back to article IBM US staff must be fully vaccinated by December – or go back to bed without pay

All IBM employees in America must be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 by December 8 – or they’ll be suspended from work with no pay. “IBM’s health and safety practices are driven by science,” a spokesperson for Big Blue told The Register today. “Given the continued spread of COVID-19, the local clinical conditions around IBM …

  1. Version 1.0 Silver badge
    Joke

    Skipping vaccination?

    Will Google update their search page on November 11th?

    It's the anniversary of the Irish cook Mary Mallon's death in New York city - she had been quarantined twice and had never been offered a typhoid vaccination. The modern world is so much better.

    1. Gene Cash Silver badge

      Re: Skipping vaccination?

      According to https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3959940/

      Immunization against Salmonella typhi was not developed until 1911, and antibiotic treatment was not available until 1948

      (For reference, she was quarantined 1907-1910 and 1915-1938)

      Also from the same paper:

      No one ever attempted to explain to Mary the significance of being a “carrier”, instead they had offered to remove her gallbladder, something she had denied. She was unsuccessfully treated with Hexamethylenamin, laxatives, Urotropin, and brewer’s yeast.

  2. Simian Surprise

    So is this them "playing it safe" regarding who falls under the scope of the EO, or have management decided to see how far they can push their employees?

    I don't work at IBM, but I do work for a medium-sized multinational corporation, and (especially with the job market as it is right now...) I'd estimate we'd lose 5-10% of our staff by or before the deadline. (I don't necessarily agree with these people re: the vaccine, but I would certainly have a different opinion of management if they try to pull this s**t.)

    I also suspect that that 10% leans toward older and more senior people, and IMO you can't hire any number of junior devs to replace one.

    Time will tell, I suppose.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      No, the order is pretty clear that if you're a federal contractor, your employees must be vaccinated.

      IBM is a federal contractor, so therefore all the employees must be vaccinated, otherwise the government will yank the contracts. Not much grey area there.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      > I'd estimate we'd lose 5-10% of our staff by or before the deadline.

      The very best of luck to them trying to find a new job, after having had to explain during the interview that I got fired because I didn't want to get vaccinated for COVID.

      Guaranteed job offer on the spot.

      /S

      1. brotherelf

        Eh, it's going to be "My former employer's sociopolitical attitudes made it impossible for me to bring my whole unadulterated self to work."

        (What, me dark-gray cynic?)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          "My former employer didn't like that I was a selfish asshole who preferred to risk the health of other employees instead of getting a free vaccine for a fatal disease."

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            “ preferred to risk the health of other employees”

            You thick c*nt. If other people wanted to be protected they should get vaccinated themselves not pretend that someone else doing so will cover for them. Don’t even bring up those who cannot be immunised or the immuno-suppressed as they’ve got a whole host of additional woes to consider that go way beyond this.

            Don’t make me wear a life vest because you can’t swim.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge
              Facepalm

              RTFM "Big Blue added that employees may apply for religious or medical exemptions."

              Now put the fucking lifevest on unless you can justify it with one of those reasons. Bear in mind that you may be working next to someone who fits your definition in your posting, ie they can't "swim" for medical reasons so ideally everyone around them needs to be vaccinated. Vaccination doesn't stop you catching it nor stop you from spreading it, but it DOES markedly reduce the chances of either.

              1. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                If someone cannot be vaccinated, me being vaccinated won't help them. The vaccinated can still spread the virus quite nicely thank you, so that individual is still f*cked. I think for such a person you should really look for a better solution.

                PS It does not markedly reduce the chances of either. There have been plenty of outbreaks caused by vaccinated people as well as instances of unvaccinated people not causing outbreaks. Some people just emit a shitload of virus when they're infected and others don't. Stop believing the marketing materials, the veneer has quickly worn off of the original sales pitch.

                1. Alan_Peery

                  Blindly citing instances where infections have started from vaccinated individuals as proof that such infections are not markedly reduced shows you understand little about statistics.

                  Perhaps you should stand down on this argument unless you want to study a bit more about epidemiology and statistics.

              2. Anonymous Coward
                Anonymous Coward

                This actually isn't true (I work for IBM in the US).

                The initial notification went out with a link to an FAQ which indicated you could apply for religious or medical exemption, which included prior infection. In true IBM fashion, the next link you were supposed to follow to get information on this was dead for over a week. Now, there is no mention of religious exemption, or of exemption via prior infection. We just get sent to a general medical form that a doctor is supposed to fill out with zero guidance. Essentially, it's the same form you would fill out if you were unable to lift 40 pounds because of a pregnancy or back injury or whatnot. Our forms on whatever we send are supposed to be reviewed by a nurse (for what, we aren't told.) I will point out again that the standard has apparently "evolved" in the less than two weeks since we were sent the notice. Put your geek hats back on and pretend your boss has been demanding on prem MS SQL, and has pivoted to cloud based non relational DBs. Would you start asking why, what, when, how?

                Those outside the US will say, who cares, if they don't like the information, just go back to the doctor again and ask for more! We have to pay for each visit under our fantastic IBM plans generally, and IBM is not known for being timely or detailed in their responses. I spent four months trying to get the "us" portion of us.ibm.com removed from my email address and eventually gave up (client requirement driven.) Chances that they'll sit on my form until the day before I stop getting paid, and then tell me it is insufficient and not tell me why? High to certain.

                I have never even seen the IBM office in the home city that I'm based out of in almost a decade, either. No matter!

            2. Roland6 Silver badge

              >Don’t make me wear a life vest because you can’t swim.

              No, I'm making you wear a life vest so that if you fall in the water you will float, others don't have to watch you struggle and risk their lives recovering your body from the bottom of the lake.

    3. Adelio Silver badge

      Why would anyone refuse the vaccine. By refusing the vaccine you are increasing the risk of spreading COVID to other people. I do not care if you are happy to get COVID. It is the people around you.

      Why would i want to go to a hospital where staff were NOT vaccinated for COVID? Or any other place?

      1. Irongut Silver badge

        They just really want to be murderers but without any of the yucky chopping people up or trying to hide it from the police.

      2. DutchBasterd

        The vaccinated also spread, so there's that. No point for me to get vaccinated if the vaccinated can still get it and spread it, like they say I do.

        1. Helcat

          The difference is the vaccine (or having had Covid) reduces the risk of these things. This is because your immune system knows what to look for and how to react resulting in the infection being detected early, antibodies being released to contain, control then eliminate the virus early, limiting the replication and reducing the amount of virus you can emit and hence spread. End result is you're not as great a threat to others as someone who isn't vaccinated and has just caught Covid.

          It's the same with masks: They don't *stop* the spread, they reduce it significantly.

        2. DJO Silver badge

          No point for me to get vaccinated if the vaccinated can still get it

          I assume you are trolling but to clarify in case you are not:

          99% of deaths from C-19 are in unvaccinated patients.

          The vaccine is not just to prevent you from getting C-19, it's to reduce the effects if you do get it.

          1. Mark 65

            @DJO: I call outright bullshit on that statement. The UK produces full figures on deaths from delta broken down into above and below 50 as well as various vaccination states. The figures show that for the delta variant you’re talking utter shite. The death rate is pretty much the same, double vaxxed or not.

