[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28824370
Edit: deleted link to tweet, comment below points out that it was from a suspect Twitter account.
Of course, zero pushback on this nonsense idea
In favor of Pfizer for that age group. Not in favor of "don't get the vaccine".
”A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines”
I can find 10 credible news reports of healthy individuals that died within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine in a minute of searching, so we know that the number 0 is complete nonsense.
Since the CDC numbers are comically wrong, we have to go to the next best source. The CDC itself is creating vaccine hesitancy by lying and misrepresenting statistics, which leads people to wonder what else they are lying about. Just the idea that they report adverse reaction rates based on number of doses administered, and not the number of vaccinated people, intentionally cuts the effective incident rate per person in half since two doses are required. That calls into question everything else they do. Nobody cares if it’s the first or second dose that kills or injures them. So the next best source is VAERS.
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/safety/ad...
The White House thinks they can force unilateral changes to the union contracts.
If the unions admitted to what was going on, the White House would have more legal authority to intervene more directly with the unions.
Well, yes. Contracts can't override Federal regulation. "Sign this contract exempting you from OHSA protections" won't (generally) fly, right?
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/10/07/us/politics/biden-vaccine...
> Experts said that legal challenges to the rule were all but assured, but precedent is most likely on Mr. Biden’s side. In the past 20 years, “every standard that has been challenged in court has been upheld by federal judges,” David Michaels, a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health who was a head of OSHA during the Obama administration, said in an interview.
> OSHA also has the authority to quickly issue a rule, known as an emergency temporary standard, if it can show that workers are exposed to grave danger and that the rule is necessary to address it. The rule must also be feasible for employers to enforce.
At the state level, there's plenty of legal precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
It's so strange. Do people really prefer to push an agenda here rather than understand the nuance and truth of what is going on?
We're trying for a different site here, and feeding the flames is the opposite of it. It just makes things worse.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Note this one: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls)
Since you're deriding mine, you seem to have a better explanation for why a huge part of our transportation infrastructure went dark a day after the Southwest pilot's union went to court to try to stop the vaccine mandate. Would you care to share it? I'm certain we would all love to hear it.
While they’re all wrong, anti-vaxxers are a whole spectrum. I do think one big of nuance is important here though: there are a lot of strongly pro-vax people, like myself, who are strongly anti-mandate. The choice to take the vaccine is the correct choice. The other choice hurts not only yourself, but others. However there is no circumstance in which I’d support the government requiring a medical procedure to be performed on someone without their consent.
I’m vaccinated, but very uncomfortable with the government ordering me to be.
This is a very lax "mandate." Nobody is going to require vaccination to drive a long-haul truck.
So they are conscripting others to mandate you get vaccinated on their behalf. Gee, that sounds an awful lot like they are conscripting companies to be state actors on their behalf. Good luck with any company trying to hide behind that. It hasn't yet sunk into corporate America the liability plank they are about to walk off of but they better wake up fast or it's going to get expensive very quickly.
So you are happy to accept bodily harm to innocent "others" (from your comment) to protect the power to refuse to get a vaccine shot?
You do realize vaccine mandates aren’t new? The chicken pox vaccine has been mandates for all children attending public schools for over 20 years now. It has been enormously successful in eradicated what used to be a very common disease.
The child vaccine requirement analogy is flawed for at-least 3 reasons
1. We have all kinds of things we apply to children we do not to adults. They are children after all. For example kids are banned from smoking, but adults can.
2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school.
3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children. Many of us do not, I think parents should vaccinate their children, I do not believe it is the role of government to mandate that no more than I believe it is the role of government to mandate the COVID vaccination
That is basically what it is comes down to is do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy
It clear what choice you have made
For which vaccine was a year's safety record not sufficient to detect side effects? Which one needed a decade to discover side effects?
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2002/11/gao-mili...
> Rates of events that resulted in seeking medical advice or taking time off work were 7.9% after the first dose; 5.1% after the second dose; 3.0% after the third dose; and 3.1% after the fourth dose.
