6 ms·

They took people's livelyhoods away, and now they gotta pay.

Maursault 4y ago
They were fired for cause, namely, insubordination. The resistance to vaccination is entirely political. The mandate was not, but instead in the interests of public safety and health. Easing the mandate for special cases was a terrible decision. The decision to ease the mandate should be reversed, not the mandate itself. So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC.
- xfitm3 4y ago
  A growing number of doctors have threatened to withhold treatment from the unvaccinated, sparking backlash from doctors and bioethicists who say such sentiments violate the Hippocratic Oath. Those critics are even more troubled by the silence from professional organizations tasked with upholding medical ethics. The mandate should have never existed.
  - Maursault 4y ago
    - gruez 4y ago
      >The mandate was legal. says who? Another commenter has quoted a part of the decision >This Court aggress that the Commissioner cannot enact a term of employment on City employees and has exceeded his scope of authority
    - drak0n1c 4y ago
      Please be careful about spreading misinformation. Vaccines were not widely available until spring of 2021, after the election. Only select few essential healthcare staff were eligible in 2020, and US deliveries began December 14th, 2020.[1] During the 2020 election season you describe it was actually the opponents of President Trump who were encouraging vaccine skepticism.[2] [1] (see HHS timeline) https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html [2] (see bulleted video hyperlinks): https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-release-fact-kamala-harriss-anti-vaccine-rhetoric-anti-science-and https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-rel...
      - Maursault 4y ago
        Thank you for the correction. the resistance to COVID vaccination coincided with its availability. What was killing Trump supporters was his calling the virus media hype and hosting superspreader events, while he and his wife were among the first vaccinated before he left the White House.
    - benjaminwootton 4y ago
      Nice rant, but as per the ruling [1], I believe it is now scientific and popular concensus that the vaccine barely moves the needle on transmission if at all. At that point, any logic behind mandates vaccinations collapses. [1] “ Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19”
      - Maursault 4y ago
        [citation needed] According to the CDC, HHS, Johns-Hopkins and every single medical school, hospital and scientific organization in the US, as well as 224M vaccinated US citizens, the COVID vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
        benjaminwootton 4y ago
        I didn’t claim it wasn’t effective at those things as I’m sure you know. My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is the only logical and “potentially” ethical (in some twisted peoples heads) basis for a vaccine mandate. It has now been totally debunked. I literally quoted a linked article issued by the NY Supreme Court for your citation.
        Maursault 4y ago
        > My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is not the same as >>> "Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19" Being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection and transmission, but it does reduce the likelihood of infection and transmission by about half. The fact is the vaccines are effective in reducing infection and transmission. Your assertion that "the vaccine barely moves the needle on transmission if at all," is gross exaggeration at best and entirely false at worst. The science of immunology and vaccines is sound and well-established. The risk of adverse effects from vaccines is vanishingly small, while the likely benefit of reduced risk of infection, severity of illness, hospitalization and death is huge. The COVID vaccines are nothing short of a miracle of modern medicine. The only grave problem here is laymen making uninformed medical decisions based solely on political tribalism and failed political ideologies, evangelizing their logically unsound and medically ignorant position, and refusing to cooperate with the interests of public health while needlessly putting themselves and others at significantly increased chances of infection, severe illness and/or death. This is the very definition of anti-social behavior, placing one's ego and whims above the needs of all others, and not caring whether others get sick, suffer and die.
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > They were fired for cause, namely, insubordination The idea that you can order someone to perform a medical procedure because they work for you is disguisting. Where does this end?
  - ezekiel68 4y ago
    Not at all. We require school children to undergo medical procedures before they may participate in city-funded education. The tone of alarm is unwarranted. This is not a slippery slope situation.
    - ls15 4y ago
      > This is not a slippery slope situation. I think it is. Governments aren't that trustworthy if you ask me.
      - Maursault 4y ago