            Don’t quote made up numbers when real ones are available.

            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

            1. DJO Silver badge

              Dreadfully sorry, the actual number was 98.9% but I rounded it up.

              That was perhaps just one hospital. The BMJ report a 11 times factor so 91% instead of 99% still massively significant.

              https://www.bmj.com/content/374/bmj.n2282.

              BBC: Out of more than 51,000 Covid deaths in England between January and July 2021, only 256 occurred after two doses. that's a 99.5% differential. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-58545548)

              So it seems there are many different results but the trend is unmistakeable, vaccination massively mitigates the damage C-19 can cause.

              Page 3 of the report you linked to: (my emphasis)

              2 doses of the vaccine remain highly effective, with 60 to 85% effectiveness against infection, 90 to 99% effectiveness against hospitalisation, 90 to 95% against mortality and 65 to 99% against symptomatic disease.

              Did you actually read that report?

              1. DJO Silver badge

                Curious downvotes, I'm just quoting facts with references so the claims can be verified.

                I suppose reality is a bit much for some people but I do wonder what the motivation is for some people to spread demonstrably false claims about how masks or the vaccine don't work. Are they misinformed or are they just sociopaths who want as many deaths as possible or do they really believe the rubbish they spout.

                If there weren't lives at stake it'd be an interesting sociological study.

        3. fredesmite2
          Thumb Down

          But the vax don't get as sick .. as the unvax do.

          Isn't dying of #TrumpVirus a way to own a lib ?

          MAGA

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Some people believe natural immunity is superior, so catching and surviving the virus trumps the vaccine. This has some merit but the risks are much greater from the live virus than from a vaccine.

        Some people have had Covid and are objecting to being forced to have the vaccine as it has been shown to have negligible benefit to those who have had the virus, and therefor natural immunity. There is an argument over why the US gov want people who have had Covid to also have the vaccine - but this looks more like a record keeping issue: It's easier to record who has had the vaccine than who got a real mild case of Covid (those diagnosed due to hospitalisation, however - it's in their medical records. That's where real argument gets messy).

        Some people don't trust the offered vaccines. US are focused on mRNA vaccines which some people are worried about as they don't understand what these are. In the UK we had Pfizer (mRNA) and Astrazeneca (viral vector) - so people had a choice. Well, until a link between AZ and blood clots was found - even though very rare (4-6 per million), it affected the recommendation as to which vaccine someone should have, but under 30's can still have AZ as long as they understand the risks..

        Some people have health issues meaning they have to avoid a particular vaccine and if there's no alternative on offer: No vaccine for them (Pfizer has a risk of triggering anaphylaxis in people with severe allergies - this is a real danger to them so we recommend those with serious allergies to not have Pfizer. Not seen if the same is true for Moderna).

        This ties to some people having had medical advice not to have any vaccine, period. As long as it is genuine medical advice - there is an exemption under the US mandate (rightly so) but...

        Then you have religion. And that is the last reason I've heard of for refusing the vaccine: Because there *is* a religious exemption under US mandate. Go figure.

        So there you go. Those are non-conspiracy theory reasons for people not being vaccinated. Some of them are even open about being willing to reconsider as more information comes out on the vaccines, and others are just waiting on the medical advice to change.

        1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          "Then you have religion. And that is the last reason I've heard of for refusing the vaccine: Because there *is* a religious exemption under US mandate. Go figure."

          Is there a list anywhere showing which religions ban vaccines and why? I'm sure there are multiple reasons concerning ingredients, testing etc. It'd be nice to know.

          1. Ken G Bronze badge
            Facepalm

            If you come in to work with a signed note from God then you get an exemption, otherwise just suck it up!

        2. Roland6 Silver badge

          Because of the scale and speed of vaccination and the reporting of possible side effects, for probably the first time in human history we have some of the safest vaccines around. So the connection between AZ and the known to be rare blood clots was established within weeks and mitigated, rather than years. Yes this was only 4~6 deaths per million, however medical science has been able to move rapidly and select other vaccines for high risk groups.

          However, for the nutters and parts of the media the perception is the risk of actually having a side effect from a vaccine is much higher than the risk of contracting CoViD - which as we know is just a mild dose of flu... I think there is probably sufficient data to show there is a significant statistical connection between being an anti-vac and having a higher risk of dying from CoViD19.

      4. Mark 65

        Most recent outbreaks where I live in Australia have been caused by double vaccinated people, so there goes that theory.

        1. DJO Silver badge

          Anecdotal evidence is worthless.

          Let's see some real verifiable evidence for that assertion.

          Don’t quote made up facts when real ones are available.

          1. Mark 65

            https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/national/queensland/health-department-believes-they-ve-found-original-cases-in-aviation-cluster-20211002-p58wmh.html

            6 cases, all double vaccinated. I was quarantined because of it, so hardly anecdotal given the involvement of the health department you tit.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Just 6 cases...

              You tool, The state of Victoria is running at between 1,000 and 2,000 plus new cases a day! And guess what, the majority are unvaxed and the hospital system has gone into meltdown.

              If you think that that's ok then just talk to my wife a nurse, when she is on the ward it is 8-12 hours in full PPE as far as she is concerned if you are unvaxed then you shouldn't be allowed in hospital, you can die at home.

              The hospitals should be used for those that actually need them.

        2. Alan_Peery

          Citing the results of a few days in one location doesn't outweigh the much larger epidemiology studies showing a clear result of lower infection rates from vaccinated individuals who have had breakthrough instances.

  3. spold Silver badge

    It's just because...

    When you get RA'd the people you return your laptop to feel safer.

  4. SimonHayterUK

    Hmmm

    We know that BIG Pharma and the government are exempt from adverse effects but from what I can tell, employers are not. I'm fairly confident if the government doesn't mandate it, and the employer tells them no jab, no job, and then goes on to have some serious side effects, then the employer must be liable no?

    They keep bashing on how safe and effective this vaccine is, yet the VAERS and Yellow Card reports are through the roof, that aside, the vaccine is no way effective as they say it is. My partner works in care, she's had both jabs and all the patients she looks after, if these vaccines are so SAFE why the non-liablity clause, and secondly if the vaccines are so effective, why are people still having to wear masks, aprons, spit shields in environments where everyone is vaccinated. None of it makes sense.

    Whatever side of the fence you are in regards to vaccinations, this is wrong on so many levels, if the vaccine is safe, great, remove the clause, if the vaccine is effective, great, remove the masks.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      The US government has a program for compensation for adverse effects due to various vaccines, including the COVID-19 ones: https://www.hrsa.gov/cicp

      The current vaccines are not 100% effective, thus social distancing and masks still have value. The vaccines do greatly reduce the effects of getting infected and reduce the chance of transmitting it to others.

      Also, numbers of VAERs reports is, well, possibly useless. The public can submit anything they want, though false reports could be a crime, which might discourage some bad actors. Seriously, the site is full of warnings and caveats not to use the raw data as more than a basis for further investigation.

      1. DS999 Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm

        The biggest problem with VAERS is it is only "something happened after vaccination". You could have a bad heart, get vaccinated, then have a heart attack you would have had otherwise and it can be included.

