42 ms·

Google and Facebook mandate vaccines for employees at U.S. offices

283 points by daenz 5y ago

endianswap 5y ago
> We will have a process for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons What might "other reasons" be?
- davidcbc 5y ago
  Religious most likely
  - bluedevil2k 5y ago
    Unfortunately, this loophole will negate the entire mandate.
    - abeyer 5y ago
      It will be abused, but hopefully at least some people might feel ashamed at such abuse and not go through with it when they have to do so on an individual basis.
    - bialpio 5y ago
      If I recall correctly, there are ways to ask for religious exemption to some of the requirements (e.g. vaccination when immigrating, answering "no" to an immigration question about willing to bear arms for the US), but they require establishing proof that you have been a member of a religious community that has rules conflicting with the mandate - it's not as easy as saying "it is so because I say so". Depending on how enforcement will happen, it may be possible to at least reduce the loophole.
    - paxys 5y ago
      Vaccination isn't an all or nothing game. Every single bit helps. Some people will always opt out one way or another, but that doesn't make the entire policy useless.
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      No it won't. My employer mandated vaccines. Exceptions for sincere religious belief or documented medical reasons. I didn't want the vaccine but I wasn't going to lie about having a legitimate religious reason for it. Some people will, but most people wont. So I got the shot, but if I have any serious side effects I will certainly be contacting a personal injury attorney.
      - donkarma 5y ago
        Who do you plan on suing?
  - endianswap 5y ago
    Hard to call something like this "mandatory" if you can just opt-out for non-verifiable personal reasons.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      They use the word "cannot". What is the point of a mandate if not to compel the "will not" crowd?
  - danans 5y ago
    Though very few religions oppose vaccines: https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/religious-exemption-for-vaccines-christian-scientists-catholics-and-dutch-reform-church.html https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/religious-exemption-for...
    - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
      It's really shaky to say "religions" don't oppose vaccines because religious interpretation (and personal interactions with their god(s)) is up to the individual. But it's all irrelevant in this case because Google is almost entirely an at-will employer. They can change the terms of the agreement at any time - take it or leave it.
      - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
        I suspect they might run into trouble if they started discriminating against specific religions.
  - SlowBall 5y ago
    I respect more the position of an individual saying he doesn't want to get the vaccine because of his personal convictions than because his religions tells him so (although, to be clear, I think both are stupid positions). Hopefully Google will only allow exemptions based on health issues.
  - abootstrapper 5y ago
    Political more likely.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
rantwasp 5y ago
oh snap. I totally understand this measure and, for the record, agree with it, but I'm picturing the pushback that this will lead to.
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  Fuck the pushback. We cannot let the worst of mankind condemn us all to death because we don’t want to upset the worst of mankind.
  - d4mi3n 5y ago
    I’m all for getting everyone vaccinated as well, but I’d be really concerned about the precedent this sets. The reasons governments are reluctant to do this is they it sets a precedent for them to dictate what a person can do with their bodies. Saying someone must have an injection, regardless of how well intentioned it is, requires you to be able to dictate what goes into their body. Pretty much the same set of powers that would dictate the old pro-life vs pro-choice debate. I’m greatly conflicted. I want people vaccinated, but I personally do not like the idea of giving up bodily autonomy to do so.
    - azpa 5y ago
      Unclear how different this is from the draft.
      - jimmydorry 5y ago
        Society has progressed from such times. There are many things that were acceptable back then that would not be now. If the draft was re-enacted, we would hopefully see strong pushback.
      - rantwasp 5y ago
        i think the draft is way worse in that you are separated from your family and there is a real possibility you’re going to die. also, remember that this is not the government. your employer can ask you to do anything (within limits) and invoke at-will employment when you don’t want to do it. I love capitalism!
standardUser 5y ago
To be perfectly clear, they are mandating employees be vaccinated if they want to physically go in to an office, not to do (or keep) their jobs.
- bananabiscuit 5y ago
  But Google is also planning on requiring people to go back to the office starting September. You can apply for a transfer to a remote position, but that requires that there be a remote position available for you to take and then finding it and matching into it. So yeah, sounds like unless you are already remote, they are requiring you take the vaccine in order to keep your job.
  - Justin_Time 5y ago
    As mentioned in the article, this date is being pushed back to (at least) mid-October.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      At which point you will be dismissed if you have not found and secured a remote position within the company. That part of the policy has not changed. Until they announce it has we should assume they are intending to follow though.
      - shaklee3 5y ago
        It's a choice though. You could just get vaccinated and not worry about getting fired.
        atatatat 5y ago
        That is the dichotomy that is being criticized, yes.
        joshuahughes 5y ago
        "just get vaccinated and not worry about getting fired" The word 'just' must be one of the most heavily used words of the last 18 months. The problem is that 'just' is the start of a slippery slope. Governments and organisations rarely withdraw authoritarian diktats, once we've allowed them in.
raverbashing 5y ago
I can't blame Google for not wanting disease spreaders in their campus. It's their prerogative as a private company. Remains to be seen how companies that won't enforce this will perform. In my guess, poorly
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  As of now, everyone, included the vaccinated are still disease spreaders.
  - raverbashing 5y ago
    Vaccines not cutting transmission in 100% are still a poor reason to not have everyone vaccinated. Anti-vaxxers pretend they worry about the ones who can't get vaccinated when they're actually who makes things unsafer for them
    - imwillofficial 5y ago
      This isn’t a question of cutting it out 100%, the data from Israel has the majority of new cases being those who are vaccinated.
    - dang 5y ago
      Please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar on eternal flamewar topics. We've had to ask you about this countless times. Would you please just stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
      - raverbashing 5y ago
        Sorry about that dang, I see now how that comment didn't add much of value, and got carried away.
        dang 5y ago
        Appreciated!
nixpulvis 5y ago
It's honestly fascinating to me that this is going to be the way we meet Privacy vs Security face to face more broadly. Intrapersonally, they might go hand in hand, but in the group setting, they seem almost at direct odds. Security (or safety) requires some social contracts to be fulfilled. When these social contracts aren't enough we start to see polices and law take up the slack. Our existing privacy laws and regulations (e.g. HIPPA compliance) could be argued to be too strict, whereas at the same time, we're in an age of spyware / ad-tracking which is in dire need of curtailment.
- paxys 5y ago
  Is this really pushing the envelope though? Routine drug testing by employers, for example, has been considered totally acceptable by society for decades now. I'd consider a one-time proof of vaccination against a deadly pandemic to be far less intrusive than that.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Before this year I think most would have agreed that requiring an injection of a novel pharmaceutical is more intrusive than a non-medically invasive test of urine or hair follicle.
  - briefcomment 5y ago
    Having to put something in your body is different than most requirements. Only thing that's close is childhood vaccination I guess.
    - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
      They can drug test you. Isn't that just controlling what you are allowed to put in your body?
      - briefcomment 5y ago
        You're not compelled to put something in your body.
im3w1l 5y ago
Google and Facebook are the most important companies for controlling information flow in the modern world. As a side effect this rule will increase conformity in their ranks, with predictable consequences.
- throwawaysea 5y ago
  I didn’t even think of that angle, but you are completely correct. Each decision to constrain their ranks in some way makes them less representative of other populations of people, whose information these companies still will control.
- yosito 5y ago
  > with predictable consequences I predict that the consequences will be less COVID transmission among their employees. Shudder.
paxys 5y ago
One angle that isn't being discussed – having vaccinated employees greatly reduces healthcare costs for the company and its insurance provider. I'm sure they would love to enforce vaccinations, annual checkups, healthy diet, exercise, no smoking etc. among employees as a condition for providing insurance or employment if there wasn't a social pushback for doing so.
- Steltek 5y ago
  Isn't it simpler than that? Fewer employees taking unnecessary extended sick leave, which endangers deadlines and complicates project planning. I would be pissed if I need to upend a release if some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU.
  - joshuahughes 5y ago
    > some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU Don't know what it's like over in the US, but here in the UK 'the vaccinated' aren't some tiny percentage of hospitalisations. Actually, they're currently sitting around 40%, which means there's almost as much chance of your VACCINATED colleague "winning himself a trip to the ICU" as the unvaccinated. You might want to use the word 'idiot' more cautiously. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistak...
    - arn 5y ago
      But there are more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, so it’s proportionally not “almost as much chance”. Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated.
      - forcry 5y ago
        >Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated. So apparently, vaccines can never fail, by definition!
shrubble 5y ago
