No jab, no job: Google will fire unvaccinated employees | Hacker News Reader

No jab, no job: Google will fire unvaccinated employees

arstechnica.com

27 pointscarride10 comments

30 days off paid pretty good. Title is misleading, they give 30 days off paid, 6 months unpaid then they fire you. Of course policy likely changes in 8 months time.

They need to do some googling....

"Individuals who have had two vaccine doses can be just as infectious as those who have not been jabbed." https://www.bbc.com/news/health-59077036

Way to miss the rest of the article:

>Unvaccinated people cannot rely on those around them being jabbed to remove their risk of getting infected, they warn.

>Vaccines do an excellent job of preventing serious Covid illness and deaths, but are less good at stopping infections, particularly since the emergence of the more infectious Delta variant which is dominant in the UK.

Your point being? Here are some news from the most vaccinated country in the world...

"Portugal Returns to COVID Restrictions Despite High Jab Rate" https://www.usnews.com/news/health-news/articles/2021-11-25/...

If Google really wants to make people return to the office after vaccination, so much, they are ready to fire their half-genius,we would assume they investigated if this would stop infections. Clearly not the case.

Vaccinations do reduce sick leave as vaccinated people get infected and thus sick a whole lot less like iamdelirium already said.

Here in the Netherlands we had a similar uprising of Covid like Portugal. You can see the distribution of vaccinated vs not vaccinated persons in the total population, hospitalized and on the IC in this graph: https://media.nu.nl/m/1nex889as0xi_wd640.jpg

The 12% not vaccinated people occupy 68% of the IC beds. Also keep in mind that those non vaccinated people in IC are mostly healthy younger people. Of the vaccinated people in IC 80% has multiple pre existing medical conditions. Like taking immunosuppressants after a transplant.

So yeah. By not getting vaccinated you are statistically a burden to your employer and society as a whole.

So are overweight persons, people doing bumpy jumping, the non working living from social assistance, the weak of physical body and mind. However society does not discriminate them near as much.

I find your comment on the non vaccinated statistically being a burden to employers and society as a whole, interesting. Because of what seems to imply about shared duties within a society. Not that I disagree with it, but what seems to imply concerning choices and decisions as a society as a whole. Let me explain...

I am curious about the Netherlands handling of the pandemic. I have been following it along with other countries. The Dutch medical system is regularly mentioned as one of the best in the world, and used as an example by politicians in the US.

I have also noticed that after 2.5 years of one of the biggest pandemic of this century, the government seems to have made absolutely zero investment in IC beds and is flying patients to Germany?

Although politicians mention the unprecedented and the seriousness of the current situation, there seems to have been no political wish to invest in medical resources, or make the societal changes required by the current pandemic.

Maybe the arguments directed to the non vaccinated about their unjustified burden on society, would not be so significantly weakened by the observation that, no efforts were made to prioritize and expand medical capacity. Or the observation that in the middle of one unprecedented pandemic, the Dutch state seems to have recently prioritized to spend 200 million dollars on a painting?

So much about choices and societal burdens?

"Dutch agree to spend €175m on a Rembrandt, but not everyone is happy" https://www.dutchnews.nl/news/2021/12/dutch-agree-to-spend-e...

"Dutch COVID-19 patients transferred to Germany as hospitals struggle" https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/...

There are efforts for people not to be at an unhealthy over weight, to not need social assistance and to not go to the hospital in the first case.

Would you argue that a better comparison would be people choosing to have other efforts being done rather than recieving a blood transfusion? Even if non existent or very expensive?

Is this really Google's policy? Or is it rather Google applying FedGov's requirement "if you want to do business with FedGov, all your employees must be vaccinated, even if they are not working directly with FedGov"? I'd say it's the latter.

the fed contractor thing already got shut down, my workplace cancelled their mandate that they were trying to enforce for this

dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29565807

Reply on news.ycombinator.com