        The paranoia is a bit too late. Emergency powers were established by Congress a century ago, and at least 60 national emergencies have been declared since. In New York State, a state of emergency declaration permits the governor to direct local officials and state agencies, and to suspend state and local law or regulation to facilitate disaster response efforts. If there ever was a slippery slope, it has long since been descended many times.
        ls15 4y ago
        I am negotiating my life, not the ones of my great-grandparents.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Then you should have been there back in March of 1789. Government is for those who participate, not those who whine about it after the fact. You certainly aren't required to abide by laws or social contract if you don't value the liberties and protections granted by the Constitution and US citizenship.
- Blahagun 4y ago
  >So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC. What are talking about? What piles of bodies?
- tb_technical 4y ago
  If you believe that punishing political dissidents is an acceptable way to operate, your just priming your political enemies to become brown shirts.
stjohnswarts 4y ago
Not really, they were watching out for the health of other employees who had to work with employees that refused to do the most basic acts to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.
- tomp 4y ago
  You're 100% bought into the propaganda. Isn't it time to pause and reflect? Btw. "the science" hasn't changed. The vaccine never stopped the spread. There were no studies indicating that it did (medical trials were about hospitalisations / death, not infections / spreading). You fell for the fake science propagated by fake news media.
  - Hakashiro 4y ago
    That is a pretty disgusting statement. What ""the science"" are you talking about? The vast majority of doctors and scientists strongly recommend taking the vaccine. It is not about stopping 100% of illnesses and infections, but it is 100% about significantly reducing the chance of hospitalisation and death. What are you talking about? Sounds like the time to reflect is all yours.
    - tomp 4y ago
      Did you read the comment I replied to? It mentioned nothing about decreasing hospitalisation or death (which is true and I agree with!). It mentioned “saving coworkers” which implies that the vaccine prevents infection or transmitted, which is not true. Despite a lot of people (Biden, Fauci, CDC) explicitly saying it does, and invoking “science”.
  - lukeasrodgers 4y ago
    Interesting, I never bothered to investigate the basis of that claim. According to https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0, a recent study does show that the vaccine was effective at preventing the spread, which is unsurprising to me. What is surprising is that the article claims this was the first study of the effectiveness against spreading an infection.
vkou 4y ago
When you willingly refuse to get vaccinated, and are thus more likely to catch and spread COVID, shouldn't we make you pay for any lives you've contributed to taking away?
- zdragnar 4y ago
  The effectiveness of the vaccines in terms of preventing spread weren't studied, per pharmaceutical company testimony to congress. The whole notion that you getting the vaccine would prevent grandma from dying was a whole-cloth fabrication.
  - vkou 4y ago
    And if they were, would that change the ethical calculation here? If we had a sterilizing vaccine, and you refused to take it, and got me sick, could I hold you responsible? I'm just trying to understand exactly to what extent other people's selfish choices should be allowed to endanger my life and livelihood.
    - realjhol 4y ago
      Then things might be different, but in our present reality it was always transparently clear to anyone who had eyes to see that the justification for coercination was founded on nothing more than hysteria, lies and wishful thinking.
    - Karsteski 4y ago
      While I agree with you that people should get vaccinated (if they want. Their body their choice), I feel like the argument of "to what extent other people's selfish choices should be allowed to endanger my life and livelihood" doesn't hold up. You probably live in some developed country. If it's the US or Canada, I can say for sure that you live in a country that was founded on the exploitation of others. We continue to knowingly benefit off of such exploitation by importing and purchasing products produced by cheap and often abusive labour. We use electronic devices whose manufacture is mostly in China and other such countries where there is recorded abuses and in some cases downright modern day slavery. We continue to use these devices despite knowing that many of their essential metals are mined by exploited children in Africa. I'm trying to understand exactly to what extent our selfish choices should be allowed to endanger others' lives and livelihoods
hammock 4y ago
This idea seems to be exactly the essence of the ruling. Not sure why you're being downvoted.
- tb_technical 4y ago
  People were coping and seething while (not actually) working at their FANG jobs. Later I got voted up from people who got back from (actual) work, who read HN

