14 ms·

Exactly -- people are still free to not get vaccinated, but they're not free to go to aggregate settings where they might infect everyone there, which seems lik

Exactly -- people are still free to not get vaccinated, but they're not free to go to aggregate settings where they might infect everyone there, which seems like a reasonable compromise. It's the same approach as with antivax parents -- don't want your kids vaccinated? Then you'll need to homeschool them.

epicureanideal 5y ago
But if others are already vaccinated, how does an unvaccinated coworker infect a vaccinated coworker?
- FreakyT 5y ago
  IIRC, unvaccinated are more likely to get infected and also typically have higher viral loads, which corresponds to higher infectiousness.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    This contradicts the latest science from the CDC: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/experts-back-cdc-change-masks-delta-variant-spreads-rcna1526 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/experts-back-cd... "The CDC has found, however, that in rare breakthrough infections — instances where a fully vaccinated person tests positive for the virus — the amount of virus in that vaccinated person's system is similar to the viral load in an infected individual who is unvaccinated." One could be forgiven though for not being up to date on the latest oscillation.
- bigmattystyles 5y ago
  Breakthrough infections and questions about transmissibility even if vaccinated aside, consider this: a second unvaccinated coworker.
  - epicureanideal 5y ago
    Breakthrough infections are rare, right? And a second unvaccinated coworker is also someone that has chosen not to be vaccinated, right? (Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it.)
    - kelnos 5y ago
      > Breakthrough infections are rare, right? Sort of; we don't (and won't) entirely know. With the delta variant becoming more common, it's seeming like vaccinated people might still be able to transmit the disease, even if they don't become infected themselves. There's also the matter of asymptomatic infection: remember that the 95% efficacy numbers reported by Pfizer and Moderna (for example) are about symptomatic infection; during their clinical trials, they only tested people if they showed symptoms. And if a vaccinated person is infected but asymptomatic, they may never even know about it. Technically we may or may not call that a "breakthrough infection", but that person could still presumably infect an unvaccinated person, and that's the thing that matters. > Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it. Right, and having people around them who are unvaccinated by choice is an unnecessary risk to those who can't be vaccinated.
    - spywaregorilla 5y ago
      Not that rare in the scheme of things. Odds are strong that if you're vaccinated a breakthrough infection will be much less serious though. However in either case, you've now inconvenienced the breakthrough infectee who has to be concerned with how they go on to infect others, e.g. unvaccinated children.
    - didjathinkmess 5y ago
      We have absolutely no idea because on May 1st the CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases that don't result in hospitalizations or death. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  Breakthrough case Not to mention if you don’t enforce the policy, unvaccinated-by-choice persons (henceforth referred to as “morons incapable of basic science and empathy”) will infect one another and further increase the probability of breakthrough cases
- rad_gruchalski 5y ago
  What if there are many unvaccinated in between the vaccinated?
- paxys 5y ago
  - Vaccines aren't 100% efficient - Lots of people cannot get vaccinated due to medical reasons
  - throwaway199998 5y ago
    So what's sufficient for worthless imbeciles like yourself, 99.99%? Santa Clara county is at over 80% already.
- version_five 5y ago
  That's how you know it's not just a public health measure. For other vaccines, we rely on the majority being vaccinated so that any isolated outbreaks are naturally contained. I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example. If one person is not vaccinated, it's to their detriment and irrelevant to everyone else. There are weak arguments about vaccine efficacy etc that some people could still get infected, but the point is that majority voluntary vaccination contains disease to the point that there is no justification of invasive personal measures (in this case disclosing personal health information to an information predator, but its unacceptable regardless of the employer). It seems to me this is much more about signaling to their various stakeholders about their politics rather than an actual public health campaign. FWIW I think (I think) they should be allowed to enforce this if they want, even if i dont like it. Although I might support measures to make this kind of discrimination illegal, I'd have to think more about that. Despite having my vaccine, I would not work for a company that asked me to prove it, however. I've got no beef with the vaccine, only with giving state or corporate actors power over my health choices.
  - ViViDboarder 5y ago
    > I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example. Is there a massive measles outbreak currently infecting millions of people? I don’t see how the fact that they don’t require proof of measles vaccine is in anyway proof that COVID vaccination isn’t in the interest of public health.
- osigurdson 5y ago
  Think of yourself at the center of a circle with a series of concentric rings. If you are vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine, your chance of catching the bug is 10% from anyone in the first ring. However, if everyone in the first ring is vaccinated, the chance of catching the bug from anyone in the second ring is only 1% (i.e 0.1*0.1). Thus with enough people vaccinated even a crappy vaccine works pretty well. Perhaps a rather simplistic model, but somewhat illustrative.
- throwaway9980 5y ago