From the first point of the Nuremberg Code: 'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code
- SlowBall 5y ago
  And your point is? No one is strapping down Google employees to a chair to inject them with a vaccine. They are free not to take it if they chose to do so, and accept the consequences of their actions like any adult would.
  - shrubble 5y ago
    I'd classify 'get an experimental vaccine with known possibility of side effects or we fire you from your job' as 'element of force', 'duress', and 'coercion'. Am I to understand that you would not?
    - SlowBall 5y ago
      You know, you make a good point. I think the problem with your argument is equating the covid vaccine to medical experimentation as considered in the Nuremberg Code. That code was written as the result of the Nazi experimentation of human subjects. The covid vaccine is technically experimental under the FDA definition only because it hasn't received full approval yet, but it has already gone through trials that (to some extent) have proved its safety. I don't think "medical experiment" has used in the code is the same as in the case of the covid vaccine as of today.
pokstad 5y ago
Makes no rational sense. The unvaccinated choose to be unvaccinated. You can walk into any Walgreens and get vaccinated for free. The vaccines have over 99% efficacy. Over 99% of new infections are unvaccinated people. Vast majority of vaccinated people getting infected with delta are having mild illness. If I had to bet, these sorts of policies actually disincentivize people to get vaccinated. Let everyone suffer so you can keep living unvaccinated.
- neogodless 5y ago
  > these sorts of policies actually disincentivize people to get vaccinated Can you explain your logic?
  - ticviking 5y ago
    Reverse psychology. I know lots of people who say something along the lines of, “if it worked they wouldn’t need to pay me to get it” People are weird that way and will allow confirmation bias to push them even more out of whack
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    Irrational exuberance for the vaccine drives some people to doubt. The vaccine is a very reasonable thing to get but that doesn’t mean everyone in favor of it is behaving or thinking rationally. When you have people turning something reasonable into a quasi religious moral obligation it is going to attract opposition, behaving irrationally is harmful even for something which is a good idea.
oldcigarette 5y ago
I work at google and am vaxxed but this pisses me off. I decided that the vaccine was worth the risk and for the best overall but if someone makes a different calculus I can understand and respect that. IMHO they gone way outside the reasonable scope of an employer - this is a cultural decision at the society level - why the fuck does my employer give a shit about this. Unless the employees are only commuting back and forth to work this does fuck all. It's feel good virtue signalling and I can't stomach any more counter productive SJW bullshit. The risk from COVID is not even that high for vaccinated individuals. What low risk bullshit are they going to make rules about next? Don't expect me to smile when you ask me to trade freedom for a bit of false security. Want to change something? Then change societies perspective on the vaccine on your own fucking time. Personally this ranks with their worst decisions and they made some fucking awful decisions over the years. I probably will act as if I don't have the vaccine and let them fire me for it when push comes to shove.
- cma 5y ago
  > this is a cultural decision at the society level - why the fuck does my employer give a shit about this. I don't think they should care if it is work from home (except that it potentially raises insurance premiums for everyone if they come down with some kind of chronic stuff from getting covid or being intubated or have to pay out company life insurance policies), but in the office there is is an obvious interest in having people vaccinated, just like college dorm rooms required even before covid.
  - oldcigarette 5y ago
    Yeah I totally get that there is an interest - I disagree with whether it's a big enough interest at the employer level to justify a requirement. It feels more like pandering/posturing to me. The trade off isn't something that's easily weighed and I doubt we could ever reach consensus (it's pretty much a classic divisive political issue) but in those cases I err on the side of freedom and am sort of fed up with Americans giving up their freedoms.
- b0sk 5y ago
  Vaccination is not a "this is a cultural decision at the society level". It has saved millions and millions of lives. Maybe change your employer if you are so pissed at them?
nomoreplease 5y ago
Current research shows that the previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine. So previously infected should be sufficient, yet I expect these companies not to care about that
- hexa22 5y ago
  Is there any research showing that these people should not get vaccinated? At worst it does nothing, at best it helps. I don’t see why google should bother with an exception here.
  - colechristensen 5y ago
    At worst it can do worse than nothing. For a big chunk of the population vaccinating is very safe because the virus is very dangerous. A vaccine doesn’t have to be very safe for a disease that kills on the order of one in a thousand off otherwise healthy adults. Being very young or already having contracted the virus significantly alters it’s risk profile. With a virus several orders of magnitude less deadly you have to start being much more careful that the vaccine is provably considerably safer than doing nothing. That’s not hard when you’re trying to beat 1 in 1000. It is very hard when you’re trying to beat a one in millions risk. There have been concerns and side effects. Much less amplitude in signal compared to the virus, but still big enough to halt briefly a few of the vaccines, still enough that small children don’t get emergency authorization, still enough for a few warnings about immune reactions. It is very rational to take a one in a million risk to prevent a one in a thousand risk. It is very rational to pause before taking a one in a million risk that could very well prevent nothing.
  - yobbo 5y ago
    The worst case is pretty terrible. From my experience, the immune reaction to the vaccine after having had the infection is an order magnitude worse than what the brochures and previously uninfected people say.
- ksec 5y ago
  Oh that is interesting. Most Data have shown previous infection tends to have much better Anti-Bodies than all vaccines. And I was under the impression that previous infection automatically equaled to have vaccinated, at least in the few countries I know of. So that is not the case in US and you still have to get a vaccine? Or is it simply because there is no "proof" that you have been previously infected?
walkedaway 5y ago
Totally surprised that companies that are Orwellian and anti-science have policies that are Orwellian and anti-science.
dang 5y ago
All: please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar on eternal flamewar topics. "Vax versus antivax" is one of the most tedious of them all. If you're tempted to post angrily about how wrong and bad the other side is, please inhibit that impulse. If your comment was going to repeat something we've all heard many times before, please don't post it. Obviously the vax theme is topical in this case—that makes this a good chance to apply discernment and distinguish between thoughtful, substantive comments and shallow, dismissive ones. As that is what we all should be doing on HN anyway, practice is good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
josh_today 5y ago
Today the entire state of New York had ZERO covid related deaths. Yet this week we saw NYC and State employees and now major private corporations mandate the vaccine. For the record I will never disclosure my health status so don’t assume one way or another.
- rualca 5y ago
  > Today the entire state of New York had ZERO covid related deaths. Yet this week we saw NYC and State employees and now major private corporations mandate the vaccine. It seems NYC has been registering a daily average of new 700 confirmed cases of covid, which is growing fast. This is a lower limit of the true rate of transmission as they reflect confirmed cases through molecular tests. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page In this page, if you check the graph, you'll notice that NYC is registering a new wave of covid infections that is as the highest level in about two months. Even though covid infections in NYC are spiking, death rates are not. This is expectedly the result of the vaccination campaign. No wonder they are mandating the vaccine. That's the only way to prevent another death wave.
  - josh_today 5y ago
    > Even though covid infections in NYC are spiking, death rates are not. This is expectedly the result of the vaccination campaign. Source?
    - rualca 5y ago
      Source for which part? The numbers of NYC's infections and death rates, or that practically all covid-related deaths right now happen in patients who are not vaccinated?
- jwilber 5y ago
  Deaths lag so the point is irrelevant. You could just as easily argue it points in favor of vaccines.
boulos 5y ago
Can someone explain the “I won’t get it until it’s fully approved by the FDA” logic to me? Unlike usual vaccine trials, these vaccines have been deployed worldwide with hundreds of millions of people across many different conditions. Europe stopped using some due to an extremely rare blood clotting episode that was tens of people out millions. That suggests that rare, acute side effects have been (mostly?) discovered. AFAICT, the FDA rules for full licenses seem to require a six month trial, as well as more information on process / manufacturing / quality control. That just doesn’t seem that important compared to the massive, real-world “trial” data. What am I missing?
- ozzydave 5y ago
  I expect for the most part it’s a fig leaf, and when it is approved the goal posts will move. Then it will be, “the FDA rushed approval” with no evidence presented or required.
  - boulos 5y ago
    That’s certainly going to be true for some people. But my express goal in this thread is to hear a good faith “full authorization argument” from someone who honestly argues for it. I believe arguments exist that I haven’t considered.
- kderbyma 5y ago
  I set myself a smart goal. 2024. clinical trials for all will be finished by the end of 2023 at the latest and then, give it a couple months to wrap up and draft or bury and reports. that is my basis. it's Smart.
  - __m 5y ago
    Unless you get infected
    - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
      I upvoted both you and the parent, as both positions are valid. The difficulty of the issue is that a personal decision to vaccinate or not influences also the health of other people. This result could be weaker if Google didn't insist on forcing people back to the office - but they already made the decision so you either comply or lose your job, there is not much to discuss.
nindalf 5y ago
