4 ms·

When a nation becomes dysfunctional enough, it’s no longer possible to tell the truth.

pistol_pete 5y ago
When a nation's media becomes convoluted enough, one might add
dotancohen 5y ago
My /. sig for years: > It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. That said, I don't think that the government is wrong here.
- roenxi 5y ago
  Well, the specific question that the government is answering is "should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with". It is more borderline than it might appear at first blush. I'm not sure I can think of a precedent for being so willing to eject that many people from the workforce in such a way.
  - smt88 5y ago
    > should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with This is a disingenuous way to frame it. The current govt is anti-Nazi, but it's never tried to mandate that all employees found to be Nazis must be fired. The reason vaccines are an issue of employment (only at larger employers, by the way) is that unvaccinated people endanger their coworkers. People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them.
    - EricE 5y ago
      >People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them. If your vaccinated and have the protection, what's the real issue? If you want to go down the whole "protection" rabbit hole - and ostensibly I'm going to assume you mean protection from exposure to the virus, then the vaccinated are far more of a problem. An unvaccinated person can not shed (spread) the virus unless they are symptomatic - ie. have a fever. Checking for a fever is trivial to do in a non-invasive way. Vaccinated people can not only be carrying but shedding (spreading) the virus while showing zero symptoms. So the only way to tell if a vaccinated person is a potential super spreader is through testing - that is neither as quick or easy as just taking someone's fever. An utter 180 from your position. If anyone is concerned about protection from exposure, you would be looking at protection from the vaccinated - not the unvaccinated!
    - roenxi 5y ago
      That isn't true. There are a lot of unvaccinated people - notably any that have recovered from COVID - who pose less danger to their coworkers than someone who has only been vaccinated. This isn't based on risk assessment, this is based on ideology. There are situations developing where someone who is less likely to transmit COVID is being fired while someone more likely to transmit the disease is kept on - and everyone involved in the process knows it.
      - Cederfjard 5y ago
        So would you be happy if in addition to vaccination and regular testing, regular antibody tests were also an alternative? And do you agree that this would also increase complexity (in my mind to questionable benefit)?
        syshum 5y ago
        No, my vaccination protect me. They are not threat to me once I have been vaccinated, the data and science show this fact. There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.
        Cederfjard 5y ago
        * Vaccination is not 100% effective * Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree * Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>Vaccination is not 100% effective Nothing is, but my risk from COVID post vaccination is less than other society risks we accept as normal risks of living in a free society, for example my risk of dying in an auto accident is many times greater than my risk from COVID post vaccination >> Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree I am not sure how this statement is relative to question on if an unvaccinated person poses a risk to me to the point where we must violate their body autonomy for forcibly inject them with a medication against their will >>Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective While true, this means those people should take additional risk mitigation, this however is NOT a justification for vaccine mandates, not in my view. These people should wear N95 Masks, take extra pro cations and be extra vigilant about social distancing and/or going to large public events. >>For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated. Sure, but that is not what is being debated. The question is do those reasons justify the use of force,threats, and ultimately government violence to forcibly inject people. I say no.
    - over_the_raibow 5y ago
      >People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them. No you don t. You took a vaccine that s supposed to protect you. You don t have any right to impose it through mandates on others. This is hiding malicious intent behind "what about the children" argument. You got your shot, you re protected and under no threat, move on with your life and leave people and their rights alone.
  - colinmhayes 5y ago
    The actual question is "should these people be employed if they make choices that cause customers to die?"
    - cheeselip420 5y ago
      This hyperbole doesn't help anyone. I'm vaccinated, and I encourage vaccination, but with the moving goal posts of the last 2 years and the fact that the vaccinations (while helping to prevent hospitalizations and severe illness) don't seem to have as drastic effect on spread, it's hard to blame people for re-evaluating the risk/reward. These mandates will only cause people to dig in their position to become martyrs. It's bad policy, and its not helpful. We need more carrots than sticks here.
- listenallyall 5y ago
  Cool! FYI some French dude named Voltaire appears to have stolen that line from you and claims he wrote it.

