I'm feeling lucky: Google, Facebook say workers must be vaccinated before they return to offices Google employees can continue working from home until October 18 – after the web giant pushed back the date for staff to return to its offices from mid-September. Some of the search giant’s US campuses are open right now, and people can choose to go in if they want to. By mid-October, most staff are expected to return. However …
Microsoft employees refusing to get vaccinated because Bill Gates will put microchips in them?
Don't they know that Microsoft HW is really good - it's only their software that lets them down.
I can see Googlers being concerned though - you get the Google microchip and then 6months later they drop support for it
It is a little tricky, because I am equating a poor diet choice (which is not a medical intervention) with refusing preventative medical treatment (in the case of a vaccine).
However, both of those are a personal choice that carry certain health risks. Unless you want to expand your idea to "vaccinating yourself protects others" (which is a different point entirely), what's so special about one particular vaccine, compared to other risks that people apparently can take? After all, 31,000 people die of obesity in the UK every year.
Honestly, I take the same attitude for people who get sick and/or die from any self-induced problem, be that alcohol, smoking, drugs, poor diet, failure to exercise, or ignorance-based vaccine refusal. Our health service is backed up enough as it is, without people's own stupidity making it worse.
Especially when one's personal choices can have dire consequences for others around them.
Personal freedom is coupled with personal consequence and societal responsibility. The rest of society shouldn't have to suffer or receive a worse service because some choose to exercise personal freedom while not accepting personal consequences.
Fair enough. Based on the relative health risks, where would you put taking the Covid vaccine (especially for under-50s, to pick an aribtrary number)?
If you support the idea that it's ok to restrict people's lives if they haven't had the vaccine, what should we do to all of the current drinkers/smokers/eaters of cake/druggies?
Well, I'd say that's a pretty easy to make assessment:
vs
To me, the choice is clear. A miniscule chance of bad side-effects vs a quite realistic chance of developing long covid. Just had my second shot today.
Interesting. I have absolutely no idea on the numbers of people who have actually suffered from Long Covid, as I don't know if it has ever been measured, and which makes a useful analysis impossible. However, a close family member has suffered from "vaccine fatigue", which does not do justice to the 2 months and counting that they have suffered with extreme fatigue, and continue to be off work.
You also missed my point a little - which is, if you have such little sympathy for people who accept the risk of catching Covid, relatively speaking how much sympathy do you have for people who smoke when it will almost certainly give them lung cancer, make dietary choices that will almost certainly give them health issues, or take drugs that will almost certainly destroy their lives? By your standards, I'm sure you are demanding they are all locked up for the good of all.
It's still all probability though...
However safe a vaccine is, the chances of harm from it including long term issues and death, are not zero. They might be orders of magnitude less than the danger of the disease they protect against, but still not zero.
Secondly, risk factors for an individual can be very different than the group aggregate. For anyone over 60 the risk comparison of Covid vs vaccine is a no brainer - get vaccinated! For a young healthy person with no risk factors, strong immune system, high vit D levels, no intention of going to packed events etc, the risk of serious harm from covid is small enough to question the need of vaccination.
Thirdly, while I understand the argument that vaccinating oneself also protects others who are unable to take the vaccine, it's still taking a risk oneself to reduce the risk to others, essentially 'taking one for the team'. While it may be a noble act, it is not one that I would expect of anyone, nor shame anyone for thinking of themselves first, and least of all force that choice of anyone (including by indirect ways such as 'only vaccinated people in the office '.
Branding people who are cautious of or unwilling to take the vaccine as ill-informed conspiracy theorists is as useful as branding anyone taking the vaccine as sheeple who believe anything the government tells them.
Exactly. I see this as no different since not taking the vaccine makes you more dangerous to those around you (since no vaccine is 100% effective and there are some with medical issues that make them unable to receive the protection of the vaccine)
You want personal choice, fine, you have to live with the consequences of that personal choice just like the decision to take up smoking.
Similar to smoking I would totally support a surcharge for health insurance for those refusing to take the vaccine, since it increases the future cost of their health care (on average, obviously not all of them will catch covid and end up in the hospital)
"We ban smoking in indoor public places to protect others from them."