They were fired for cause, namely, insubordination. The resistance to vaccination is entirely political. The mandate was not, but instead in the interests of public safety and health. Easing the mandate for special cases was a terrible decision. The decision to ease the mandate should be reversed, not the mandate itself. So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC.

xfitm3 4y ago
A growing number of doctors have threatened to withhold treatment from the unvaccinated, sparking backlash from doctors and bioethicists who say such sentiments violate the Hippocratic Oath. Those critics are even more troubled by the silence from professional organizations tasked with upholding medical ethics. The mandate should have never existed.
- Maursault 4y ago
  - gruez 4y ago
    >The mandate was legal. says who? Another commenter has quoted a part of the decision >This Court aggress that the Commissioner cannot enact a term of employment on City employees and has exceeded his scope of authority
  - drak0n1c 4y ago
    Please be careful about spreading misinformation. Vaccines were not widely available until spring of 2021, after the election. Only select few essential healthcare staff were eligible in 2020, and US deliveries began December 14th, 2020.[1] During the 2020 election season you describe it was actually the opponents of President Trump who were encouraging vaccine skepticism.[2] [1] (see HHS timeline) https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html https://www.hhs.gov/coronavirus/covid-19-vaccines/index.html [2] (see bulleted video hyperlinks): https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-release-fact-kamala-harriss-anti-vaccine-rhetoric-anti-science-and https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/documents/campaign-press-rel...
    - Maursault 4y ago
      Thank you for the correction. the resistance to COVID vaccination coincided with its availability. What was killing Trump supporters was his calling the virus media hype and hosting superspreader events, while he and his wife were among the first vaccinated before he left the White House.
  - benjaminwootton 4y ago
    Nice rant, but as per the ruling [1], I believe it is now scientific and popular concensus that the vaccine barely moves the needle on transmission if at all. At that point, any logic behind mandates vaccinations collapses. [1] “ Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19”
    - Maursault 4y ago
      [citation needed] According to the CDC, HHS, Johns-Hopkins and every single medical school, hospital and scientific organization in the US, as well as 224M vaccinated US citizens, the COVID vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease, hospitalization, and death.
      - benjaminwootton 4y ago
        I didn’t claim it wasn’t effective at those things as I’m sure you know. My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is the only logical and “potentially” ethical (in some twisted peoples heads) basis for a vaccine mandate. It has now been totally debunked. I literally quoted a linked article issued by the NY Supreme Court for your citation.
        Maursault 4y ago
        > My comment was about effectiveness in reducing infection and transmission. This is not the same as >>> "Being vaccinated does not prevent an individual from contracting or transmitting Covid-19" Being vaccinated does not 100% prevent infection and transmission, but it does reduce the likelihood of infection and transmission by about half. The fact is the vaccines are effective in reducing infection and transmission. Your assertion that "the vaccine barely moves the needle on transmission if at all," is gross exaggeration at best and entirely false at worst. The science of immunology and vaccines is sound and well-established. The risk of adverse effects from vaccines is vanishingly small, while the likely benefit of reduced risk of infection, severity of illness, hospitalization and death is huge. The COVID vaccines are nothing short of a miracle of modern medicine. The only grave problem here is laymen making uninformed medical decisions based solely on political tribalism and failed political ideologies, evangelizing their logically unsound and medically ignorant position, and refusing to cooperate with the interests of public health while needlessly putting themselves and others at significantly increased chances of infection, severe illness and/or death. This is the very definition of anti-social behavior, placing one's ego and whims above the needs of all others, and not caring whether others get sick, suffer and die.
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> They were fired for cause, namely, insubordination The idea that you can order someone to perform a medical procedure because they work for you is disguisting. Where does this end?
- ezekiel68 4y ago
  Not at all. We require school children to undergo medical procedures before they may participate in city-funded education. The tone of alarm is unwarranted. This is not a slippery slope situation.
  - ls15 4y ago
    > This is not a slippery slope situation. I think it is. Governments aren't that trustworthy if you ask me.
    - Maursault 4y ago
      The paranoia is a bit too late. Emergency powers were established by Congress a century ago, and at least 60 national emergencies have been declared since. In New York State, a state of emergency declaration permits the governor to direct local officials and state agencies, and to suspend state and local law or regulation to facilitate disaster response efforts. If there ever was a slippery slope, it has long since been descended many times.
      - ls15 4y ago
        I am negotiating my life, not the ones of my great-grandparents.
        Maursault 4y ago
        Then you should have been there back in March of 1789. Government is for those who participate, not those who whine about it after the fact. You certainly aren't required to abide by laws or social contract if you don't value the liberties and protections granted by the Constitution and US citizenship.
Blahagun 4y ago
>So quickly they've forgotten the piles of bodies of COVID victims in NYC. What are talking about? What piles of bodies?
tb_technical 4y ago
If you believe that punishing political dissidents is an acceptable way to operate, your just priming your political enemies to become brown shirts.

