6 ms·

I'm shocked so many people on HN support this. The only way I know to prove someone received a vaccine is for them to turn over their medical history. What if

I'm shocked so many people on HN support this. The only way I know to prove someone received a vaccine is for them to turn over their medical history. What if companies start refusing to hire someone because they have a bad medical history (insurance costs anyone)? I'm sure many people will respond to this saying "they don't need to turn over their full medical history!" but once we turn over a part of it, they will want the next part, and the next, its inevitable. There will always be a safety and security justification. And what of remote workers? A fully remote employee exposes zero company employees to risk. But they will be mandated to have a vaccine? Why must we always lose one more right each day? Edit: Apparently you receive proof of vaccination for the current COVID vaccines in the US. But isn't that still sharing part of your medical history? I have never once been asked a single question about my medical history during a job interview.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago
> The only way I know to prove someone received a vaccine is for them to turn over their medical history. What if companies start refusing to hire someone because they have a bad medical history (insurance costs anyone)? When you're vaccinated, you receive a small official card with the vaccination details. In the United States, the vaccines are free. This has nothing to do with your general medical history or medical records.
- rolobio 5y ago
  Well thanks for the downvote. But isn't that card part of your medical history? What if they need proof you are vaccinated against measles? After all, its a proven vaccine...
  - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
    > But isn't that card part of your medical history? It's the narrowest, most specific data point possible to establish that you won't put other innocent people in the building at risk of a new outbreak. > What if they do other things after this thing? What if dogs had antlers? What if sidewalks were made of cheese?
    - rolobio 5y ago
      A dog is not related to antlers. But proof of vaccination is related to vaccination history.
wffurr 5y ago
Literally the first line of the article: “ Google announced Wednesday it would require all in-office workers and visitors to be vaccinated” Maybe click on it and read it before flying off on the handle?
- rolobio 5y ago
  I'm calling it now, they will require all employees to have this, remote or not.
  - wffurr 5y ago
    …but why? Why would they? And why would you think so? I think you’ve already decided what to believe and are just looking for ways to justify it. You’ve just got to support this “anti-freedom” narrative somehow for whatever mysterious reason that’s important to your ego and sense of self. I don’t get it.
  - yupper32 5y ago
    For what reason? Arbitrary control? Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.
    - rolobio 5y ago
      Why would they do it? They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe. My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.
      - dagsdgfhdgdj 5y ago
        > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not. I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.
TulliusCicero 5y ago
You don't have the right to put others at risk of harm. That's why, at least in the US, vaccinations are already usually mandatory for entering public school.
- rolobio 5y ago
  We do have that right. Take cars for example, we drive extremely dangerous machines down the road that kill thousands each year. They also put out dangerous pollutants that kill many people. We all live in a world where there is a give and take. It is only recently that people decided we have a right to live risk-free.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    No, you don't. We do accept some risks, but in the case of cars, there are quite a few mandatory things involved designed to limit the risk: it's illegal to drive without a license, illegal to drive while drunk, cars are required to have various safety features to be street-legal, etc. Same principle here. Vaccines don't completely eliminate the risk of danger from covid, they only reduce it, just like the car regulations.
    - rolobio 5y ago
      I can get a job without a car. How soon until I can't get a job without modifying my body?
      - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
        Some jobs require you to have a car (and a valid license, and an insurance policy). Others don't. Some jobs require you to work in close proximity with other people. Others don't.
        rolobio 5y ago
        These are good points. I suppose we will see how many other employers force their employees to be vaccinated, even if they are not in close proximity.
fabrice_d 5y ago
That could be done by not giving your medical history. Every vaccinated person should be delivered a proof of vaccination cryptographically signed by official authorities (eg. CDC in the US), with nothing more that "yes, Bob - ssn XXX - is fully vaccinated". Simple to verify by employers.
dragonwriter 5y ago
Relevant vaccination as a condition of work is not a new thing; what is different with the Google policy is: (1) It is not clearly a condition of employment, as remote work remains available, generally til mod October and individually beyond that. (2) The work condition to which it is relevant is “in office work” because of the still-ongoing pandemic, which has not historically been a work condition requiring vaccination. (3) The vaccines involved are under Emergency Use Authorizations, not generally approved. To the extent that #2 and #3 might otherwise make the policy questionable, I think as long as #1 is still the case there's not much real ground for that.
lanternfish 5y ago
'Google announced Wednesday it would require all in-office workers' First sentence of the article.
majormajor 5y ago
Before Obamacare, I did have to fill out my full medical history when starting a job in order to get the employer-provided health plan. So we've actually improved on that, thankfully! The pro-vacccination crowd doesn't seem like the crowd that's looking to turn back that clock.
- jhauris 5y ago
  That's interesting; I've been getting health insurance through my employers since that time as well, and never had to provide any health history. I thought that was part of the value of a group health plan.
  - majormajor 5y ago
    Curious. This was 2010 and 2011 in Texas and California. Looks like the pre-existing condition rules went into effect in 2014, https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... - I wasn't denied care because of any, but I assume they used them to price the plan for the employer. The 2010 plan also had a lifetime max benefit limit, which has now been removed. Or it could just be some plans are more privacy-invasive than others. But I hope not, it was nice to be able to stop filling out those forms.
yosefjaved1 5y ago
An employer requiring vaccinations prior to employment isn't unheard of in the US. It has been going on for several decades for workers in the education and healthcare industry as some of them have had to get vaccinated for chickenpox, measle, mumps, rubella, the flu, and other viruses as a requirement for employment at their respective organizations. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3346210001 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3346210001 Also, what would be the next part after this? We would want to first evaluate that before allowing them access to it. As for remote workers, I think that is a legitimate point and something companies should consider.
some-guy 5y ago
My enlarged prostate doesn't pose a risk to my co-workers--my immunization history does. There's a big difference.

