Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by crate_barre 1648 days ago
You don’t lose your job for not getting the flu vaccine. Again, it’s an unprecedented situation and I’ll accept the mandate for the three shots, but this has to have an end at some point.
6 comments

Maybe at your place of employment you won't get fired for not keeping your vaccinations up to spec, but there are many employees that have had vaccine mandates for decades...nearly every hospital, most research laboratories (especially ones that handle human biological specimens), nearly every school...
I only “accepted” the mandate from my employer because I won’t risk my family’s well being for a piece of paper. I’m 100% pro vaccination (got a Moderna booster two day ago even) but am 110% against mandates.

The government using private industry as a proxy to enforce policy they know will not pass the legal process is wrong.

This isn't something that can be willed away. Your acceptance means nothing to a virus.

What's likely to happen is a covid vax will get rolled in with the quadrivalent annual flu vax so most people will just get one annual booster.

Clinics routinely require staff and physicians to be vaccinated against the flu lest there be an exemption on file.

Granted this article shared that the rate is low, it also surfaced mandates for healthcare:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3020194/

I have never heard of a population wide mandate for a flu vaccine however.

And since 2004 the average effectiveness for the flu vaccine is about 40% so I guess if you are in a high risk group it might increase your survival a bit, but not enough effectiveness for a national mandate. The death rate of the flu is about 0.01% for all populations.

I mean, would you get a surgery that had a 40% success rate if your chance of dying without the surgery was 0.01%?

You are basing your argument on population based statistics. Healthcare workers are an important, large, and uniquely at risk sub-population.

Should you rx chemo therapy this afternoon? Probably not… unless you have a known tumor. Radiating random people off the street is not a good idea—I fully agree!

Yes, which is why we should be only vaccinating "important, large, and uniquely at risk sub-population"s.

I do not mind mandates for vaccines for certain workers, but for young bartenders?

That's a false equivalence .

A jab isn't as evasive as surgery, it doesn't carry the same risks,costs,time etc

How can you be so sure?
Of course it ends, when the hospitals aren't a mess? Until then, we have to keep getting vaccines. It's clear that the wave after wave it's getting easier in the hospitals.

Remember, that hospital systems in pretty much all countries has collapsed. They have to move surgeries and some patients are even afraid to go to hospitals at this point.

> Remember, that hospital systems in pretty much all countries has collapsed.

This is just factually incorrect. This kind of fearmongering is helping nobody.

They stopped surgeries here (more or less), but it has nothing to do with any kind of shortage or lack of capacity.
Why is it three? Why can’t they make it effective with one vaccine? Hmm maybe because three vaccines is 3x the revenue they get vs. from one vaccine. They’re just not incentivized for our long term health and well being. It is a pure capitalism.
>>Why can’t they make it effective with one vaccine?

There are actual technical and medical answers to this, but somehow I have a feeling you aren't interested in knowing them.

I am interested to know. I have worked with big pharma executives, and frankly they are probably less interested to know the answer to this than I am.