Hacker News Reader

Comment by woodpanel | Hacker News Reader

Regardless of where you stand with this policy, you gotta give it some Kudos:

It's a very efficient way to cleanse your entire bureaucracy of doubters.

I can't think of another example where a democratic republic, which by definition includes a spectrum of opinions, has its whole bureaucratic hierarchy re-aligned with the ruling party's platform.

Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic?

View on HN

Maybe this is due to the fact, that this is inherently undemocratic?

SCOTUS ruled that mandatory vaccines are constitutional back in 1905. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts

Note all the "reasonable" and "great danger" in the decision. It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description

> It's unclear (and to be determined) if covid fits that description

700,000 people have died in the United States 18 months, 4.5 million world wide.

Like, what else needs to happen for this pandemic to meet that description?

Jacobson v. Massachusetts was a case about smallpox vaccination. For context, smallpox kills about 30% of those who are infected and the vaccine is so effective that the disease has been completely eradicated. Covid-19 is a lot less deadly than that and all indications are that the vaccine for it isn't remotely as effective at preventing infection and spread.

What do you mean, it is unclear? Do overfilled hospitals not create a great danger?

Undemocratic does not mean unconstitutional. The Electoral College is undemocratic, yet constitutional by definition, for instance. SCOTUS itself is undemocratic yet constitutional.

> Undemocratic ...

The USA has always been a Representative Democracy. We elect leaders whom have the power to enact rules and laws. And this is what happened here.

Don't confuse what we have with "direct democracy".

The rationale in that case doesn't apply here: the COVID vaccines don't stop the spread of the virus. Because COVID vaccines can't actually stop the spread of the disease under any plausible level of vaccination (the R0 of the virus is too high), vaccines can serve only to safeguard the health of individuals, and we generally don't use heavy-handed nation-wide mandates to force people to do things that are merely good for them health-wise on an individual basis.

The same reasoning that justifies this mandate would justify a state-imposed limit on daily calorie consumption, a state-imposed exercise requirement, and all sorts of other coercive measures that, while good for people's health, are flagrant violations of principles of bodily autonomy and informed consent for medical treatment.

This isn't about the vaccine and it's not even about COVID. This is about one political tribe using the state to hurt the other political tribe.

We don’t need to eliminate transmission for the vaccines to be useful. My understanding is that they do meaningfully reduce transmission, even for Delta.

You are also missing another important factor. In addition to reducing transmission, the vaccines greatly reduce the chance of hospitalization, which together significantly reduces the peak load on the health system so that it continues to function well and serve non-COVID patients. In many areas, hospitals were nearing or at capacity due to the recent Delta surge.

There are 2 separate issues. Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally. Preventing hospitalization is a separate matter and not really worthy of a mandate. Banning alcohol and fast food will save far more lives, in that case.

Alcohol and fast food are not infectious diseases that can spread through entire populations in a matter of weeks.

Vaccines don't stop the spread. Look at Iceland. Any argument of the form you're making is invalid.

They significantly reduce spread.

> Reduce transmission, which it only does marginally.

91% is a huge reduction.

"COVID-19 vaccines ... reduce the risk of infection by 91 percent"

https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/p0607-mrna-reduce-ri...

Maybe so --- but places like Iceland still have big COVID waves despite very high vaccination rates, so clearly, the vaccine doesn't reduce the risk of infection enough to stop the spread, and that's what matters.

With the delta variant, experts believe we need 90% vaccinations to achieve herd immunity. Iceland is at 72.8%.

There is every reason to believe that the vaccine would stop the transmission once enough people had the vaccine.

Does that 90% include cats and deer? Believe what you want, though the fact is the animal virus reservoirs mutate and transmit to humans, so the 'rona will be with us for approximately forever.

I don't think reducing transmission matters that much as long as R_0 is above 1. If it's above 1, everyone is getting this thing.

In Texas to be a public employee you must certify that you will not boycott Israel. This is an actual political position that’s disallowed.

Under Biden’s change (correct me if I’m wrong), I can believe whatever I want about vaccines and say anything (so: have a political position)… as long as I get vaccinated (this is not a political position).

Not to mention that both ruling parties at the top are urging all to get vaccinated.

> Not to mention that both ruling parties at the top are urging all to get vaccinated.

Ah good, the stuff they come together on is always really great.

Yep same with my primary care physician, my kids pediatrician, wife’s OBGYN, and the health authorities of… y’know what damn near everything.

On the other hand the dumbest people I’m related to are fiercely on your side. So maybe I need to do some more research.

Funny.

Certifying to not boycott something is hardly comparable to have something injected into your body.

While with the latter your livlyhood dangles on an administered injection of a substance into your body (and probably regular boosters) any pledge to not do something in private is virtually un-enforcable and thus just lipservice.

Are you not familiar with the concept of people getting fired for stuff they do outside of work? How on earth, with at-will employment, could this be unenforceable?

And no they’re not comparable, that was the point of my post. One is enforcing a particular political belief on your employees, the other is a routine public health measure, similar to other vaccine requirements I’ve been subjected to.

PS without this requirement I’m being implicitly required to inhale morons’ virus spray as a condition of my employment.

Vaccination is not a political position. Vaccines only work if a large majority of people are vaccinated and people who refuse to receive the shot are putting everyone else in danger. A basic function of a government is to protect public safety, and that is what a vaccine mandate does.