  The same way that my friend who is vaccinated was infected by his unvaccinated wife. Close quarters with an infected person is going to increase risk for some one who is vaccinated. The Pfizer vaccine is 38% effective [1] at preventing infection on average. It’s obvious that spending 8 hours next to someone who is actively infectious will reduce that efficacy rate. [1] for the Delta variant, which at this point is what matters
  - imwillofficial 5y ago
    What about the vaccinated spreading the disease? https://nypost.com/2021/07/20/white-house-aide-nancy-pelosi-staffer-test-positive-for-covid/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/20/white-house-aide-nancy-pelosi-...
  - s1artibartfast 5y ago
    38% is for the delta variant and a single shot. For the recommended 2 shots, protection from the delta is 88% compared to 93% for the alpha.
- Spooky23 5y ago
  Vaccination doesn’t mean you cannot be infected, and cannot spread it once infected. It lowers the chances of infection and presentation of symptoms. So when your unvaccinated coworker exercises his selfish right to be stupid, you’re putting others at risk. The difference here is that your exposing your coworkers children and others who cannot be vaccinated to infection. We socially tolerate people like this who choose to infect an entire office or daycare with rhinovirus, flu or the cold, because the impact is generally lower. COVID is different, and frankly, people don’t want to be around unvaccinated people just as they avoid people who display bad judgement in other ways.
  - ds206 5y ago
    What's the point of a right if it can't be exercised?
    - belltaco 5y ago
      The company also has the right to fire you.
      - tored 5y ago
        Philosophically or legally? I’m fully aware that US has weak worker laws, but in Europe you can’t fire people based on whim.
        dekhn 5y ago
        Employees at Google are mostly at-will. Google can fire them any time, although typically, they produce a 6+ month performance record with failure to do job before terminating (mostly to protect against lawsuits). However, Google has terminated people on the spot, with cause. The government will back Google firing people for not being vaccinated.
        tored 5y ago
        The takeaway is that the general left now is for firing employees for political or medical reasons, when historically they were against. Why that is, at least in Europe, is because the left is no longer majority working class, it is majority middle class.
mbeattie 5y ago
Does this apply to the flu, varicella, meningitis, etc as well?
- DrBenCarson 5y ago
  I hope so
  - mbeattie 5y ago
    I’ve never had a job require me to prove those vaccines to come in.
    - bialpio 5y ago
      They are required if you want to immigrate to the US [1], so I sure hope citizens-by-birth also have to follow similar rules. Maybe you don't need to prove anything because by default people would already either be vaccinated, or had to obtain an exemption? [1] https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-9 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-...
      - throwawayboise 5y ago
        There are vaccines required to attend public school, but if your parents just say "I refuse" they are not going to kick you out. These hard-core antivaxxers are pretty small in number though.
        selectodude 5y ago
        >but if your parents just say "I refuse" they are not going to kick you out. Fuck and yes they will. Plenty of school districts will kick you out at this point and forget about going to a university without vaccines. I needed to prove vaccine status to go to graduate school.
      - deleted 5y ago
        [deleted]
throwawaysea 5y ago
> Then you'll need to homeschool them. This would be fair if the equivalent public school spending for that student were instead given back to parents as a voucher to spend on homeschooling or on a different education provider of their choice with different vaccination requirements. But otherwise there is a financial coercion into divulging health choices or giving up bodily autonomy that doesn’t feel right to me.
- grepfru_it 5y ago
  Remember when employer-sponsered healthcare plans tried to mandate how birth control could be used by women? I couldn't help but notice a lot of people arguing against their own rights.. and now here we are
  - hef19898 5y ago
    Birth control and, for that matter, abortion is only affecting one, max. two, people. Vaccinations against a pandemic is affecting everyone. Big difference.
- derkster 5y ago
  I don't understand the concept of fairness when we're talking about something that has killed more Americans than every war since the Civil War combined. I would consider every death caused by the asymptomatic much more unfair than someone having to pay for a charter school for the luxury of being a liability to the general public every time they step outside their home. Every one of us will end up having to pay for the problems caused by 1/3rd the population feeling they have the right to risk my life because of unfounded fears. If said people were so worried about their life, they would do the same risk analysis lots of us did. It's very clear that COVID is more likely to fuck me up than the vaccine. And if it turns out the data was a result of every first world country in the world coordinating amongst themselves to spread an insanely damaging lie telling us exactly the opposite of the truth, we have much much worse problems.
  - mensetmanusman 5y ago
blub 5y ago
It's not exactly the same, since the only mandatory vaccine I'm aware of is the one against measles, a very infectious disease which can kill kids and batter adults. It has sequelae which can appear years later. The vaccine has been in use for a long time and is well understood. So as long as it can be ensured that the unvaccinated won't infect others (e.g. through testing), they should not be forbidden from participating in society. This is not justified by the current course of the pandemic. Maybe if we discover in a few months that the vaccines don't work any more because of the low vaccination rates this becomes more critical.

epicureanideal 5y ago

But if others are already vaccinated, how does an unvaccinated coworker infect a vaccinated coworker?

