But Google is also planning on requiring people to go back to the office starting September. You can apply for a transfer to a remote position, but that requires that there be a remote position available for you to take and then finding it and matching into it. So yeah, sounds like unless you are already remote, they are requiring you take the vaccine in order to keep your job.
At which point you will be dismissed if you have not found and secured a remote position within the company. That part of the policy has not changed. Until they announce it has we should assume they are intending to follow though.
"just get vaccinated and not worry about getting fired"
The word 'just' must be one of the most heavily used words of the last 18 months. The problem is that 'just' is the start of a slippery slope. Governments and organisations rarely withdraw authoritarian diktats, once we've allowed them in.
The vaccine has an overwhelming amount of data showing it's effective, and very little showing side effects. At some point it's a national responsibility to get it. If you don't, then there's nothing that says you should have a job at faang.
>The vaccine has an overwhelming amount of data showing it's effective, and very little showing side effects.
I see studies exploring long term/subtle effects of COVID, along with controls that were not infected. I don't see a lot of "vaccinated but not infected" and "vaccinated and infected" groups in these studies. I'd be far more convinced if those studies were done.
So effective that we're going back to mask mandates, talking feverishly about boosters, etc. And this is for already vaccinated individuals. Can't blame the boogeyman "anti-vaxxers" for increases in cases and hospitalizations in countries where Pfizer is readily admitting that the "immunity" granted by their product is "waning":
Are we ready to have an adult conversation about mRNA gene therapy and how it differs from traditional vaccines? We're up to 3 shots a year already. Typical vaccines protect the individual for the rest of their life.
Of course. I've seen that headline in plenty of places. But as soon as you scroll past the headline you see:
"However, the two-dose vaccine still works very well in preventing people from getting seriously sick, demonstrating 88% effectiveness against hospitalization and 91% effectiveness against severe illness, according to the Israeli data published Thursday."
Exactly -- people are still free to not get vaccinated, but they're not free to go to aggregate settings where they might infect everyone there, which seems like a reasonable compromise.
It's the same approach as with antivax parents -- don't want your kids vaccinated? Then you'll need to homeschool them.
Vaccination doesn’t mean you cannot be infected, and cannot spread it once infected. It lowers the chances of infection and presentation of symptoms.
So when your unvaccinated coworker exercises his selfish right to be stupid, you’re putting others at risk. The difference here is that your exposing your coworkers children and others who cannot be vaccinated to infection.
We socially tolerate people like this who choose to infect an entire office or daycare with rhinovirus, flu or the cold, because the impact is generally lower. COVID is different, and frankly, people don’t want to be around unvaccinated people just as they avoid people who display bad judgement in other ways.
But we were told to get vaccinated to protect others. Get vaccinated so you can visit your grandparents. Now we are getting a different message. This is why people develop doubts that the authorities have any real idea what they are talking about.
"Being vaccinated isn't a perfect defense, but it reduces the risk to you of getting the disease, it drastically reduces the risk to you of dying from the disease or suffering long term life altering consequences from it, and it lowers the risk of you spreading it to others."
The general guidance hasn't changed. The risk to each other has gone up as Delta spreads, because it's more dangerous. There will probably be other dangerous variants given the huge breeding ground for the virus among the unvaccinated and immune compromised.
Get vaccinated, lower your risk, lower the risk to everyone around you and to the general population of the earth. (And it's incredibly harmless).
I know it’s comforting to imagine that anyone who says something that you don’t like is just a troll, but I’m not here to lie, distort reality, or say things without proof. Both cases were clearly proven, but what does that matter when you obviously know the situation of my friends better than me…
Ofcourse these may be a small number of cases. But you can't see these people, and say that the vaccine is "incredibly harmless"...
How these people are being neglected is absolutely disgusting. I have submitted this link here and it was promptly flagged, where have written why I think that these people deserve to be thanked
The vaccine does protect yourself and others, a lot. It is very much worth it. The reported numbers make this very clear.
