> Companies are requiring the vaccine because they make employees less likely to miss work due to illness.
Then if I don't want to get a vaccine, I'll sign an agreement that if I get sick and miss work, I don't get paid, and that's the end of it.
Then if I don't want to get a vaccine, I'll sign an agreement that if I get sick and miss work, I don't get paid, and that's the end of it.
And that's not even accounting for the fact that if you get sick, you might infect others in your company.
You must be missing the part that vaccinated people transmit the virus just the same. This is not a sterilizing vaccine we are dealing with.
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lanepe/article/PIIS2666-7...
"In the UK it was described that secondary attack rates among household contacts exposed to fully vaccinated index cases was similar to household contacts exposed to unvaccinated index cases (25% for vaccinated vs 23% for unvaccinated)."
No difference in infectiousness. And with it, no logical justification for mandates. But this is Google and factions within it will certainly not give up a chance to get rid of what remains of the conservative/libertarian part of their workforce.
For an employer, this tells you that you can't rely on one thing to prevent spread but the combination of masks, vaccination, air filtration, etc. remains effective.
Probably hospitals and care homes are actually the worst-case scenarios for viral transmission because they're full of people who are already sick or have weak immune systems.
You've ignored the point about illogicality completely.
you will have to come with a citation needed to make that claim. I have seen studies showing exactly the opposite of what you claim.
You also have to factor the social aspect. Vaccinated people, thinking they are protected, are way less careful now and therefore have a higher propensity to transmit the virus.
That's not how vaccines against COVID-19 work. They diminish the risk of severe illness and death, not transmission rates.
> Based on evidence from clinical trials, in people ages 18 years and older, the Moderna COVID-19 vaccine was 94.1% effective at preventing laboratory-confirmed COVID-19 infection in people who received two doses and had no evidence of being previously infected.
If you’re prevent infection, aren’t you effectively reducing the R0 by definition? How is the vaccine making it harder to infect not reduce transmission rates?
[1] https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/different...
> Reports of waning vaccine-induced immunity against COVID-19 have begun to surface. With that, the comparable long-term protection conferred by previous infection with SARS-CoV-2 remains unclear.
[0] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...
> These results suggest that the vaccine is initially effective in reducing infectiousness of breakthrough infections even with the Delta variant, and that while this protectiveness effect declines with time it can be restored, at least temporarily, with a booster vaccine.
The paper you're looking at is analyzing waning immunity against the Delta variant.
[1] https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.29.21262798v...
Well, at least within households[0]:
> Research reveals fully vaccinated people are just as likely to pass virus on to those they share a home with
[0] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2021/oct/28/covid-vaccinat...
New rule: every googler who works near immunocompromised coworkers has to wear a mask.
It's also not the doom scenario you describe. Yes they have to take extra precautions, and yes the people around then have to make a point to not be around when they are sick, but with a little consideration plenty of people with highly compromised immune systems live meaningful lives.