        Not sure if something very obviously unrelated like dying in a plane crash after being vaccinated could be included, but the anti vax nutters wouldn't mind if it was as they could use a bigger number for their lies!

        1. Draco
          Paris Hilton

          Re: Hmmm

          >> The biggest problem with VAERS is it is only "something happened after vaccination". You could have a bad heart, get vaccinated, then have a heart attack you would have had otherwise and it can be included.

          You know this is the same argument that was used by those denying COVID deaths?

          The biggest problem with COVID-19 death is it is only "something happened after infection". You could have a bad heart, get infected, then have a heart attack you would have had otherwise and it can be included.

          The whole point of recording adverse effects following infection or vaccination is to see if there are any correlations. This empirical data gathering and analysis is - commonly - referred to as "science". As opposed to ideology which declares what is true and refuses to listen to (and often ridicules and demonizes) anything which questions said declared truth.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Hmmm @Draco

            I keep pointing this exact point out to my wife, who is rapidly moving towards the full on anti-vax view.

            She looks up the yellow card data and quotes it verbatim, without realising that many people who have had vaccines develop completely unrelated ailments, but fill in a yellow card anyway. It's the statistical analysis of this data that will produce the valuable information, not the raw data itself.

            For me, this is personal. I've developed Immune (sometimes written as Idiopathic) Thrombocytopenia Purpura (ITP) since taking the AZ vaccine. They've looked into my medical background, and can find nothing that is likely to have caused it other than the vaccine, so I have "probable vaccine induced ITP" in my medical record now.

            My wife takes this as a reason for nobody to take any of the vaccines (and is rapidly moving to the point that all vaccines against all ailments should be stopped), and she refuses to even consider any of the Covid-19 vaccines for herself.

            But I accept that I am one of the very small number of people who have had bad reactions, and I am not against other vaccinations, although I've been told to not have any third booster vaccination by the consultant who is looking after me. But he has said that I should have the Flu vaccine, for instance.

            Fortunately, I've completed the initial treatment, and am now one of the lucky ITP sufferers who is deemed to be in remission, at least until I have another episode, which could happen.

            Even after my experience. I would urge everybody to get vaccinated, although I'm having no success changing my wife's mind. I understand and accept the risks. For her, any risk is bad, although she still rides in cars and crosses the road!

            1. Draco
              Unhappy

              Re: Hmmm @Draco

              Sorry to hear you had an adverse reaction that appears correlated with the vaccine.

            2. Roland6 Silver badge

              Re: Hmmm @Draco

              >yellow card data

              Yes, as an event organiser it is quite interesting...

              For an event the size of the London Marathon for example, event organisation includes planning for heart attacks and deaths, just because statistically with that number of people, several are going to happen even before taking into consideration the elevation of risk the runners experience (for which the London Marathon now have many years of data to draw upon).

          2. BloggsyMaloan

            Re: Hmmm

            >those denying COVID deaths

            Covid deaths? Huh! It all went away by Easter 2020, like some sort of miracle.

          3. DS999 Silver badge

            There's an easy solution to that

            It has already been proven those covid deaths weren't fabricated by looking at excess deaths when compared to previous years. Turns out the covid death count (in the US at least) has been understated - probably by states like Florida where they were caught "adjusting" cause of death after the fact to try to hide how hard the state was being hit.

            You could do the same with VAERS, and compare deaths in those who have and have not been vaccinated. You would need to adjust your samples for stuff like age and overall health since older or less healthy people have been more likely to get vaccinated than the young and healthy. I haven't seen any such study but I have to think they have been done.

            The problem of course is that you'd have much higher deaths in the unvaccinated, because they are much more likely to die from covid, so I'm not sure it would act as proof that "death by vaccination" is almost non-existent. But it would clearly show that even to the extent one may be concerned about that, your odds of dying are still much higher if you don't get the shot.

    2. Schultz
      Boffin

      Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

      I was initially baffled by vaccine skeptics. How can you question the safety of vaccines that have been administered to billions of people in hundreds of different countries? The medical professionals managed to identify a few-in-10-million side effect of lethal blood clots for some vaccines in some sub-populations -- so clearly the health risks of these vaccines are monitored very closely!

      But I think I figured out the problem that leads to comments such as the one by SimonHayterUK: People have access to lots of data online and start interpreting it without the skills and efforts required to actually understand it. Scientists will scour data from VAERS or Yellow Card reports to determine actual vaccine health effects and separate those from reporting artefacts and noise. That's how they can link blood clots to Astra Zeneca vaccines and young people. Laymen will scour data from VAERS and Yellow Card reports and conclude that we are all Doomed, that COVID is fake, and that pregnant women will have schizophrenic teenagers in 2035.

      So we are all Doomed. Not because we will be killed by a non-liability clause, but because we don't trust the professionals who get paid to analyze the data properly and instead revert to hysterical fear-mongering.

      1. Draco
        Windows

        Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

        >> ... we don't trust the professionals who get paid to analyze the data properly and instead revert to hysterical fear-mongering.

        Maybe it's because it was the "professionals" who started the fear-mongering and now all we have are "hysterical" voices on both sides drowning out reasonable conversation?

        1. James Anderson

          Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

          How does warning the population about a highly infectious, severe and often fatal disease count as scaremongering

          Next time you step in front of a bus I shall keep quiet rather than be accused of hysteria.

          1. Draco
            Windows

            Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

            >> How does warning the population about a highly infectious, severe and often fatal disease count as scaremongering

            Well ... when the guidance a government (in this case UK) receives says:

            "A substantial number of people still do not feel sufficiently personally threatened; it could be that they are reassured by the low death rate in their demographic group ... The perceived level of personal threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging." (emphasis in the original document)

            It rather sounds like the UK government was advised to "scaremonger" in order to get people to behave a certain way.

            Other governments may have received other guidance (or similar guidance).

            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/887467/25-options-for-increasing-adherence-to-social-distancing-measures-22032020.pdf

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

              That same emboldened quote could just as easily be read as "certain people still don't understand the risk, we need to be more forceful and comprehensive in getting them to understand it"

              1. Draco
                Paris Hilton

                Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

                >> That same emboldened quote could just as easily be read as "certain people still don't understand the risk, we need to be more forceful and comprehensive in getting them to understand it

                You can't be that willfully blind to the text. If your reading was even remotely true, then I would have expected the paragraph to look something like this:

                "A substantial number of people still do not take this pandemic seriously; it could be that they are not aware of the high death rate in their demographic group ... Awareness of the threat needs to be increased among those who are complacent, using hard-hitting emotional messaging."

                Instead, they saw the problem as being that "people do not feel sufficiently threatened" and the way to deal with that wasn't to increase awareness, but to "increase the perceived level of threat".

                1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                  Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

                  Yes, well, isn't the English language wonderful. It can mean many things to many people. It's very difficult to be precise and most people, when speaking or writing, can be lazy and make assumption about their words that others may not make, thus potentially changing the meaning. Just because you expect something different to get another meaning doesn't mean that everyone does. They just may make different assumptions to you and thus the meaning can change. Of course, if you are dead set on only seeing one possible meaning from some words, then that is all you will see. It's quite possible, maybe even probable that your interpretation is correct. But where politicians are concerned, taking words at face value is highly risky. The interpretation I put on that text for the purposes of these comments is just as valid.