It's not absolute protection however. But it greatly reduces the probabilities of propagating the virus.
In a population the effect is multiplied more than the effect on an individual, because of the reduced propagation. If enough are vaccinated that multiplier does make it near-absolute protection.
Thus, it protects you, and it also protects each other through the multiplier effect.
It also greatly reduces the chances of hospitalisation and death from infection if you are one of the unlucky ones who gets Covid-19 anyway in spite of vaccination.
> Now we are getting a different message
No, we aren't.
The message from the authorities has been consistent on why people should be vaccinated, including acknowleging that it isn't absolute protection (with reported probabilities), that people should still take care to protect each other in other ways, and that collective multiplier effects mean it's important for nearly everyone to be vaccinated - people protect each other, not just themselves.
Despite not providing absolute protection to an individual who takes it without others taking it, it is believed to be able to provide nearly absolute protection if vaccine takeup is sufficiently widespread and social behaviour stays careful enough - because R < 1 means the virus dies out instead of continuing to spread, and R depends on collective vaccine takeup and people's behaviour.
Measured likelihoods of infection with the vaccine are reported from time to time, as is the effect of different virus variants. Due to the complex nature of social interactions in different environments, and the fact that data is continuously being produced and analysed, and nothing is static, those reported values are not the same everywhere, and new values keep emerging.
> This is why people develop doubts that the authorities have any real idea what they are talking about.
Different people explain the message in different ways, and emphasise different aspects. It does not mean the authorities are changing their mind on the major points.
But public health messaging is a difficult field of its own: If you spell out all the details and nuances, that some people would like to hear, most people tune out and don't follow the advice no matter how important. They also forget details, then when they hear the same thing put a different way with different emphasis, it sounds different and perhaps contradictory, but isn't really.
It has to be simplified and memorable, for people to follow it, unfortunately.
You're right that when people hear different versions of the same message, it leads people to wonder if what they are hearing is consistent.
I'll try to provide my simplified version:
When you get vaccinated and your grandparents vaccinated and everyone you interact with vaccinated, then wait a while, eventually you will be pretty safe visiting them.
If you only get yourself vaccinated but your grandparents don't, nor any of the people you interact with daily, you will be better protected than them, but they can still give you the virus (with lower probability), and you can still pass the virus on to your grandparents. You'll probably not be too ill because the vaccine protects against severe illness as well, but you might still carry it and pass it on to someone who does gets severely ill. This is why it's so important to have almost everyone vaccinated around you, not just yourself.
For example, the right to freedom of association, and choosing not to employ people who are making reckless choices that impact the safety of their coworkers?
Employees at Google are mostly at-will. Google can fire them any time, although typically, they produce a 6+ month performance record with failure to do job before terminating (mostly to protect against lawsuits). However, Google has terminated people on the spot, with cause. The government will back Google firing people for not being vaccinated.
The takeaway is that the general left now is for firing employees for political or medical reasons, when historically they were against. Why that is, at least in Europe, is because the left is no longer majority working class, it is majority middle class.
That's how you know it's not just a public health measure. For other vaccines, we rely on the majority being vaccinated so that any isolated outbreaks are naturally contained. I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example. If one person is not vaccinated, it's to their detriment and irrelevant to everyone else. There are weak arguments about vaccine efficacy etc that some people could still get infected, but the point is that majority voluntary vaccination contains disease to the point that there is no justification of invasive personal measures (in this case disclosing personal health information to an information predator, but its unacceptable regardless of the employer). It seems to me this is much more about signaling to their various stakeholders about their politics rather than an actual public health campaign.
FWIW I think (I think) they should be allowed to enforce this if they want, even if i dont like it. Although I might support measures to make this kind of discrimination illegal, I'd have to think more about that. Despite having my vaccine, I would not work for a company that asked me to prove it, however. I've got no beef with the vaccine, only with giving state or corporate actors power over my health choices.
> I assume google doesn't ask you to prove you're vaccinated against measles for example.