A decade of monitoring wasn't necessary to spot them; they were deemed fairly normal, and the vaccination program restarted.
I'm looking for an example of a vaccine where a year is not enough time for side effects to surface, that would justify the claimed need for a ten year study before being mandated.
> Although many individuals have expressed health concerns after receiving anthrax vaccine, a congressionally directed study by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that this anthrax vaccine is as safe as other vaccines. The Academy considered more than a dozen studies using various scientific designs, and heard personally from many concerned US military service members.
So the government is allowed to be "your master, your parent, or king" of children but not for adults? Be consistent.
>2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school.
What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument.
>3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children.
Anyone who is 100% ok with mandating vaccines for children but not for adults is simply not being logically consistent. This is the same "point" as (1).
>do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy
I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. I hope you will join me in fighting for me rights to operate my vehicle whenever I want. Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? Is the government my parent? I know I can drive well when drunk and the other guys who have killed others were just idiots. Why does the government infringe on my autonomy to drive by forcing me to get a license? Why do I have to be put into a government database? I paid for my car after all. What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?
You use this also has hyperbolic statement as if there is not arguments to abolish drunk driving laws[1], which often are abused by the police as a pretext for other actions they are barred from performing..
[1]https://reason.com/2010/12/31/abolish-drunk-driving-laws/
>>What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument
What are you considering public resources here? I am fine with an employer on their own requiring a mandate as a condition of employment, I am even fine with a business requiring vaccine before they provide services. I am not fine with government requiring these businesses to do this
Do you see the difference? I am not talking about "public resources" I am talking about the government interfering with private business transactions.
>>I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state.
Ohh I can only dream of that...
>>What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?
I am sure people like you would desire that
I think you’re right, but I also think that anti-anti-vaxxers are at least as cult-like - disparaging Ivermectin as “horse dewormer” is as disconcerting as insisting that their healthy 20-year-old cousins friend dropped dead after getting the vaccine.
Only when black people are tool to prove a political point is when you start caring about healthcare for black New Yorkers.
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/08/12/nyregion/covid-vaccine-bl...
> Young Black New Yorkers are especially reluctant to get vaccinated, even as the Delta variant is rapidly spreading among their ranks. City data shows that only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 years are fully vaccinated, compared with 48 percent of Latino residents and 52 percent of white residents in that age group.
(I do share the skepticism that the stat was brought up out of genuine concern for the health and safety of that population, though.)
Are many folks hesitant to get it? Yes. Is it for the reasons mentioned? Who knows.
One thing is clear - lots of people are doing things that are getting them in deep, deep pain because of BS, rumor mongering, and fear. It’s pretty terrible.
Vaccine mandates have existed since shortly after vaccines existed, and for good reason. Because otherwise thousands or millions of people end up dead that didn’t need to, often completely innocent folks who never even had a choice in the matter, and often horribly to boot.
Huge numbers of folks have had these vaccines and the fatality rates and serious hospitalizations have plummeted because of it.
I had the vaccine, everyone I know has had the vaccine - zero serious problems whatsoever. And for me personally, when I had to take care of my 2 year old because he caught covid, so I had a highly infectious toddler screaming in my face for hours sometimes? It probably saved my life. It definitely saved my father in laws life.
It still sucked though.
You don't know what saved your life, you're guessing based on propaganda you've been fed. It could be true, but nobody really knows.
Also, adverse reactions to the COVID shots are far more common and more serious than you're willing to admit.
If you have actual data that adverse reactions are more common, please do share. Having had the worse reaction of the 20+ people I’ve talked to that had it (weakness for a day or two, 103+ fever, brain fog for a week), and being a bit pissed about it, in hindsight it was just because I hadn’t been sick for so long I’d lost all context. That’s literally less bad than getting the flu.