I’ve typed out 3 comments to 3 separate people before deleting them. I didn’t see the point. Folks, it’s a good idea to heed dang’s warning at the top of the thread. I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here. Just people absolutely convinced of their ideas and principles, shouting past each other. Nothing we haven’t seen on this topic 50 times before. You’re better off going outside for a walk.
- simondotau 5y ago
  As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which cannot be countered by deriding the people who are sincerely captured by it. Instead, I suggest you walk them through the statistics and place them into human terms and human context. Show them how to calculate risk of death. Show them how to calculate risk of long term injury.
  - TulliusCicero 5y ago
    > Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. People have absolutely changed their minds because of internet discussions. Usually it's not one of the participants, though.
    - kiliancs 5y ago
      Also, change takes time. There's a digestion process. Of course some people are not interested in finding truth and simply cling to their own opinion.
    - simondotau 5y ago
      My advice was meant to be interpreted in a more holistic sense. It is true that occasionally, people have had their minds changed by reading an internet discussion. But most people are more likely to change someone's mind by speaking to people they know in the real world, than they are by contributing to the noise on the Internet.
criticaltinker 5y ago
Like many others here, I am concerned about the influence that large corporations have on public health policy and personal health decisions. Is it fair to legally require these corporations to disclose conflicts of interest (eg investment in vaccines, or manufacturers thereof) given decisions of this magnitude? Can they be held accountable if scientific consensus changes, such that it in hindsight it becomes obvious that forcing vaccinated people to return to densely populated indoor buildings further jeopardized public health in general? To be more concrete with respect to how such a situation may unfold, please see this peer reviewed paper published in April 2021 "Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein"[1]. Some key highlights from [1]: - "Evidence from multiple experimental studies showing that single RBD point mutations can lead to resistance to neutralizing convalescent plasma from multiple donors suggests that specific single mutants may be able to evade spike-targeting vaccinal immunity in many individuals and rapidly lead to spread of vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV-2." - "Our work suggests that it is likely that standing genetic variation alone has already produced a substantial population of viruses with single and double nucleotide changes that confer nAb resistance. These variants will establish quickly in the population under selection pressure. In fact, there is already a precedent for this behavior, as one such selective sweep occurred early on in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic when the D614G mutation rose to nearly 80% frequency in under 6 months [33]." - "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape. In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus, greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." - "The juxtaposition of a relatively constrained immune response against the high degree of evolutionary plasticity of the spike RBD (visible even under neutral drift conditions) suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has extensive capacity to evolve to evade nAbs targeting a small number of antigenic regions. This capacity will negatively impact SARS-CoV-2 immunity in humans, whether active (vaccinal or natural) or passive (nAb prophylactics)." [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...
ReadEvalPost 5y ago
I'm really upset with this decision. I have not gotten the vaccine as I prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID over the unknown longitudinal risk of the vaccine. My right to make these personal decisions regarding my bodily autonomy is extremely important to me. Under no circumstances will I yield that decision to my employer! Their demand only further reinforces my desire not to take the vaccine. Which sucks, I like my job.
- fruityrudy 5y ago
  4 billion people have been vaccinated. Don’t oh think you have your risk numbers wrong? Do you think you are consistent in your risk judgement across all parts of your life? E.g have you ever taken drugs? Illicit or prescription?
- blub 5y ago
  You can try transferring to an EU office, it's unlikely that they can mandate vaccination there. :-)
  - hef19898 5y ago
    I wouldn't bet on it. Which is a good thing if you ask me. Because without mandatory vaccinations we will prolong this shitty thing for another year, this time at the cost of children and people under 16, while we had the elderly taking the brunt of the cost so far. And all that because as a society we came to a point where we refuse to take one for the team. Not to mention we ignore our own personal health.
    - yobbo 5y ago
      Wut? In countries that had lockdowns, children and young adults arguably suffered worse than any other group. For a ten year-old, that's 10% of their life "gone". Children, teens and young adults have foregone life milestones, missed opportunities and friendships. Instead they have been charged with a ridiculous anxiety about something that is harmless to them. It is comparatively inconsequential for the elderly to isolate.
sunkenvicar 5y ago
In my lifetime I have contracted chickenpox and covid. Therefore I have naturally acquired, broad-based immunity to both diseases. Following Big Tech logic, will I also need a chickenpox vaccine to return to the office? Sad to see science and reason thrown out the window in favour of politics and groupthink.
randomsearch 5y ago
[FWIW, I disagree with mandatory vaccination] Unsure about anyone else, but I have been very much taken by surprise by the level of anti-vax and anti-lockdown sentiment during the pandemic. I'd have expected _some_ of the behaviour we're seeing, but not on this scale. In the UK we've seen huge "freedom marches", which are literally mass acts of disobedience against public health policies designed to save the lives of the elderly and vulnerable. It makes me wonder what other public reactions I might be wrong about. For example, will people react to climate change getting worse by actively adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Might they drive (then outlawed) combustion engine vehicles in long processions through capital cities? I've recently been reading Obama's memoirs and he talks about how he came to realise people are moved by emotions rather than rational argument, how he was disappointed by that but forced to embrace it. I wonder, therefore, if the poor leadership of some world leaders during the first year of the pandemic is a key factor in the strength of backlash against public health policy we're seeing. Perhaps this situation is an exception caused by a void of decisive emotional argument in the other direction. I don't know, but I do know that I'm surprised.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  It's pretty bizarre. At least in the US, there's been mandatory vaccinations for decades for schooling, and only fringe anti-vaxxers have opposed it. It's largely been considered settled and non-controversial (except to anti-vaxxers in recent years); a basic, common sense public health requirement, not really any different from, say, health codes. Now, apply the same principle to an active pandemic and half the country is losing its mind about it.
  - iamstupidsimple 5y ago
    Maybe I can clear this up. The 'freedom marches' as far as I'm aware were mainly focusing on lockdown and vaccine passports. The former is a general liberty issue, but the latter is actually a really sensitive subject in Britain. Since basically forever, it's been a point of principle that British Citizens Do Not and Will Not carry identification around. Even if you're pulled over by the police when driving, you are only required to submit documentation via post within 7 days of being pulled over. Dozens of governments have floated identity cards for nearly the last 50 years, and it was a surefire way to quickly tarnish a party's reputation. Vaccine passports are ID cards on steroids.
MarkSweep 5y ago
Incidentally I was working on some US immigration paperwork this morning, which requires documenting that you got some vaccines before they will give you a green card. COVID is not among them yet. The required vaccines overlap with ones required to go to school in the US. So between school vaccines and immigration vaccines, perhaps this is why companies have not had to require any vaccines before now?
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  Correct. Those vaccinations were already widespread enough to where employers didn't need to require them. Though I understand that healthcare workers were commonly required to get the flu vaccine every year.
tester34 5y ago
vaccines / covid are the new politics/religion from speaking from identity[0]? [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html
- atomashpolskiy 5y ago
  I can absolutely feel a kind of religious zeal and moral superiority from the pro-vax side. It will be hilariously stupid if long-term side effects turn out to be real.
  - fruityrudy 5y ago
    “I am vaccinated. Look at this unvaccinated person. I am not like them. They are not like us. Lets go find more of them. Let’s throw stones at them. We’re not usually allowed to throw stones, but we can because they are bad. And I am now doing good, and it brings me satisfaction and purpose.”
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
  - underseacables 5y ago
    Vaccinations, like masks, may have taken on a political identity. Therefore a persons decision to be vaccinated may be seen as others as a political statement.
astannard 5y ago
Spock logic "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as an individual it will feel wrong but from the point of view for the many it seem selfish. I do think people with no vaccine now are becoming more and more at risk as the vaccinated population grows with more social interaction without much consequence to the vaccinated. This has increased the risks to the unvaccinated. Being a holdout is not a great position to be in now.
- ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
  That's not the right dichotomy, protecting individual rights and workers rights is protecting the needs of the many.
hiram112 5y ago
