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

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

edmontonjournal.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 600 posts

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

#381

Post by evgen »

bmeski wrote: post #241
ukj wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Almost as if reducing mortality/hospitalization is an irrelevant metric to you. Almost as if an abstract social construct as “rights” is more important to you than actual health.

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

The reality of the situation seems to be that we have all decided upon the proper collective course of action and you are the one who is in denial.

You are the one who seems to have no clue why nations form, why this particular nation came into being, and what demands it has made over and over upon its citizens for the benefit of their fellow Americans. If you do not like it then you are the one who should leave. We, the many, are happy to show you the door and will help you pack your bags. Seriously.

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

#383

Post by bradlys »

slibhb wrote: post #376
bradlys wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Okay? But this isn’t about your liberal vaccinated friends. This is about people who aren’t vaccinated…

"My liberal friends" show that this is not a wedge issue as the previous poster suggested. They are "anti-lockdown" and to a large extent "anti-mask" but they don't hate women, blacks, or science.

But the point is that anti-vaccine people tend to be the hateful ones. Vaccines are a wedge issue. Lockdowns aren’t as much - if you’re already vaccinated.

Honestly - almost no one really disagrees with that statement either. We all know it might not be helpful to get people vaccinated but we also know it’s true.

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

#384

Post by MiroF »

axiosgunnar wrote: post #368
MiroF wrote: post #353

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agreed with GP sentiment (and wrote a similar comment myself), but absolutely disagree with your sentiment. Being able, but unwilling, to get vaccinated substantially shifts my priors of where your comment is coming from. It is useful information, and I appreciate when people disclose it. If you replace vaccination with an analogous, more politically one-sided limit case (say [not being a Nazi]:[supporting a policy…

Your line of thinking is a typical ad hominem; you should evaluate an argumentation based on its merits, not what the meatball behind the online handle happens to do in his free time.

From a Bayesian perspective, the provenance of the information you are basing a decision on is of obvious relevance to how you shape your beliefs.

Ad hom is only fallacious if the information really is irrelevant to the argument [0][1]

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem [1]: https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/e01b9z/is_ad...

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

#385

Post by Radim »

throw0101a wrote: post #345
Radim wrote: post #283

Quoted post unavailable.

> TL;DR: Little known but Nazis dressed their prosecution of wrong-groups in health concerns. Both linguistically and visually: "social parasites", "vermin", "plague", "taking resources away, from normal-law-abiding-science-respecting Germans", etc. Yeah: > The vaccine passport is exactly like the Nazi yellow star - if the Nazi yellow star meant that the recipients had received life-saving medicine at no cost to them…

Do you contest the timeline I posted? Or the sources about Nazi propaganda methods?

Please do so directly and concretely. If you post in good faith, I'll be happy to engage.

Your glib one-liner adds nothing, throw0101a. It's just a non-sequitur, to score shallow points by a "former speech writer of Bush43".

For others reading along, feeling "But surely this is different!" in their gut like maybe you are, an honest question:

At what point would you go "I'm not OK with actively doing this to a group of fellow humans, no matter how much of a vermin / plague / waste of resources for the society I feel they are"?

If the end of my timeline (Dec 21, 1938) doesn't do it for you – which of the ensuing WW2 years would? What's the line in the sand you would not cross? I realize vaccine passports may not be it for you, that's fine with many – but which of the next (inevitable) steps will be too much?

(Please answer internally, no need to respond to me)

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

#386

Post by mardifoufs »

ukj wrote: post #378
josephcsible wrote: post #377

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If discrimination is only wrong because of lack of choice of the discriminated trait, then why is it wrong to discriminate based on people's religion? Or would you say that it isn't?

I would say that there is not a single non-religious human being on this planet. Human rights are a religion - they don’t exist. We made them up so we can coexist; and so that we can improve the quality of our lives. What makes discrimination wrong is that it diminishes the well-being of the discriminated against. So you are welcome to insist that your well-being is being diminished by vaccine mandates but it would b…

No post body was provided.

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

#387

Post by random314 »

kif wrote: post #347
random314 wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Quoted post unavailable.

This person gives very good arguments why antivaxxers exist: https://twitter.com/YossiGestetner Even he admits he doesn't believe stuff he writes sometimes, but he does it to show why there's dissent.

I am not going to read his entire Twitter history. His top pinned tweet did not age well at all! So no good arguments at all!

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

#388

Post by mardifoufs »

MiroF wrote: post #256
xienze wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaccines reduce spread because of lower viral load. Also reduces severity. And yet, case counts have never been higher than now, a year into vaccines and infections. Ah, but Omicron you may say. Well doesn’t that imply that the vaccine isn’t terribly effective against that strain? Yet the answer seem to be “just keep getting more injections of the same vaccine formulation.” Perhaps one or more of our fundamental as…

> maybe PCR tests cranked to an absurd number of cycles c'mon, you're at least a year behind the conspiracy theory state of the art, we're on vaccine infertility now.

I guess you should email the NYT and ask them to stop peddling conspiracy theories:

https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/29/health/coronavirus-testin...?

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

#389

Post by scrollaway »

calebm wrote: post #371
simonh wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Omicron, which is incredibly infectious, came along after the vaccines did, ergo the infection rate went up after the vaccines were introduced. The two factors have nothing to do with each other though.

You're saying there is no chance that the vaccine facilitated the evolution of the variants (you know, like how not completing a round of antibiotics can foment evolution)?

Both Delta and Omicron came from severely and notoriously undervaccinated countries. They’re prime examples as to why we need first world countries to help with equitable access to vaccines everywhere.

Unmitigated spread accelerates evolution. Mitigating the spread slows it down.

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

#390

Post by scrollaway »

iqanq wrote: post #64

A year ago this would've been called a conspiracy theory. Saying that this would happen on Facebook or Twitter would've been called misleading or even got you banned.

A year ago, the thought that so many people would reject vaccines that can help end the pandemic was unrealistic.

Soooo…

Post reply on HN