5 ms·

In the end, both sides got what was probably best for them. Many people felt unsafe being around people that were unvaccinated during an especially dangerous ti

In the end, both sides got what was probably best for them. Many people felt unsafe being around people that were unvaccinated during an especially dangerous time and the mandate helped to provide some protection for them. The people that were unvaccinated had to go through a lot of hardship, but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off. If you went back in time, this probably would have been the best option, even though both sides would have likely objected to it.

puffoflogic 4y ago
> but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off That is dehumanizing BS. No compassionate human being could possibly hold this view. Going through the stress and humiliation of being fired for what turned out to be the wiser medical choice, and generally being unable to find a job for the same reason in a very uncertain economy, is not a vacation.
- ben_w 4y ago
  Avoidance was not (with very few exceptions) a wiser medical choice. If the effect on transmission had been zero (it wasn't zero, but it was lower than anyone would have liked), then it would absolutely have been their (unwise) choice to make. But it wasn't zero. 24% reduction in further transmission from the first dose of some of the vaccines, more powerful with more doses, less powerful with time. I'm not sure what threshold I'd use for making it mandatory in general, though I would still have a different threshold for doctors and nurses — even in an alternate reality where the available vaccines had zero effect on transmission while infected and the vaccines has been weaker and had more side effects, the healthcare systems in many nations were severely impacted and needed as many people as possible able to work.
  - puffoflogic 4y ago
    - ben_w 4y ago
      > "vaccines" (which aren't vaccines) If I thought you were arguing in good faith, I would correct you. But that you use that language? No point me wasting effort using logic and reason on you when those clearly aren't the cause of your current beliefs.

puffoflogic 4y ago

> but this ruling basically provides them a retro-active free time off That is dehumanizing BS. No compassionate human being could possibly hold this view. Going through the stress and humiliation of being fired for what turned out to be the wiser medical choice, and generally being unable to find a job for the same reason in a very uncertain economy, is not a vacation.

ben_w 4y ago
Avoidance was not (with very few exceptions) a wiser medical choice. If the effect on transmission had been zero (it wasn't zero, but it was lower than anyone would have liked), then it would absolutely have been their (unwise) choice to make. But it wasn't zero. 24% reduction in further transmission from the first dose of some of the vaccines, more powerful with more doses, less powerful with time. I'm not sure what threshold I'd use for making it mandatory in general, though I would still have a different threshold for doctors and nurses — even in an alternate reality where the available vaccines had zero effect on transmission while infected and the vaccines has been weaker and had more side effects, the healthcare systems in many nations were severely impacted and needed as many people as possible able to work.
- puffoflogic 4y ago
  - ben_w 4y ago
    > "vaccines" (which aren't vaccines) If I thought you were arguing in good faith, I would correct you. But that you use that language? No point me wasting effort using logic and reason on you when those clearly aren't the cause of your current beliefs.