This is what I mean by losing ones mind - there is no rational basis for comparing this to the Nazi’s literally throwing people in prison camps based on their various racist and eugenic minded shitty ideals and experimenting on them randomly until they were dead. Literally zero. But if there is an unresolved anxiety or other issue going on? That makes perfect sense. And if the anxiety is due to not being willing to face something difficult or not being able to address underlying problems - one natural reaction is to pretend the other thing is actually bad, point fingers, etc.
The problem is? That causes more pain later, because this stuff isn’t going away.
I’ve personally had someone in my life have a severe mental health breakdown over their own inability to face a real danger with Covid and prepare for it (instead opting for the comfortable feeling that ‘it couldn’t happen to us’), resulting in their child getting severely hurt - because they didn’t do the basic diligence it would take to prevent it (with Covid), and the problems it has caused, including the guilt that they also can’t face and end up projecting onto others, and the ongoing behavior issues and blowback has ruined their life. It took something that could have been a nothingburger and instead turned it into a traumatic event with consequences that will echo through generations.
Please, seek help. This is a legitimate problem you appear to be having, and avoiding addressing it will only harm you and everyone around you.
There are many people have died and had severe reactions to the vaccine shortly after getting them. Look at VAERS, look at claims that even VAERS is greatly under reported. look at how many more people are dying, despite the vaccine. The vast majority of American's have some form of natural immunity. Forced vaccinations or tying them to ones ability to feed their family is unconscionably evil. You'll see in 2022.
1% dead means around 3.5 million dead, in the US alone. Do you consider that acceptable?
Of course the choice isn't that simple or binary in the real world, but there's elements of that choice at play and I stand by the point I'm making.
The absurdity of peoples' accusations of world-ending authoritarianism and censorship is baffling.
No. But mandating a brand new vaccine is new. We don’t know what the long term effects are. Nothing about COVID or the way in which tyrants around the world are using it to seize new powers is normal.
People at the FDA are resigning left and right [1]. Nobody wants their name on this thing.
[1] https://arstechnica.com/science/2021/09/anger-frustration-at...
Such a severe lack of empathy is disturbing.
> the vast majority of the dead will be the very old, and people who took extraordinarily poor care of their health.
This is incorrect, the Delta variant is hitting young people hard, including children.
https://newsnetwork.mayoclinic.org/discussion/how-covid-19-d...
https://www.healthline.com/health-news/young-people-make-up-...
https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/young-unvaccinate...
The ego-driven vaccine denial and lack of respect for distancing and mask requirements is killing people.
But keep ranting how the science is _settled_ and everyone just needs to fall in line. Give me a break.
As for your lame "lack of empathy" argument - the only way for an unvaccinated person to be a risk to anyone else with COVID is if they are symptomaic - i.e. if they have a fever. However, as a vaccinated person not only can you have COVID, you can be shedding (spreading) it without any way of anyone around you knowing unless you have been recently tested.
That's what's beyond crazy - the vaccinated represent a bigger threat for covert spreading than the unvaccinated! An utter 180 from the popular narrative.
So yeah, keep on your high horse about empathy, denial, etc. At this point there is very little science in these discussions - you are espousing dogma and propaganda.
https://www.wired.com/story/the-cdc-owes-parents-better-mess...
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...
https://www.cidrap.umn.edu/news-perspective/2021/09/covid-va...
Additionally, the Delta variant (currently the most prevalent by far) hits young people and children hard.
Even if you consider the elderly, the obese and the chronically sick to be "expendable" (which is an absolutely abhorrent worldview), your claims simply are not correct.
Your last statement shows you aren’t interested in this honestly because you are more interested in virtue signalling and claiming moral superiority. How you came to the conclusion from my statement about me be young fit and healthy (and thus very low risk) to somehow mean I consider elderly, obese and sick to be expendable is beyond me.
I looked at the data for my age group and found that there’s 5-7x more deaths and a lot more serious injuries from car accidents than Covid.
Also you are wrong. Even in asymptomatic or mild cases, the viral loads is the same and you can spread the virus. The virus grows in your nose and pathways and can spread even if you are vaccinated and within the 3 month period after which the effectiveness drastically declines.
