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

NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

iapps.courts.state.ny.us

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 443 posts

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#271

Post by kortilla »

akira2501 wrote: post #248
colinmhayes wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because athletes and performers are irreplaceable and bring in tourist revenue which the city wants. Firefighters are more easily replaceable and have no effect on tourism. Having competing priorities is common enough, I don't see what doesn't make sense here. The city wants everyone to be vaccinated but it also wants broadway and basketball to be happening more, so they came up with this policy.

> Because athletes and performers are irreplaceable and bring in tourist revenue which the city wants. Firefighters are more easily replaceable and have no effect on tourism. I believe this is the most cynical thing I've read yet today. > I don't see what doesn't make sense here If the Athletes and Performers are so irreplaceable, then wouldn't you demand they be the most protected by the vaccine, and thus require th…

> you demand they be the most protected by the vaccine, and thus require them to have it

No, because they will just refuse. That’s the whole problem.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#272

Post by throwawaylinux »

spaetzleesser wrote: post #254
throwawaylinux wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People were rabidly cheering it on too. Police going around shutting playgrounds and arresting parents for playing outdoors with their children, while at the same time the politicians they voted for were constantly and egregiously shown to be flouting the rules on frivolities, parties, travel, fun. And there were excuses for the politicians and bloodlust for the commoner trying to exercise or raise their child. Absol…

“I used to wonder how on earth nazis and communists and the like were able to seize power and control of a population, and now I've seen it” That’s how the US has worked for a long time. See the war on drugs and mass incarceration, laws against black people and extreme political polarization. There was always a group of “others” that people wanted to get punished. I bet if Trump had been a little smarter he would hav…

Yes that seems to be how it goes. Drum up irrational fear, lay the blame at the others, create hatred against them, then it becomes almost a self-sustaining mass psychosis. Intellectually I understood that's basically how it works, I guess I just didn't want to believe it.

People didn't care that vaccines didn't stop the virus spreading, they didn't care that insignificant transmission occurred due to individuals or small family groups enjoying the outdoors, they didn't care that some people were as irrationally scared of the vaccines as they were of covid. It wasn't about any kind of measured response designed for the real greater good. They wanted to see those hated others suffer and be punished for their heresy and audacity.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#273

Post by somenameforme »

jakogut wrote: post #10

Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…

Imagine, for a minute, that it was a crime for a politician to try to pass unlawful laws. That would, sooner or later, be abused by the group with political control to effectively criminalize opposition. Declare their opponents' efforts unlawful, convict them, and they're out of the way.

You have to consider not only the effects of nominal usage, but also the effects of abuse. In this case, they're extreme.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#274

Post by xyzzy_plugh »

somenameforme wrote: post #264
xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought about this for several moments, and I disagree. Vaccines offer some personal protection but predominantly become effective by achieving herd immunity. Vaccine hesitancy undermines this goal and weakens the system. Being pro-vaccine is senseless without being in favor of enough people being vaccinated to provide strong immunity, including for those who cannot be vaccinated due to medical complications. Even…

The etymology of vaccine comes from vacca, which is Latin for cow. Vaccines were originally discovered after finding that milkmaids seemed somehow immune to smallpox, which otherwise not only made people gravely ill but had a mortality rate upwards of 30%. The reason, it was discovered, is that they were regularly exposed to cowpox which sufficiently strengthened their immune systems to provide effective immunity to…

The etymological tidbit is but a distraction from the meat of the issue, which is that you are wrong.

Namely, herd immunity absolutely does make vaccines work better, and is the basis of all vaccine policy in the modern world. I'm not even sure how you can state it's a tertiary effect when it is the primary reason vaccine policies exist.

You're simply spreading misinformation. Herd immunity due to vaccination has resulted in the eradication or near eradication of multiple deadly infectious diseases over the last few centuries. And if not for humans, then look only to farm medicine. Ignoring the power of vaccine policies and mandatory vaccination walks humanity back hundreds of years. Eradicating small pox took hundreds of years. We've been combating COVID-19 for close to three years.

Ask yourself: what qualities of a COVID-19 vaccine would satisfy you?

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#275

Post by Sankozi »

benjaminwootton wrote: post #241
Maursault wrote: post #234

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[citation needed] According to the CDC, HHS, Johns-Hopkins and every single medical school, hospital and scientific organization in the US, as well as 224M vaccinated US citizens, the COVID vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death.