I’m neutral on the vaccine itself, and I don’t believe Google and FB are doing this for any valid health reason. It’s more political signaling. Since it’s really one “side” of the culture divide who’s pushing this, I just want to ensure we’re all on the new rules: 1. I don’t ever want to hear the “my body, my choice” slogan again. Not when abortion laws are debated, not when you’re demanding legalization of drugs, not when the dangerous bath houses are being shut down, etc. Your bodily autonomy apparently stops when any vague connection to the “common good” can be made. 2. Don’t even try to continue to play the “IDs for voting are racist” card. Not while you’re demanding to see my vaccine card to buy groceries. It’s just too absurd to even debate it with a straight face at this point, so don’t try. 3. Don’t cry when this same precedent is used by private businesses in ways the “science” will inevitably enable. In 20 years, they’ll have enough knowledge to correlate everything from intelligence to aggression to specific genetic markers that can be tweaked. “Sorry, for the safety of our fellow employees, we won’t hire <racial group> until they’ve been vaccinated against hyper-aggression.” 4. When the right comes back to power, no more pseudo tears when they literally place land mines along the southern border to keep out dangerous, unvaccinated immigrants. Likewise, all your H1Bs were denied cause two people got Polio or some other mostly eradicated virus in India.
kalaido 5y ago
Funny 2 see how reactions change - as soon as the laptop bubble is affected personally
thinkingemote 5y ago
Anyone know how this ties in with the new Google Health? I think all healthcare providers have "do no harm" as a key motto.
wanderingmind 5y ago
No matter which end of the vaccine debate spectrum you fall on, this is free market at work. These are private corporations that can do business with customers and employees as they see fit within the laws. If people strongly disagree, they need to vote with their wallets and either change jobs or need to start a new company.
- blub 5y ago
  Two more options: * lobby for laws which forbid corporations from violating employee's privacy and mandate medical procedures. * move to a country which already does the above
  - wanderingmind 5y ago
    Yes you can try to lobby although the chance is virtually non existent in this case. I still think very few countries cherish individual rights and privacy as the US
    - pulse7 5y ago
      In this particular case the US cherish corporate rights above individual rights. In EU it is >>currently<< otherwise: companies can not (yet?) mandate employees to get vaccinated...
      - hef19898 5y ago
        It can be done by law. E.g. France, where 76% of the population support a law making vaccination mandatory for certain jobs, mostly health care, along with requiring proof of being negatively tested, vaccinated or recovered. The same law stopped tests from being free. And all of a sudden people registered for vaccine appointments. A large part of the vaccine hesitancy is just convenience.
    - raxxorrax 5y ago
      On questions relating to healthcare, drug tests and background checks? Pick any developed nation. Maybe not on the question of vaccination, but in general you could prick a random first world country. The US started the war on terror, that wasn't really about civil liberties and the course hasn't changes as far as I know.
throwaway_12_12 5y ago
I have been reading comments here and I'm honestly terrified how easily people are throwing judgmental or plain rude comments calling names on other people who exercise their right to make a choice - whatever the choice is. How easily are many falling into the trap of "common good" - please think about it, almost a century ago there was a time in one country in Europe where one nation was called to spread plague, only a few years later this nation was put to gas chambers. We are going to face the same situation very soon. If you won't have respect to the other side you will see terror, and you will always find nice and round argument to justify that terror. Seeing how much of hatred is spread in this "technical" forum I must say, the time of terror is very near.
- johnny53169 5y ago
  > I'm honestly terrified how easily people are throwing judgmental or plain rude comments calling names on other people who exercise their right to make a choice - whatever the choice is. Aren't they just exercising their right to free speech?
- hef19898 5y ago
  I have zero tolerance for people refusing to accept a little bit of personal inconvenience, one to two injections and maybe three days of not feeling to good, in order to end this pandemic sooner. And to protect those that cannot be vaccinated. It was the same crowd that refused to follow guidelines, indirectly prolonging everything. It was members of this crowd that attacked people for wearing masks. It was this crowd that pushed for early opening. Now we could approach the point of being to open up again, and it is about time. Because, with some luck and pressure, we can get enough people vaccinated. Only that we can't yet, because of the se crowd. And once we are at that point, this crowd basically wants a free ride. Talking about egoism, that's kind of the text book example.
ryzvonusef 5y ago
I wish my country had the same level of access to vaccines that developed countries have.
gbrindisi 5y ago
I wonder if this will help the fully remote working cause, with such a polarizing policy some (a lot?) people might as well advocate more strongly to not coming back to the office
digitalmemories 5y ago
A lot of talk here about the getting the vaccination is a moral imperative for the greater public safety. One parable I can think of is mandatory abortions. At a time where the planets resources are diminishing surely another human is a risk to us all. And who’s to say someone’s child doesn’t end being a deranged, homicidal maniac. Women have an imperative, no are required by law, to abort at the earliest possible moment. And compared to the Varus, there is a 100% chance a child will use up resources, opposed to whatever new kill rate the virus has. There are a lot of our-there defences for anti-vax, the ones that make the most sense are: (1) COVID is not as deadly as the news cycle makes it out, (2) the vaccine is still in trial, (3) there are no repercussions for vaccine producers. Of course, the implications of these points is what turns off the other side. The loudest theory in the room gets noticed, and that happens to be 5G microchips or whatever. When really, it’s just a new tax on everyday people. Politicians have an interest in the companies producing the vaccine so they’ll enforce laws to make them mandatory. The surveillance state loves any excuse to track us more than they are already. Splintering the population along ideological lines further benefits the system in place. So, yes, regarding the implications of points (1), (2) and (3), I believe the system in place would willingly manipulate this non-issue for its own benefit. And, if your argument is vaccination is better for society as a whole see parable above.
WhyNotHugo 5y ago
This is extremely shady. I'm in complete favour of vaccination, but I'm amazed that it's even legal for an employer in the US to ask such specific details about one's medical history. My employer doesn't need to know what vaccines I've taken, or anything else from my medical record, unless I decide to share it. Mind you, I'll still tell my team "I'll be about this morning for vaccination". But there's a difference between me willing to share information and the company demanding it.
- raxxorrax 5y ago
  If the employer fires you because you do not comply, wouldn't you get a severance package because this isn't part of your contract?
- Marcus9 5y ago
  It's weird to pretend this is about "one's medical history" when it's clearly about minimizing risk of harm to others. People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society. Spreading disease is unique- unlike assault or robbery or rape or murder it doesn't require the harmer to intend to cause harm, so many people resist accepting that they are hurting other people. We need to update our societal understanding of causing harm to understand it includes harm which was unintentional, unknown, or done passively.
  - off_sounder 5y ago
    Your wrong. That's like saying a taxi cab driver who drove a criminal to a place where he committed a murder is partly responsible for the crime. The virus is the thing that's causing harm. You can't blame an individual for being skeptical about a vaccine (that has more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw) that's experimental, and unapproved. Also, the science is in on there being an effective treatment, therefore emergency use isn't even warranted. Seems cut and dry to me .
    - disgruntledphd2 5y ago
vmception 5y ago
I like the part where everyone quits and makes more room for me at a higher comp
mensetmanusman 5y ago
HIV kills one million per year, I wonder if they will also mandate pREP to reduce risk.
- underseacables 5y ago
  Well in some places like California, and now Illinois, they are advocating in legislation to decriminalize a person who knowingly transmits HIV to a partner. It’s possible we could see a criminalization of someone who knowingly transmit Covid to someone else.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
    This is what I was alluding to ;)
joelbondurant 5y ago
Fauci didn't kill himself.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Your body FAANG’s choice?
underseacables 5y ago
I can’t find the previous link which discuss this, but does anyone know the repercussions of someone who refuses to get the vaccine? Is that an automatic work from home, or does the company say no, you are returning to the office and you must get vaccinated?
phendrenad2 5y ago
Make no mistake, this is because they're trying to get people back into the office as soon as possible. It may be the case that remote work is superior and companies that embrace remote work will ultimate do better, but I believe that FB and Goog believe the opposite.
fsociety 5y ago
I’m going to call out some BS in this thread. If you work at Google or Facebook you can get a job elsewhere which likely pays similar if not more than your current position. I know lots who have done it and are happier. We are talking as if Google and Facebook doing something will cause everyone else to do something. Some companies will, others won’t. Reality is, a lot of us are sick of COVID and quarantine and masks and not seeing friends and family and just want it to stop dominating our lives. I was sick with COVID in April and it was a bad few days. I was then re-infected approximately 10 months later and it was even worse. I have severe medical anxiety and the best decision I made for myself was to get the vaccine. You can make your own personal choice but other people don’t need to cater to you. Many of us have been personally affected by COVID and our freedom means we don’t need to put up with BS anymore. I won’t support government mandated vaccines, but I will support individual companies making this decision. If you, a tech worker at FAANG, truly can’t find another job in this hot market.. then we can start talking about welfare in this country and how most don’t make 500K at FAANG and get totally fucked over by the lack of support from their government. Never mind the complete wreck of an economy the last year was.
sjg007 5y ago
I am surprised at the push for return to work. We've known about Delta since December. It took out India and the UK followed. We have at least another year of the pandemic left and more likely probably 2 more years before things settle down. Google and FB really need to figure out how to be remote first. The Spanish flu took 2+ years. Learning to live with covid is a 5 year thing I think just because of how interconnected we are. Hopefully vaccines will dent it.