How people expect every young person to keep getting injected every 6 months is beyond me.
In Ontario, 36.6% of the cases on October 8 were fully vaccinated and 34.5% of deaths in Canada in the week of September 4-11 were fully vaxxed. We had under 10% fully vaxxed till June 10, so vast majority of our vaccinations occurred in last 3 months. The vaccine effectiveness decline is clearly visible as the weeks go by.
In Iceland, their recent outbreak started from fully vaxxed individuals even when they had around 60% of population vaxxed.
These vaccines are only a potential symptom mitigator. That doesn’t mean it should get mandated.
And what makes you think it will only be every six months. COVID viruses are the family that contains the common cold. Why have we never tried to vaccinate for the common cold? It mutates too fast and too often!
You aren't going to shelter in place or vaccine away this virus. It's here, it's a permanent part of our existence and we better figure out more sane ways to deal with it that don't also destroy the economies of the world.
Sweden never locked down - their curves match pretty much everyone else. New Zealand finally gave up on their extreme quarantine policy and admitted that the virus is there too. So much for being the darling for how to handle the virus and the rest of the world being idiots.
Ugh.
Moreover that number assumes everyone will get infected, but there's nothing deep driving that belief. Scientists don't understand to what extent the immune system can recognize and fight viruses based on prior exposure to other similar viruses, so they just ignore the possibility and assume no such ability exists at all. Yet it's been nearly two years now and I never got infected even after I spent 10 days self-isolating with someone who had it and had symptoms. Most of the population hasn't tested positive despite saturation levels of testing. The assumption of 100% infection doesn't seem to be a very good one.
Great upheaval brings great opportunity, if you are ruthless enough to exploit it.
There are unfortunately many actors around the world who - for various reasons - desire to create instability, because they see it as a way to profit or to gain political power.
It's the history of international politics.
If the mandates were rational, they would be centered around antibody tests.
Of course COVID itself is dangerous. But once you have had it and survived it, the science shows that you have far better immunity than the vaccine delivers. The mandates do not take this into account. That is all I was trying to say.
This isn't clear at all, e.g. "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination" at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...:
> Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.
https://www.timesofisrael.com/study-covid-recovery-gave-isra...
https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
And this is also a very significant factor to resistance to the mandates - it's beyond obvious this whole issue is more political than scientific at this point.
Think I'm exaggerating? Good luck finding the actual "approved" vaccine. The only ones that I can find within three states of me are all the emergency use versions - so more games being played. Why would anyone be suspicious when stuff like this is still going on? Yet the suspicious people who would like more information are the irrational ones? Good grief.
Here's a very rational question. This technology has been in development since the late 80's. If it is unquestionably safe, then why haven't any of these manufacturers completed formal FDA approval before now?
So the odds of serious, possibly permanent injury, or death, from the vaccine are slightly higher than the odds of dying from COVID for those 35 and younger. I realize that you will now dispute VAERS numbers, but they are the closest thing we have to accurate data on this.
No it doesn't. The website you link to even specifically states "Reports are not proof of causality".
Odds of dying shortly after vaccine (for all agree groups?): 1 in 11,250
Odds of healthy 35 year old dying from covid: 1 in 2,700
So a healthy 35 year old is 4x more likely to die from covid than vaccine.
> studies show is drastically better than the vaccine, but without the dangerous side effects
Because they're the dangerous main effects ffs.
Social media has optimized the process of finding groups of people that think just exactly like you do. The fact that you are listening to one specific echo chamber that feels this way does not tell you that the entire industry feels this way.
Consider the following counter-example: United Airlines also has a vaccine mandate, and got well over 99% compliance.
But how many employees left UA along the way?
Hell the president was bragging that was exactly how they got to those percentages over the weekend.
Just make COVID-19 vaccination a requirement to pass your medical, and be done with all this hand-wringing.