Clearly it has become a political position. A progressive way of thinking about this move is to depoliticize it by making it the enforced norm because it's a stupid thing to politicize. A cynical view is that it'll force non conformers out.

But its hardly novel to make government employees do politically slanted things. I'm sure a lot of government employees on the democrat or neutral side felt strong opposition to demands made of them during the trump admin.

I'm for this one.

COVID vaccination may have become a political position, but vaccination in general is not. Where are all the debates about MMR, hep-B, polio, etc.? We have required vaccinations in our children beginning in infancy for generations, and I am not hearing any governors or representatives saying that we must end the practice.

Each of these illnesses you state is multiple times more serious than covid. And each of their vaccines had the clear benefit of being an actual vaccine.

Covid was the third leading cause of death in the US in 2020. Just because it’s not a uniform risk profile across the population does not make it an unserious disease.

Hepatitis-B is more serious than Covid-19?

By what criteria?

Vaccines only work if a large majority are vaccinated

Thats not true at all. If I get vaccinated it reduces my risk of serious disease - the vaccine works.

> Vaccines only work if a large majority of people are vaccinated and people who refuse to receive the shot are putting everyone else in danger.

I assume by "work" you mean herd immunity (I can't make sense of the statement otherwise), but even 99% vaccinated regions are seeing transmission because the Covid vaccines are not sterilizing and do little or nothing to reduce transmission. Herd immunity arguments don't apply here.

Citation needed, because that contradicts the CDC's guidance:

https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/science/science-br...

"people fully vaccinated with an mRNA vaccine (Pfizer-BioNTech or Moderna) are less likely than unvaccinated persons to acquire SARS-CoV-2 or to transmit it to others"

emphasis mine

"less likely" is bureaucratic weasel language which could encompass a percentage reduction anywhere from 1 to 99 percent. But what the CDC specifically said in the Provincetown study is that "vaccinated individuals infected with delta may be able to transmit the virus as easily as those who are unvaccinated." https://www.washingtonpost.com/health/2021/07/29/cdc-mask-gu...

Also from that article: > The breakthrough cases are to be expected, the CDC briefing states, and will probably rise as a proportion of all cases because there are so many more people vaccinated now. This echoes data seen from studies in other countries, including highly vaccinated Singapore, where 75 percent of new infections reportedly occur in people who are partially and fully vaccinated.

Your vaccine does not work unless someone or everyone else has one? Has this been observed with previous vaccine products?

Yes:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breakthrough_infection#By_dise...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herd_immunity

Do not think in terms of "your vaccine," because vaccines are about preventing the spread of a disease within a population.

Yes but here immunity is impossible :-/

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

The Delta variant is so contagious that there will be no significant herd immunity effect. So I would encourage everyone to get vaccinated to protect themselves.

https://www.businessinsider.com/delta-variant-made-herd-immu...

Everyone getting vaccinated has clear benefits, and helps avoids breakouts. See mumps, measles, polio, etc.

Well, probably not the people with myocarditis or Bell’s palsy.

By that argument you can sate your hunger by forcing me to eat a sandwich.

Not only did you come forward with a political position while stating that it isn't, you are also wrong about what the vacines do and do not protect. If vacines didn't protect the person taking them, there wouldn't be any use to them at all.

For comparison the flu shot prevents infection in about 60% of people who receive it. The point is not to prevent infection in every single person who receives the shot, it is to prevent infection in or transmission from enough people that the virus will not spread from person to person.

Vaccination is not a political position in the US. We require children to receive numerous vaccines from infancy onward and that policy is broadly supported across the political spectrum, and has been for generations now. Where are all those political debates about the polio vaccine, or MMR, or hep B etc.? All I hear are crickets...

The flu shot is not mandatory, nor should it be. Partly becase low effectiveness, partly because it's sensitive to mutations, partly because the risk of complications, while not zero, is relatively low.

Polio vaccine is a bit of an outlier. 3 doses give 99% effectiveness.

MMR 2 doses is 97% effective against measles and 88% against mumps.

The jury is still out on how effective mRNA is against covid delta, studies are all over the place, 42% to 96% for Pfizer. A lot of people are concerned that mutations evading the vaccine are likely to occur, including Pfizer CEO.

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/polio/hcp/effectiveness-dur...

https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

https://www.healthline.com/health-news/heres-how-well-covid-...

>Vaccination is not a political position in the US.

Antivaxers aren't new, but it became a serious political question/fight when the covid vacine hit. As for right now there was multiple post about it on /r/politics.

Just because you do not think it should be a political issue does not mean it isn't.

Most of the "doubters" on Fox News had their vaccinations already. Why wouldn't it be the same for doubters in government?

If the only difference between political opinion is whether you get vaccinated or not, you're already a monoculture.

The people being "cleansed" here are the crazies (of any political flavour).

The majority of black American population?

it's not about cleansing doubters, but rather political opposition. and it's never been about effective pandemic mitigation from either major party. it's entirely about flexing and coalescing power.

no matter what your political affiliation might be[0], we should always oppose such naked political power-grubbing.

[0]: note that i'd strongly argue against having one, not just as a matter of principle, but simply to make politicians really (rather than superficially, as it now is) work for our collective and individual support.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com