5 ms·

An employer that allows some employees to endanger others is negligent, most importantly in terms of ethics, but also in terms of productivity. Your right to s

by Latty 5y ago

An employer that allows some employees to endanger others is negligent, most importantly in terms of ethics, but also in terms of productivity. Your right to swing your fist ends at my face. If you want to work with people, you have to take reasonable measures not to harm them. An employer that is willing to tell me to come in to work with people who refuse to get vaccinated is one that doesn't care about my well-being, and one I don't want to work for.

asguy 5y ago
If the vaccine and masks work, why do people who have taken it and wear them, need to worry? What is this narrative we’re pushing today? You’re acting like by not taking the vaccine, they’re directly violating people who did take it. How do you square that circle? P.S. I’m vaccinated. I’m also not worried about being around people who aren’t.
- Latty 5y ago
  This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue). Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative. There are people who can't be vaccinated, or who are at higher risk, and people who are just unlucky. They don't have a choice. They are affected by other's choices. The "personal responsibility" narrative is nonsense when it comes to communicable diseases.
  - short12 5y ago
    Is drunk driving more dangerous than being unvaccinated? Just glancing at the stats drunk driving is significantly safer than being unvaccinated
    - Latty 5y ago
      I honestly don't know, my instinct is that in terms of danger to others (which was the topic at hand) it probably is, but either way, that wasn't really relevant to my point.
      - short12 5y ago
        It is definitely relevant to your point because assumptions are being made about which has a worse outcome. Turns out on the national level drunk driving is a pittance vs unvaccinated. To bad they don't have equal liability
  - asguy 5y ago
    > This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available. Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond his limits and operating a motorvehicle, and then making a massive mistake by running a red light and t-boning me. That has no similarity to someone unvaccinated breathing next to me. Based on what I’ve read someone could be vaccinated, and still infect me with a “breakthrough case”. So all I can do is protect myself using the tools available. If the tools don’t work, well, the unvaccinated might be just as doomed as I am.
    - Latty 5y ago
      What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety. Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.
      - asguy 5y ago
        It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different. I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?
        lsaferite 5y ago
        > I had covid, it was like a really bad flu This is not the only outcome of getting COVID-19.
        asguy 5y ago
  - native_samples 5y ago
    "The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative." That appears to be a talking point that was just invented on the spot. No, vaccines don't have any kind of multiplicative effect. How would that work? That isn't what herd immunity means (or are we still not supposed to talk about that concept? I can't keep track). Herd immunity doesn't change the effectiveness of the vaccine for those who took it, it's only meant to be of benefit to people who don't (can't/won't) take it. Especially there cannot be any such effect from a 100% leaky vaccines that have already entirely stopped protecting people against infection - see the UK stats for proof.
jinpa_zangpo 5y ago
1. Vaccine mandates ignore the science by not recognizing people with naturally acquired immunity to Covid. 2. They ignore the science by not recognizing that the vaccinated also transmit Covid. 3. They are unjust because they do not recognize some people declined the second Covid shot after a bad reaction to the first and are therefore considered unvaccinated.
- spaceisballer 5y ago
  The jury is still out on natural immunity to COVID and how well it protects individuals. There’s lots of variability (same with vaccine immunity). The data are showing that if you had COVID and also got the vaccine you have robust protection. As to point two, the mandates aren’t about not spreading it, it’s about reducing severity and death. I guess because vaccinated or unvaccinated can spread it we throw up our arms? The mandates are that it makes us all safer (including mostly yourself). As to point three medical exemptions exist so not sure what you are going on about especially when you are talking about a very small number of adverse reactions.
- Latty 5y ago
  1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased protection. If studies show otherwise, then policy makers should change the mandates, not an inherent issue with the core concept. 2) This point makes no sense. Yes, of course they can, but at hugely reduced rates. Something not being perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable or necessary. Seatbelts are not perfect, but they are mandatory because they save lives. 3) If someone has a medical issue with the vaccine, they are exempt from every mandate I have ever seen. If that is not the case, then change the mandate. It's not an inherent issue with the concept. They are the very people who most need mandates, as the people who cannot have it themselves need as many others to be vaccinated as possible.
  - pbaka 5y ago
    1) Mostly agree, except the risk reward balance is slightly reversed the other way, even though both are small values. As such, it's true that it's more a question of principle than of medicine. 2) Not that reduced. Effectiveness is down to around 40-55% after a couple of months, as you can read in the latest peer-reviewed studies from last week in Nature [1], The Lancet[2] and by the ongoing statistic report of the Imperial College in London [3] on request of the UK govt. There are plenty others publications older by a month or three who show the same from the UK, France, China and Israel. 3) Whether you are in the UK, US, Israel, France, and a lot of other places, 93-97% of >50y.o. are already fully vaccinated. They are the most at risk. As for the current state of mandates, YMMV depending on where you live. To change them ?? You might have not noticed, but people requesting changes in the mandate are considered just shy of domestic terrorist plague rats of late... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y and the linked publication [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 [3] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800

by Latty 5y ago

asguy 5y ago

If the vaccine and masks work, why do people who have taken it and wear them, need to worry? What is this narrative we’re pushing today? You’re acting like by not taking the vaccine, they’re directly violating people who did take it. How do you square that circle? P.S. I’m vaccinated. I’m also not worried about being around people who aren’t.