Think about it for two seconds, if that really happened, there would be hundreds of witnesses, everybody would be talking about the flight number, there would be cell phone videos and corporate social media responses. None of those things exist, so either everybody on the plane, the airport, and all their friends and relatives are in on the conspiracy except this one bot account, or they're making shit up to stir up conservatives, which is what they've done all day every day since joining the site in January 2017.
Then again, I think it's technically illegal for members of the airline industry to actively strike. So maybe this is how it's done for plausible deniability sake.
if its internal mismanagement then they do, as always follow the money.....
> The nationwide cancellations came as the airline announced Monday that the company will now require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccinated by Dec. 8.
> Some customers said they were told the cancellations are a direct result of the vaccine mandate.
> “I asked them specifically 'is this about weather' – because if it’s about weather, they can deny compensation. They said 'no, it’s not about weather.' I said 'is this about maintenance?' They said 'no, it’s not about maintenance.' I said then 'what is the problem?'" passenger Ron Frank said. “They said this is all because of the vaccine mandate. They said we had a massive walkout. They also said that air traffic control had a massive walkout because of the vaccine mandate. But to couch 1,000 cancelations because of a thunderstorm somewhere is not believable.”
I was, at first, very skeptical that so many people would walk out of the their jobs in a seemingly organized way, until I heard about the PTO angle of the story.
I work at a company with “unlimited PTO” (because business leaders learned that they pay less with “unlimited” than they do with accrued). But in previous jobs, it was very common to accrue PTO (up to 2 to 3 weeks worth). Most employees would find it hard to get coverage or approval for taking time off, so their PTO would accrue until it maxed out. Anytime I was going to leave a job where I had banked PTO, I would take my time off, and then resign when I came back because if you leave with accrued PTO, they would pay it out, taxed as supplemental income, which is at a higher rate.
3 weeks is a common max accrual for folks that have worked somewhere longer than a year or two, and looking at the calendar, we’re almost exactly 3 weeks from November.
These workers are getting (PTO) paid to strike, plus they’re not breaking any rules, or committing to resigning (or being terminated due to COVID policy), yet. Three weeks to take a much needed break, speak their values, and not miss a check? Now that sounds more like human behavior.
If employees are using PTO by claiming they're sick (assuming there's no separate "sick days" they would normally use), Southwest might have recourse to deny paying PTO but whether or not they will is another question.
This doesn't make any sense at all. If a vaccine-mandate induced ATC walkout was the cause, all air carriers would be disrupted, not just Southwest.
I suspect this is someone pitching his own views about a situation he doesn't know the true cause of.
Jacksonville FL, for example is a major SW hub, and was completely shut down. Similar issues exist in two other major SW hubs - Houston and Phoenix.
Also, not all other airlines have mandated vaccinations. ...and those that have aren't in heavily anti-vax cities.
COVID vaccine shenanigans with a large chunk of the workforce near retirement age and just saying "fuck your mandate, I'll retire early" is just the cherry on top.
> It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
Despite all these measures you are still going to be exposed to the coronavirus. Just like the every flu that we've dealt with for the last however many thousand years. This rigmarole is just upsetting people for no real gain to you.
Our media and so-called health leaders have dramatically oversold the value of these vaccines. Yes, they can help with the severity of reaction when you are exposed but they aren't some defensive bubble.
And I think that's the real issue here - being exposed to the virus and each persons reaction and risks carried in that reaction to the exposure are two different things, but they are lumped together - which shouldn't be.
There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.
* 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.
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.
Your are correct that I do not find the small risk vaccinated person's have from an unvaccinated person to be at a level to justify mandates as reasonable
"Not allowing" - how are you going to "not allow" without using force of some sort?
The airline is saying it's something to do with weather, but somehow they're the only airline effected.
Everybody online seems to the think it's some sort of labor strike, but the union denies this and nobody can find anywhere where people are planning this.
And yet thousands of people are stuck in airports all over the country right now.
It just seems like something is going on, and that everybody is lying about it. Can't say I've ever really seen anything like this, and it genuinely freaks me out.