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

Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 262 posts

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#191

Post by chernevik »

srean wrote: post #166
chernevik wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By that logic insurers could deny claims related to obesity, or risky sexual behavior. Would you approve of that?

Not denial, but businesses classified as for profit are certainly within moral rights to claim risk appropriate premium. Insurance companies have to toe the thin line between a business and a social good. With prediction models to become more and more accurate I would be happier if we have non-profit insurance that amortizes/socializes the draw of the lottery. For voluntary choices of risky behavior, drug addiction,…

I would agree in principle, but notice that health "insurance" has migrated from a risk-management product to a health care financing/service provision mechanism.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#192

Post by disambiguation »

cletus wrote: post #46

What I find sad about this is how many who seem to be against it were just recently so in favour of private business autonomy [1]. No one's rights are being violated here. If you don't want to get vaccinated, you can. But those choices come with consequences, like just about every other choice we make. It's worth noting that fully remote people won't fall under this policy (from my reading of it anyway) so this isn't…

1. It's really not about business autonomy. In many states businesses don't have the option to bring everyone back to the office unrestricted. Getting everyone vaccinated is just the path of least resistance within legal limits.

2. I can't believe people still parrot the "choice with consequences" argument. If abortion is persecuted in Texas, is that just a choice with consequences? The only premise that matters is whether threatening someones livelihood -- which is quite frankly a nuclear option -- is a fair and proportional response.

3. Last but not least, vaccine precedents cut both ways. Measles and smallpox don't mutate and require new vaccines. Covid does. Measles and smallpox don't discriminate by age. Covid does. Measles and smallpox vaccines don't have notable adverse effects on young people. The Covid vaccine does.

Covid has little in common with measles and smallpox, which are mandated. It does however have a lot in common with the flu, both the disease and the vaccine, which is not mandated in schools nor hospitals.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#193

Post by [deleted] »

k8si wrote: post #102
nsxwolf wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If we eventually define "civil rights" to mean "you have the right to stay inside your home and order everything on Amazon", we have a serious problem. That's where this is going. It goes way beyond the decisions of an individual company. Regarding the status quo: Yes, mandates exist. The school example is a piece of paper you turn into the school office during enrollment and no one ever thinks about it again. It's n…

It seems like the vax every 6 months is a worst-ish case scenario (worst case being, some mutation is like 100% vax resistant, no one can figure it out, and a lot more people die). Well, one is also supposed to get a dental cleaning every 6 months. The nice thing about the vax is, jab takes 2 seconds and no one bugs you about flossing. I don't see why this would be such a chore.

[deleted]

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#194

Post by dang »

jaquer_1 wrote: post #14
Oddskar wrote: post #4

Quoted post unavailable.

1. Force people into draconian measures that won't stop infection and violate their rights. 2. Convince them that it's necessary to stop the pandemic without giving any arguments. 3. Have them defend your measures in public forums and feel very smart.

Please don't take HN threads further into flamewar. It's not what this site is for, and it destroys what it is for.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#196

Post by ecf »

disambiguation wrote: post #187

The median age of a Google employee is 30. The median age of Covid mortality is 80. Think about that.

Okay, I thought about it for 5 seconds…

Hasn’t it always been the case that younger people vaccinate to help keep the older protected?

Also, you don’t need to die of Covid to be placed in a hospital. Fewer available beds affects everyone.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#197

Post by disambiguation »

cletus wrote: post #168
ekianjo wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's also worth noting that a whole bunch of vaccines are required to attend public school already [2]. Vaccines required at school while children don't get any kind of side effects of COVID19 anyway (and get more risks from the vaccine than anything else). This is so far from any kind of Science.

> Vaccines required at school while children don't get any kind of side effects of COVID19 Other than dying [1] you mean? Dying aside, children can still spread the virus. I’m sure someone will make the straw man argument of “the vaccine doesn’t 100% prevent transmission”, which is true but no one claimed it did. It does however improve the situation. [1]: https://data.cdc.gov/NCHS/Deaths-by-Sex-Ages-0-18-years/xa4b.…

This is revisionist history.

https://www.businessinsider.com/who-says-no-evidence-coronav...