                  I should probably make it clear that I'm neither agreeing nor disagreeing with your interpretation. I'm just pointing out the vagaries of English.

        2. James Hughes 1

          Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

          It's not scaremongering IF ITS TRUE.

          Which it is.

          Don't be an idiot/antivax sheep/whatever. Get the vaccine. Save your own and possibly someone else's life.

          1. Draco
            Trollface

            Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

            CDC : "[F]rom December 14, 2020, through October 4, 2021 ... VAERS received 8,390 reports of death among people who received a COVID-19 vaccine.

            Hysterical person : People are dying from the vaccine.

            James Hughes 1 : "It's not scaremongering IF ITS TRUE.

            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/adverse-events.html

            ----------

            “The average adult has had sex innumerable times more than they have formed an opinion of their own.” ― Mokokoma Mokhonoana, The Use and Misuse of Children

            1. Alan_Peery

              Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

              Quoting adverse events from the vaccine without comparing to the danger of the disease without vaccination is rather like worrying about the bruises you get when your parachute opens.

              1. Roland6 Silver badge

                Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

                >when your parachute opens.

                something it isn't guaranteed to always do...

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

        I was initially baffled by vaccine skeptics. How can you question the safety of vaccines that have been administered to billions of people in hundreds of different countries?

        It's a combination of two factors. First the development and testing period was far shorter than any previous vaccine in history. Secondly, the most widely deployed types use technologies (mRNA and adenovirus vector for Pfizer/Moderna and AZ, respectively) which have never received approval for use in humans in the past. Understandably this lead to a greater degree of hesitancy than normal for vaccine launches.

        1. Schultz
          Boffin

          Re: Shorter development and new technologies

          It's a combination of two factors. First the development and testing period was far shorter than any previous vaccine in history. Secondly, the most widely deployed types use technologies (mRNA and adenovirus vector for Pfizer/Moderna and AZ, respectively) which have never received approval for use in humans in the past.

          Those are two god points, but let me address these issues:

          (1: fast development) -- Please note that (a) we are now 2 years beyond the development and still don't see any problems, (b) the technology was developed for more than a decade with the aim to create flu shots, so the development wasn't really that fast; they just had to insert the new coronavirus RNA, (c) the development was accelerated by a few billion dollars. That buys a lot of development man-hours.

          (2: new technology) -- RNA vaccines have been explored for quite a while but never got the big investment to race it to the market. Still, it was unclear if this technology would work, hence all the clinical tests. This is exactly the reason why we have government agencies and specialized institutes that investigate and certify drug safety. Unfortunately, a lot of people now think they are smarter than those professionals. I don't say that the professionals can be wrong, but they have a pretty good track record (and here I am looking beyond the US to many other excellent medical institutions, worldwide).

          To me it feels like this whole topic got blown up due to politics and not due to any rational or reasonable fears. Fortunately I don't live in the US and we only get the echoes of that whole excitement where I live.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Shorter development and new technologies

            Just for the record, I am not anti-vaccine. Everybody go and get jabbed! I have.

            But at least in the UK, none of the vaccines are yet to be fully licensed. They've been given an emergency use exemption to the licensing process, which will completed at some point.

            They've had all the testing that normal vaccines would have, but it's been compressed, and some people think that because the time that normal testing would take has not passed, that it's not to be trusted. But the number of people who have had the vaccines is huge compared to normal trials, so as long as they take note of people who report side effects, it should be equivalent to a smaller number of people over a longer time.

            It is still possible that some long-term side effects have not been spotted, but as time goes by, that is less and less likely to be the case.

            1. Helcat

              Re: Shorter development and new technologies

              "But at least in the UK, none of the vaccines are yet to be fully licensed"

              I think you mean 'Approved'. When Pfizer was approved, it was under a temporary (1 year) term. This was because we were still 'in' the EU and the EMA had to approve the vaccine for full approval. As a short term, emergency measure, individual countries could approve a vaccine or medication pending the approval of the EMA (which has happened) subject to a limited term of temporary approval.

              As to the quick turn around: Yes, it was the removal of delays in the overall process that saw this happen. So all the hoops were jumped through, I's dotted, T's crossed, etc.

              And example of how the process was sped up was in the testing: AZ, as the example, started production AT RISK at the start of the trials. All volunteers for ALL trials were found before the first trial began. The first trial is for immediate reactions: Is it safe to administer. It's then followed by a test to see if it's effective. As it passed that first point in the first trial, the second, larger trial, began. And similarly the third: They overlapped. So AT RISK, they were carried out over a shorter period, but each was a full trial.

              Also, the funding was there from the start: No hunting around for it. And production was under way (again, the at risk) so there was no delay in supplying the first doses.

              For clarity: At Risk means financial risk to AZ. If the vaccine had failed to meet standards, or to be approved, the whole lot would have been destroyed. This did happen to some other vaccines, which did not prove to be effective enough.

        2. Helcat

          Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

          AZ is a viral vector: a more established approach to vaccine creation.

          Specifically it's a chimp cold virus, modified to resemble Covid-19, without the nasty bits. This is a well established approach to vaccine development.

          mRNA has been approved before, just not for something on this scale. It's just that people haven't heard of it before which has caused hesitancy.

          So I really don't know where you got your information from, but I got mine from the NHS, and from the BBC interview with the Oxford team who produced it.

          1. SphericalCow

            Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

            <i>AZ is a viral vector: a more established approach to vaccine creation.

            Specifically it's a chimp cold virus, modified to resemble Covid-19, without the nasty bits. This is a well established approach to vaccine development.</i>

            This isn't quite right. Viral vector vaccines are novel and there have been just six approved for use in humans - four for COVID and two for Ebola. The first, rVSV-ZEBOV, for Ebola was cleared in November 2019.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Viral_vector_vaccine#History

            <i>mRNA has been approved before, just not for something on this scale. It's just that people haven't heard of it before which has caused hesitancy.</i>

            Again, this is incorrect. Research and trials on mRNA vaccines have been going on for 30 years but the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID vaccine was the very first to be approved.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MRNA_vaccine#Acceleration

      3. stiine Silver badge

        Re: Vaccine skepticism: A problem fueled by ubiquitous data and rarefied understanding

        Because there have been no long-term studies of the recipients of these vaccines. Probably because they've only been introduced.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      Well said mate, but as you can see by all the downvotes, all the sheep here don't agree !

      1. anonanonanonanonanon

        Re: Hmmm

        Why do all the people calling me sheep sound so similar to each other as if they're all getting their ideas and information from a very shallow and small pool

        1. James Hughes 1

          Re: Hmmm

          Exactly. The anti vxxrs are the sheep here. As well as being idiots, morons, easily lead, lacking in cogent thought. The list goes on.

          I tried making sensible arguments with these cretins. It's not possible, so now I am just calling them what they are. Fucking dumb idiots.

        2. Swarthy Silver badge
          WTF?

          Re: Hmmm

          And why are the people calling others "sheep" the ones most likely to be taking livestock medicine?

      2. katrinab Silver badge
        Paris Hilton

        Re: Hmmm

        What I don't get is the sheeple who won't take the vaccine because they don't think the level of approval given by the FDA/EMA/etc is robust enough, but will quite happily take horse de-worming pills and fish tank steriliser which are most definitely not approved.