Is there a massive measles outbreak currently infecting millions of people? I don’t see how the fact that they don’t require proof of measles vaccine is in anyway proof that COVID vaccination isn’t in the interest of public health.
Think of yourself at the center of a circle with a series of concentric rings. If you are vaccinated with a 90% effective vaccine, your chance of catching the bug is 10% from anyone in the first ring. However, if everyone in the first ring is vaccinated, the chance of catching the bug from anyone in the second ring is only 1% (i.e 0.1*0.1). Thus with enough people vaccinated even a crappy vaccine works pretty well.
Perhaps a rather simplistic model, but somewhat illustrative.
The same way that my friend who is vaccinated was infected by his unvaccinated wife. Close quarters with an infected person is going to increase risk for some one who is vaccinated. The Pfizer vaccine is 38% effective [1] at preventing infection on average. It’s obvious that spending 8 hours next to someone who is actively infectious will reduce that efficacy rate.
[1] for the Delta variant, which at this point is what matters
"The CDC has found, however, that in rare breakthrough infections — instances where a fully vaccinated person tests positive for the virus — the amount of virus in that vaccinated person's system is similar to the viral load in an infected individual who is unvaccinated."
One could be forgiven though for not being up to date on the latest oscillation.
And a second unvaccinated coworker is also someone that has chosen not to be vaccinated, right? (Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it.)
With the delta variant becoming more common, it's seeming like vaccinated people might still be able to transmit the disease, even if they don't become infected themselves. There's also the matter of asymptomatic infection: remember that the 95% efficacy numbers reported by Pfizer and Moderna (for example) are about symptomatic infection; during their clinical trials, they only tested people if they showed symptoms.
And if a vaccinated person is infected but asymptomatic, they may never even know about it. Technically we may or may not call that a "breakthrough infection", but that person could still presumably infect an unvaccinated person, and that's the thing that matters.
> Obviously there may be some individuals who can't get the vaccine, but that should be a relatively rare circumstance, and could have policies around dealing with it.
Right, and having people around them who are unvaccinated by choice is an unnecessary risk to those who can't be vaccinated.
Not that rare in the scheme of things. Odds are strong that if you're vaccinated a breakthrough infection will be much less serious though. However in either case, you've now inconvenienced the breakthrough infectee who has to be concerned with how they go on to infect others, e.g. unvaccinated children.
The vaccination rate for vericella (Chickenpox) is over 90%, so our society has herd immunity and cases are rare. Same with measles, mumps, diphtheria and polio. I don't know the vaccination for meningitis, but cases are rare and mostly in children not old enough to be vaccinated.
If an officemate wanted to be a free rider on one of those they could, and it would be very unlikely any harm would come from it.
If we had a 90% vaccination rate for this coronavirus we would not be having this conversation (and several hundred Americans would not be dying daily from a preventable illness).
As for the flu, its not especially dangerous, not prone to exponential spread, pre-symptomatic transmission is rare and the vaccines are not especially effective. So the flu shot is in a different class than the others.
I don't buy it, even if there was 90% vaccination, which I think we can get to, people want to see obedience. This is as much about calling out heretics as it is about health, especially at companies like google. If broad vaccination was the goal like for other apolitical diseases, there are lots of measures google could support to get us there that don't involve invasive tracking of health information. Let's try to increase vaccine uptake if that's really the goal.
"This is as much about calling out heretics as it is about health"
No, you're wrong, this is about saving lives. Around 300 people died today from a disease that we can stop. 300 more will die tomorrow. Are there perhaps others sub-agendas that some people are pushing under the cover of the pandemic? Yes, obviously, just like with literally every other catastrophe. But the primary agenda is stopping a preventable disease form killing another 20,000 or 30,000 Americans.
Full stop.
Also, I find it baffling you think we can get to a 90% vaccination rate given the politicization of this vaccine.
> A unanimous public opinion tends to eliminate bodily those who differ, for mass unanimity is not the result of agreement, but an expression of fanaticism and hysteria.