Which is the equivalent of wearing a mask but, we should help them further by forcing nicotine patches on them... especially the ones that are forced to work for a living.
It could asked to prove that this could be the beginning of a slippery slope but, then that would just ignore the slope across the last 30 years.
Get vaccinated to this particular virus or don't, I honest to god truly don't care, just don't open doors that will never be closed for the utility of abuse. People just keep on giving for the better of man, but the better of man never takes, as taking seems reserved for the worse of mankind.
Bollocks. When I was a kid the NHS was barely a decade old. When the doc told my mum it was time for my polio, measles, whooping cough and mumps vaccines she didn't go to the library to find a million reasons not to vaccinate me. She didn't wait until she'd been to the beetle drive that week to canvas the views of her friends. She listened to the doctors and, thank God, got me vaccinated and was grateful that she didn't have to pay. There was no hesitation when it was time for my TB vaccine because she knew people who'd died from it and she thought that a hole in my arm was better then coughing myself to death. There's a good chance that I wouldn't be here today if my mum and all the other mums since then had been as much of a twat as some people are today.
Nothing's changed from a medical or scientific point of view since those days over half a century ago. All that's changed is that in the past ten years or so people have access to much more information and some of them seem to give as much weight to the web equivalent of a bloke down the pub as they do to doctors. If it weren't so fucking serious it would be funny and if it only affected their lives then it wouldn't matter to me. Even ignoring the arguments about herd immunity and responsibility to one's community, a death never affects "just me". It's a devastating impact on a family to lose a parent, child, sibling, spouse - with results ranging from mental health issues to poverty and destitution. When the cause of this potentially-avoidable death is an opinion formed by reading shite on the web instead of listening to doctors then that is abuse.
just don't open doors that will never be closed for the utility of abuse. People just keep on giving for the better of man, but the better of man never takes, as taking seems reserved for the worse of mankind.
Excellently put. I am somewhat shocked by the speed with which sensible people are braying for the blood of those who murmer a word against the Covid vaccine, and all in the name of the "greater good". But then again, we never do learn.
Vaccines aren't quite 100% effective and some people can't get them without having a choice in the matter. This means that there's a minimum vaccination rate for herd immunity. If you're not contributing to it, it's sort of like walking around covered in feces 24/7. It's your right, do it at home all you please, but you're not getting into any shops or public venues because nobody wants to deal with an idiot disease farm.
Just like you have freedom to not get vaccinated, others have the freedom to choose their associations.
Traditional vaccines are great. These NEXT GEN vaccines do not prevent the transmission, they simply produce a protein that is responsible for making people very sick, by having antibodies for that protein you risks of dying or developing serious complications are lesser. Why are so many on here delusion to the fact these vaccines do not reduce transmission.
Just so I understand you, AC: you equate requiring vaccination with killing?
Despite there being a ton of data saying that the vaccines are reasonably safe[1]? And as the number of vaccinated increases fatalities and ICU admission drop, giving evidence to the advantages of vaccination?
I'm impressed, but not in a good way.
[1] Nothing is 100% safe, including taking a shower or having sex with the only person that loves you. Even the AstraZeneca vaccine is safer than riding a bicycle to work...
FDA must ensure that recipients of the vaccine under an EUA are informed ... that they have the option to accept or refuse the vaccine"
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained
In USA, can't force an EUA vaccine, but can force the choice of daily testing or vaccination.
I can't imagine it's any worse than knowingly refusing the vaccine while you don't mind chowing down on your Big Mac, and killing off the colleagues you work with, while claiming your freedoms are being affected by being made to vaccinate.
A coward like you probably drink drives as well.
"0 Covid so far"
Good for them, I wouldn't wish anyone to get ill from that, I've had family members and work colleagues who've had it, thankfully none of them have been hospitalised.
I can only assume your work colleagues have been following reasonably strict contact procedures (wearing masks, regularly washing hands etc, etc) in order to stay safe.
Or were you attempting to imply something else?
My workplace has been open all the time too. About six cases of Covid (in ~140 people), all caught from elsewhere.