FreakyT 5y ago
IIRC, unvaccinated are more likely to get infected and also typically have higher viral loads, which corresponds to higher infectiousness.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  This contradicts the latest science from the CDC: https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/experts-back-cdc-change-masks-delta-variant-spreads-rcna1526 https://www.nbcnews.com/science/science-news/experts-back-cd... "The CDC has found, however, that in rare breakthrough infections — instances where a fully vaccinated person tests positive for the virus — the amount of virus in that vaccinated person's system is similar to the viral load in an infected individual who is unvaccinated." One could be forgiven though for not being up to date on the latest oscillation.
bigmattystyles 5y ago
Breakthrough infections and questions about transmissibility even if vaccinated aside, consider this: a second unvaccinated coworker.
- epicureanideal 5y ago
  Breakthrough infections are rare, right? And a second unvaccinated coworker is also someone that has chosen not to be vaccinated, right? (Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it.)
  - kelnos 5y ago
    > Breakthrough infections are rare, right? Sort of; we don't (and won't) entirely know. With the delta variant becoming more common, it's seeming like vaccinated people might still be able to transmit the disease, even if they don't become infected themselves. There's also the matter of asymptomatic infection: remember that the 95% efficacy numbers reported by Pfizer and Moderna (for example) are about symptomatic infection; during their clinical trials, they only tested people if they showed symptoms. And if a vaccinated person is infected but asymptomatic, they may never even know about it. Technically we may or may not call that a "breakthrough infection", but that person could still presumably infect an unvaccinated person, and that's the thing that matters. > Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it. Right, and having people around them who are unvaccinated by choice is an unnecessary risk to those who can't be vaccinated.
  - spywaregorilla 5y ago
    Not that rare in the scheme of things. Odds are strong that if you're vaccinated a breakthrough infection will be much less serious though. However in either case, you've now inconvenienced the breakthrough infectee who has to be concerned with how they go on to infect others, e.g. unvaccinated children.
  - didjathinkmess 5y ago
    We have absolutely no idea because on May 1st the CDC stopped counting breakthrough cases that don't result in hospitalizations or death. https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7021e3.htm
DrBenCarson 5y ago
Breakthrough case Not to mention if you don’t enforce the policy, unvaccinated-by-choice persons (henceforth referred to as “morons incapable of basic science and empathy”) will infect one another and further increase the probability of breakthrough cases
rad_gruchalski 5y ago
What if there are many unvaccinated in between the vaccinated?
paxys 5y ago
- Vaccines aren't 100% efficient - Lots of people cannot get vaccinated due to medical reasons
- throwaway199998 5y ago
  So what's sufficient for worthless imbeciles like yourself, 99.99%? Santa Clara county is at over 80% already.
version_five 5y ago
That's how you know it's not just a public health measure. For other vaccines, we rely on the majority being vaccinated so that any isolated outbreaks are naturally contained. I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example. If one person is not vaccinated, it's to their detriment and irrelevant to everyone else. There are weak arguments about vaccine efficacy etc that some people could still get infected, but the point is that majority voluntary vaccination contains disease to the point that there is no justification of invasive personal measures (in this case disclosing personal health information to an information predator, but its unacceptable regardless of the employer). It seems to me this is much more about signaling to their various stakeholders about their politics rather than an actual public health campaign. FWIW I think (I think) they should be allowed to enforce this if they want, even if i dont like it. Although I might support measures to make this kind of discrimination illegal, I'd have to think more about that. Despite having my vaccine, I would not work for a company that asked me to prove it, however. I've got no beef with the vaccine, only with giving state or corporate actors power over my health choices.
- ViViDboarder 5y ago
  > I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example. Is there a massive measles outbreak currently infecting millions of people? I don’t see how the fact that they don’t require proof of measles vaccine is in anyway proof that COVID vaccination isn’t in the interest of public health.
osigurdson 5y ago
Think of yourself at the center of a circle with a series of concentric rings. If you are vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine, your chance of catching the bug is 10% from anyone in the first ring. However, if everyone in the first ring is vaccinated, the chance of catching the bug from anyone in the second ring is only 1% (i.e 0.1*0.1). Thus with enough people vaccinated even a crappy vaccine works pretty well. Perhaps a rather simplistic model, but somewhat illustrative.
throwaway9980 5y ago
The same way that my friend who is vaccinated was infected by his unvaccinated wife. Close quarters with an infected person is going to increase risk for some one who is vaccinated. The Pfizer vaccine is 38% effective [1] at preventing infection on average. It’s obvious that spending 8 hours next to someone who is actively infectious will reduce that efficacy rate. [1] for the Delta variant, which at this point is what matters
- imwillofficial 5y ago
  What about the vaccinated spreading the disease? https://nypost.com/2021/07/20/white-house-aide-nancy-pelosi-staffer-test-positive-for-covid/ https://nypost.com/2021/07/20/white-house-aide-nancy-pelosi-...
- s1artibartfast 5y ago
  38% is for the delta variant and a single shot. For the recommended 2 shots, protection from the delta is 88% compared to 93% for the alpha.
Spooky23 5y ago
Vaccination doesn’t mean you cannot be infected, and cannot spread it once infected. It lowers the chances of infection and presentation of symptoms. So when your unvaccinated coworker exercises his selfish right to be stupid, you’re putting others at risk. The difference here is that your exposing your coworkers children and others who cannot be vaccinated to infection. We socially tolerate people like this who choose to infect an entire office or daycare with rhinovirus, flu or the cold, because the impact is generally lower. COVID is different, and frankly, people don’t want to be around unvaccinated people just as they avoid people who display bad judgement in other ways.
- ds206 5y ago
  What's the point of a right if it can't be exercised?
  - belltaco 5y ago
    The company also has the right to fire you.
    - tored 5y ago
      Philosophically or legally? I’m fully aware that US has weak worker laws, but in Europe you can’t fire people based on whim.
      - dekhn 5y ago
        Employees at Google are mostly at-will. Google can fire them any time, although typically, they produce a 6+ month performance record with failure to do job before terminating (mostly to protect against lawsuits). However, Google has terminated people on the spot, with cause. The government will back Google firing people for not being vaccinated.
        tored 5y ago
        The takeaway is that the general left now is for firing employees for political or medical reasons, when historically they were against. Why that is, at least in Europe, is because the left is no longer majority working class, it is majority middle class.

