Chicago Schools talking to Lyft/Uber after bus drivers quit over vaccine mandate | Hacker News Reader

Chicago Schools talking to Lyft/Uber after bus drivers quit over vaccine mandate

chicago.suntimes.com

5 pointsSQL221916 comments

So it's easier to have Uber drivers get child work clearances, trainings, and vaccines, than to temporarily allow unvaccinated drivers (likely with masks) while training their replacements...

You know what else is easier? Mandate the shot. Unvaccinated people who are eligible for the shot are creating an undue burden on society. Let's stop making it about people's freedoms and start making it an issue of public health. Imagine if tomorrow ~40% of the population decided to ignore traffic lights and Stop signs because they infringe on their freedoms. Your freedom ends where it hurts other people. And given that your infection could literally go viral, you may hurt a lot of people.

Yes I'm well aware that you can still transmit the virus if you're vaccinated, but you are less likely to get sick, less likely to get as sick and unlikely to need to be hospitalized or die.

Yep - I'm fed up. I have an at-risk son who's ineligible for a vaccine due to his age.

"You know what else is easier? Mandate the shot."

That's what they did, and this is the result.

"I have an at-risk son who's ineligible for a vaccine due to his age."

It seems the in-person school with 20+ similarly age-ineligible students and a teacher with an unknown status would be a bigger issue than the bus driver right? I mean, if that's the concern, then they shouldn't be going to school in person and the whole bus point is moot.

"Let's stop making it about people's freedoms and start making it an issue of public health. Imagine if tomorrow ~40% of the population decided to ignore traffic lights and Stop signs because they infringe on their freedoms. Your freedom ends where it hurts other people."

I think this is getting a little off topic. I didn't mention personal freedom, but I suppose one could imply that the drivers have the freedom to quit their jobs for any number of reasons, including being required to vaccinate. I'm not debating the vaccine mandate merits. Although it would be interesting to hear how far you would like the government to go when using it's force to compel people in this situation and what effects it might have (like not having bus drivers).

The real thing is that I'm skeptical that Uber is really a reasonable answer. I would imagine the massive cost could be used to recruit bus drivers with better pay or incentivize the current drivers to get the vaccine.

Why do you think that other people are endangering you in particular by not taking a vaccine? That’s a -personal- not a -public- health issue. Insofar as you aren’t barred from taking the vaccine you also aren’t barred from drinking all day and eating pizza for every meal. You’re not endangering my heart because YOU eat more and your logic is piss poor.

The logic is pretty clear to me.

- Unvaccinated people transmit the virus at a higher rate.

- Transmission leads to more illness.

- More illness leads to overcrowded hospitals and worse outcomes for everyone needing care.

Therefore a “personal choice” can lead to public concerns, making this a public health issue, and actually same could be said for your argument about overeating. Heart disease is a major public health concern, which is why some jurisdictions banned sugary drinks in children’s school lunches.

"Therefore a “personal choice” can lead to public concerns, making this a public health issue, and actually same could be said for your argument about overeating."

When using n-order impacts to determine when personal choices become public concerns, it's just a matter of determining where one draws the line. This will undoubtedly lead to differences in opinion on where that line should lie.

For example, even two people who are in support of universal mandatory vaccination many differ on the level of force the government should use gain compliance.

Yea I agree it’s something we can and should debate via legislation. However there is another part to that spectrum: laws prohibiting institutions from mandating vaccinations.

Anecdata warning: Over half of my wife’s healthcare colleagues refuse to get vaccinated. These are people who regularly treat the extremely frail and immunocompromised.

Perhaps one of the oddest things I saw was that hospital that fired a nurse who had antibodies but refused to be vaccinated. It's the same outcome (immunity) but I guess the corporate lawyers didn't care. Like, all I want to see is a little common sense from both sides (although it seems like there is some degree of bias).

I could see that going both ways. We’re only now starting to see reliable studies about the duration of immunity after infection, so mandating a vaccine for a healthcare worker isn’t out of the realm of reasonable precaution. It would really depend on how recently the antibody test was conducted.

There is no scientific evidence that vaccination produces more durable immunity than infection. In fact it appears to be the opposite.

https://www.science.org/content/article/having-sars-cov-2-on...

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

And there's more to immunity than antibodies.

https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavi...

It should be added that not only appears to be the opposite, the message was that vaccination is still necessary. That cannot be justified with a precautionary reasoning, it was misinformation.

I encourage everyone to get vaccinated if they can, but vaccinated people can still spread the virus to your son.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/0...

Apparently you didn't actually read what I wrote:

> Yes I'm well aware that you can still transmit the virus if you're vaccinated...

I read it but your statement is illogical.

giantg2, GiorgioG, and nradov seem to be agreeing: everyone who lacks a counter-indication such as allergy to a component of a certain vaccine shoud get vaccinated!

I seem to have missed which statement is illogical.

Vaccination does not prevent the targeted pathogen from entering the body. While it technically can prevent the pathogen from reproducing by pure chance encounter with the immune system, normally this does not seem to be the case. Rather, the immune response to the pathogen or to cells altered by the pathogen tends to begin after the pathogen is already reproducing in the host, and is stronger after suitable vaccination.

In the case of a virus, this results in lower viral load, reduced symptoms in the host, and shorter duration of active infection. Lower viral load and reduced duration of infection result in less viral shedding. Reduced viral shedding results in reduced transmission to other hosts.

This results in less risk to others, regardless of whether they are vaccinated or not, and less disruption to society. If you can't get vax'ed yet, or have doubts as to safety (there is no reasonable doubt as to efficacy), your best protections are to isolate from all others as much as possible and wear a tight-fitting facemask† of appropriate material when you cannot isolate, until you either you can get vaccinated or you receive enough information for you to believe the benefits outweigh the risks.*

* Note 1: Keep masking and isolating for at least two weeks after receiving the last requried dose of a vaccine. This is you're immune system's learning period for the current COVID-19 vaccines, and allows your immune system to maximise its defense.

† Note 2: The primary benefit of masking is to reduce the spread from a knowingly or unknowingly infected host to other potential hosts. It also slightly decreases the wearer's risk of becoming infected via airborne transmission (moreso if wearing a very firmly and properly fitted N95 mask or better).

Opinion about who is an undue burden to society tend to diverge.

Your personal problems of being fed up cannot be solved with public health policy.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com