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

Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

npr.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 722 posts

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#301

Post by kiliancs »

TulliusCicero wrote: post #262
simondotau wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which can…

> Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. People have absolutely changed their minds because of internet discussions. Usually it's not one of the participants, though.

Also, change takes time. There's a digestion process. Of course some people are not interested in finding truth and simply cling to their own opinion.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#302

Post by josh_today »

jwilber wrote: post #160
josh_today wrote: post #148

Today the entire state of New York had ZERO covid related deaths. Yet this week we saw NYC and State employees and now major private corporations mandate the vaccine. For the record I will never disclosure my health status so don’t assume one way or another.

Deaths lag so the point is irrelevant. You could just as easily argue it points in favor of vaccines.

The “wait 2 weeks” argument did not work for Florida when they took the lead, nor Texas when they had the first full capacity sporting event, and not India when they were on the “brink of collapse”.

Delta is confirmed to be more contagious and less deadly.

In a few weeks the numbers will be low regardless of what measures are taken. But the forced vaccination of federal, municipal, and private employees will be given credit.

I am not against the vaccine. I am however against governments determining what freedoms their citizens are allowed to have based on what medicines they chose to take.

We’ve all seen the disaster with our personal privacy across social media and the internet as a whole.

Health is where the line gets drawn.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#303

Post by colechristensen »

White_Wolf wrote: post #283
ngc248 wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>> One has to believe at some point that liberty is worth a certain amount of risk. Others will be taking a risk for your liberty, that is where it becomes unacceptable. We live in a society and individual freedoms must be balanced by the responsibilities towards your fellow man.

Maybe I'm missing something obvious here but arent those that don't want the vaccine a risk just for themselves? If they want to risk it it's their problem/choice. One thing everyone seems to ignore is those people that have immunity/antibodies and don't actually need a vaccine. Why is that? As far as I managed to read here and there not even the shot I had protects me from catching or spreading the virus. It only re…

Whichever vaccine you had, it has a high chance (90ish percent) of preventing any detectable infection, and as a corollary being contagious.

If you do lose the odds and develop an infection, the rates of various outcomes are all better. i.e. very low chance of death or ICU visit, very high chance of no or extremely mild symptoms

People don’t have a good understanding of statistics, of how to treat risk, or of basic disease dynamics.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#304

Post by jsolson »

ReadEvalPost wrote: post #222

I'm really upset with this decision. I have not gotten the vaccine as I prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID over the unknown longitudinal risk of the vaccine. My right to make these personal decisions regarding my bodily autonomy is extremely important to me. Under no circumstances will I yield that decision to my employer! Their demand only further reinforces my desire not to take the vaccine. W…

> I prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID

I'm a little confused by this. I live in King County, WA (and I work at Google). According to data reported by the county (as tabulated by the NY Times), one in 19 residents have contracted COVID[0]. That's >5% -- with a 1.8% case fatality rate in the US[1]. That's a bit below a one in 1000 chance of having died of COVID if you live in my county, including the infection fraction. If you look a the risk of just contracting it, based on the county, the risk is higher than any other disease I'm aware of.

Am I missing something?

[0]: https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/king-washington-...

[1]: https://coronavirus.jhu.edu/data/mortality

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#305

Post by joshuamorton »

nomoreplease wrote: post #118

Current research shows that the previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine. So previously infected should be sufficient, yet I expect these companies not to care about that

This is directly contradictory to the evidence I've seen (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34103407/ for a publication, this article based on a similar study: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera..., and this https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.04.25.21256049v... which suggests that you get a boost from the vaccine even if you've had the virus).

In other words, there's strong evidence that you get a stronger immune response, for longer, that is more effective against variants with the vaccine than with a natural infection. The paper I think you're referring to (https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v...) states "It is not known how well these results will hold if or when some of the newer variants of concern become prominent. However, if prior infection does not afford protection against some of the newer variants of concern, there is little reason to suppose that the currently available vaccines would either. Vaccine breakthrough infections with variants have indeed been reported [17]", but this is directly contradicted by some of the other studies I cited, that to show better protection against variant re-infection.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#307

Post by ad404b8a372f2b9 »

mmastrac wrote: post #146
throwawayboise wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they can ask for your COVID vaccine status, they can ask for your other vaccines, your HIV status, they can ask for the results of your latest colonoscopy, your blood pressure, your blood sugar, all in the name of a "healthy workplace."

That sounds like the slippery slope fallacy. COVID is a wide- and fast-spreading, current risk to public health. You don't need to ask for more, because nothing else is in the same ballpark.

I never understood this "fallacy", it's really common for laws and policies to build upon themselves. You call it the slippery slope fallacy, I call it slowly boiling the frog. People adapt and suddenly it's the new normal.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#308

Post by kalaido »

target8123 wrote: post #143
imwillofficial wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As of now, everyone, included the vaccinated are still disease spreaders.

they are not same because vaccinated are less likely to be infected and hence less likely to spread disease. every vaccinated person is 40% less likely of getting infected compared to unvaccinated. so if a person goes to office with vaccine mandate, they are 64% less likely of getting infected compared to no vaccine mandate.

Not true. CDC claims same virus load in v/uv

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#309

Post by kkoncevicius »

graftak wrote: post #251
jackTheMan wrote: post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm not sure how abortion relates to this. But genetically-modified food could be. By living in the US I'm not sure how OP can avoid it, as it is not labeled. So there you go with a long term exposure with unknown effect.

Abortion is another example of > My right to make these personal decisions regarding my bodily autonomy and also something that is typically condemned by the anti-vax crowd. The comment implies hypocrisy.

Well this would then apply to the other side too - being pro-vaccine and pro-abortion is the same kind of hypocrisy.

Re: Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

#310

Post by calsy »

exo-pla-net wrote: post #238
ddvvff wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope you're also pro-abortion, but somehow I doubt it

Careful to not cause him too much cognitive dissonance. His brain might explode, splashing his proudly unvaccinated SARS-CoV-2 on everyone.

Who nominated you smartest person in the room, yourself?
Post reply on HN