Live data from Hacker News

Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

edmontonjournal.com

301–310 of 600 posts

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#301
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they can believe what they want as far as I’m concerned. Completely physically excluding them from society is enough. If they want to ‘protect’ themselves from the vaccine they have that right, absolutely, but the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them.

Isn't the vaccine supposed to provide that protection from (catching Covid from) them?

It is, but some vaccinated people apparently have a hard time understanding how things work and who is actually at risk.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#302

I've been asking friends that believe in such punishments whether they would have punished gay people in the 1990s that got AIDS. Condoms are extremely effective at preventing transmission. Invariably no one wants to go there. Gay people with AIDS that didn't use a condom are to be cried over in our society, while those with COVID that didn't take the vaccine are to be punished.

you don't transmit AIDS, you trasmit HIV

and not sure who you're hanging with, but as a sexually active gay man I've never heard of no condom usage for anyone being seen as acceptable unless there is consent between all parties

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#303
post #277

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My dad spent his life working in public health, including vaccinations. “Doesn’t believe in science and progress” and “very often misogynistic and racist” is how Trudeau would describe your typical villager in Asia or Africa—the people my dad spent a lifetime serving. But Trudeau’s unrelated moral crusades are utterly irrelevant to the issue of public health, and he’s deeply damaging the public health effort by tryin…

He's making the same mistake we see all over social media these days. The collective assumption that everyone who disagrees with any ONE popular narrative, must also disagree with ALL other popular narratives. Anti-vaxxers must also be climate change deniers and racists and anti-abortion, etc... It makes it easier to hate people you disagree with if they're fundamentally evil in all the same ways. It saves you from h…

There’s more nuance to this than you’re portraying because wedge issues exist. Once groups take sides on an issue the predictive power of knowing what someone thinks on one issue implying their stance on every issue skyrockets.

It’s not about thinking for yourself more than it’s a consequence of people being good at mounting a defense for their own ideas whatever they are or wherever they originate. The more “research” you do on an issue the more likely you’ll come away with nothing more than better arguments for your existing stance.

And I’m not claiming to be above it, you can play this game with me too. I am exactly the bleeding heart snowflake liberal.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

Um… I think we have a fundamental disagreement on what sources of information we cite! Do you have non-governmental sources of information we can mutually agree upon to discuss instead? Thank you!

No post body was provided.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My understanding is that the vaccines aren’t completely effective at stopping you catching/spreading, but they are a whole lot better than being immune naive altogether. Casual googling has given me some Washington state pdf data that says even in the most robust cohort (13-29 year olds) unvaccinated folks get Covid at 3x the rate of unvaccinated and the differences only get more dramatic from there. If you have more…

Quoted post unavailable.

> The vaccines don’t work at all against omicron

This is just false and if you believe in the science, you believe in the scientific method, the scientific method shows that this is false. See this https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc211927

Plenty of people are going to the hospital with omicron so it isn't mild for everyone. It's milder than previous strains and it's especially mild for vaccinated people.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you define “don’t work”? The study I linked to shows some effect, even in omicron. I’m kind of confused.

Where’s the omicron data? I specifically said omicron. I don’t see anything that shows omicron especially since it’s only prevalent in the US in the last few weeks. Ahhh never mind. You didn’t actually read the data. You just scanned through it. If you look look more thoroughly it doesn’t address omicron at all. The last data I could see was from December 14. Omicron was not prevalent at that point, delta was. The va…

Here's a study from December 29th on the effect of the vaccine on Omicron in South Africa. https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMc2119270

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#307
post #278
post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to misunderstand the entire reason the U.S. was created. Don't like it, leave. Seriously.

Note that the Supreme Court validated Jacobson vs. Massachusetts, supporting the right of the government to mandate vaccines (remember, George Washington mandated vaccines for his troops) and showing that the power of the state ultimately trumps the freedoms of people. Honestly, you're making arguments (in multiple comments) that make you look petulant, rather than providing a reasonable argument againt vaccine manda…

The Supreme Court also validated slavery and other actions that proved to be incredibly damaging to the society.

As for George Washington, if you are attempting to make the argument that the government has a right to inoculate it’s military soldiers during war time against a disease, so be it, there is your precedent to argue upon. Furthermore, Washington has a habit of requiring many things, including the Militia Acts which required every able bodied male to own a military firearm. I don’t currently see an argument to enforce that idea. Pick and choose.

But using his small pox inoculation program from the 1700’s and a tiny military of rag tag farmer soldiers as a basis to go after an entire free and educated society of hundreds of millions in the 2000’s for an experimental vaccine, you are stretching this further than it could go.

The information is out there for people to make decisions now. They’ve made it, make a better argument.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#308
post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, they can believe what they want as far as I’m concerned. Completely physically excluding them from society is enough. If they want to ‘protect’ themselves from the vaccine they have that right, absolutely, but the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them.

Isn't the vaccine supposed to provide that protection from (catching Covid from) them?

Vaccines have an efficacy of 90% -not 100% and don't work for the immunocompromised and those who have sulphate allergies.

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#309

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is all people lumped together. Like I said remove "at-risk".

Cool. https://health-infobase.canada.ca/covid-19/epidemiological-s... Which groups are not "at-risk" here? What age? Because it seems like there is a significant % of the population in groups other than 80+ that are in the hospital.

Under 50 has 20% of ICU cases (how many are incidental and without comorbidity?).

Re: Unvaccinated workers who lose jobs ineligible for unemployment benefits (Canada)

#310

It seems we are heading in a direction where those who don't take the jab will be blocked from receiving government services, prevented from patronizing various businesses, and even restricted from traveling and the ability to work. Are most citizens really okay with this medical apartheid, or are they afraid of speaking out against it?

> blocked from receiving government services Quite the hyperbole: not all government services, just employment insurance and that too if you were only fired for not receiving the vaccine. A reminder that in many of these jobs, there was already a requirement for getting a set of vaccines so this is not new. Though for some people, this vaccine is "different" but once you ask them to explain why they can't. So no new…

> "You are still free to drive to work or take local public transit."

Then the whole point of this thing is pointless. We're selectively punishing people. We don't prevent or punish positive cases from going around to work, public transport, etc and infecting others, yet we punish people that choose to simply not vaccinate.

> "If you cannot participate in society moving forward, then you should not expect society to cater to your needs."

Just like to point out that you can use the same line of reasoning for a host of other things, even unrelated to medical themes. Like say allowing facial recognition cameras in all homes to prevent domestic violence and child abuse. Yet most people supposedly stand on principle against it, despite the "pragmatism" of it. Likewise we should be standing here on plain old and impractical "body autonomy" and protecting people's personal medical choices.

It just depends on how far you want to take the hyperbole and how far you want to extrapolate the doomsday predictions that flow from this. E.g. How about state-mandated abortions for down-syndrome? Or preventing pro-creation of known carriers of genetic disorders? Look at how we tip-toed around aids after we eventually acknowledged it.

As a side note, we should all be worried about how this entire world-incident is allowing laws and understandings that we've had and worked on attaining for decades if not centuries to be simply and casually bypassed under some banner of "safety", "science" and pragmatism. There has to be a better way to deal with this and as you say, move society forward instead of backward.

Post reply on HN