mbeattie 5y ago

Does this apply to the flu, varicella, meningitis, etc as well?

DrBenCarson 5y ago
I hope so
- mbeattie 5y ago
  I’ve never had a job require me to prove those vaccines to come in.
  - bialpio 5y ago
    They are required if you want to immigrate to the US [1], so I sure hope citizens-by-birth also have to follow similar rules. Maybe you don't need to prove anything because by default people would already either be vaccinated, or had to obtain an exemption? [1] https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-9 https://www.uscis.gov/policy-manual/volume-8-part-b-chapter-...
    - throwawayboise 5y ago
      There are vaccines required to attend public school, but if your parents just say "I refuse" they are not going to kick you out. These hard-core antivaxxers are pretty small in number though.
      - selectodude 5y ago
        >but if your parents just say "I refuse" they are not going to kick you out. Fuck and yes they will. Plenty of school districts will kick you out at this point and forget about going to a university without vaccines. I needed to prove vaccine status to go to graduate school.
    - deleted 5y ago
      [deleted]

throwawaysea 5y ago

> Then you'll need to homeschool them. This would be fair if the equivalent public school spending for that student were instead given back to parents as a voucher to spend on homeschooling or on a different education provider of their choice with different vaccination requirements. But otherwise there is a financial coercion into divulging health choices or giving up bodily autonomy that doesn’t feel right to me.

grepfru_it 5y ago
Remember when employer-sponsered healthcare plans tried to mandate how birth control could be used by women? I couldn't help but notice a lot of people arguing against their own rights.. and now here we are
- hef19898 5y ago
  Birth control and, for that matter, abortion is only affecting one, max. two, people. Vaccinations against a pandemic is affecting everyone. Big difference.
derkster 5y ago
I don't understand the concept of fairness when we're talking about something that has killed more Americans than every war since the Civil War combined. I would consider every death caused by the asymptomatic much more unfair than someone having to pay for a charter school for the luxury of being a liability to the general public every time they step outside their home. Every one of us will end up having to pay for the problems caused by 1/3rd the population feeling they have the right to risk my life because of unfounded fears. If said people were so worried about their life, they would do the same risk analysis lots of us did. It's very clear that COVID is more likely to fuck me up than the vaccine. And if it turns out the data was a result of every first world country in the world coordinating amongst themselves to spread an insanely damaging lie telling us exactly the opposite of the truth, we have much much worse problems.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago

blub 5y ago

It's not exactly the same, since the only mandatory vaccine I'm aware of is the one against measles, a very infectious disease which can kill kids and batter adults. It has sequelae which can appear years later. The vaccine has been in use for a long time and is well understood. So as long as it can be ensured that the unvaccinated won't infect others (e.g. through testing), they should not be forbidden from participating in society. This is not justified by the current course of the pandemic. Maybe if we discover in a few months that the vaccines don't work any more because of the low vaccination rates this becomes more critical.