stjohnswarts 4y ago

Not really, they were watching out for the health of other employees who had to work with employees that refused to do the most basic acts to prevent the spread of a deadly virus.

tomp 4y ago
You're 100% bought into the propaganda. Isn't it time to pause and reflect? Btw. "the science" hasn't changed. The vaccine never stopped the spread. There were no studies indicating that it did (medical trials were about hospitalisations / death, not infections / spreading). You fell for the fake science propagated by fake news media.
- Hakashiro 4y ago
  That is a pretty disgusting statement. What ""the science"" are you talking about? The vast majority of doctors and scientists strongly recommend taking the vaccine. It is not about stopping 100% of illnesses and infections, but it is 100% about significantly reducing the chance of hospitalisation and death. What are you talking about? Sounds like the time to reflect is all yours.
  - tomp 4y ago
    Did you read the comment I replied to? It mentioned nothing about decreasing hospitalisation or death (which is true and I agree with!). It mentioned “saving coworkers” which implies that the vaccine prevents infection or transmitted, which is not true. Despite a lot of people (Biden, Fauci, CDC) explicitly saying it does, and invoking “science”.
- lukeasrodgers 4y ago
  Interesting, I never bothered to investigate the basis of that claim. According to https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-022-02328-0, a recent study does show that the vaccine was effective at preventing the spread, which is unsurprising to me. What is surprising is that the article claims this was the first study of the effectiveness against spreading an infection.

vkou 4y ago

When you willingly refuse to get vaccinated, and are thus more likely to catch and spread COVID, shouldn't we make you pay for any lives you've contributed to taking away?

zdragnar 4y ago
The effectiveness of the vaccines in terms of preventing spread weren't studied, per pharmaceutical company testimony to congress. The whole notion that you getting the vaccine would prevent grandma from dying was a whole-cloth fabrication.
- vkou 4y ago
  And if they were, would that change the ethical calculation here? If we had a sterilizing vaccine, and you refused to take it, and got me sick, could I hold you responsible? I'm just trying to understand exactly to what extent other people's selfish choices should be allowed to endanger my life and livelihood.
  - realjhol 4y ago
    Then things might be different, but in our present reality it was always transparently clear to anyone who had eyes to see that the justification for coercination was founded on nothing more than hysteria, lies and wishful thinking.
  - Karsteski 4y ago
    While I agree with you that people should get vaccinated (if they want. Their body their choice), I feel like the argument of "to what extent other people's selfish choices should be allowed to endanger my life and livelihood" doesn't hold up. You probably live in some developed country. If it's the US or Canada, I can say for sure that you live in a country that was founded on the exploitation of others. We continue to knowingly benefit off of such exploitation by importing and purchasing products produced by cheap and often abusive labour. We use electronic devices whose manufacture is mostly in China and other such countries where there is recorded abuses and in some cases downright modern day slavery. We continue to use these devices despite knowing that many of their essential metals are mined by exploited children in Africa. I'm trying to understand exactly to what extent our selfish choices should be allowed to endanger others' lives and livelihoods

hammock 4y ago

This idea seems to be exactly the essence of the ruling. Not sure why you're being downvoted.

tb_technical 4y ago
People were coping and seething while (not actually) working at their FANG jobs. Later I got voted up from people who got back from (actual) work, who read HN