The difference is that those 450 cases at the tesla plant were easily avoidable, if not for the selfish actions of a powerful egomaniac.
With the precautions they have set up (I think the data speaks for itself...) I’d rather a little bit of risk and have my livelihood.
A certain number of people are going to have a bad reaction to the COVID-19 vaccines and die as a result. Fortunately, this number appears to be quite low, but it's not zero. It's never zero (there are people who are born allergic to breast milk, and who can die from that).
Our society has calculated that the risks involved with getting COVID-19 are higher than those involved in getting the vaccine. Therefore we are vaccinating people, even though some are guaranteed to die from that (but once again emphasizing that is going to be a whole lot fewer deaths than if we don't vaccinate).
Classic calculated risk.
Evidence required. Without counterfactual, the plant seem safer than the county : 4.5% vs 5% as mentioned above. For all we know, they got sick while going to work due to the incidence in the county, and would not have been if they could sleep and eat at the plant.
Also, the workers may prefer being paid than on the government dole
But all the journalist care is making an incendiary article to present as class warfare what is just plain good sense: eventually, plants will be reopened
The worst part? Quoting the article:
"It had promised they could remain home if they felt uncomfortable returning to the line. The Post reported in late June and July that workers concerned about covid exposure received termination notices after they did not return to work.
Show me other businesses so that I can assess if Tesla is worse otherwise this is almost just a "Tesla bad" article.
The counterfactual of getting infected while go to work at the tesla, is not, staying home and not getting infected. Staying home, you can still get infected (but not getting paid).
There are so many reports just compare what observed to a perfection. I don't think journalists wrote those articles are stupid enough to compare reality to a perfection, because they can immediately show some level of sophistications when defending someone they like. I believe this is just a tactic for intentionally biased reporting. Journalists can always control how many data they want to present in their reports.