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

521–530 of 600 posts

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

#521

Post by jaks6 »

huntertwo wrote: post #391

Is there room for those of us who believe the mRNA vaccines are effective at reducing transmission and severe disease yet don’t want to relegate our fellow citizens to second class status for not wanting to inject themselves with something they’re not sure about? We seem all too ready to ruin the lives of those who don’t want the jab.

I am also in this boat. The jab-rejecters' behaviour is often called "reckless" for stressing the hospital system. But we see reckless behavior outside of vaccines too: drunk driving, general violence, daredevil stunts and extreme sports. All these things can lead to hospitalization, but we "tolerate" treatment of these cases in hospitalization.

I don't think any anti-vaxxer expects to end up hospitalized, just as nobody driving drunk expects to go and kill somebody with their car.

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

#522

Post by aoeusnth1 »

jaks6 wrote: post #521
huntertwo wrote: post #391

Is there room for those of us who believe the mRNA vaccines are effective at reducing transmission and severe disease yet don’t want to relegate our fellow citizens to second class status for not wanting to inject themselves with something they’re not sure about? We seem all too ready to ruin the lives of those who don’t want the jab.

I am also in this boat. The jab-rejecters' behaviour is often called "reckless" for stressing the hospital system. But we see reckless behavior outside of vaccines too: drunk driving, general violence, daredevil stunts and extreme sports. All these things can lead to hospitalization, but we "tolerate" treatment of these cases in hospitalization. I don't think any anti-vaxxer expects to end up hospitalized, just as no…

I’m confused. Are you saying we tolerate drunk driving and violence?

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

#523

Post by jaks6 »

aoeusnth1 wrote: post #522
jaks6 wrote: post #521

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am also in this boat. The jab-rejecters' behaviour is often called "reckless" for stressing the hospital system. But we see reckless behavior outside of vaccines too: drunk driving, general violence, daredevil stunts and extreme sports. All these things can lead to hospitalization, but we "tolerate" treatment of these cases in hospitalization. I don't think any anti-vaxxer expects to end up hospitalized, just as no…

I’m confused. Are you saying we tolerate drunk driving and violence?

We tolerate medical treatment of people involved in reckless behavior such as those

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

#524

Post by hrhrhrhrhr »

variola wrote: post #433
hrhrhrhrhr wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

NAP is about physical violence. The problem with your way of thinking is that it lets you interpret whatever you feel like as "violence". Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence? What about blasphemy? What about just being mean? People have very varying opinions on whether spreading COVID should be considered violence, hence contractual jurisdictions.

> Should infecting others with a flu also be considered violence? How is it not violence to infect others with a serious disease? It causes bodily harm. It is assault to knowingly expose others to a communicable disease. However, using the flu as an example isn’t very good as spreading the common cold doesn’t carry criminal consequences. If you are referring to Covid as a “flu” then it’s another matter.

If I meant COVID I'd say COVID. When I say flu I mean flu.

Why should spreading "flu" not be considered violence? Not deadly enough? Then who is going to decide where is the line drawn?

The libertarian answer to protecting yourself from viruses is private discrimination, not redefining NAP however you see fit.

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

#525

Post by ls15 »

simonh wrote: post #469
ls15 wrote: post #325

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the rest of us also have the right to protect ourselves from them How does your right to protect yourself lead to a right to exclude someone else from society?

They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary. I don’t agree with those equating this with crimes and prison. Those are not equivalent, these people aren’t criminals and rounding up or imprisoning them is abhorrent. But to participate in society is about obligations as well as rights, and I th…

> They’re a danger to themselves and others. I have family members that work in health care that are affected by this. I don’t see why any further justification is necessary.

There is a lot more justification needed, because "They’re a danger to themselves and others." is a generalization that is potentially not true. Vaccinated people can still infect others, while an unvaccinated person can be more strict about testing and masking, which could in practice lead to better protection than just being vaccinated. Especially if the vaccination has been developed for the alpha strain and omicron seems not impressed by it, while for males under 40 the chance to contract myocarditis from vaccination is higher than for contracting it from covid.

I don't think that society has any right to bully individuals into taking a vaccine that has not been shown to really stop the spread and is not really efficient against the dominating strains of the virus. For making this an obligation, the results of the vaccine are not good enough, while this and the other counterarguments are not being discussed enough.

