bad flu

This is not the only outcome of getting COVID-19.

Re: IBM and airlines won’t comply with Texas governor’s ban on vaccine mandates

#20

Post by asguy »

lsaferite wrote: post #19
asguy wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different. I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?

> I had covid, it was like a really bad flu This is not the only outcome of getting COVID-19.

What outcome should I be looking out for?
Post reply on HN