-- Hannah Arendt
Thousands die worldwide each die from hunger and thirst. And just earlier, these two stories were flagged off the front page after shooting to the top very quickly:
You don't just get to say "this as about saving lives" and not have any real argument.
Encouraging vaccination, and getting it to levels consistent with other vaccines, does not automatically mean accepting new powers for employers or anyone else to enquire about people's medical status.
Google's move is consistent with wanting to give the appearance of being a progressive company that shares the values of many people here, that think individual privacy and freedom take a back seat to showing that we are taking the disease seriously. This is the same theater we see with airlines and security at other venues. There are real ways of addressing it, and then there are token gestures that are mostly about appeasing stakeholders. This is effectively populism. It's comforting to provide rituals and easy answers, but it is discriminatory and divisive, and not consistent with liberal democratic values, even if you agree with it.
What kind of hyper-politicized, conspiracy-minded sociopath doesn't count "saving human lives from an easily preventable illness" as a reasonable argument? Get out there in the world and talk to some people who have lost loved ones in this pandemic and maybe they can reason with you.
Several of those are essentially required to get a university degree already... so for many people I'm not sure an additional requirement would significantly help things, but it also couldn't hurt.
Less transmission of disease in the office would be a good thing as we return.
They are required if you want to immigrate to the US [1], so I sure hope citizens-by-birth also have to follow similar rules. Maybe you don't need to prove anything because by default people would already either be vaccinated, or had to obtain an exemption?
There are vaccines required to attend public school, but if your parents just say "I refuse" they are not going to kick you out. These hard-core antivaxxers are pretty small in number though.
It's one of those cases where it's required by law, but the law is never enforced.
I have applied for visa in multiple countries, attended public schools as well as university, and even had employment contracts specifying current vaccination.
I have never had to actually present any of that information. I'm not even sure how I could find it.
Interesting! So I guess the enforcement will only start when it's needed to get rid of some troublemaker. "-The person is causing us grief, what can we do to expel them? -Check their vaccination status, and look for other normally unenforced rules, there's gotta be something!"
It's not exactly the same, since the only mandatory vaccine I'm aware of is the one against measles, a very infectious disease which can kill kids and batter adults. It has sequelae which can appear years later. The vaccine has been in use for a long time and is well understood.
So as long as it can be ensured that the unvaccinated won't infect others (e.g. through testing), they should not be forbidden from participating in society. This is not justified by the current course of the pandemic. Maybe if we discover in a few months that the vaccines don't work any more because of the low vaccination rates this becomes more critical.
This would be fair if the equivalent public school spending for that student were instead given back to parents as a voucher to spend on homeschooling or on a different education provider of their choice with different vaccination requirements. But otherwise there is a financial coercion into divulging health choices or giving up bodily autonomy that doesn’t feel right to me.
I don't understand the concept of fairness when we're talking about something that has killed more Americans than every war since the Civil War combined. I would consider every death caused by the asymptomatic much more unfair than someone having to pay for a charter school for the luxury of being a liability to the general public every time they step outside their home.
Every one of us will end up having to pay for the problems caused by 1/3rd the population feeling they have the right to risk my life because of unfounded fears. If said people were so worried about their life, they would do the same risk analysis lots of us did. It's very clear that COVID is more likely to fuck me up than the vaccine.
And if it turns out the data was a result of every first world country in the world coordinating amongst themselves to spread an insanely damaging lie telling us exactly the opposite of the truth, we have much much worse problems.
I'm not sure why a lot of disagreements surrounding this issue devolve in to pointing the finger at some issue that has nothing to do with COVID. I assume it's an attempt to diminish the severity of COVID, by comparing a transmittable disease to one that's not?
To but it simply, I don't risk dying from obesity simply by being in proximity with someone morbidly obese. I risk contracting COVID, and potentially dying by sitting next to someone who has COVID.
There have been studies that show group social dynamics can spread (like behavioral viruses), e.g. the behavior traits that lead to obesity do in fact spread due to the conforming nature of humans.
