Hacker News Reader

Comment by sva_ | Hacker News Reader

That makes sense, since it'll flatten the curve on social media platforms. /s

This seems like they are acknowledging the addictive potential of certain web services and are using it to force compliance among their students. I think that is despicable, if that is what is going on.

PS: I'm fully vaccinated. Sadly it seems necessary to make such a disclaimer, lest the hatemob will destroy you and not even consider your argument.

edit: Always interesting to have a controversial comment. I counted -11 +9 so far. I'm seeing very little engagement for that. I don't think my comment was particularly inflammatory, merely poking a little fun at the authoritarian political plays we've seen during this pandemic. So I'm wondering why people are so motivated to vote on my post.

View on HN

(Edit directed at the parent comment: this is one of the rare instances where I would argue the "flag" system has been abused. I can see disagreement with your comment, but the idea that it's so egregious that it need to be killed is absurd. My original reply below)

Quebec Canada made it so you had to show proof of vaccination to go to the liquor store (your comment about exploiting addiction made me think of that). Any pretext of actual public health benefit has been abandoned long ago (I disagree with but understand the argument why you'd want a bunch of people without masks in close proximity to have taken a vaccine that actually prevents transmission). Some people seem to think it's acceptable for institutions to just be able to pick on people without an acute reason to require them to be vaccinated, in order to "nudge" them toward a perceived greater good. I dont

(I also have all my vaccines and got each the first day I was eligible. Opposing this nonsense has nothing to do with opposing vaccines - as a concept, or the covid ones.)

I agree with you. It has gone from public health measure to some dystopian form of control. I too have all my vaccines and also caught covid. It may have helped lessen my infection but we will never know. What really showed me this was about control is when several coworkers were let go because they did not want to get the vaccine. I am in healthcare. Then when staffing shortages happened they decided people who were sick with covid but showing minor symptoms could work while sick verses calling back those who were unvaccinated but not currently sick. If it was about public safety they would not be having sick covid workers over non sick but unvaccinated. I lost all respect at that point in time. Again I have all my vaccinations.

So your coworkers, presumably health care professionals, refused to accept the most basic public health measure, and expected to keep working, presumably in proximity to vulnerable populations? I hardly think their employer is the unreasonable party here. (E.g. I also wouldn't hire a lawyer who advocated trial by combat or a chemist who advocated alchemy...)

Calling it a public health measure is editorializing. Since vaccines do not prevent transmission, I think most rational people would prefer an unvaccinated nurse that doesn't have covid vs a vaccinated nurse that does. The only official line left as far as I know is that vaccination "prevents severe infection". So is the rule still in place for the sake of the unvaccinated nurses?

And I'm not trying to be ideological here - if I've made a factual or logical mistake, I'm happy to be corrected and will own it

You are just one of those die hards who refuse to see a rational argument and change your mind no matter what. There really is no point in arguing with someone of your mindset. You worry about vulnerable populations, well did you read the part where I stated they wanted covid positive workers to take care of the vulnerable population? Please tell me how you can rationalize that this is better then having a non vaccinated worker who is not sick with covid and is of no risk getting the client sick?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com