It probably helps that we process food so it's an artificially cold environment that is kept extremely clean and everybody wears special clothing, face masks, and so on; plus hand washing about a hundred times a day...
"Talking of acid tests - my workplace has been open the entire time, with technicians making (essential) trips all over the country multiple times a week. 0 Covid so far."
Similar here. But only the essential staff who could not work from home. Those of us making trips all over the country, including hotel stays, were very, very cautious and careful. There has been covid cases, both back at base and the field team, but thankfully few of them, thanks to proper precautions being taken and the customers setting up separate clean areas for us to work in while on site.
BTW, for anyone who didn't get the chance to stay in a hotel for work purposes during lockdown, no, it's not fun. Room service only from a VERY limited menu, bars and all other communal areas closed obviously and nowhere else to go.
Would that mean that an employee to be allowed into work or not but never some of the time. That the number of at work employees is always constantly known. Saying your going to work and then not turning up doesn't count. And that the number of at work employees is recorded by chipping it in stone.
Well, why don't we save the wait, go and find all of those "selfish idiots", and forcibly inject them with HCl? Maybe we could parade them a little around the town first, just to remind people not to be "selfish".
I hope we re-discover our humanity, as the self-rightous desire to punish others leads to terrible places.
It's interesting watching US-based HR's carrot and stick coercion over vaccines:
- Photos of happy smiling colleagues getting shots.
- "Anonymous" vaccine surveys which will re-assure employees over the level of vaccination if and when they choose to return to offices (and won't in any way be used to push people into offices at all).
- Announcements which obviously don't take into account other countries' legal systems or virus spread.
- Somehow making spreading vaccine info the company's business when it's each country's health service business.
Still, I guess this is what happens when the US is free of an evil socialist nationwide healthcare service taking people's freedoms away... instead there's a great howling void and you're on your own, but anyway.
Just to note I'm vaccinated and got the certificate with verifiable QR code to prove it. This is just an observation on how the US has managed to make things so difficult for itself because under normal circumstances it won't use economies of scale for healthcare.
The US system may be inefficient - and especially so for covid since Trump decided to make the states individually responsible for everything so he could attempt to dodge any responsibility himself - but that lack of efficiency isn't the reason for the US vaccination rate.
Sure at first it was a clusterfuck trying to schedule a vaccination since things work differently in every state, and vaccine is being distributed by a myriad of methods each with a different sign up system. But by mid May everyone who was eager to be vaccinated had been vaccinated and it was no longer done by appointment. Now you can walk in to any number of drug/grocery stores and get vaccinated on a whim. Today it is all about hoping to convince those who are hesitant to make the choice - I'm hopeful that the vaccine will move from emergency authorization to full authorization sooner rather than later, as it may help with some of those.
The ones who just absolutely refuse are not going to have their mind changed regardless of how the vaccine is distributed, or what the government says. The only things left are mandates by certain employers and schools, and watching enough of your friends go to the hospital that you get scared and decide maybe right wing media doesn't have your best interests in heart. There was a report on the news that some people getting vaccinated in deep red areas are afraid of their friends, relatives, neighbors and coworkers finding out so they are coming in disguise or visiting a site a few counties over from where they live.
Though I really wish we had some sort of QR code sticker on ours, as there is a thriving underground industry of fake CDC certificates for antivax types to try to get around the vaccine requirements. That won't work everyone, but sadly it will probably work in enough places that we'll see outbreaks in places with vaccine mandates which the deniers will try to use to say "see the vaccine doesn't even work".
Idiots abound.
I have a cousin in Wyoming, which is apparently quite proud to be tied for being the third least vaccinated state (with Louisiana), after Idaho and Mississippi. He and his family are fully vaccinated, and have been since it was available to them. Every other household in the cul-de-sac that he lives in gives the Californian family shit because "they gave in to the vaccine scam".
However, he says that EVERY ONE of the vocal twats have told him privately that their households are fully vaccinated, too, but please don't tell the neighbors ... He's not sure if he should blow the whistle on all of 'em, or let the charade continue, secure in the knowledge that the "idiots from California" are seemingly the only family that is universally trusted ...
I told him he should probably keep his council until it's time to come home. Some battles just aren't worth getting involved in.