I didn’t claim it wasn’t effective at those things as I’m sure you know. My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is the only logical and “potentially” ethical (in some twisted peoples heads) basis for a vaccine mandate. It has now been totally debunked. I literally quoted a linked article issued by the NY Supreme Court for your citation.

It was not debunked and it is not only ethical basis for the mandate (not overloading healthcare providers is also important).

The only thing that was "debunked" were ridiculous statements like "vaccine prevents transmission in 100% of cases".

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#277

Post by [deleted] »

eganist wrote: post #214
georgeplusplus wrote: post #204

What was wild is the amount of hate and vitriol directed towards those who chose not get to vaccinated and lost or risked losing their jobs. This forum was not exempt from that hate. I hope this court opinion is enough to sway the opinion of those who held such extreme beliefs in this vaccine mandate that there are different opinions, and it doesnt have to be so extreme when deciding how to move forward with things t…

There wasn't hate, at least not broadly. There was anger, sure, but not hate. At the time the focus was on making sure the vaccinations were taken seriously so as to protect those who couldn't do it, and plenty of people instead made ideological and self-centered decisions (their right to do so) rather than compassionate and ethical ones.

[deleted]

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#278

Post by club_tropical »

jakogut wrote: post #10

Something I've been wondering in recent cases where courts are overturning recent government action, whether unconstitutional bills passed into law, or unconstitutional executive actions that overstep authority, is where's the penalty for committing those actions in the first place? The state of New York famously responded to the outcome of NYSRPA v. Bruen, which overturned the defacto ban on concealed carry, by decl…

Penalties are generally meted out using the press (smear reputations through excessive focus on one person, show kompromat) and economic actors (withdraw sponsors, withdraw funding, etc). In the rare case that someone fails to be adequately railroaded using press and economics, yes, judges do mete out hefty fines and jail sentences, as a punishment of last resort against regime opponents, or give slaps on the wrist to regime allies (in this case, slap on the wrist). All justified with a 20-page verbal "explanation", of course, but those are just meaningless words for ultimately political decisions.

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#279

Post by VagueMag »

jquery wrote: post #199
VagueMag wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

FWIW, there was a vocal contingent of Marxists on Twitter who saw the mandates for the erosion of worker power and rights that they were, and vigorously opposed them. Richard Wolff even came around eventually, as well as Jimmy Dore after having his own personal run-in with the nasty side effects which are all too common with these vaccines. Sadly, though, some of the most awful scapegoaters of the unvaccinated were i…

Quoted post unavailable.

Tried 5 minutes and it just seemed like the usual "Dore had a different provax position and then changed his mind," and "he doesn't read articles with the pro-vaccine gloss which the commentator would consider 'truthful' ". Some "Dore's position is popular and therefore making him money and therefore a grift" thrown in for good measure. Is there some point in the 50 mins where they actually lay out a case that he faked his vaccine reaction?

Re: NY Supreme Court reinstates NYC's fired unvaccinated employees, orders backpay

#280

Post by ghoward »

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #265
ghoward wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This argument is useless in the face of the COVID shots because they do not prevent transmission, an important factor in herd immunity being effective. Being anti-vax-mandate for an ineffective vaccine is not anti-vax in any way.

Your lack of understanding how vaccines work belies your argument. No vaccine prevents transmission . That makes no sense. In order to prevent transmission, your immune system must prevent any infection, regardless of how minor. No vaccine guarantees absolute prevention from infection. Depending on mode of transmission, any infection can be transmissible. Thus any vaccine may not prevent transmission, for anything .…

> No vaccine prevents transmission.

Wrong. Some viruses don't get transmitted if the person is not symptomatic, even if there's an infection. Your lack of understanding belies your argument.

> Ask yourself what the efficacy would need to be for you to be pro-vax-mandate. I suspect I already know the answer.

Well, first of all, the vaccine has to be:

* effective,

* free of major side effects,

* for a virus that kills a large portion of the infected and that kills more than just the elderly and obese,

* and not mandated for people to actually live.

The COVID shots and mandates did not meet any of those requirements.

And if you complain that my last requirement is too much, remember that in the United States, the Federal Government has severe limits on its power on purpose. Sure, the government should be able to prevent unvaccinated people from accessing government facilities, but only temporarily (while the pandemic is going on) because the government has jurisdiction over those things.

But it does not have jurisdiction over telling businesses who they can and cannot do business with.

Post reply on HN