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

#526

Post by devwastaken »

LaunchAway1 wrote: post #172
kstenerud wrote: post #50

To clarify for non-Canadians: EI benefits are generally only given if you lose your employment through no fault of your own (didn't quit or get fired). What this policy does is clarify that losing work hours or your job due to vaccine refusal after a workplace vaccination mandate (outside of medical exemptions) does NOT count as "through no fault of your own", and instructs employers to indicate as such. So: For the…

That's an interesting point to make and defendable but these declarations mentioned in another comment, I will assume to be true, coming from Trudeau, Canada's president: “They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?" I have taken both shots, and will take the third but these declaration…

Can confirm Trudeau is right. Most of these vocal anti vaxxers are what he claims. It goes with the territory. Those that want to believe everyone else is wrong and they are the sole correct individual also fall into the tropes of superiority complexes's of various ism's. Having good reason to not be vaccinated isn't anti-vax. For example, active blood clotting. Anti vax is where an individual believes, with no knowledge, or misapplied knowledge, believes it's "wrong". Notice the "belief" involved. They don't want to listen to doctors and nobody can tell them nothing. It's the definition of applied ignorance.

These people have killed plenty of others. On the count of people killed and economic costs - it would be anti vaxxers that are the "mad men".

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

#527

Post by fit2rule »

Daishiman wrote: post #504
crisdux wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There have not been extensive studies. The original long term safety studies from the vaccine trials were stopped. There are huge issues in the original trials, they were not done with the rigor that we've come to expect from previous vaccines. There are plenty of examples of people who have disagreed with current vaccine policy and them being censored or destroyed- and have the bills to show for it! We even have ema…

This is absolute garbage. There are extensive, long-term trials, with results being published every day, on vaccine effectiveness for every vaccine and every variant from all sorts of public and private institutions all over the world. Do you even "do your own research"? There's new papers coming out that you can read on /r/covid19, easily summarized and explained, and they all points towards similar conclusions over…

No post body was provided.

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

#528

Post by random314 »

Radim wrote: post #518
dang wrote: post #495

Earlier quoted context omitted.

By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. This should not be hard to understand. As everyone knows, there's a vast history of people arguing ad Hitlerum in internet flamewars. It was already a cliché decades ago—in fact it is the most notorious internet cliché of all time. When invoked in the context of contemporary political debates, it's pure flamebait. That's against the site g…

> By "way over the top" I meant that your analogy was excessive and distracting. Nope, it wasn't. See my sibling response to random314 . Just because others cried wolf before, doesn't mean you shouldn't cry wolf when you see one. Indeed you must, given the parent post (detached now, context lost). I didn't draw that analogy out of nowhere – it's apt, and driven by both hard data and curiosity. Choosing to ignore your…

No post body was provided.

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

#529

Post by random314 »

Radim wrote: post #385
throw0101a wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 qu…

You seem to be really convinced by your analogy. I did not see the part in the Nazi timeline where the Jews were offered a free vaccine shot like every other German that would restore all of their rights.

I checked wikipedia and did not find it there either. It would be a real shame, if all the Jews had to do escape the holocaust was to accept a free vaccine shot like everyone else. Looking forward to references that expose this detail - because I couldn't find any.

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

#530

Post by blub »

LaunchAway1 wrote: post #172
kstenerud wrote: post #50

To clarify for non-Canadians: EI benefits are generally only given if you lose your employment through no fault of your own (didn't quit or get fired). What this policy does is clarify that losing work hours or your job due to vaccine refusal after a workplace vaccination mandate (outside of medical exemptions) does NOT count as "through no fault of your own", and instructs employers to indicate as such. So: For the…

That's an interesting point to make and defendable but these declarations mentioned in another comment, I will assume to be true, coming from Trudeau, Canada's president: “They don’t believe in science/progress and are very often misogynistic and racist....This leads us, as a leader and as a country, to make a choice: Do we tolerate these people?" I have taken both shots, and will take the third but these declaration…

Blaming the people that don't take the vaccine is the last refuge of the incompetent politician. What's even more ridiculous is that there's no way they'll be able to put three vaccines into whoever's left before Omicron comes and goes.
Post reply on HN