283 points by daenz 5y ago

endianswap 5y ago

> We will have a process for those who cannot be vaccinated for medical or other reasons What might "other reasons" be?

davidcbc 5y ago
Religious most likely
- bluedevil2k 5y ago
  Unfortunately, this loophole will negate the entire mandate.
  - abeyer 5y ago
    It will be abused, but hopefully at least some people might feel ashamed at such abuse and not go through with it when they have to do so on an individual basis.
  - bialpio 5y ago
    If I recall correctly, there are ways to ask for religious exemption to some of the requirements (e.g. vaccination when immigrating, answering "no" to an immigration question about willing to bear arms for the US), but they require establishing proof that you have been a member of a religious community that has rules conflicting with the mandate - it's not as easy as saying "it is so because I say so". Depending on how enforcement will happen, it may be possible to at least reduce the loophole.
  - paxys 5y ago
    Vaccination isn't an all or nothing game. Every single bit helps. Some people will always opt out one way or another, but that doesn't make the entire policy useless.
  - throwawayboise 5y ago
    No it won't. My employer mandated vaccines. Exceptions for sincere religious belief or documented medical reasons. I didn't want the vaccine but I wasn't going to lie about having a legitimate religious reason for it. Some people will, but most people wont. So I got the shot, but if I have any serious side effects I will certainly be contacting a personal injury attorney.
    - donkarma 5y ago
      Who do you plan on suing?
- endianswap 5y ago
  Hard to call something like this "mandatory" if you can just opt-out for non-verifiable personal reasons.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    They use the word "cannot". What is the point of a mandate if not to compel the "will not" crowd?
- danans 5y ago
  Though very few religions oppose vaccines: https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/religious-exemption-for-vaccines-christian-scientists-catholics-and-dutch-reform-church.html https://slate.com/technology/2015/02/religious-exemption-for...
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    It's really shaky to say "religions" don't oppose vaccines because religious interpretation (and personal interactions with their god(s)) is up to the individual. But it's all irrelevant in this case because Google is almost entirely an at-will employer. They can change the terms of the agreement at any time - take it or leave it.
    - amanaplanacanal 5y ago
      I suspect they might run into trouble if they started discriminating against specific religions.
- SlowBall 5y ago
  I respect more the position of an individual saying he doesn't want to get the vaccine because of his personal convictions than because his religions tells him so (although, to be clear, I think both are stupid positions). Hopefully Google will only allow exemptions based on health issues.
- abootstrapper 5y ago
  Political more likely.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

rantwasp 5y ago

oh snap. I totally understand this measure and, for the record, agree with it, but I'm picturing the pushback that this will lead to.

DrBenCarson 5y ago
Fuck the pushback. We cannot let the worst of mankind condemn us all to death because we don’t want to upset the worst of mankind.
- d4mi3n 5y ago
  I’m all for getting everyone vaccinated as well, but I’d be really concerned about the precedent this sets. The reasons governments are reluctant to do this is they it sets a precedent for them to dictate what a person can do with their bodies. Saying someone must have an injection, regardless of how well intentioned it is, requires you to be able to dictate what goes into their body. Pretty much the same set of powers that would dictate the old pro-life vs pro-choice debate. I’m greatly conflicted. I want people vaccinated, but I personally do not like the idea of giving up bodily autonomy to do so.
  - azpa 5y ago
    Unclear how different this is from the draft.
    - jimmydorry 5y ago
      Society has progressed from such times. There are many things that were acceptable back then that would not be now. If the draft was re-enacted, we would hopefully see strong pushback.
    - rantwasp 5y ago
      i think the draft is way worse in that you are separated from your family and there is a real possibility you’re going to die. also, remember that this is not the government. your employer can ask you to do anything (within limits) and invoke at-will employment when you don’t want to do it. I love capitalism!

standardUser 5y ago

To be perfectly clear, they are mandating employees be vaccinated if they want to physically go in to an office, not to do (or keep) their jobs.

bananabiscuit 5y ago
But Google is also planning on requiring people to go back to the office starting September. You can apply for a transfer to a remote position, but that requires that there be a remote position available for you to take and then finding it and matching into it. So yeah, sounds like unless you are already remote, they are requiring you take the vaccine in order to keep your job.
- Justin_Time 5y ago
  As mentioned in the article, this date is being pushed back to (at least) mid-October.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    At which point you will be dismissed if you have not found and secured a remote position within the company. That part of the policy has not changed. Until they announce it has we should assume they are intending to follow though.
    - shaklee3 5y ago
      It's a choice though. You could just get vaccinated and not worry about getting fired.
      - atatatat 5y ago
        That is the dichotomy that is being criticized, yes.
      - joshuahughes 5y ago
        "just get vaccinated and not worry about getting fired" The word 'just' must be one of the most heavily used words of the last 18 months. The problem is that 'just' is the start of a slippery slope. Governments and organisations rarely withdraw authoritarian diktats, once we've allowed them in.

raverbashing 5y ago

I can't blame Google for not wanting disease spreaders in their campus. It's their prerogative as a private company. Remains to be seen how companies that won't enforce this will perform. In my guess, poorly

imwillofficial 5y ago
As of now, everyone, included the vaccinated are still disease spreaders.
- raverbashing 5y ago
  Vaccines not cutting transmission in 100% are still a poor reason to not have everyone vaccinated. Anti-vaxxers pretend they worry about the ones who can't get vaccinated when they're actually who makes things unsafer for them
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    This isn’t a question of cutting it out 100%, the data from Israel has the majority of new cases being those who are vaccinated.
  - dang 5y ago
    Please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar on eternal flamewar topics. We've had to ask you about this countless times. Would you please just stop? https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
    - raverbashing 5y ago
      Sorry about that dang, I see now how that comment didn't add much of value, and got carried away.
      - dang 5y ago
        Appreciated!

nixpulvis 5y ago

It's honestly fascinating to me that this is going to be the way we meet Privacy vs Security face to face more broadly. Intrapersonally, they might go hand in hand, but in the group setting, they seem almost at direct odds. Security (or safety) requires some social contracts to be fulfilled. When these social contracts aren't enough we start to see polices and law take up the slack. Our existing privacy laws and regulations (e.g. HIPPA compliance) could be argued to be too strict, whereas at the same time, we're in an age of spyware / ad-tracking which is in dire need of curtailment.

paxys 5y ago
Is this really pushing the envelope though? Routine drug testing by employers, for example, has been considered totally acceptable by society for decades now. I'd consider a one-time proof of vaccination against a deadly pandemic to be far less intrusive than that.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Before this year I think most would have agreed that requiring an injection of a novel pharmaceutical is more intrusive than a non-medically invasive test of urine or hair follicle.
- briefcomment 5y ago
  Having to put something in your body is different than most requirements. Only thing that's close is childhood vaccination I guess.
  - Broken_Hippo 5y ago
    They can drug test you. Isn't that just controlling what you are allowed to put in your body?
    - briefcomment 5y ago
      You're not compelled to put something in your body.

im3w1l 5y ago

Google and Facebook are the most important companies for controlling information flow in the modern world. As a side effect this rule will increase conformity in their ranks, with predictable consequences.

throwawaysea 5y ago
I didn’t even think of that angle, but you are completely correct. Each decision to constrain their ranks in some way makes them less representative of other populations of people, whose information these companies still will control.
yosito 5y ago
> with predictable consequences I predict that the consequences will be less COVID transmission among their employees. Shudder.

paxys 5y ago

One angle that isn't being discussed – having vaccinated employees greatly reduces healthcare costs for the company and its insurance provider. I'm sure they would love to enforce vaccinations, annual checkups, healthy diet, exercise, no smoking etc. among employees as a condition for providing insurance or employment if there wasn't a social pushback for doing so.

Steltek 5y ago
Isn't it simpler than that? Fewer employees taking unnecessary extended sick leave, which endangers deadlines and complicates project planning. I would be pissed if I need to upend a release if some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU.
- joshuahughes 5y ago
  > some unvaccinated idiot won himself a trip to the ICU Don't know what it's like over in the US, but here in the UK 'the vaccinated' aren't some tiny percentage of hospitalisations. Actually, they're currently sitting around 40%, which means there's almost as much chance of your VACCINATED colleague "winning himself a trip to the ICU" as the unvaccinated. You might want to use the word 'idiot' more cautiously. https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistake-to-say-60-of-people-being-admitted-to-hospital-with-coronavirus-are-unvaccinated-12359317 https://news.sky.com/story/covid-19-vallance-corrects-mistak...
  - arn 5y ago
    But there are more vaccinated people than unvaccinated people, so it’s proportionally not “almost as much chance”. Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated.
    - forcry 5y ago
      >Ultimately when enough of the population is vaccinated, you’d expect the majority of hospitalizations to be vaccinated. So apparently, vaccines can never fail, by definition!

shrubble 5y ago

From the first point of the Nuremberg Code: 'The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential. This means that the person involved should have legal capacity to give consent; should be so situated as to be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision. This latter element requires that before the acceptance of an affirmative decision by the experimental subject there should be made known to him the nature, duration, and purpose of the experiment; the method and means by which it is to be conducted; all inconveniences and hazards reasonably to be expected; and the effects upon his health or person which may possibly come from his participation in the experiment. The duty and responsibility for ascertaining the quality of the consent rests upon each individual who initiates, directs, or engages in the experiment. It is a personal duty and responsibility which may not be delegated to another with impunity.' https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuremberg_Code

SlowBall 5y ago
And your point is? No one is strapping down Google employees to a chair to inject them with a vaccine. They are free not to take it if they chose to do so, and accept the consequences of their actions like any adult would.
- shrubble 5y ago
  I'd classify 'get an experimental vaccine with known possibility of side effects or we fire you from your job' as 'element of force', 'duress', and 'coercion'. Am I to understand that you would not?
  - SlowBall 5y ago
    You know, you make a good point. I think the problem with your argument is equating the covid vaccine to medical experimentation as considered in the Nuremberg Code. That code was written as the result of the Nazi experimentation of human subjects. The covid vaccine is technically experimental under the FDA definition only because it hasn't received full approval yet, but it has already gone through trials that (to some extent) have proved its safety. I don't think "medical experiment" has used in the code is the same as in the case of the covid vaccine as of today.