>since Trump decided to make the states individually responsible for everything so he could attempt to dodge any responsibility himself
Just a correction, that's not a trump policy, that's how the delegation of power has always been, as designed.. It's why biden has not "reversed" it, there's nothing to reverse.. It's how the system is designed as a protection against federal overreach, whether you agree with it or not.. It has nothing to do with trump, it's quite literally spelled out in the founding documents of the country.
US employment law gives employers significant control over what employees can and cannot do, even outside work. For example, it is possible to require employees not smoke, even outside of work and sack them if they do. Disney also banned beards only to find that this was not possible in Eurodisney.
Personally, I think this is overreach. But then so much is with this pandemic. I can understand vaccine requirement in healthcare and possibly public service situations, but then please the full slate, but otherwise it's overreach. Though I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated against COVID-19 but also the flu, etc.
Oh, and could someone please get the tech companies to show some more interest in some of the other diseases in the world such as resistant tuberculosis.
I work in the UK for an American firm. The reason I say this is that I think there may be a difference in what we think it is fair for an employer to demand. I'm fully vaccinated and wholeheartedly support vaccination. However, I think that if my employer told me that I had to be vaccinated, I'd tell them to GTF and go work somewhere else. To me it's a step too far.
Ah so we are going for 100% eradication. Interesting. Why are we eradicating Covid, with it's incredibly high survival rate? How do you plan to eradicate a rapidly-mutating airbourne virus, that comes from the same family of viruses as 20% of colds? It wouldn't be possible to jab people quick enough with the constant stream of new vaccines. I'm already hearing noises about the new and possibly vaccine-resistant lambda variant, and we've barely vaccinated everyone against the current variant.
0.02% is I believe the average IFR, and yes, that is a small percentage. It's also a global average, and varies considerably by region. And it's possibly that low because of massive global lockdown. Maybe it would be the same without lockdowns, we don't really know and don't have a time machine or transporter to an alternative reality, so we are where we are.
But as a number out of 7.9 billion people, that's 158 million people. Which is less small. Or are you happy for those 158 million to avoidably die, as long as you're not one of them?
It depends how you define "avoidably". Many deaths are "avoidable", if you have enough money.
As sad as it is, I don't count people dying of a respiratory virus at an average age greater than the average life expectancy, as particularly avoidable. Especially as it is becoming more apparent that a huge proportion of those caught it while in hospital, and not from "selfish" people like me doing "idiotic" things like going to the pub and having friends over.
Sounds a little like herd immunity, which does not actually wipe out a disease. It just provides some protection to people who do not have their own immunity to a particular disease.
I thought herd immunity was "dumb"?
In the case of coronaviruses, which mutate fairly rapidly, it's hard to see how vaccines will ever keep up, against natural immunity gained through some people becoming infected.
Herd immunity via "natural immunity" is dumb. You can't reach the threshold to achieve herd immunity, you just get lots of people dying or having long-lasting health effects. Also, "natural immunity" for Covid also doesn't last forever either.
This is why we have vaccines in the first place.
You can't reach the threshold to achieve herd immunity
Why not? Asymptomatic carriers make up a huge number of cases, maybe over 50%. The IFR is very very low, and generally confined to those already on death's door. "Long Covid" is much hyped, but there is no information out there on how many actually suffer from it.
Vaccines don't last forever, which is why we are already getting boosters. If recent history is anything to go by, we'll all also be locked up again once a variant escapes the vaccine (which is inevitable, given the properties of the virus in question), until a new vaccine is developed.
Asymptomatic carriers is a myth. There's no such thing. If you are 'asymptomatic then it simply means you are not carrying enough viral load to infect yourself. If you can't infect yourself then you certainly can't infect others.
Current thinking is that the asymptomatic carrier theory is born of the horrifically high false-positive rate of the inappropriate PCR test. You had a positive test, but you're not ill - you must be asymptomatic then. No, you either carry such a small viral load that your body will kill the virus before you become ill, or the test result is simply wrong.
I've had three C19 tests. Two were positive, one negative. Blood tests taken by my GP confirm I have no antibodies (I am not vaccinated) thusly I have never been exposed to the virus. The tests were simply wrong.