Latty 5y ago
This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue). Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative. There are people who can't be vaccinated, or who are at higher risk, and people who are just unlucky. They don't have a choice. They are affected by other's choices. The "personal responsibility" narrative is nonsense when it comes to communicable diseases.
- short12 5y ago
  Is drunk driving more dangerous than being unvaccinated? Just glancing at the stats drunk driving is significantly safer than being unvaccinated
  - Latty 5y ago
    I honestly don't know, my instinct is that in terms of danger to others (which was the topic at hand) it probably is, but either way, that wasn't really relevant to my point.
    - short12 5y ago
      It is definitely relevant to your point because assumptions are being made about which has a worse outcome. Turns out on the national level drunk driving is a pittance vs unvaccinated. To bad they don't have equal liability
- asguy 5y ago
  > This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available. Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond his limits and operating a motorvehicle, and then making a massive mistake by running a red light and t-boning me. That has no similarity to someone unvaccinated breathing next to me. Based on what I’ve read someone could be vaccinated, and still infect me with a “breakthrough case”. So all I can do is protect myself using the tools available. If the tools don’t work, well, the unvaccinated might be just as doomed as I am.
  - Latty 5y ago
    What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety. Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.
    - asguy 5y ago
      It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different. I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?
      - lsaferite 5y ago
        > I had covid, it was like a really bad flu This is not the only outcome of getting COVID-19.
        asguy 5y ago
- native_samples 5y ago
  "The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative." That appears to be a talking point that was just invented on the spot. No, vaccines don't have any kind of multiplicative effect. How would that work? That isn't what herd immunity means (or are we still not supposed to talk about that concept? I can't keep track). Herd immunity doesn't change the effectiveness of the vaccine for those who took it, it's only meant to be of benefit to people who don't (can't/won't) take it. Especially there cannot be any such effect from a 100% leaky vaccines that have already entirely stopped protecting people against infection - see the UK stats for proof.

jinpa_zangpo 5y ago

1. Vaccine mandates ignore the science by not recognizing people with naturally acquired immunity to Covid. 2. They ignore the science by not recognizing that the vaccinated also transmit Covid. 3. They are unjust because they do not recognize some people declined the second Covid shot after a bad reaction to the first and are therefore considered unvaccinated.

spaceisballer 5y ago
The jury is still out on natural immunity to COVID and how well it protects individuals. There’s lots of variability (same with vaccine immunity). The data are showing that if you had COVID and also got the vaccine you have robust protection. As to point two, the mandates aren’t about not spreading it, it’s about reducing severity and death. I guess because vaccinated or unvaccinated can spread it we throw up our arms? The mandates are that it makes us all safer (including mostly yourself). As to point three medical exemptions exist so not sure what you are going on about especially when you are talking about a very small number of adverse reactions.
Latty 5y ago
1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased protection. If studies show otherwise, then policy makers should change the mandates, not an inherent issue with the core concept. 2) This point makes no sense. Yes, of course they can, but at hugely reduced rates. Something not being perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable or necessary. Seatbelts are not perfect, but they are mandatory because they save lives. 3) If someone has a medical issue with the vaccine, they are exempt from every mandate I have ever seen. If that is not the case, then change the mandate. It's not an inherent issue with the concept. They are the very people who most need mandates, as the people who cannot have it themselves need as many others to be vaccinated as possible.
- pbaka 5y ago
  1) Mostly agree, except the risk reward balance is slightly reversed the other way, even though both are small values. As such, it's true that it's more a question of principle than of medicine. 2) Not that reduced. Effectiveness is down to around 40-55% after a couple of months, as you can read in the latest peer-reviewed studies from last week in Nature [1], The Lancet[2] and by the ongoing statistic report of the Imperial College in London [3] on request of the UK govt. There are plenty others publications older by a month or three who show the same from the UK, France, China and Israel. 3) Whether you are in the UK, US, Israel, France, and a lot of other places, 93-97% of >50y.o. are already fully vaccinated. They are the most at risk. As for the current state of mandates, YMMV depending on where you live. To change them ?? You might have not noticed, but people requesting changes in the mandate are considered just shy of domestic terrorist plague rats of late... [1] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-02689-y and the linked publication [2] https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(21)02183-8 [3] https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800 https://spiral.imperial.ac.uk/handle/10044/1/90800