pokstad 5y ago

Makes no rational sense. The unvaccinated choose to be unvaccinated. You can walk into any Walgreens and get vaccinated for free. The vaccines have over 99% efficacy. Over 99% of new infections are unvaccinated people. Vast majority of vaccinated people getting infected with delta are having mild illness. If I had to bet, these sorts of policies actually disincentivize people to get vaccinated. Let everyone suffer so you can keep living unvaccinated.

neogodless 5y ago
> these sorts of policies actually disincentivize people to get vaccinated Can you explain your logic?
- ticviking 5y ago
  Reverse psychology. I know lots of people who say something along the lines of, “if it worked they wouldn’t need to pay me to get it” People are weird that way and will allow confirmation bias to push them even more out of whack
- colechristensen 5y ago
  Irrational exuberance for the vaccine drives some people to doubt. The vaccine is a very reasonable thing to get but that doesn’t mean everyone in favor of it is behaving or thinking rationally. When you have people turning something reasonable into a quasi religious moral obligation it is going to attract opposition, behaving irrationally is harmful even for something which is a good idea.

oldcigarette 5y ago

I work at google and am vaxxed but this pisses me off. I decided that the vaccine was worth the risk and for the best overall but if someone makes a different calculus I can understand and respect that. IMHO they gone way outside the reasonable scope of an employer - this is a cultural decision at the society level - why the fuck does my employer give a shit about this. Unless the employees are only commuting back and forth to work this does fuck all. It's feel good virtue signalling and I can't stomach any more counter productive SJW bullshit. The risk from COVID is not even that high for vaccinated individuals. What low risk bullshit are they going to make rules about next? Don't expect me to smile when you ask me to trade freedom for a bit of false security. Want to change something? Then change societies perspective on the vaccine on your own fucking time. Personally this ranks with their worst decisions and they made some fucking awful decisions over the years. I probably will act as if I don't have the vaccine and let them fire me for it when push comes to shove.

cma 5y ago
> this is a cultural decision at the society level - why the fuck does my employer give a shit about this. I don't think they should care if it is work from home (except that it potentially raises insurance premiums for everyone if they come down with some kind of chronic stuff from getting covid or being intubated or have to pay out company life insurance policies), but in the office there is is an obvious interest in having people vaccinated, just like college dorm rooms required even before covid.
- oldcigarette 5y ago
  Yeah I totally get that there is an interest - I disagree with whether it's a big enough interest at the employer level to justify a requirement. It feels more like pandering/posturing to me. The trade off isn't something that's easily weighed and I doubt we could ever reach consensus (it's pretty much a classic divisive political issue) but in those cases I err on the side of freedom and am sort of fed up with Americans giving up their freedoms.
b0sk 5y ago
Vaccination is not a "this is a cultural decision at the society level". It has saved millions and millions of lives. Maybe change your employer if you are so pissed at them?

nomoreplease 5y ago

Current research shows that the previously infected’s antibodies are equal-to or better than the vaccine. So previously infected should be sufficient, yet I expect these companies not to care about that

hexa22 5y ago
Is there any research showing that these people should not get vaccinated? At worst it does nothing, at best it helps. I don’t see why google should bother with an exception here.
- colechristensen 5y ago
  At worst it can do worse than nothing. For a big chunk of the population vaccinating is very safe because the virus is very dangerous. A vaccine doesn’t have to be very safe for a disease that kills on the order of one in a thousand off otherwise healthy adults. Being very young or already having contracted the virus significantly alters it’s risk profile. With a virus several orders of magnitude less deadly you have to start being much more careful that the vaccine is provably considerably safer than doing nothing. That’s not hard when you’re trying to beat 1 in 1000. It is very hard when you’re trying to beat a one in millions risk. There have been concerns and side effects. Much less amplitude in signal compared to the virus, but still big enough to halt briefly a few of the vaccines, still enough that small children don’t get emergency authorization, still enough for a few warnings about immune reactions. It is very rational to take a one in a million risk to prevent a one in a thousand risk. It is very rational to pause before taking a one in a million risk that could very well prevent nothing.
- yobbo 5y ago
  The worst case is pretty terrible. From my experience, the immune reaction to the vaccine after having had the infection is an order magnitude worse than what the brochures and previously uninfected people say.
ksec 5y ago
Oh that is interesting. Most Data have shown previous infection tends to have much better Anti-Bodies than all vaccines. And I was under the impression that previous infection automatically equaled to have vaccinated, at least in the few countries I know of. So that is not the case in US and you still have to get a vaccine? Or is it simply because there is no "proof" that you have been previously infected?

walkedaway 5y ago

Totally surprised that companies that are Orwellian and anti-science have policies that are Orwellian and anti-science.

dang 5y ago

All: please don't take HN threads into tedious flamewar on eternal flamewar topics. "Vax versus antivax" is one of the most tedious of them all. If you're tempted to post angrily about how wrong and bad the other side is, please inhibit that impulse. If your comment was going to repeat something we've all heard many times before, please don't post it. Obviously the vax theme is topical in this case—that makes this a good chance to apply discernment and distinguish between thoughtful, substantive comments and shallow, dismissive ones. As that is what we all should be doing on HN anyway, practice is good. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

josh_today 5y ago

Today the entire state of New York had ZERO covid related deaths. Yet this week we saw NYC and State employees and now major private corporations mandate the vaccine. For the record I will never disclosure my health status so don’t assume one way or another.

rualca 5y ago
> Today the entire state of New York had ZERO covid related deaths. Yet this week we saw NYC and State employees and now major private corporations mandate the vaccine. It seems NYC has been registering a daily average of new 700 confirmed cases of covid, which is growing fast. This is a lower limit of the true rate of transmission as they reflect confirmed cases through molecular tests. https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page https://www1.nyc.gov/site/doh/covid/covid-19-data.page In this page, if you check the graph, you'll notice that NYC is registering a new wave of covid infections that is as the highest level in about two months. Even though covid infections in NYC are spiking, death rates are not. This is expectedly the result of the vaccination campaign. No wonder they are mandating the vaccine. That's the only way to prevent another death wave.
- josh_today 5y ago
  > Even though covid infections in NYC are spiking, death rates are not. This is expectedly the result of the vaccination campaign. Source?
  - rualca 5y ago
    Source for which part? The numbers of NYC's infections and death rates, or that practically all covid-related deaths right now happen in patients who are not vaccinated?
jwilber 5y ago
Deaths lag so the point is irrelevant. You could just as easily argue it points in favor of vaccines.

boulos 5y ago

Can someone explain the “I won’t get it until it’s fully approved by the FDA” logic to me? Unlike usual vaccine trials, these vaccines have been deployed worldwide with hundreds of millions of people across many different conditions. Europe stopped using some due to an extremely rare blood clotting episode that was tens of people out millions. That suggests that rare, acute side effects have been (mostly?) discovered. AFAICT, the FDA rules for full licenses seem to require a six month trial, as well as more information on process / manufacturing / quality control. That just doesn’t seem that important compared to the massive, real-world “trial” data. What am I missing?

ozzydave 5y ago
I expect for the most part it’s a fig leaf, and when it is approved the goal posts will move. Then it will be, “the FDA rushed approval” with no evidence presented or required.
- boulos 5y ago
  That’s certainly going to be true for some people. But my express goal in this thread is to hear a good faith “full authorization argument” from someone who honestly argues for it. I believe arguments exist that I haven’t considered.
kderbyma 5y ago
I set myself a smart goal. 2024. clinical trials for all will be finished by the end of 2023 at the latest and then, give it a couple months to wrap up and draft or bury and reports. that is my basis. it's Smart.
- __m 5y ago
  Unless you get infected
  - hdjjhhvvhga 5y ago
    I upvoted both you and the parent, as both positions are valid. The difficulty of the issue is that a personal decision to vaccinate or not influences also the health of other people. This result could be weaker if Google didn't insist on forcing people back to the office - but they already made the decision so you either comply or lose your job, there is not much to discuss.

nindalf 5y ago

I’ve typed out 3 comments to 3 separate people before deleting them. I didn’t see the point. Folks, it’s a good idea to heed dang’s warning at the top of the thread. I’ve read all the comments and can confidently say there’s nothing worth reading here. Just people absolutely convinced of their ideas and principles, shouting past each other. Nothing we haven’t seen on this topic 50 times before. You’re better off going outside for a walk.