PragmaticPulp 5y ago

> The only way I know to prove someone received a vaccine is for them to turn over their medical history. What if companies start refusing to hire someone because they have a bad medical history (insurance costs anyone)? When you're vaccinated, you receive a small official card with the vaccination details. In the United States, the vaccines are free. This has nothing to do with your general medical history or medical records.

rolobio 5y ago
Well thanks for the downvote. But isn't that card part of your medical history? What if they need proof you are vaccinated against measles? After all, its a proven vaccine...
- BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
  > But isn't that card part of your medical history? It's the narrowest, most specific data point possible to establish that you won't put other innocent people in the building at risk of a new outbreak. > What if they do other things after this thing? What if dogs had antlers? What if sidewalks were made of cheese?
  - rolobio 5y ago
    A dog is not related to antlers. But proof of vaccination is related to vaccination history.

wffurr 5y ago

Literally the first line of the article: “ Google announced Wednesday it would require all in-office workers and visitors to be vaccinated” Maybe click on it and read it before flying off on the handle?

rolobio 5y ago
I'm calling it now, they will require all employees to have this, remote or not.
- wffurr 5y ago
  …but why? Why would they? And why would you think so? I think you’ve already decided what to believe and are just looking for ways to justify it. You’ve just got to support this “anti-freedom” narrative somehow for whatever mysterious reason that’s important to your ego and sense of self. I don’t get it.
- yupper32 5y ago
  For what reason? Arbitrary control? Why does the right think that every government mandate that they don't understand (masks are the big one) are just about arbitrary control over people? It seems like a very common theme.
  - rolobio 5y ago
    Why would they do it? They will do it because they are trying to save lives. They think they are doing harm by allowing people NOT to take the vaccine. After all, how many people will die by unvaccinated people spreading the disease? They have a duty to save other humans! That is what I think they believe. My problem is that this is an overstep. They should stay in their lane, rather than mandating the health of their workers. If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not.
    - dagsdgfhdgdj 5y ago
      > If someone at Google died from drunk driving, would it be fair to ban alcohol? Of course not. I would expect Google to ban alcohol consumption at work if this causes safety hazards. So the answer is yes.