    4. Adelio Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      Read the news (not fox), The vaccination means you are a lot less likely to catch covid, and if you do the effects will be a lot milder. Duhhhhh

      Nothing is 100% effective. The later variants of COVID are much easier to catch so the vaccine is even more important.

      If you do not want the vaccine, then PLEASE stay in your home. do not leave so that you can keep other people safe.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Read the news

        And... stop watching Fox News, OAN, Newsmax and especially Sky News Australia.

        Fox News spreads anti-Vax messages while requiring all staff to be Vaccinated including Tuckums.

        Remember that Dear Rupert was one of the first people in the UK to get the jab yet, his mouthpieces all over the world spout forth anti-vax conspiracies like they are candy floss at a fair.

      2. Dagg

        Re: Hmmm

        And if you catch COVID please do not go to the hospital.

    5. anonanonanonanonanon

      Re: Hmmm

      We're still wearing masks because a significant proportion of the population refuses to get vaccinated.

      You must lose a lot of detail seeing things only in black and white

    6. Outski Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      Yellow cards are through the roof because everyone was strongly encouraged to report any adverse side effects from a sore injection site to symptoms requiring hospitalisation (mercifully rare). This was to build the clearest picture possible of the safety off each vaccine.

      Personally, I spent 24 hours after my first shot feeling like I had a cold coming on, then was fine and yes, I reported it.

    7. BloggsyMaloan

      Re: Hmmm

      >if these vaccines are so SAFE why the non-liablity clause,

      Hell, yes! Thin end of the wedge. Next thing, car manufacturers won't want to be held liable when you drive your hunk of metal into another road user!

      >and secondly if the vaccines are so effective, why are people still having

      >to wear masks, aprons, spit shields in environments where everyone is

      >vaccinated.

      And if seat belts and ABS and driving tests are so effective why do we still have speed limits and other driving laws?

      Give the lawmakers an inch and they'll take all our freedoms away.

      >None of it makes sense.

      To some.

      (Warning, there is irony above, for the few who might not have spotted it).

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm

        Totally agree, Examples, especially in the US, of over-cautious liability dodging include;

        Objects in the rear view mirror are closer than they appear

        Caution: This coffee may be hot.

        This pack of peanuts may contain nuts.

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Hmmm

    I’m double vaccinated so certainly not anti-vax but I do believe in freedom of choice. This feels like some kind of breach of civil liberties to me. I’m sure this will get downvoted but I do think it is a very interesting debate.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      You still have freedom of choice.

      Choose 1 of the following:

      a) get vaccine, keep job

      b) don't get vaccine, get fired

      Make your choice. For better or worse, in the USA, having a job isn't a right.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hmmm

      But whose freedom of choice do you believe in?

      To give you another example of freedom of choice:

      In blitz London you could have exercised your freedom of choice to leave your lights on and curtains open. It's your choice. Hey I'm a blackout-skeptic - who can see 1 light from 10000 ft anyway?. Unfortunately if one person does that, everyone for miles around gets bombed.

      One blackout-sceptic voids everyone elses effort. One person exercises freedom to make their choice, and thousands who chose the opposite, have that choice rammed down their throats by 200lbs of high explosive.

      Those who choose to not vaccinate are making a choice for others that they have no moral right to make, and taking away the freedom of others. Worse they are choosing an imaginary benefit, usually for morally reprehensible reasons like political tribalism, and imposing absolutely real costs on others: sickness, death, and huge medical costs that the vaccinated will have to share.

      Society, and its leaders, have a perfect right, and a duty, to decide between a set of mutually exclusive freedoms. As they are mutually exclusive, the choice made, must be followed by all.

      Those who want to opt-out must pay a price * that is equal or greater than what they impose on everyone else, and must not benefit from free-loading.

      During wartime conchies had a choice of being medics on the front lines, or exile in Canada. They have never been given the option of just letting everyone else get shot at #

      *Of course being fired from IBM would probably be considered a reward by most people here

      # former us president not included

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm

        Those who choose to not vaccinate are making a choice for others that they have no moral right to make, and taking away the freedom of others. Worse they are choosing an imaginary benefit, usually for morally reprehensible reasons like political tribalism, and imposing absolutely real costs on others: sickness, death, and huge medical costs that the vaccinated will have to share.

        In which case we should all be mandated to take every single vaccine that big pharma releases?

        BTW, the COVID vaccines do very little to prevent transmission.That is clear from the Israeli experience. One of the most vaccinated countries in the world that simultaneously saw some of the highest case rates in the world.

        PS This will probably get rejected just like my previous factual comments, because the Register's mods have an agenda to uphold.

        1. diodesign (Written by Reg staff) Silver badge

          "PS This will probably get rejected"

          And yet here we are.

          Your other comment was rejected for anti-vax disinformation. You said: "the vaccine does not prevent someone acquiring and subsequently transmitting COVID. This is particularly true of the overwhelmingly dominant Delta variant."

          Which is disingenuous bollocks. The CDC says:

          "Infections with the Delta variant in vaccinated persons potentially have reduced transmissibility than infections in unvaccinated persons, although additional studies are needed."

          Not quite the picture you painted. Yeah you can still get the virus and spread it if vaccinated, but the vaccine is not totally powerless in this situation; there are signs it has an effect and we'll know for sure with more science.

          On the one hand, we're trying to lightly moderate these forums so people can argue it and figure it all out without us policing individual points. On the other hand, we can't flame Facebook for spreading anti-vax nonsense and then turn a total blind eye to it on our own boards.

          C.

          1. Aladdin Sane

            Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

            Ah, TheRegister. Come for the articles, stay for staff calling out disingenuous bollocks.

          2. Steve Button Silver badge

            Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

            Strange. I read his statement as "the vaccine does not *completely* prevent someone acquiring and subsequently transmitting COVID" whereas it looks like you are reading it as "the vaccine does not prevent someone acquiring and subsequently transmitting COVID *at all*"

            Obviously if you read it the way I've read it, then that's totally OK, right? So, not misinformation. Open to interpretation?

            And if you accept the argument that it doesn't completely prevent someone from acquiring or transmitting covid, then why on earth are IBM forcing people to take the vaccine... even those who work from home all the time? And the Israel example does kind of highlight that the vaccine is nowhere near as effective as they claim it to be

            https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html

            More like 39% effective at preventing transmission compared to the 93% originally claimed.

            Clearly I'm in the minority here and most people think it's perfectly fine for your employer to force you to have a medical procedure, which you might be uncomfortable with (for whatever reason).

            1. BloggsyMaloan

              Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

              "And the Israel example does kind of highlight that the vaccine is nowhere near as effective as they claim it to be

              https://www.nytimes.com/2021/07/23/science/covid-vaccine-israel-pfizer.html

              More like 39% effective at preventing transmission compared to the 93% originally claimed."

              So you are only interested in its effectiveness against transmission? (A known possibility from the start, as with some vaccines and not others. Scientists said that time and statistics will show).

              And that aspect (total effectiveness) makes you uninterested in good effects, such as reduced transmission and very substantially reduced hospitalisation and death rates?

              You wouldn't be cherry picking by any chance?