simondotau 5y ago
As someone who also started reading the comments in this thread, I can wholeheartedly second this. Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. If you want to change anyone's mind, focus on the people you can speak to in the real world—and have a conversation filled with love and respect. Fear of vaccination is a powerful meme which cannot be countered by deriding the people who are sincerely captured by it. Instead, I suggest you walk them through the statistics and place them into human terms and human context. Show them how to calculate risk of death. Show them how to calculate risk of long term injury.
- TulliusCicero 5y ago
  > Remember, nobody is going to change their mind on this issue because of a perfectly worded response in an internet discussion. People have absolutely changed their minds because of internet discussions. Usually it's not one of the participants, though.
  - kiliancs 5y ago
    Also, change takes time. There's a digestion process. Of course some people are not interested in finding truth and simply cling to their own opinion.
  - simondotau 5y ago
    My advice was meant to be interpreted in a more holistic sense. It is true that occasionally, people have had their minds changed by reading an internet discussion. But most people are more likely to change someone's mind by speaking to people they know in the real world, than they are by contributing to the noise on the Internet.

criticaltinker 5y ago

Like many others here, I am concerned about the influence that large corporations have on public health policy and personal health decisions. Is it fair to legally require these corporations to disclose conflicts of interest (eg investment in vaccines, or manufacturers thereof) given decisions of this magnitude? Can they be held accountable if scientific consensus changes, such that it in hindsight it becomes obvious that forcing vaccinated people to return to densely populated indoor buildings further jeopardized public health in general? To be more concrete with respect to how such a situation may unfold, please see this peer reviewed paper published in April 2021 "Risk of rapid evolutionary escape from biomedical interventions targeting SARS-CoV-2 spike protein"[1]. Some key highlights from [1]: - "Evidence from multiple experimental studies showing that single RBD point mutations can lead to resistance to neutralizing convalescent plasma from multiple donors suggests that specific single mutants may be able to evade spike-targeting vaccinal immunity in many individuals and rapidly lead to spread of vaccine-resistant SARS-CoV-2." - "Our work suggests that it is likely that standing genetic variation alone has already produced a substantial population of viruses with single and double nucleotide changes that confer nAb resistance. These variants will establish quickly in the population under selection pressure. In fact, there is already a precedent for this behavior, as one such selective sweep occurred early on in the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic when the D614G mutation rose to nearly 80% frequency in under 6 months [33]." - "The speed at which nAb resistance develops in the population increases substantially as the number of infected individuals increases, suggesting that complementary strategies to prevent SARS-CoV-2 transmission that exert specific pressure on other proteins (e.g., antiviral prophylactics) or that do not exert a specific selective pressure on the virus (e.g., high-efficiency air filtration, masking, ultraviolet air purification) are key to reducing the risk of immune escape. In this context, vaccines that do not provide sterilizing immunity (and therefore continue to permit transmission) will lead to the buildup of large standing populations of virus, greatly increasing the risk of immune escape." - "The juxtaposition of a relatively constrained immune response against the high degree of evolutionary plasticity of the spike RBD (visible even under neutral drift conditions) suggests that SARS-CoV-2 has extensive capacity to evolve to evade nAbs targeting a small number of antigenic regions. This capacity will negatively impact SARS-CoV-2 immunity in humans, whether active (vaccinal or natural) or passive (nAb prophylactics)." [1] https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0250780 https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal...

ReadEvalPost 5y ago

I'm really upset with this decision. I have not gotten the vaccine as I prefer the known, extremely low risk of contacting COVID over the unknown longitudinal risk of the vaccine. My right to make these personal decisions regarding my bodily autonomy is extremely important to me. Under no circumstances will I yield that decision to my employer! Their demand only further reinforces my desire not to take the vaccine. Which sucks, I like my job.

fruityrudy 5y ago
4 billion people have been vaccinated. Don’t oh think you have your risk numbers wrong? Do you think you are consistent in your risk judgement across all parts of your life? E.g have you ever taken drugs? Illicit or prescription?
blub 5y ago
You can try transferring to an EU office, it's unlikely that they can mandate vaccination there. :-)
- hef19898 5y ago
  I wouldn't bet on it. Which is a good thing if you ask me. Because without mandatory vaccinations we will prolong this shitty thing for another year, this time at the cost of children and people under 16, while we had the elderly taking the brunt of the cost so far. And all that because as a society we came to a point where we refuse to take one for the team. Not to mention we ignore our own personal health.
  - yobbo 5y ago
    Wut? In countries that had lockdowns, children and young adults arguably suffered worse than any other group. For a ten year-old, that's 10% of their life "gone". Children, teens and young adults have foregone life milestones, missed opportunities and friendships. Instead they have been charged with a ridiculous anxiety about something that is harmless to them. It is comparatively inconsequential for the elderly to isolate.

sunkenvicar 5y ago

In my lifetime I have contracted chickenpox and covid. Therefore I have naturally acquired, broad-based immunity to both diseases. Following Big Tech logic, will I also need a chickenpox vaccine to return to the office? Sad to see science and reason thrown out the window in favour of politics and groupthink.

randomsearch 5y ago

[FWIW, I disagree with mandatory vaccination] Unsure about anyone else, but I have been very much taken by surprise by the level of anti-vax and anti-lockdown sentiment during the pandemic. I'd have expected _some_ of the behaviour we're seeing, but not on this scale. In the UK we've seen huge "freedom marches", which are literally mass acts of disobedience against public health policies designed to save the lives of the elderly and vulnerable. It makes me wonder what other public reactions I might be wrong about. For example, will people react to climate change getting worse by actively adding carbon dioxide to the atmosphere? Might they drive (then outlawed) combustion engine vehicles in long processions through capital cities? I've recently been reading Obama's memoirs and he talks about how he came to realise people are moved by emotions rather than rational argument, how he was disappointed by that but forced to embrace it. I wonder, therefore, if the poor leadership of some world leaders during the first year of the pandemic is a key factor in the strength of backlash against public health policy we're seeing. Perhaps this situation is an exception caused by a void of decisive emotional argument in the other direction. I don't know, but I do know that I'm surprised.

TulliusCicero 5y ago
It's pretty bizarre. At least in the US, there's been mandatory vaccinations for decades for schooling, and only fringe anti-vaxxers have opposed it. It's largely been considered settled and non-controversial (except to anti-vaxxers in recent years); a basic, common sense public health requirement, not really any different from, say, health codes. Now, apply the same principle to an active pandemic and half the country is losing its mind about it.
- iamstupidsimple 5y ago
  Maybe I can clear this up. The 'freedom marches' as far as I'm aware were mainly focusing on lockdown and vaccine passports. The former is a general liberty issue, but the latter is actually a really sensitive subject in Britain. Since basically forever, it's been a point of principle that British Citizens Do Not and Will Not carry identification around. Even if you're pulled over by the police when driving, you are only required to submit documentation via post within 7 days of being pulled over. Dozens of governments have floated identity cards for nearly the last 50 years, and it was a surefire way to quickly tarnish a party's reputation. Vaccine passports are ID cards on steroids.

MarkSweep 5y ago

Incidentally I was working on some US immigration paperwork this morning, which requires documenting that you got some vaccines before they will give you a green card. COVID is not among them yet. The required vaccines overlap with ones required to go to school in the US. So between school vaccines and immigration vaccines, perhaps this is why companies have not had to require any vaccines before now?

TulliusCicero 5y ago
Correct. Those vaccinations were already widespread enough to where employers didn't need to require them. Though I understand that healthcare workers were commonly required to get the flu vaccine every year.

tester34 5y ago

vaccines / covid are the new politics/religion from speaking from identity[0]? [0] http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html http://www.paulgraham.com/identity.html

atomashpolskiy 5y ago
I can absolutely feel a kind of religious zeal and moral superiority from the pro-vax side. It will be hilariously stupid if long-term side effects turn out to be real.
- fruityrudy 5y ago
  “I am vaccinated. Look at this unvaccinated person. I am not like them. They are not like us. Lets go find more of them. Let’s throw stones at them. We’re not usually allowed to throw stones, but we can because they are bad. And I am now doing good, and it brings me satisfaction and purpose.”
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- underseacables 5y ago
  Vaccinations, like masks, may have taken on a political identity. Therefore a persons decision to be vaccinated may be seen as others as a political statement.

astannard 5y ago

Spock logic "needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" as an individual it will feel wrong but from the point of view for the many it seem selfish. I do think people with no vaccine now are becoming more and more at risk as the vaccinated population grows with more social interaction without much consequence to the vaccinated. This has increased the risks to the unvaccinated. Being a holdout is not a great position to be in now.

ad404b8a372f2b9 5y ago
That's not the right dichotomy, protecting individual rights and workers rights is protecting the needs of the many.

hiram112 5y ago

I’m neutral on the vaccine itself, and I don’t believe Google and FB are doing this for any valid health reason. It’s more political signaling. Since it’s really one “side” of the culture divide who’s pushing this, I just want to ensure we’re all on the new rules: 1. I don’t ever want to hear the “my body, my choice” slogan again. Not when abortion laws are debated, not when you’re demanding legalization of drugs, not when the dangerous bath houses are being shut down, etc. Your bodily autonomy apparently stops when any vague connection to the “common good” can be made. 2. Don’t even try to continue to play the “IDs for voting are racist” card. Not while you’re demanding to see my vaccine card to buy groceries. It’s just too absurd to even debate it with a straight face at this point, so don’t try. 3. Don’t cry when this same precedent is used by private businesses in ways the “science” will inevitably enable. In 20 years, they’ll have enough knowledge to correlate everything from intelligence to aggression to specific genetic markers that can be tweaked. “Sorry, for the safety of our fellow employees, we won’t hire <racial group> until they’ve been vaccinated against hyper-aggression.” 4. When the right comes back to power, no more pseudo tears when they literally place land mines along the southern border to keep out dangerous, unvaccinated immigrants. Likewise, all your H1Bs were denied cause two people got Polio or some other mostly eradicated virus in India.