Yes, I thought the whole idea of "asymptomatic carriers" was completely ridiculous, and apparently a result of some desire to produce as many positive cases as possible.
Then, what is the difference between a person not displaying symptoms of Covid, and a vaccinated person, when it comes to "protecting others"?
The primary purpose is to protect oneself from severe illness and death from COVID-19.
A useful secondary effect is to reduce spread by not becoming highly infectious and passing it to others.
Protecting others is simply a natural consequence of that secondary effect.
At the personal scale, it's not the primary purpose. But at regional or national scale it has to be a consideration. Employers also have to consider the health and safety of their staff, and whether you agree with that or not isn't really relevant. They'll have done the risk assessments and cost-benefit analyses and concluded it's best to require everyone coming on-site to be vaccinated.
I note they've not said anything about terminating employment for refusniks. Just saying they'll have to continue working remotely. So far; that may yet change, and that probably would be a bridge too far.
My second dose is next Wednesday. If my employer told me I had to be vaccinated, I'd say "already done".
I don't vaccinate to protect others, that's a useful side effect. I vaccinate to look after myself. I really don't understand those who are so against it - do they want to catch it? Because as far as I can see, the results of catching it range from "nothing happens" to "absolute hell" and you won't know which dice roll you have made until it's too late.
I've taken a look at the age and health profile of Covid cases and deaths, and the age and health profile of those who have had side-effects from the vaccine, and decided that results that vary from "not much" through "I felt terrible for a week or two" to "I died of a blood clot" isn't worth it for me.
I do really appreciate you not pushing the idea that I need to get vaccintate to protect others, though. I have no idea where that insidious notion came from. The flu vaccine is generally less than 50% effective, flu kills 10,000's per year, yet we were not demanding everyone gets a flu shot to "protect others". This is despite the flu vacine being very well understood and cheap.
Some hospitals do require employees to get the flu vaccine, but for the general population it isn't done because the benefit ratio isn't the same as for covid.
Based the flu being 99% less prevalent last winter (in the US, YMMV) due the masking and social distancing, and covid killing 20x more people than die in a normal flu season, you can easily calculate that covid is hundreds of times more deadly than the flu.
So yeah, making different decisions about mandating covid vaccination versus flu vaccination is completely reasonable. Unless you want to wear a mask and be socially distanced for years to come.
Interesting assumption. If you examine how deaths were recorded in the UK since 2020, practically any death of a viral respiratory disease was counted as Covid. Tests, or even physical presence with or previous knowledge of, the deceased was not necessary.
That being true, we may never know exactly which virus people died of in the winter of 2020.
covid killing 20x more people than die in a normal flu season
That's just not true. Total excess deaths in the UK in the 2018/2019 winter were 50,000
due the masking and social distancing
Masks and social distancing haven't stopped the usual colds and sneezes from going around, especially in my kid's nursery.
If you examine how deaths were recorded in the UK since 2020, practically any death of a viral respiratory disease was counted as Covid
You have proof of that, or are you just parroting right wing lies? I thought so.
Hospitals know how to test for influenza, just like they know how to test for covid. The hospital my girlfriend works at (a major university hospital in the midwest US) has been testing everyone who comes in with respiratory symptoms for both since the pandemic began (and in many cases other stuff like pneumonia depending on symptoms, etc.) They had a SINGLE DIGIT number of positive influenza tests the entire winter flu season! Not a single patient died from influenza in the hospital the entire flu season, they've never even been single digits before.
So no, the covid deaths aren't covering up for a lot of flu deaths. There just have been almost no flu deaths, because there have been very few flu cases. The same precautions that limit the spread of covid also limit the spread of the flu, and since influenza is less contagious than covid those precautions are enough to almost completely wipe it out (not permanently, obviously it will return in the absence of those precautions due to animal reservoirs and travel to other countries)
Talking of "lies" and "parroting politically biased talking points", did you correct your statement that "20x more people died of Covid than a winter of flu deaths"? It's incredibly socially irresponsible to spread such fear-laden misinformation.
You have proof of that
I'm so glad you asked.