              1. Steve Button Silver badge

                Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

                In the context of an employer forcing you to take a vaccine, YES I'm only interested in how much it stops transmission because if it's to do with death or hospitalisation then that's totally my choice. BTW, I've chosen to have both jabs. I just don't think those who chose not to should be penalised.

                Also, some people might not want it because they have already had covid, recovered and they feel that their immune system is doing a better job than the vaccine (which seems to be the case).

                I don't get why this should even be a question. People should not be forced to take the vaccine for fear of losing their job. Perhaps if it was close to 100% effective against stopping the spread there might be an argument for that, but then when do you stop? Do you also mandate 'flu vaccines every year? Because there's a small chance you might catch it, and pass it onto someone else and they *might* die (a very very small chance). Where does it end?

            2. Ken G Bronze badge
              Boffin

              Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

              Working from home isn't a 100% of the time thing, you call into the office occasionally or out to clients. Saying you work for a company but won't meet your manager or your customers is a difficult argument.

              Get a vaccination, wear a mask.

              1. Steve Button Silver badge

                Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

                No.

          3. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

            Disingenuous? Your argument then goes on to support what you claim they stated, namely that “ the vaccine does not prevent someone acquiring and subsequently transmitting COVID”

            I was recently locked down as a secondary contact in an outbreak that was caused by and further transmitted by double vaccinated individuals. Don’t be so quick to dismiss that which you don’t like. The vaccines are proving less effective than first touted which is why you’re now onto booster shots. This is due to research carried out by the Israelis who also found that natural immunity offers far greater protection, which means that depending on your own personal situation may mean that is a more effective option.

            https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1018547/Technical_Briefing_23_21_09_16.pdf

            Page 19. Don’t think for a minute that vaccine makes you bullet proof. In fact it could encourage greater risk taking.

            1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

              Re: "PS This will probably get rejected"

              "Page 19. Don’t think for a minute that vaccine makes you bullet proof. In fact it could encourage greater risk taking."

              That is most certainly happening. I'm seeing far fewer people wearing masks despite them still being strongly recommended. Likewise, many more people not bothering with hand sanitising or cleaning theor shopping trolley handles. Even people falling back into their old disgusting habits of not washing their hands after going to the bogs in motorway services. And if any of those dirty bastards are reading this WASH YOUR FUCKING HANDS after taking a piss!!

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmmm

          In which case we should all be mandated to take every single vaccine that big pharma releases?

          No, when you can act independently, and your choice is not voiding other peoples choices and rights, then go for it. If you don't want rabies vaccine, or shingles vaccine, or blood transfusions, or antibiotics (for yourself) then in civil* society you are free to choose that. We don't give a damn.

          If you didn't want smallpox vaccine when it was prevalent, well that was unacceptable, because I don't want my kids dying or being horribly disfigured by it because you spread it.

          My point is not to debate if _this_ vaccine works or not, my point is that society has the right to make decisions when mutually exclusive choices collide. It has a right to choose concerted action. It in fact makes a decision when it does nothing. Tolerating the so called "right" to not vaccinate is in itself a decision to take away free choice from others (in this case the majority).

          *In military society you are not allowed those choices, because choices that might reduce your abilty to fight when needed, are a danger to other members of your corp, and thus not independent choices.

          1. The Real SteveP

            Re: Hmmm

            "Tolerating the so called "right" to not vaccinate is in itself a decision to take away free choice from others (in this case the majority)."

            First, I'll begin by stating that I have had A-Z one and two. Second, how does exercising the choice NOT to be vaccinated take away free choices from those that have been?

            Surely if 'the majority' have had their vaccines then you not having yours doesn't affect their rights and free choices? Obviously if the majority have had their shots (having exercised their free rights) then the worst that can happen is that a member of 'the majority' infects an unvaccinated person who then dies as a result. After all, we're told over and over that the vaccine prevents hospitalisation and death in the vast majority of cases, so those that have exercised their free rights to be vaccinated then are awarded another free right - to perhaps kill someone who hasn't been by infecting them!

            Just playing Devil's Advocate, but the free choices argument works both way you know...

        3. James Anderson

          Re: Hmmm

          Spain 80% double vaccinated, USA 50% double vaccinated.

          US 3,944 case per million inhabitants in the last two weeks and 68 deaths.

          Spain 528 cases per million inhabitant in the last two weeks 10 deaths.

          Maybe their is a connection between vaccination and survival?

          1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: Hmmm

            UK is also at 80%+ double vaccinate. On the other hand, the case rate is at a 7 day rolling average of 37,255 per day and a death rate of 112 per day averaged over the last 7 days.

            I think the majority of case are in the under 16's now back in school, unvaccinated. We only just started that programme while much of Europe has been vaccinating the 12-16 age group for a while now. It doesn't explain the difference in deaths between Spain and the UK though.

            1. James Anderson

              Re: Hmmm

              According to my numbers the UK is only 60 something per cent double vaccinated.

              The high death rate is among the non vaccinated refuse-nicks.

              Were I a U.K. tax payer I would be highly pissed off that am paying for the intensive care treatment (1328 GBP per day) of idiots who refused a cheap and effective vaccine.

              1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

                Re: Hmmm

                Ah, yes, statistics. 60% of the population id double vaccinated. My figure was for the the over 18's only, ie only those who until very recently were eligible. My mistake. On the other hand, I don't know if the Spanish figure is for all or just adult population. I'll assumes it's for all for now.

        4. Bloakey1

          Re: Hmmm

          "PS This will probably get rejected just like my previous factual comments, because the Register's mods have an agenda to uphold."

          Why is it that people who tend to side with the conspiracy theorists almost always seem to have a chip on their shoulder if not downright paranoia?

          It is as if these people have forgotten the old adage of read, mark and inwardly digest When confronted by the data they seem to read, apply theory and spout cobblers.

        5. BloggsyMaloan

          Re: Hmmm

          >In which case we should all be mandated to take every single

          >vaccine that big pharma releases?

          Must've missed that. Didn't realise I'd signed up to take every single vaccine that big pharma releases. Better get queueing...

          1. Ken G Bronze badge
            Boffin

            Re: Hmmm

            I'm perfectly willing to take limited edition vaccines from cottage pharmas if they pass EMA tests and address a potentially fatal disease of pandemic proportions.

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hmmm

        “ In blitz London you could have exercised your freedom of choice to leave your lights on and curtains open. It's your choice. Hey I'm a blackout-skeptic - who can see 1 light from 10000 ft anyway?. Unfortunately if one person does that, everyone for miles around gets bombed.”

        The difference is, and I’m playing devil’s advocate here, that didn’t involve sticking something in your body that was developed extremely fast, uses new-ish techniques (mRNA for some vaccines) and no longer term data for possible side effects. Drawing the curtains != modifying your body’s immune system (and again this is a devil’s advocate view - for interesting debate).

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmmm

          The difference is,... , that didn’t involve sticking something in your body that was developed extremely fast, uses new-ish techniques (mRNA for some vaccines) and no longer term data for possible side effects. Drawing the curtains != modifying your body’s immune system...

          So what? None of that matters now.

          Society has the right to choose, it has considered the points above (at far too great a length) and it has chosen. It now has the right and duty to stop defectors trying to void the choice made by the majority.