kalaido 5y ago

Funny 2 see how reactions change - as soon as the laptop bubble is affected personally

thinkingemote 5y ago

Anyone know how this ties in with the new Google Health? I think all healthcare providers have "do no harm" as a key motto.

wanderingmind 5y ago

No matter which end of the vaccine debate spectrum you fall on, this is free market at work. These are private corporations that can do business with customers and employees as they see fit within the laws. If people strongly disagree, they need to vote with their wallets and either change jobs or need to start a new company.

blub 5y ago
Two more options: * lobby for laws which forbid corporations from violating employee's privacy and mandate medical procedures. * move to a country which already does the above
- wanderingmind 5y ago
  Yes you can try to lobby although the chance is virtually non existent in this case. I still think very few countries cherish individual rights and privacy as the US
  - pulse7 5y ago
    In this particular case the US cherish corporate rights above individual rights. In EU it is >>currently<< otherwise: companies can not (yet?) mandate employees to get vaccinated...
    - hef19898 5y ago
      It can be done by law. E.g. France, where 76% of the population support a law making vaccination mandatory for certain jobs, mostly health care, along with requiring proof of being negatively tested, vaccinated or recovered. The same law stopped tests from being free. And all of a sudden people registered for vaccine appointments. A large part of the vaccine hesitancy is just convenience.
  - raxxorrax 5y ago
    On questions relating to healthcare, drug tests and background checks? Pick any developed nation. Maybe not on the question of vaccination, but in general you could prick a random first world country. The US started the war on terror, that wasn't really about civil liberties and the course hasn't changes as far as I know.

throwaway_12_12 5y ago

I have been reading comments here and I'm honestly terrified how easily people are throwing judgmental or plain rude comments calling names on other people who exercise their right to make a choice - whatever the choice is. How easily are many falling into the trap of "common good" - please think about it, almost a century ago there was a time in one country in Europe where one nation was called to spread plague, only a few years later this nation was put to gas chambers. We are going to face the same situation very soon. If you won't have respect to the other side you will see terror, and you will always find nice and round argument to justify that terror. Seeing how much of hatred is spread in this "technical" forum I must say, the time of terror is very near.

johnny53169 5y ago
> I'm honestly terrified how easily people are throwing judgmental or plain rude comments calling names on other people who exercise their right to make a choice - whatever the choice is. Aren't they just exercising their right to free speech?
hef19898 5y ago
I have zero tolerance for people refusing to accept a little bit of personal inconvenience, one to two injections and maybe three days of not feeling to good, in order to end this pandemic sooner. And to protect those that cannot be vaccinated. It was the same crowd that refused to follow guidelines, indirectly prolonging everything. It was members of this crowd that attacked people for wearing masks. It was this crowd that pushed for early opening. Now we could approach the point of being to open up again, and it is about time. Because, with some luck and pressure, we can get enough people vaccinated. Only that we can't yet, because of the se crowd. And once we are at that point, this crowd basically wants a free ride. Talking about egoism, that's kind of the text book example.

ryzvonusef 5y ago

I wish my country had the same level of access to vaccines that developed countries have.

gbrindisi 5y ago

I wonder if this will help the fully remote working cause, with such a polarizing policy some (a lot?) people might as well advocate more strongly to not coming back to the office

digitalmemories 5y ago

A lot of talk here about the getting the vaccination is a moral imperative for the greater public safety. One parable I can think of is mandatory abortions. At a time where the planets resources are diminishing surely another human is a risk to us all. And who’s to say someone’s child doesn’t end being a deranged, homicidal maniac. Women have an imperative, no are required by law, to abort at the earliest possible moment. And compared to the Varus, there is a 100% chance a child will use up resources, opposed to whatever new kill rate the virus has. There are a lot of our-there defences for anti-vax, the ones that make the most sense are: (1) COVID is not as deadly as the news cycle makes it out, (2) the vaccine is still in trial, (3) there are no repercussions for vaccine producers. Of course, the implications of these points is what turns off the other side. The loudest theory in the room gets noticed, and that happens to be 5G microchips or whatever. When really, it’s just a new tax on everyday people. Politicians have an interest in the companies producing the vaccine so they’ll enforce laws to make them mandatory. The surveillance state loves any excuse to track us more than they are already. Splintering the population along ideological lines further benefits the system in place. So, yes, regarding the implications of points (1), (2) and (3), I believe the system in place would willingly manipulate this non-issue for its own benefit. And, if your argument is vaccination is better for society as a whole see parable above.

WhyNotHugo 5y ago

This is extremely shady. I'm in complete favour of vaccination, but I'm amazed that it's even legal for an employer in the US to ask such specific details about one's medical history. My employer doesn't need to know what vaccines I've taken, or anything else from my medical record, unless I decide to share it. Mind you, I'll still tell my team "I'll be about this morning for vaccination". But there's a difference between me willing to share information and the company demanding it.

raxxorrax 5y ago
If the employer fires you because you do not comply, wouldn't you get a severance package because this isn't part of your contract?
Marcus9 5y ago
It's weird to pretend this is about "one's medical history" when it's clearly about minimizing risk of harm to others. People need to accept the reality that spreading a disease is causing harm, and that preventing people from causing harm is a core function of the rules of society. Spreading disease is unique- unlike assault or robbery or rape or murder it doesn't require the harmer to intend to cause harm, so many people resist accepting that they are hurting other people. We need to update our societal understanding of causing harm to understand it includes harm which was unintentional, unknown, or done passively.
- off_sounder 5y ago
  Your wrong. That's like saying a taxi cab driver who drove a criminal to a place where he committed a murder is partly responsible for the crime. The virus is the thing that's causing harm. You can't blame an individual for being skeptical about a vaccine (that has more voluntarily reports of causing harm than any other vaccine in recent history, btw) that's experimental, and unapproved. Also, the science is in on there being an effective treatment, therefore emergency use isn't even warranted. Seems cut and dry to me .
  - disgruntledphd2 5y ago

vmception 5y ago

I like the part where everyone quits and makes more room for me at a higher comp

mensetmanusman 5y ago

HIV kills one million per year, I wonder if they will also mandate pREP to reduce risk.

underseacables 5y ago
Well in some places like California, and now Illinois, they are advocating in legislation to decriminalize a person who knowingly transmits HIV to a partner. It’s possible we could see a criminalization of someone who knowingly transmit Covid to someone else.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  This is what I was alluding to ;)

joelbondurant 5y ago

Fauci didn't kill himself.

mensetmanusman 5y ago

Your body FAANG’s choice?

underseacables 5y ago

I can’t find the previous link which discuss this, but does anyone know the repercussions of someone who refuses to get the vaccine? Is that an automatic work from home, or does the company say no, you are returning to the office and you must get vaccinated?

phendrenad2 5y ago

Make no mistake, this is because they're trying to get people back into the office as soon as possible. It may be the case that remote work is superior and companies that embrace remote work will ultimate do better, but I believe that FB and Goog believe the opposite.

fsociety 5y ago

I’m going to call out some BS in this thread. If you work at Google or Facebook you can get a job elsewhere which likely pays similar if not more than your current position. I know lots who have done it and are happier. We are talking as if Google and Facebook doing something will cause everyone else to do something. Some companies will, others won’t. Reality is, a lot of us are sick of COVID and quarantine and masks and not seeing friends and family and just want it to stop dominating our lives. I was sick with COVID in April and it was a bad few days. I was then re-infected approximately 10 months later and it was even worse. I have severe medical anxiety and the best decision I made for myself was to get the vaccine. You can make your own personal choice but other people don’t need to cater to you. Many of us have been personally affected by COVID and our freedom means we don’t need to put up with BS anymore. I won’t support government mandated vaccines, but I will support individual companies making this decision. If you, a tech worker at FAANG, truly can’t find another job in this hot market.. then we can start talking about welfare in this country and how most don’t make 500K at FAANG and get totally fucked over by the lack of support from their government. Never mind the complete wreck of an economy the last year was.

sjg007 5y ago

I am surprised at the push for return to work. We've known about Delta since December. It took out India and the UK followed. We have at least another year of the pandemic left and more likely probably 2 more years before things settle down. Google and FB really need to figure out how to be remote first. The Spanish flu took 2+ years. Learning to live with covid is a 5 year thing I think just because of how interconnected we are. Hopefully vaccines will dent it.