TulliusCicero 5y ago

You don't have the right to put others at risk of harm. That's why, at least in the US, vaccinations are already usually mandatory for entering public school.

rolobio 5y ago
We do have that right. Take cars for example, we drive extremely dangerous machines down the road that kill thousands each year. They also put out dangerous pollutants that kill many people. We all live in a world where there is a give and take. It is only recently that people decided we have a right to live risk-free.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  No, you don't. We do accept some risks, but in the case of cars, there are quite a few mandatory things involved designed to limit the risk: it's illegal to drive without a license, illegal to drive while drunk, cars are required to have various safety features to be street-legal, etc. Same principle here. Vaccines don't completely eliminate the risk of danger from covid, they only reduce it, just like the car regulations.
  - rolobio 5y ago
    I can get a job without a car. How soon until I can't get a job without modifying my body?
    - BHSPitMonkey 5y ago
      Some jobs require you to have a car (and a valid license, and an insurance policy). Others don't. Some jobs require you to work in close proximity with other people. Others don't.
      - rolobio 5y ago
        These are good points. I suppose we will see how many other employers force their employees to be vaccinated, even if they are not in close proximity.

fabrice_d 5y ago

That could be done by not giving your medical history. Every vaccinated person should be delivered a proof of vaccination cryptographically signed by official authorities (eg. CDC in the US), with nothing more that "yes, Bob - ssn XXX - is fully vaccinated". Simple to verify by employers.

dragonwriter 5y ago

Relevant vaccination as a condition of work is not a new thing; what is different with the Google policy is: (1) It is not clearly a condition of employment, as remote work remains available, generally til mod October and individually beyond that. (2) The work condition to which it is relevant is “in office work” because of the still-ongoing pandemic, which has not historically been a work condition requiring vaccination. (3) The vaccines involved are under Emergency Use Authorizations, not generally approved. To the extent that #2 and #3 might otherwise make the policy questionable, I think as long as #1 is still the case there's not much real ground for that.

lanternfish 5y ago

'Google announced Wednesday it would require all in-office workers' First sentence of the article.

majormajor 5y ago

Before Obamacare, I did have to fill out my full medical history when starting a job in order to get the employer-provided health plan. So we've actually improved on that, thankfully! The pro-vacccination crowd doesn't seem like the crowd that's looking to turn back that clock.

jhauris 5y ago
That's interesting; I've been getting health insurance through my employers since that time as well, and never had to provide any health history. I thought that was part of the value of a group health plan.
- majormajor 5y ago
  Curious. This was 2010 and 2011 in Texas and California. Looks like the pre-existing condition rules went into effect in 2014, https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-conditions/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/healthcare/about-the-aca/pre-existing-co... - I wasn't denied care because of any, but I assume they used them to price the plan for the employer. The 2010 plan also had a lifetime max benefit limit, which has now been removed. Or it could just be some plans are more privacy-invasive than others. But I hope not, it was nice to be able to stop filling out those forms.

yosefjaved1 5y ago

An employer requiring vaccinations prior to employment isn't unheard of in the US. It has been going on for several decades for workers in the education and healthcare industry as some of them have had to get vaccinated for chickenpox, measle, mumps, rubella, the flu, and other viruses as a requirement for employment at their respective organizations. https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3346210001 https://www.google.com/amp/s/amp.usatoday.com/amp/3346210001 Also, what would be the next part after this? We would want to first evaluate that before allowing them access to it. As for remote workers, I think that is a legitimate point and something companies should consider.

some-guy 5y ago

My enlarged prostate doesn't pose a risk to my co-workers--my immunization history does. There's a big difference.