          The amount of special consideration we give those who wish to differ is in proportion to the cost they are prepared to pay for an exception. In this case, almost none of the objectors are prepared to pay anything meaningful for it. If they expect to sit at an air conditioned desk in IBM eating twinkies on Joe Bidens dime, they are now out of luck.

          But the good news is that there are heaps of vaccinated mexicans gastleiters picking cabbages happy to swap jobs* with the single IBMer who would actually leave instead of being vaxxed.

          *actually from my reading of El Reg, I understand that IBMers regularly mug wetbacks for their fake ID so they can escape to doing honest toil for decent employers

          ** also from extensive research in El Reg, if an IBM exec offered me "vaccine", I'd run like hell, and not stop before Guatemala.

      3. Ian Johnston Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm

        During wartime conchies had a choice of being medics on the front lines, or exile in Canada.

        There were many options for conscientious objectors. "Exile in Canada" was not one of them. Are you perhaps thinking of Americans who went to Canada to avoid the Vietnam war draft?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: Hmmm

          Indeed. Exile was an option, it was exile, because it was not a sanctioned one.

          I was being a little flippant about conchies. Our conchies had few choices and got the boot put very hard on the throat in ww1 and ww2, and lost civil rights for 10 years after.

    3. Irongut Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      Does it breach civil liberties if a non-vaccinated employee transmits the disease to their colleagues and several die gasping for breath?

      1. stiine Silver badge

        Re: Hmmm

        No.

    4. BloggsyMaloan

      Re: Hmmm

      >I’m double vaccinated so certainly not anti-vax but I do believe

      >in freedom of choice. This feels like some kind of breach of

      >civil liberties to me.

      Some countries have freedom of choice to have widespread gun-ownership and live in a society where self-culling helps to control the numbers. It's ironic that so many pro-lifers are simultaneously pro-deathers. Darwin would smile.

      As one of their political heroes said, ''Dying Aint' Much of A Livin', Boy''

      (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLRlY46ttfE)

      1. stiine Silver badge
        Mushroom

        Re: Hmmm

        And in some countries, you have to wait for your government to do it.

        p.s. the governments do a much more thorough job of it.

    5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Hmmm

      "This feels like some kind of breach of civil liberties to me."

      The USA has a history of mandatory vaccinations, especially in schools. Anyone applying for a green card has a list of vaccinations they MUST have. In some instances, parents can be charged with medical neglect if they refuse a vaccine for a child, eg high risk during an epidemic or as part of medical treatment for some wounds. Rules vary by jurisdiction, naturally.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Govt mandates workers get vaxxed

    Govt Contractor follows vaxx rules to keep contracts. I dont see a problem. Go work at a nongovt job if u wanna be an antivaxxer.

  7. FromTheRoot

    The register comments

    Have gone like London, leftanistan

    1. Piro Silver badge

      Re: The register comments

      It's sad.

    2. BloggsyMaloan

      Re: The register comments

      >Have gone like London, leftanistan

      Interesting how much can be deduced about the reliability of certain comments from their inventive misuse of language, similar to much email spam.

    3. MrMerrymaker

      Re: The register comments

      What's wrong with being left wing?

      1. Jim Mitchell

        Re: The register comments

        My left wing is where I got my two shots, lets not disparage it.

      2. Aladdin Sane

        Re: The register comments

        Mater and Pater's abode has a west wing, is that what they mean?

  8. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Tell them to stuff their job then ! Anyone who gets vaccinated because someone else tells you to deserves all they get as it makes no difference to anyone else except the person not vaccinated.

    1. Aladdin Sane

      Except the vaccines slow down the spread of the disease, therefore it affects the community as a whole and not just you as an individual.

    2. James Hughes 1

      Dumb fuckwit. Just get vaccinated and save some lives.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        “ Dumb fuckwit. Just get vaccinated and save some lives.”

        Oh, the irony.

    3. Dev_Fit

      Not true.

      "vaccinated people are less likely to spread the virus if they catch Delta: their levels of nasal virus drop faster than do those of unvaccinated infected people, and their nasal swabs contain smaller amounts of infectious virus."

      1. Mark 65

        I'd argue that will vary greatly by individual and given that vaccinated people are more likely to be asymptomatic, you probably haven't witnessed a good sample size from that segment from which to base data on. Some people are natural super-spreaders but most generally aren't. In Australia, Queensland has been lucky in that it has struggled to get a decent outbreak going (zero locally acquired cases at present) and yet New South Wales and Victoria have shot the lights out in that regard. Go figure. It certainly isn't vaccination rates helping.

        Most of these "better than"/"less than" statements come from controlled trials and not real world data. As usual, reality has a habit of pissing on a parade.

        The evidence from Israel is that those with natural immunity trump the vaccinated by around 13 times in terms of resistance to infection (or re-infection in their case). I'm failing to see why these people are somehow excluded from the discussion and you have to be either vaccinated or treated like shit. For those who are all for mandatory vaccination, go square that scientific circle.

  9. trevorde Silver badge

    Amazing!

    That IBM has any staff left in the US after all the RAs and 'workforce rebalancing'

  10. Uncle Slacky Silver badge
    Holmes

    Private company good, government bad

    Honestly this is going to be the only way Americans will submit to vaccination - as in other areas, when a private company does something, that's OK, but if government does it, it's bad. This is a commom USAnian mindset, compare things like surveillance and privacy for example.

  11. Outski Silver badge

    Vaccination as a hiring process tool

    At my firm (a law firm), I'd like to see vaccination status used in the hiring process (obvious exclusions applying for medical exemptions): both practitioners and we on the IT side are supposed to be able to analyse data and evidence and draw reasonable conclusions. If you've come to the conclusion that it's all a con, or that the various vaccines aren't anywhere near as effective as horse-worming tablets, you've failed that part of the recruitment process. Thanks for your application, we'll be in touch*.

    *We won't be in touch.

    1. anonanonanonanonanon

      Re: Vaccination as a hiring process tool

      If your job involves any kind of research, I would say raising some theories should automatically disqualify you from a job by simply casting doubt on said persons research abilities, maybe they just auto copy paste the first answer from github (Or more likely, the most downvoted one as anyone presenting a contrarian opinion is more likely to be correct than all those sheeple upvoting the top answers)

  12. Howard Sway Silver badge

    IBM’s health and safety practices are driven by science

    Genuinely pleased to hear them say this. Although they probably can't also say it, their technology is also driven by science, and therefore anybody dumb enough to fill their brain with anti-science ravings from the dank depths of social media should be easily prevented from working in a job where understanding of science and mathematics is a basic prerequisite.

    You have the right to believe all the uninformed conspiracy theories if you want. It doesn't give you the right to job that involves intelligent processing of information, in fact it proves that you're not very good at it.

    1. stiine Silver badge

      Re: IBM’s health and safety practices are driven by science

      They've got plenty of history keeping track of people, too.

  13. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    How can a company with no health qualifications try to force vaccinations on anybody, surely that amounts to unfair dismissal as there is absolutely no evidence to back up the crap they are trying to force on their workers, I hope all company's with the same idea's go to the wall ! Down vote me sheep as I don't give a toss !