When a nation's media becomes convoluted enough, one might add

My /. sig for years: > It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong. That said, I don't think that the government is wrong here.

roenxi 5y ago
Well, the specific question that the government is answering is "should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with". It is more borderline than it might appear at first blush. I'm not sure I can think of a precedent for being so willing to eject that many people from the workforce in such a way.
- smt88 5y ago
  > should these people be employed if they make choices I disagree with This is a disingenuous way to frame it. The current govt is anti-Nazi, but it's never tried to mandate that all employees found to be Nazis must be fired. The reason vaccines are an issue of employment (only at larger employers, by the way) is that unvaccinated people endanger their coworkers. People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them.
  - EricE 5y ago
    >People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them. If your vaccinated and have the protection, what's the real issue? If you want to go down the whole "protection" rabbit hole - and ostensibly I'm going to assume you mean protection from exposure to the virus, then the vaccinated are far more of a problem. An unvaccinated person can not shed (spread) the virus unless they are symptomatic - ie. have a fever. Checking for a fever is trivial to do in a non-invasive way. Vaccinated people can not only be carrying but shedding (spreading) the virus while showing zero symptoms. So the only way to tell if a vaccinated person is a potential super spreader is through testing - that is neither as quick or easy as just taking someone's fever. An utter 180 from your position. If anyone is concerned about protection from exposure, you would be looking at protection from the vaccinated - not the unvaccinated!
  - roenxi 5y ago
    That isn't true. There are a lot of unvaccinated people - notably any that have recovered from COVID - who pose less danger to their coworkers than someone who has only been vaccinated. This isn't based on risk assessment, this is based on ideology. There are situations developing where someone who is less likely to transmit COVID is being fired while someone more likely to transmit the disease is kept on - and everyone involved in the process knows it.
    - Cederfjard 5y ago
      So would you be happy if in addition to vaccination and regular testing, regular antibody tests were also an alternative? And do you agree that this would also increase complexity (in my mind to questionable benefit)?
      - syshum 5y ago
        No, my vaccination protect me. They are not threat to me once I have been vaccinated, the data and science show this fact. There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.
        Cederfjard 5y ago
        * Vaccination is not 100% effective * Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree * Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
        syshum 5y ago
        >>Vaccination is not 100% effective Nothing is, but my risk from COVID post vaccination is less than other society risks we accept as normal risks of living in a free society, for example my risk of dying in an auto accident is many times greater than my risk from COVID post vaccination >> Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree I am not sure how this statement is relative to question on if an unvaccinated person poses a risk to me to the point where we must violate their body autonomy for forcibly inject them with a medication against their will >>Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective While true, this means those people should take additional risk mitigation, this however is NOT a justification for vaccine mandates, not in my view. These people should wear N95 Masks, take extra pro cations and be extra vigilant about social distancing and/or going to large public events. >>For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated. Sure, but that is not what is being debated. The question is do those reasons justify the use of force,threats, and ultimately government violence to forcibly inject people. I say no.
  - over_the_raibow 5y ago
    >People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them. No you don t. You took a vaccine that s supposed to protect you. You don t have any right to impose it through mandates on others. This is hiding malicious intent behind "what about the children" argument. You got your shot, you re protected and under no threat, move on with your life and leave people and their rights alone.
- colinmhayes 5y ago
  The actual question is "should these people be employed if they make choices that cause customers to die?"
  - cheeselip420 5y ago
    This hyperbole doesn't help anyone. I'm vaccinated, and I encourage vaccination, but with the moving goal posts of the last 2 years and the fact that the vaccinations (while helping to prevent hospitalizations and severe illness) don't seem to have as drastic effect on spread, it's hard to blame people for re-evaluating the risk/reward. These mandates will only cause people to dig in their position to become martyrs. It's bad policy, and its not helpful. We need more carrots than sticks here.
listenallyall 5y ago
Cool! FYI some French dude named Voltaire appears to have stolen that line from you and claims he wrote it.