From the updated guidance, in these "emergency" times:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/877302/guidance-for-doctors-completing-medical-certificates-of-cause-of-death-covid-19.pdf
Medical practitioners are required to certify causes of death “to the best of their knowledge and belief”. Without diagnostic proof, if appropriate and to avoid delay, medical practitioners can circle ‘2’ in the MCCD (“information from post-mortem may be available later”) or tick Box B on the reverse of the MCCD for ante-morteminvestigations. For example, if before death the patient had symptoms typical of COVID-19 infection, but the test result has not been received, it would be satisfactory to give ‘COVID-19’ as the cause of death, tick Box B and then share the test result when it becomes available.In the circumstances of there being no swab, it is satisfactory to apply clinical judgement
So, if it looks Covid-y, it's fine to call it a Covid death, and you don't need to worry about a test. Other new guidelines in that document also exclude Covid from needing a coroner's attention, despite Covid's status normally requiring such a thing.
...That COVID-19 is a notifiable disease under the Health Protection (Notification) Regulations 2010 does not mean referral to a coroner is required by virtue of its notifiable status.
As such, the actual death count of people who died as a direct result of Covid is probably forever unknowable, as these guidelines have removed most of the processes and documentation that would allow an investigation.
And before you ask, no, I'm not on Facebook, I barely read the news, and don't watch TV. The mental clarity from rejecting the noise of mass and social media allows one to keep an open mind, and make evidence-based decisions about what is best for me, my family, and those closest to me.
"Masks and social distancing haven't stopped the usual colds and sneezes from going around, especially in my kid's nursery."
Just as a control number, how many of those kids at nursery were staying 2m apart, wearing masks and washing their hands regularly between sharing the toys, like adults were in their work places?
You can't make a three year old wear a mask unless it is locked on their face like a muzzle, and you can't force them to social distance unless you use a leash.
They are terrible examples for someone trying to claim that masks and social distancing don't work because kids are still passing colds around.
Not really. Why are the kids also not passing Covid around? Where did they get those colds from in the first place? I've had maybe 5 colds and snuffles recently, and 0 Covid. Some quick maths tells me that Covid must be infinitely less transmissible than the common cold...
Downvote because this is the first year since forever that I've not had either the flu or a half dozen rounds of colds. I had, actually, exactly zero. So I have no problem with wearing a mask for the foreseeable future. It won't do a lot of good though unless everybody else does too.
Oh, and using children to make a point is a weak argument. Children won't be following proper mask wearing protocol (hell, half of them don't even wear masks as for the young ones it would be like herding cats), they habitually invade each others personal space, things shared around might be washed off once or twice a day and not between each child (and the quality of the procedure will depend upon whether the teacher does it alone or if she has to keep an eye on the kids at the same time), and parents will kiss and snuggle their own. It's no surprise that schools are little flu factories.
Sorry but that's all non-sense. Unless you are wearing a N95 or K95, a typical homemade, poundland or surgery mask will not prevent you catching viruses. A good comparison is asbestos which is between 0.1um to 0.10um and SARS2 is between 0.06um to 1.4um, on average COVID is a lot smaller. When removing asbestos you use a hazmat suit with a full ventilation filter, you don't wear a cloth mask, they don't work, you wouldn't even dare to use a N95 or K95. Social distancing and the washing of hands is what contributes the most effective way of not spreading infections.
There's a lot of people confidently spouting complete bollocks on here today. Your mask isn't there to catch COVID particles directly. If it did, you wouldn't be able to breathe, as oxygen molecules are several hundred times larger.
The masks prevent you spraying water droplets everywhere, which are a vehicle for transmission because those droplets can contain the virus. This is basic, basic stuff.
Did you ever take a look at people wearing masks on cold winter's mornings? It was pretty obvious masks don't do much for stopping the water content of people's breath.
If it did, you wouldn't be able to breathe, as oxygen molecules are several hundred times larger
Do you have any idea what you're talking about? An oxygen molecule is several hundred times bigger than a virus? An oxygen molecule is 0.3nm across, a virus is about 300nm across.
Kids today have invented a new language and way of thinking that goes along with it ... "newspeak", if you will.
