3 ms·

>when you get fired for sanitary reasons Those are private policies, the vaccine mandate was a federal policy. You said you don't live here, take my word for i

>when you get fired for sanitary reasons Those are private policies, the vaccine mandate was a federal policy. You said you don't live here, take my word for it, there have been far more oppressive policies.

mrtksn 1y ago
Care to explain? What they did exactly? Is there more to it than “ if you want to come to the office, you must be vaccinated or you need to provide clean PCR test results”?
- msgodel 1y ago
  No. It had nothing to do with RTO and PCR was not an alternative. There was a federal policy (not legislated btw, just an EO for all the people complaining about Trump using EOs to undo previous EOs) that said any company with federal contracts (which is nearly all tech companies in the US, not just defense contractors) must have 100% of its employees vaccinated. It had nothing to do with safety since there was no provision for remote workers. Keep in mind this was very early on before they had any reasonable amount of time to even test the vaccines. Forced medical intervention like that as a federal policy is far more oppressive than just asking immigrants and vistors for social media handles, there isn't any debate to be had here.
  - mrtksn 1y ago
    Where’s is the oppression in that? It’s pretty normal to have health procedures to the best understanding of the threat at the time. It’s pretty straightforward, all kind of professions have all kinds of rules. Can be argued that the understanding or the precautions weren’t right but I don’t see the personal or political aspect of this. Maybe hi-vis vest are also problematic, so what? Are you upset with the bureaucratic process? On how exactly was implemented? Like the interaction between the officials? Like on lawyer level stuff?
    - msgodel 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - mrtksn 1y ago
        Yep, I never get a response when ask for specifics. Cheers.
        msgodel 1y ago
        What the hell? No. forcing someone to undergo a medical intervention is strictly more invasive than asking for their social media handle -> a policy doing such is strictly more oppressive. >but we were facing a threat Precisely the same argument is made WRT visa candidates. You do get and have gotten specifics, you're either illiterate or don't want to read them.
        mrtksn 1y ago
        It’s really about fundamental definitions. You define safety precautions as such, therefore your thought process. You are not wrong, just you built it on that kind of basis. It’s the same about visa etc. It’s always a trade off between things. And trh definitions are all about what you value and what you’re afraid of. Afraid of the virus? PCR and vaccinate everyone, those who don’t want to can choose not to work and if this puts then in hard position though luck. Afraid of people protesting you, sabotage your agenda etc? Check their social media to make sure you are admitting friendlies. Freedom of thought? Who cares, we have bigger fish to fry. Our citizens will do the thinking from now on, will re-asses later. BTW, I agree that the pandemic was mismanaged horribly in most of the world. It’s just that I disagree with you stance on the vaccine but I sympathize with you that you should not be put in a position to choose between your job and getting vaccinated.
        msgodel 1y ago
        Our discussion (at least originally) is not about whether the oppression is justified which is why we would care about how threats are judged. It's about the degree of oppression. Again I do not think there is a realistic argument you could make where forced medical intervention is less invasive than reading public social media posts, regardless of how helpful the medicine might be.
  - xracy 1y ago
    > It had nothing to do with safety since there was no provision for remote workers. Citation needed for all of these claims. Please show me this information in the executive order. > Keep in mind this was very early on before they had any reasonable amount of time to even test the vaccines. Sorry, the Moderna vaccines were approved under their expedited schedule under the Trump administration in December of 2020.[1] You're complaining about gov't overreach by the same administration as is implementing the above policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_Un...

mrtksn 1y ago

Care to explain? What they did exactly? Is there more to it than “ if you want to come to the office, you must be vaccinated or you need to provide clean PCR test results”?

msgodel 1y ago
No. It had nothing to do with RTO and PCR was not an alternative. There was a federal policy (not legislated btw, just an EO for all the people complaining about Trump using EOs to undo previous EOs) that said any company with federal contracts (which is nearly all tech companies in the US, not just defense contractors) must have 100% of its employees vaccinated. It had nothing to do with safety since there was no provision for remote workers. Keep in mind this was very early on before they had any reasonable amount of time to even test the vaccines. Forced medical intervention like that as a federal policy is far more oppressive than just asking immigrants and vistors for social media handles, there isn't any debate to be had here.
- mrtksn 1y ago
  Where’s is the oppression in that? It’s pretty normal to have health procedures to the best understanding of the threat at the time. It’s pretty straightforward, all kind of professions have all kinds of rules. Can be argued that the understanding or the precautions weren’t right but I don’t see the personal or political aspect of this. Maybe hi-vis vest are also problematic, so what? Are you upset with the bureaucratic process? On how exactly was implemented? Like the interaction between the officials? Like on lawyer level stuff?
  - msgodel 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - mrtksn 1y ago
      Yep, I never get a response when ask for specifics. Cheers.
      - msgodel 1y ago
        What the hell? No. forcing someone to undergo a medical intervention is strictly more invasive than asking for their social media handle -> a policy doing such is strictly more oppressive. >but we were facing a threat Precisely the same argument is made WRT visa candidates. You do get and have gotten specifics, you're either illiterate or don't want to read them.
        mrtksn 1y ago
        It’s really about fundamental definitions. You define safety precautions as such, therefore your thought process. You are not wrong, just you built it on that kind of basis. It’s the same about visa etc. It’s always a trade off between things. And trh definitions are all about what you value and what you’re afraid of. Afraid of the virus? PCR and vaccinate everyone, those who don’t want to can choose not to work and if this puts then in hard position though luck. Afraid of people protesting you, sabotage your agenda etc? Check their social media to make sure you are admitting friendlies. Freedom of thought? Who cares, we have bigger fish to fry. Our citizens will do the thinking from now on, will re-asses later. BTW, I agree that the pandemic was mismanaged horribly in most of the world. It’s just that I disagree with you stance on the vaccine but I sympathize with you that you should not be put in a position to choose between your job and getting vaccinated.
        msgodel 1y ago
        Our discussion (at least originally) is not about whether the oppression is justified which is why we would care about how threats are judged. It's about the degree of oppression. Again I do not think there is a realistic argument you could make where forced medical intervention is less invasive than reading public social media posts, regardless of how helpful the medicine might be.
- xracy 1y ago
  > It had nothing to do with safety since there was no provision for remote workers. Citation needed for all of these claims. Please show me this information in the executive order. > Keep in mind this was very early on before they had any reasonable amount of time to even test the vaccines. Sorry, the Moderna vaccines were approved under their expedited schedule under the Trump administration in December of 2020.[1] You're complaining about gov't overreach by the same administration as is implementing the above policy. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_United_States https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_vaccination_in_the_Un...