    1. MrMerrymaker

      I'm not sure what's more offensive - your patently untrue myopia

      Or your misplaced apostrophes. I suppose being a conspiracy theorist doesn't rely on having the small details right though.

      But I do believe you're ill. I used to work in mental health. I don't now so don't take it as gospel.

      But conspiracy beliefs have been linked multiple times to narcissism, depression and low feelings of self worth.

      That isn't a crime. Maybe work on those directly though. Compassion and support is out there.

      Strangely not when you call people "sheep" for not wanting to die. What is your goal here? It's a poor attempt at "helping" anyone and I see it as a cry for help. As it is dressed up in aggression which, any fule know, stems from feelings about the self.

      By the way, I have COVID right now. I'm double jabbed, so I'm alright. But dear god. It is horrible. I feel worse than I have in years. I'd LOVE it to be a hoax right now.

      Some reading to back up my point anyway. You might not be a totally happy person, which is alright neither am I, but do look inside yourself.

      There are worse things than getting a little prick. Such as being one.

      https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0225964

      https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.646394/full

      https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0963721417718261

  14. Sixtiesplastictrektableware Bronze badge

    Dialectic Didactics?

    If somebody doubts vaxx and sci to begin with, how are these people gonna handle being told they're caught in an existential crisis?

    I mean, I figure you could show real-world, concrete examples of science in-situ, but how do you impart the need to see this conceptual sort of thing coming and avoid societal schism beforehand?

    I was all set to make a joke, but I got this far and now all I can think is "what the ontological f@#*?"

  15. MrMerrymaker

    Those who disagree with IBM doing this

    The really scary thing

    If you think they're wrong

    Is you thinking..

    You have a right to work for IBM!

    I mean if it was a decent company I'd understand..

  16. This post has been deleted by its author

  17. dmedin

    The intense level of unmitigated hatred shown here by those who believe they are terribly smart towards 'anti-vaxxers', and in many cases outright wishing that they would die, and in some cases even advocating for their death, is a good reason to have concern. This is very reminiscent of witch hunts and racial lynchings whipped up by similar undercurrents of hatred and intolerance.

    YOU'RE vaxxed. Why do you care if others are or aren't?

    Are you looking forward to vaxxing little babies and children, too?

    Are you looking forward to regular 'boosters' and the Vaxx Passport?

    Are you looking forward to intensifying totalitarian control by governments?

    You may not be sheep (I'd liken you to wolves), but you are certainly 'little pawns'.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Let's test your freedom of speech.

    Would you go online without AV? Why would you walk into an office or store without a vaccine?

    Anyone who thinks the vaccine doesn't work should come here and I will infect them so they can prove their point.

    1. stiine Silver badge

      Re: Let's test your freedom of speech.

      Define 'doesn't work'.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Let's test your freedom of speech.

        It works by saving lives and allowing some return to normality, however imperfect that is.

  19. Conundrum1885

    Not just that

    Because of a tiny minority of complete idiots we are most likely going back into lockdown tomorrow over here.

    The vaccine was offered to 12-15 year olds and most of them didn't take it up in many cases because their parents refused permission for stupid reasons like watching some video on Youtube.

    Call me a card carrying totalitarian but things like this make me wonder if a curfew for high risk groups would actually cut forward transmission.

    You can't even walk down some streets without being assaulted by anti-vaxx morons carring bright yellow placards.

    They've even resorted to spamming their propaganda through the mail.

  20. Dagg

    All anti-vaxxers should register

    Then when they catch COVID they are refused medical treatment or they have to pay full price for it.

    I can see medical insurance companies refusing to cover you for COVID if you have refused the vaccine.

    Two shots of vaccine are a lot cheaper than two weeks in an ICU on a ventilator. Why should those who are doing the right thing have to pay for those who won't.

  21. fredesmite2
    Mushroom

    Are dead-TrumpTrash really a bad thing ???

    MAGA AND DIE

    You're 11 times more likely to die of COVID if you're unvaccinated: CDC study .

  22. fredesmite2

    MAGA means dying of #TrumpVirus to own a lib

    Heavy Trump-voting counties have 'more than three times higher' Covid rate than Biden counties: report

    Counties that voted heavily for former President Donald Trump in 2020 have more than triple the infection rate for Covid-19 compared to counties that voted heavily for President Joe Biden, according to a new review of data.

    The New York Times reported on Monday that infections in pro-Trump counties are quickly escalating past the levels seen in Biden counties.

    As the report noted, red and blue areas of the country saw similar infection rates at the end of 2020.

    "There simply was not a strong partisan pattern to Covid during the first year that it was circulating in the U.S.," the Times said.

    But that all changed as Americans were given access to Covid-19 vaccines.

    "They proved so powerful, and the partisan attitudes toward them so different, that a gap in Covid's death toll quickly emerged," Times columnist David Leonhardt wrote. "The gap in Covid's death toll between red and blue America has grown faster over the past month than at any previous point."

    The report found that by October of this year, the infection rate in counties that heavily voted for Trump are "more than three times higher than the rate in heavily Biden counties."

    "This situation is a tragedy, in which irrational fears about vaccine side effects have overwhelmed rational fears about a deadly virus. It stems from disinformation — promoted by right-wing media, like Rupert Murdoch's Fox News, the Sinclair Broadcast Group and online sources — that preys on the distrust that results from stagnant living standards," Leonhardt concluded.

  23. fredesmite2

    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

    https://www.sorryantivaxxer.com/

    Anti-Vax Right Wingers Who Croaked Of COVID Since August 1st 2021:

    - Newsmax host Dick Farrel

    - South Carolina Tea Party leader Presley Stutts

    - Missouri GOP spokesman Steve Walsh

    - Texas GOP councilman Scott Apley

    - Right wing radio host Phil Valentine

    - Right wing radio host Tod Tucker

    - Christian radio host Jesse DeYoung

    - Wife of Maine GOP state Rep. Chris Johansen

    - Texas Minutemen Militia leader Caleb Wallace

    - Right wing radio host Marc Bernier

    - Georgia sheriff's deputy Joe Manning

    - QAnon leader Robert David Steele

    - Right wing radio host Bob Enyart

    - Televangelist Pastor Loren Sandford

    - Florida GOP official Gregg Prentice

    - North Carolina Libertarian Party chair Tom Howe

    - California Will Be Free leader Kristen Lowery

    - Right wing flat earth televangelist Rob Skiba

    - COVID "air purifier" company owner Brie Goolsby

    - Kentucky GOP state Sen. Katie Howard

    - Idaho GOP education official Pete Coulson

    - Alaska Liberty Coalition founder William Topel

    - Right wing televangelist Russ Dizdal

    ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

    ..

    300,000 DEAD #TRUMPBILLIES SINCE FEB 2021 !!!

    WE SHOULD ALL THANK POTUS JOE FOR KILLING MORE #TRUMPTRASH than ADOLF KILLED IN WWII !!!

    MAGA

  24. fredesmite2
    Mushroom

    Are dead-TrumpTrash really a bad thing ???

    Asking for a friend .

  25. fredesmite2
    Mushroom

    fact

    Virginia M. Rometty.

    The only person at IBM over the age of 50 that actually reached the retirement age without getting laid off.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2022