In it, a testimonial is just as good as data.
An accusation is considered proof.
Etc.
And to think they didn't have it thrust upon them by a government (sorry, George!), they invented it all by themselves ... with a little help from so-called "social" media.
So, you'll be getting a covid vaccine and wearing masks in the relevant places now too then? Good-oh.
Those safety features can save your life.
(Sorry, I wasn't consciously setting a trap for you there, but sice you walked into it anyway, I may as well take advantage of it)
Not a trap. The risks to me of Covid are minuscule, and the supposed benefits to others of me taking a vaccine (and wearing a mask, but then we're opening a whole different can of worms) are at best very small, and most likely unquantifiable.
I take greater risks cycling to work, yet I don't see people demanding I take a safer form of transport.
I took a cell-phone picture of my vaccination card and sent it to HR.
Back when the vaccine was for MMR and the avoiders were associated with Jenny McCarthy and Robert Kennedy Jr., you didn't hear quite so much about freedom. People sending their kids of to school had to provide vaccine records or, in some places, proof of their status as conscientious objectors under the Church of No Shots. California got a lot tougher after a measles outbreak around Disneyland.
Will these companies be taking responsability for any adverse effects suffered by employees? Given that they know that some people will suffer tremendous injury as a consequence of taking this experminental vaccine, to what extent should criminal prosecution of board members be considered?
Don't be silly. But, bosses already can and do withdrawn employment from people who do dangerous things in their own time.
Caught drink-driving? That can cost you your job pretty much immediately. Run someone down whilst drink-driving? Definitely out on your arse.
People generally have the right to make their own choices. But society has a collective right to call out some of those personal choices if they endanger others.
Does your concept of "freedom" trump the right of others to not be unwilling infected by what can be a fatal virus, and can certainly cause life-changing problems (long covid)? Personal freedom is never absolute, there's always some tempering so everyone isn't a total twat to everyone around them. Sometimes laws, sometimes just being a decent human being with some basic consideration for others.
Ah you were so reasonable about the fact that "protecting others" is a currently unquantified secondary benefit of being vaccinated, in another comment.
To make some numbers up - if you are protected with a vaccine that is 80% effective, does it matter that your colleague presents a 5% risk?
Should I be vaccinated against every disease that could kill someone, just in case I pass them on too?
"Should I be vaccinated against every disease that could kill someone, just in case I pass them on too?"
Generally speaking, yes.
If, it is an infectious disease, there is a vaccine available, and the disease is in active circulation where you are.
Probably no need to get the Ebola vaccine if you aren't in a place where it is active and you aren't planning to visit such a place.
I don't think they do smallpox vaccinations any more, because it has been eradicated from the planet, thanks to vaccines.
One of my qualifiers is “there is a vaccine available”.
Flu vaccines exist, yes, but is it possible to produce and administer enough in the required time frame to cover the whole population? If it is, then I would support doing it. Otherwise the limited resources have to be targeted where they are most effective.
From starting the research to vaccinating everyone is going to take, best case scenario, about 2 years. That's with two doses. For one dose, maybe you could do it in 18 months. That is using venues which would normally be used for other things. Not a problem in the case of coronavirus, because those other things can't restart until everyone is vaccinated anyway, but it would be a problem for a flu vaccine deployment.
Even so, 18 months is way too long for a successful flu vaccine deployment; so that's why I'm not sure it is viable.
Smallpox, you say?
"The risk of death after contracting the disease was about 30%, with higher rates among babies.[6][12] Often those who survived had extensive scarring of their skin, and some were left blind.[6]"
Sounds horrible. Given Covid's IFR of maybe 0.02%, Smallpox was 1500x more deadly, and worse for babies.
It was also not from a particularly fast-mutating family of viruses (being a DNA virus, unlike the RNA coronaviruses).
Smallpox was very deadly and mutated slowly. Sounds like an ideal vaccination candidate!
If I want to run the risk (which, by my demographic group, is absolutely miniscule), then do you have any concrete information or data on just how me being vaccinated will protect others? Let's say I'm a decent person who takes time off sick if I find I have viral flu-like symptoms. How does being vaccinated and asymptomatic differ from just being asymptomatic (or, as some people call it, "not ill")?
