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

971–980 of 1001 posts

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

#971

Post by CryptoPunk »

jasonlaramburu wrote: post #964
CryptoPunk wrote: post #957

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We have never used this justification to institute invasive laws to prohibit habits that lead to obesity, or to prohibit drug-use or alcohol consumption for that matter. And such laws would always come from the social conservative right, if they were ever instituted, not the people advocating vaccine mandates. Now socialization of medical expenses is being used to rationalize institutionalized discrimination against…

> We have never used this justification to institute invasive laws to prohibit habits that lead to obesity, or to prohibit drug-use or alcohol consumption for that matter. Correct, these things are not contagious to others.

I was referring to this particular rationalization in the grandparent comment:

>>This puts tremendous strain on the hospital system, and if they’re uninsured it means the taxpayers are covering the cost of their treatment.

Given the vaccines can't provide herd immunity, the contagion argument for mandates is shaky too.

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

#972

Post by trekz »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #955
billyhoffman wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different: You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me…

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.

Exactly. In addition to that, this recurring argument that compares vaccine mandates to mandates prohibiting "bad" acts is odd.

Legally speaking, mandating the vaccine is forcing a person to act (get jabbed) through no act of their own. Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). So the two scenarios aren't comparable.

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

#974

Post by nomoreplease »

sterlind wrote: post #876
moistrobot wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If COVID has proven anything in the US, it's how little control the federal government actually has. They've barely been able to enforce mask mandates. This is by design. We don't want a strong federal government. > The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water…

> We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab. I'm disabled and it's not my fault. I'm a healthy weight, I have a vegetarian diet high in vegetables, I do my rehab exercises every day and see the doctor frequently. And yet my condition is progr…

I’m sorry and you’re right, it’s not your fault. But that doesn’t disregard what the person you were replying to was saying. The government has not encouraged taking vitamins or exercise. In Colorado they banned people from going hiking in national forests, state parks, etc. Which is ironic given that’s a great way to socially distance

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

#975

Post by _nicelaris_ »

sterlind wrote: post #876
moistrobot wrote: post #833

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of comments here that fall back on some sort of a slippery slope argument, based in a worry about government overreach, is really disheartening. If COVID has proven anything in the US, it's how little control the federal government actually has. They've barely been able to enforce mask mandates. This is by design. We don't want a strong federal government. > The slippery slope argument doesn't hold water…

> We don't have a COVID problem, we have a health problem. Has the government been encouraging people to take vitamin D, get fresh air, exercise, and get to a healthy weight? The rhetoric has been sit down and get the jab. I'm disabled and it's not my fault. I'm a healthy weight, I have a vegetarian diet high in vegetables, I do my rehab exercises every day and see the doctor frequently. And yet my condition is progr…

If given the choice, would you have chosen to intentionally throw millions of healthy people out of work plunge our already doomed economy into a rapidly-increasing spiral of chaos, lock them in their homes (isolating them and skyrocketing cases of suicide and severe depression/anxiety), and force them to wear masks (that have very little discernable impact on transmission of the virus, but increase other physiological and psychological problems) for over a year just to protect yourself?

I suspect you answer is probably no, because you're probably a fairly sane and decent human being. If that's the case, why should we support the government in doing those same abominable things?

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

#976

Post by jasonlaramburu »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #970
dimator wrote: post #933

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Aren't unvaccinated individuals the ones who made this decision? You may disagree with the conclusion of their dubious risk analyses, but if you choose not to get vaccinated then all bets are off. This is the crux of it. They've made the decision, but when they fill up ICU beds and prevent sick or injured people from getting the quality of care that hospitals can provide, then their decision affects others (and thi…

If that's really the issue (it's not), then this can be addressed far more directly, by penalizing the unvaccinated when allocating ICU beds during shortages. But please be consistent and also penalize those who deliberately engage in other actions that put them at risk of needing medical care, like the obese, or those who abuse drugs and alcohol. What bothers me is the inconsistency. It's opportunistically seizing o…

There is no safe, free and effective vaccine against HIV, so these are not equivalent.

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

#977

Post by gilbetron »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #955
billyhoffman wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different: You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me…

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.

For variants other than Delta they greatly reduce transmission, with Delta they still reduce it, but not nearly as much.

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

#978

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

anonfornoreason wrote: post #872
jasonlaramburu wrote: post #869

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Until the government mandates food quality standards That's a great idea but if you believe that the government mandating workplace safety standards is massive overreach, then how could it possibly tell people what they can and cannot eat?

Not advocating for anything here, just pointing out (what seem to me) logically comparable things.

cynically advocating for a position you don't actually hold is one of the weakest ways to make a point, and the people who resort to it are almost invariably bad at judging what is and isn't comparable

be bold enough to advocate for a position here and defend it

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

#979

Post by jasonlaramburu »

trekz wrote: post #972
CryptoPunk wrote: post #955

Earlier quoted context omitted.

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.

Exactly. In addition to that, this recurring argument that compares vaccine mandates to mandates prohibiting "bad" acts is odd. Legally speaking, mandating the vaccine is forcing a person to act (get jabbed) through no act of their own. Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion). So the two scenarios aren't comparable.

> Mandating abortion bans is prohibiting an act (getting an abortion).

Banning abortion means de facto forcing someone to carry an unwanted pregnancy to term.

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

#980

Post by ImPostingOnHN »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #955
billyhoffman wrote: post #944

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> except the pro-choice people seem to overlap heavily with the pro-mandate people. I don't think you can logically hold both of those positions It’s about how your personal choices impact other people. To be deliberately shocking to help show why these are different: You can’t cough on me and give me an abortion. I can’t choose to have an abortion and that creates a super spreader event that gives everyone around me…

COVID vaccines don't stop transmission, so this is not about protecting other people.

they reduce it by a nonzero amount, which I believe to be an appropriate threshold, given the lack of common, significant side effects

you probably have a different threshold, which is okay, but it is likely one you will have to persuade the majority to adopt, if you want to get your way

Post reply on HN