Timescales are, of course, orders of magnitude different, and maybe that is the only difference that “matters”. E.g. we would still rearrange chairs on a slowly sinking titanic because that’s what humans do.
Remember when employer-sponsered healthcare plans tried to mandate how birth control could be used by women? I couldn't help but notice a lot of people arguing against their own rights.. and now here we are
Birth control and, for that matter, abortion is only affecting one, max. two, people. Vaccinations against a pandemic is affecting everyone. Big difference.
> To be perfectly clear, they are mandating employees be vaccinated if they want to physically go in to an office, not to do (or keep) their jobs
That is not perfectly clear actually. From what I’ve heard refusal requires a “talk” with the HR. Sounds like termination is on the menu if company doesn’t want to grant remote privileges to that person.
What happens to people with health problems preventing vaccination? I assume they would ask for proof, at which point you have to reveal your private health condition.
EDIT: I suppose a doctor's note could say you can't be vaccinated without revealing why.
Given that the CDC just admitted that vaccinated people can also spread COVID (by reissuing mask guidance), what is the point of requiring vaccinations?
It affects the balance of propabilities, and that is everything in the current situation.
Shifts in probabilities make the difference between large scale disease (a wave growing exponentially) or not (decaying to zero).
They CDC have always acknowledged that vaccinated people can spread COVID-19 with some probability. There is no "admission" because that's not new. What's changing the advice is new measurements, modeling, social behaviours, vaccination levels (or hesitancy), and the delta variant all update the balance of probabilities.
"They can still take the bus but they must sit in the back"
I'm getting downvoted but people who refuse to get vaccinated tend to be poor and minorities. And who can blame them for not wanting the government injecting a needle inside their body given the US history?
PS: I'm not antivax by any means, I got my two shots.
I know many who are literally just waiting for it to be approved the regular way rather than an EUA.
This nation has done some horrific human experimentation on marginalized groups and always claimed they were “helping people and saving lives.”
I don’t begrudge folks who have a good reason to distrust the system and demand that we at least do the usual baseline caution in investigating brand new tech
Funny how most people have zero idea what the difference between EUA and the "normal way" means. Buying FDA registered non-drugs and medical devices doesn't seem to bother as much so.
Not the GP, but I'm imagining that they meant that in the same way the 'War on Drugs' was not discrimination based on skin color, it had a disproportinate impact on African-American communities (which for all accounts was by design).
Lower socioeconomic communities have poorer access to vaccinations and lower rates of vaccination.
Just because something does not claim to discriminate by race, does not make it true. Measures to segregate the unvaccinated WILL impact lower socioeconomic communities more than middle class communities.
Lower socioeconomic communities have poorer access to vaccinations
Early on, maybe. Not now.
Find the poorest zip code in Alabama, 35203, which is in Birmingham. Look it up in Vaccines.gov. Nearest vaccination locations:
Publix Supermarket, 0.79 miles, in stock.
UAB Hospital, 1.03 miles, in stock.
Walgreens, 1.62 miles. CVS, 1.65 and 1.74 miles.
Legion Field vaccination clinic, 1.99 miles.
There are a dozen more within 5 miles.
That's a populated area. If you look for Cotopia, AL, a small remote town in the poorest county in Alabama, where the post office closed in 1986, it's not quite as easy. You have to go 9 miles, to the nearest WalMart (#10-0731).
If you can make it to a WalMart, a CVS, or a Walgreens, you can get vaccinated.
The US government has historically conducted quite a bit of experimentation on broad swaths of the population [1], not just your favored marginalized groups. So it sounds like "Karen" is perfectly justified in her skepticism.
Religious convictions, lack of trust, fear of getting an experimental vaccine (which it is under the laws they were authorized and developed). To answer to your question, those things are very hard to change although not at hard as race.
Intellectuals focusing on how the unwashed masses are the reason we can't have nice things would do well to take a long, hard look at themselves and those they serve.