"some people will suffer tremendous injury as a consequence of taking this experminental vaccine"
It's a balancing act where the risk of harm (pretty low) weighs against the risk of continuing the spread of the virus (rather higher).
I, personally, opted for the vaccine because I'd rather take my chances with Moderna than with any of the Covid variations. It may harm me. It may even kill me. But then I could say the exact same thing about Covid and the main difference is that Moderna isn't trying to harm me. Covid is.
"to what extent should criminal prosecution of board members be considered?"
I should add - there's no case to answer. Companies are not forcing you to be vaccinated. They are simply requiring that you be vaccinated in order to continue working for them. If you disagree that strongly, seek employment elsewhere.
The companies are at liberty make these demands. That's the thing with liberty. It cuts many ways, crosses many lines and can, subjectively, be quantified. The reactionary, libertarian types*, who hold a great deal of power at the moment, don't really get that so we all end up with lower total liberty than your average citizen of Taiwan or South Korea.
* I shall refrain from using stronger language.
If it were purely a decision based on rent, nobody would be talking about returning to the office.
People are starting to look at their priorities after spending a year working stupid hours from home doing what is very often essentially pointless work. Businesses that make overtime a regular occurrence and can't offer fulfilling work are losing their staff and want to get their employees back at the office drinking the kool aid as soon as possible.
What if they've read all the anti-vax bollox on Facebook?
There's a woman on my street still walking up to people handing out loony religious anti-vax / covid "hoax" conspiracy theory leaflets to unfortunate passers by - I've read one and it has printed links to several Facebook pages. And she's been doing this for a year, so they can't have been taken down.
I've had all my vaccines and believe in them but I have to say I am astonished that so many readers of 'The Register' are cheering on for employers with vaccination coercion. Enforced vaccinations are a breach of the right to autonomy and bodily integrity. It is a dangerous foundation to lay for any work place to require a medical procedure, yes it is just an injection, but these vaccines are not without risks. They save lives, but they can also destroy them, does Google, Amazon or Facebook provide insurance for them should something go wrong as it has for many of thousands around the world? since big pharma is exempt in both adverse affects, and even medical negligence under the emergency use clause.
Another issue is many Register readers seem to truly believe that these vaccines reduce transmission, as the great vaccines that have come before them, such as polio, smallpox, measles, rubella, and so on, but to compare these vaccines is silly. Traditional vaccines prompt a full immune response, and not a particular protein. They are NEXT GEN that are currently 'leaky' which is a medical term for many breakthroughs, which drives both the spread and mutation. If these vaccines stopped the transmission we would not be seeing a huge SPIKE in heavily vaccinated countries, Israel is a good, they are having more and more cases and the majority of the citizens are vaccinated, twice.
It seems to me that so many people want things to return to normal they ain't thinking through. These current vaccines you may need 2-3 boosters a year because the antibodies don't last for long the older you get, who wants that? and these current vaccines are leaky, and do not stop the spread a great deal as they should when comed with traditional vaccines. So many people have put the trust in these vaccines without data, and in many countries unable to challenge the status quo without being called a nut case. I seriously believe these vaccines are no good, and we should be working on new vaccines
I remember watching familiar landmarks go by as I rode from my home to the hospital in the back of an ambulance, thinking "will I see any of these things again?". Pubs, Tescos, even a bloody McDonalds. I had Covid.
Two days after I left hospital, I was offered a vaccine, but had to wait another 28 days before jab one.
I had my second vaccine over three months ago and I don't know if the covid or vaccines are responsible for the constant fatigue and the muscle aches, but if I have to choose between another vaccination or making that ambulance ride again: I'm rolling up my sleeve.
So many comments and I couldn't see one who gets that the core problem is not vaccinated vs. unvaccinated but whether an employer has the right to demand your private medical records (or a random doorman at a nightclub for that matter).
If employers, and the state, can demand your private medical records you're going to start lying to your doctor which is going to massively negatively impact your future treatment (do you smoke, how much do tou drink, how many sexual partners, what is your typical diet, how much sugar, how often do you exercise etc.)
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
