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

OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

whitehouse.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 1001 posts

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#91

Post by FpUser »

lalaland1125 wrote: post #61
captainredbeard wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your employer paid you to come in early or stay late to get the vaccine -- why refuse? Because I make my own decisions and my willingness to do something is inversely proportional to how hard it is being pushed on me.

I would argue that if you are acting with the sole purpose to oppose other people, you aren't really making your own decisions. Blind opposition is just as silly as blindly following the flow.

>"Blind opposition is just as silly as blindly following the flow"

I think opposition to being pressured regardless of the reasons is quite normal and healthy behavior because in most of the life situations people are being pressured into something that benefits somebody else.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#93

Post by Woberto »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #89
probably_wrong wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it Became it's not about you , it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from…

This reasoning also would justify mandatory colonoscopies, or requiring a 3 mile daily run, for 100 million people. Yes, that might reduce the load on the health care system long term (except the colonoscopy & PT departments ...), but historically in the U.S. that would have been viewed as a galactic overreach.

The load on the system is apparently hugely different. The system has managed to accommodate people with colon cancer and heart disease, so mandating those things hasn't been as pressing from that perspective. Meanwhile, covid has filled up hospitals and ICUs

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#94

Post by commondream »

unyttigfjelltol wrote: post #89
probably_wrong wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it Became it's not about you , it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from…

This reasoning also would justify mandatory colonoscopies, or requiring a 3 mile daily run, for 100 million people. Yes, that might reduce the load on the health care system long term (except the colonoscopy & PT departments ...), but historically in the U.S. that would have been viewed as a galactic overreach.

Your city’s hospitals have run out of beds due to colon cancer? That’s wild.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#95

Post by bjt2n3904 »

probably_wrong wrote: post #81
captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

> Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? (...) I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it Became it's not about you , it's about everyone around you as a group. Those who are "comfortable catching the disease" are taking up a non-insignificant portion of available hospital beds, for instance, keeping health workers at their limit and preventing other people from…

I read an interesting article a while back, which asked... why were so many of the doctors in Nazi Germany willing to engage in sterilizing mentally deficient people, and other atrocities?[1]

The answer was because, healthcare was viewed as a collective good. Doctors did not treat a patient for their own benefit, they treated a patient for society's benefit.

And I see echoes of that here.

[1] - https://www.tabletmag.com/sections/history/articles/fernande...

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#96

Post by wbl »

walterbell wrote: post #8
lalaland1125 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would that change liability requirements? My fundamental question is that schools already have tons of vaccine requirements, so why should this one be considered special?

Because it alters the risk/benefit calculus. A sterilizing vaccine that stops transmission in its tracks, has a clear public health benefit to every part of society, even if there are risks. A non-sterilizing vaccine does not provide that society-wide public health benefit, leaving the employer to bear risks without benefit.

Schools require thr polio vaccine. That one is also nonsterilizing.

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#97

Post by FpUser »

jimmygrapes wrote: post #52
AndrewBissell wrote: post #29

What's that term for the fusion of state and corporate power?

Since the only person who answered properly was (correctly) flagged and banned, I'll answer your rhetorical question as accurately as I can: Italian Fascism promoted a corporatist economic system whereby employer and employee syndicates are linked together in associations to collectively represent the nation's economic producers and work alongside the state to set national economic policy.[0] [0] Andrew Vincent. Mode…

>"Since the only person who answered properly was (correctly) flagged and banned"

Maybe you can also explain why do you think it is "correct" to ban proper answer?

P.S. I'll take it back. I see that the person was banned for something else rather that for this "proper answer"

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#98

Post by Youden »

dang wrote: post #78

Recent and related: Biden to mandate coronavirus vaccine for federal workers - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28472856 - Sept 2021 (262 comments) The titles are emphasizing two different things, but it's the same announcement.

Aren't both of these titles editorialised and against guidelines?

The original title of the page is: "Path out of the Pandemic, President Biden's COVID-19 Action Plan", shouldn't that, or a derivative have been used instead?

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#99

Post by SQL2219 »

Taniwha wrote: post #79
xqcgrek2 wrote: post #67

1984 was not an instruction manual.

But this is not like 1984 - it's much more like all those movies where you join the army, go to boot camp and get all your shots on the first day

joining the army is voluntary

Re: OSHA to require employers with 100 employees vaccinate or test workforce

#100

Post by native_samples »

C19is20 wrote: post #83
captainredbeard wrote: post #11

Why must I be vaccinated if the vaccine doesn't prevent spread? Preventing spread to other people is the only plausible reason to force everyone to take it. I am comfortable catching the disease and even comfortable dying from it (the numbers are vastly on my side). I do far riskier things on a regular basis (extreme sports) and I do not understand the infantilization of society. Join the feedlot if you want but I wi…

You'll take up an icu's amount of resources.

That's what health insurance is for. If this was being driven by some sort of rationality, health insurers would just (be allowed to) increase premiums for people who don't take the vaccine. That would force people to properly calculate the true staffing needs imposed by them and pass the costs on to the right people.

This type of mandate does the opposite. Probably because, if you look at the actual risks and data from other countries, the difference in sickliness between the vaccinated and unvaccinated is sufficiently small in absolute terms, and the level of staffing at hospitals assuming healthcare workers are not forced out of their jobs sufficiently good, that the relative cost increase wouldn't work as a form of coercion. And it's now all about the coercion, not about health.

Post reply on HN