> Moderna's chief medical officer, Tal Zaks, said last month that he believed it was likely the vaccine would prevent transmission but warned that there was not yet "sufficient evidence" of it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/04/01/health/coronavirus-vaccin...

> The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention on Thursday walked back controversial comments made by its director, Dr. Rochelle P. Walensky, suggesting that people who are vaccinated against the coronavirus never become infected or transmit the virus to others.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#198

Post by caeril »

refurb wrote: post #150
epistasis wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're talking about employment where the employer makes much much of off your labor than you will ever receive, and you are powerless to demand your fair share. Yet instead, a safe workplace is the coercive part? If you don't want to be coerced, you had better not be an employee with wages. Go out there and start your own business.

It’s hilarious to see HN flip from “I dream of a future where no one has to work and fall under the yoke of greedy employers” to “just get injected with this drug and be thankful you have a job; don’t get it and you deserve to starve”.

There's been a lot of this, though.

HN used to be firmly anti-FBI/CIA and pro-Assange. Something flipped that around such that the FBI and CIA are Real American Heroes and Assange is some sort of Russian asset. The NSA is still a bit of a bogeyman here, but even that may not hold.

HN is also filled with people who were OccupyWallStreet or AntiWar types who now bloviate endlessly on portfolio management and advocate for the invasion of Iran/Syria/Russia/China/etc.

And don't even get me started on the cypherpunks, the phrack guys, etc. There might be one or two of them left who aren't actively wiping their asses with the CAM or Hacker Manifesto daily.

I suspect that evolving from eating Ramen and reading zines in a communal hackerspace to being paid $400k/yr to analyze the click habits of a billion people changes a person.

The anti-war/free love/hippie/flower power boomers did precisely the same thing, of course. Money and status will always kill lofty ideals. Always.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#199

Post by artificialLimbs »

ben_w wrote: post #182
artificialLimbs wrote: post #152

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> ...it's just a jab in the arm Until it isn't. Then what are you going to do? Probably nothing except suffer debilitation for life or death (~20,000 that have been reported to VAERS, so probably substantially more). https://brandnewtube.com/watch/full-hearings-ron-johnson-039... Edit: spllng

I saw less than half that number — 8099 — on the VAERS site. And this is for a disease which has killed 821,335 Americans after infecting 51 million. So if it’s absolutely perfectly safe and there is a roughly 5% chance of getting infected with Covid while waiting for the vaccine to take effect, it would look like this.

>> 8099

Not sure where you get that number. Also, the numbers for VAERS entry are very probably not even in the ballpark of all injuries because doctors don't often advertise VAERS or even enter patient data there. Why would they, it's basically extra work they don't get paid for.

https://vaersanalysis.info/2021/12/11/vaers-summary-for-covi...

>> ...killed 821,33 Americans...

I had a family friend that shot himself in a hunting accident. Drove himself to the hospital bleeding, didn't make it 24 hours. Tested positive for Covid. Labeled covid death.

I get that it can be a serious disease for some, but it's rare unless you're already in poor health. The response to Covid and vaccine insanity has been ultra overblown.

Re: Google says employees flouting vaccination rules will eventually be fired

#200

Post by native_samples »

acdha wrote: post #180
ekianjo wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You can be getting other people sick You must be missing the part that vaccinated people transmit the virus just the same. This is not a sterilizing vaccine we are dealing with.

That's not boolean: vaccinated individuals transmit _less_ than the unvaccinated. It's not as good as we'd like but it's better than doing nothing and given how quick, easy, and cheap vaccines are it's like mandating seatbelt usage even if you know that some people will still be injured.

Not for a while now.

https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...

"In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated)."

No difference in infectiousness. And with it, no logical justification for mandates. But this is Google and factions within it will certainly not give up a chance to get rid of what remains of the conservative/libertarian part of their workforce.

Post reply on HN