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

311–320 of 443 posts

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

#311

Post by jgalt212 »

VWWHFSfQ wrote: post #86
tptacek wrote: post #20

This is a confusing headline. The judgement here is in NY state court, and pertains to employees of and in the City of New York, which enacted a vaccine requirement for employees of the city and later private employers in the city. Months later, Eric Adams was elected mayor of NYC, and he issued an executive order exempting athletes, performers, and artists from the mandate. Petitioners sued, saying that the mandate…

Eric Adams' "performers and sports players" exemption was specifically to allow Broadway to re-open and to allow Kyrie Irving to play in Brooklyn. The whole thing was a farce anyway so it doesn't matter.

DeBlasio was known as the "Dope from Park Slope", but this one is pretty inept thinking as well.

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

#312

Post by arrosenberg »

ls15 wrote: post #181
crazygringo wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How are you going to handle it when the Supreme Court reverses itself on decisions decades later? Or even just a few years later when a new Justice is added? Does all the money from damages get returned, with interest and accounting for inflation? Law is never settled and courts disagree and reverse frequently... So I don't think you've really thought this through... :) Including who is going to pay for all those dam…

Three strikes. Politician voted three times for laws that later were deemed unconstitutional by the SC, so the politician can only be a politian again after 30 years and some mandatory training and test. What is not fair about this?

The current Supreme Court is a right wing nightmare, so that sounds like an efficient way to get all the liberals out of government. Hard pass, what is fair about letting unelected judges determine who I get to vote for?

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

#313

Post by tomp »

Hakashiro wrote: post #301
tomp wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're 100% bought into the propaganda. Isn't it time to pause and reflect? Btw. "the science" hasn't changed. The vaccine never stopped the spread. There were no studies indicating that it did (medical trials were about hospitalisations / death, not infections / spreading). You fell for the fake science propagated by fake news media.

That is a pretty disgusting statement. What ""the science"" are you talking about? The vast majority of doctors and scientists strongly recommend taking the vaccine. It is not about stopping 100% of illnesses and infections, but it is 100% about significantly reducing the chance of hospitalisation and death. What are you talking about? Sounds like the time to reflect is all yours.

Did you read the comment I replied to?

It mentioned nothing about decreasing hospitalisation or death (which is true and I agree with!).

It mentioned “saving coworkers” which implies that the vaccine prevents infection or transmitted, which is not true.

Despite a lot of people (Biden, Fauci, CDC) explicitly saying it does, and invoking “science”.

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

#314

Post by SamoyedFurFluff »

senorrib wrote: post #302
curiousgal wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Us Americans are so obsessed with government overreach that you'd think our corporate overloads are actually treating us well and that the government is the bad guy. When the government wants to fuck us over, think what the NSA has been doing, they won't look for precedents so there's no point in treating every decision they make as a potential sliperry slope. Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so va…

> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple. This last sentence is such a massive slippery slope that an answer isn’t even necessary.

Forgive me, but what is it a slippery slope of? I immediately thought this logic was already applied to things like child toy regulation or lead paint warning regulation or food recall regulation or workplace safety regulation… it’s really common for the government to enforce people to do things (or ban people from doing other things) in certain contexts because of the danger otherwise.

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

#315

Post by hotpotamus »

throwawaylinux wrote: post #272
spaetzleesser wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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…

Is fear of dying irrational? I mean, it's going to happen to us all anyway, so does it matter if it's via airborne virus or whatever it is that conservatives fear is going to kill them?

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

#316

Post by briandon »

Maursault wrote: post #270
benjaminwootton wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is not the same as >>> "Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19" Being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection and transmission, but it does reduce the likelihood of infection and transmission by about half. The fact is the vaccines are effective in reducing infection and transmission…

If I told you that vaccinated persons have been found to shed replication-competent covid virions for about as long as unvaccinated persons and that the protection against infection from the vaccines went negative (i.e. vaccinated persons more susceptible than unvaccinated persons) after a few months and that the viral load reduction effect of the vaccines waned along with their protection, would you claim these facts to be misinformation or would you google for the relevant peer-reviewed papers and surprise yourself (especially when you noticed the dates and realized that these facts have long been known...though not to you)?

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

#317

Post by Wowfunhappy »

tlogan wrote: post #308
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 problem is that this is a very first mandate for vaccination we ever imposed on ordinary people. The US has very complex society and diverse population, so mandates do not work and might create backclash. I think mass vaccination can be easily achieved by mass marketing. Mandates just made this way too political: and as we can see did not achieve a thing.

> The problem is that this is a very first mandate for vaccination we ever imposed on ordinary people.

That's not true! It used to be you had to show your smallpox vaccine scar (the vaccine left a distinctive mark) in order to enter many businesses.

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

#318

Post by realjhol »

curiousgal wrote: post #249
colechristensen wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of if they were the right thing to do, many of the various covid mandates being enacted through whatever form of decree really didn’t seem like they fit inside the authority of the government executives trying to enact them. Many were also made to be unenforceable so they’d never be tested in court while still influencing people. The rule of law is important and limiting the power of “rulers” to make large…

Us Americans are so obsessed with government overreach that you'd think our corporate overloads are actually treating us well and that the government is the bad guy. When the government wants to fuck us over, think what the NSA has been doing, they won't look for precedents so there's no point in treating every decision they make as a potential sliperry slope. Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so va…

> Covid was/is killing people, vaccines prevent that, so vaccines must be required. Very simple.

They don't though.

None of the vaccines prevent transmission - they were never even tested for that.

And only the extremely elderly or obese are in any significant danger of dieing of COVID. If you're not in either of those camps, or have natural immunity the risk is negligible.

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

#319

Post by origin_path »

DiogenesKynikos wrote: post #307
busymom0 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doubt it. The court also said the following (court towards the end indicates that the mandate didn’t make sense even when the order was issued): > “”Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19. As of the day of this Decision, CDC guidelines regarding quarantine and isolation are the same for vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals. The Petitioners should not have been ter…

> Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19. This was not true before Omicron. Vaccination was never a 100% protection against contracting or transmitting SARS-CoV-2, but it did significantly reduce the rate of both. People who refused to vaccinate themselves were, in fact, putting people around them at greater risk. That protection has decreased with Omicron, though it…

That's not the case. Even against Delta effectiveness dropped very rapidly and then actually went negative. The UK is one of the few countries that kept regularly publishing case stats even after this happened and it showed that once the initial vaccine 'high' wore off, vaccinated people were getting infected more frequently than the unvaccinated. Omicron didn't change this.

This sort of thing is unintuitive but has happened before. In fact Fauci cited the possibility of this effect as one of the reasons not to rush the trials. Unfortunately the trials did not detect this, probably due to bad use of statistics (the way they classify people as unvaccinated for weeks after having actually been given the shot can warp the stats).

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

#320

Post by ls15 »

arrosenberg wrote: post #312
ls15 wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Three strikes. Politician voted three times for laws that later were deemed unconstitutional by the SC, so the politician can only be a politian again after 30 years and some mandatory training and test. What is not fair about this?

The current Supreme Court is a right wing nightmare, so that sounds like an efficient way to get all the liberals out of government. Hard pass, what is fair about letting unelected judges determine who I get to vote for?

Ok, fair point, but how else can we get politicians to behave better? I don't think that assigning immense powers for four years without personal repercussions for bad actors has worked very well.
Post reply on HN