Governor could probably play hardball if he wants. Start fining them, seize their Texas real estate if they don't pay up.
Alternatively, order them to stop operating in Texas. If an airline breaks ranks, they'll enjoy a monopoly in the state and will be able to comfortably triple its ticket prices with no competition. Meanwhile the others will bleed like mad, scrambling to get their planes out and move their HQ.
Why would they? They are interested in reminding the workers who the boss is, who fires who for any reason, and who tells you what to put into your body if you want to put bread on your table.
The shareholders should fire every single person who is pushing these policies, if they want to retain their best talent. Why are flight attendants being treated like pets or animals while some fat cat boss on an island somewhere sips on expensive wine and laughs?
This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive (obviously drunk driving is more dangerous than being unvaccinated, not claiming it's a perfect 1:1 analogy, before people complain, just making the point that just because we have safeguards doesn't mean we can ignore the core issue).
Vaccines and masks work, but they aren't 100% effective. The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative.
There are people who can't be vaccinated, or who are at higher risk, and people who are just unlucky. They don't have a choice. They are affected by other's choices. The "personal responsibility" narrative is nonsense when it comes to communicable diseases.
"The effectiveness of vaccines is far higher if everyone who can be vaccinated is, as the protective effect is multiplicative."
That appears to be a talking point that was just invented on the spot.
No, vaccines don't have any kind of multiplicative effect. How would that work? That isn't what herd immunity means (or are we still not supposed to talk about that concept? I can't keep track). Herd immunity doesn't change the effectiveness of the vaccine for those who took it, it's only meant to be of benefit to people who don't (can't/won't) take it.
Especially there cannot be any such effect from a 100% leaky vaccines that have already entirely stopped protecting people against infection - see the UK stats for proof.
> This is like asking why if seatbelts work, we don't let people drunk drive
If seatbelts were as effective as vaccines are supposed to be, then that comparison would start holding water. Instead of a seatbelt, you should use the foam crash deployment from Demolition Man as your example. I can’t wait until that’s available.
Oddly enough I’ve been hit by a drunk driver. He endangered my life by drinking well beyond his limits and operating a motorvehicle, and then making a massive mistake by running a red light and t-boning me. That has no similarity to someone unvaccinated breathing next to me. Based on what I’ve read someone could be vaccinated, and still infect me with a “breakthrough case”. So all I can do is protect myself using the tools available. If the tools don’t work, well, the unvaccinated might be just as doomed as I am.
What you can do is expect to be in an environment where everyone is vaccinated to give you the best possible safety.
Of course there is always a risk, virtually nothing in this world is a guarantee, that doesn't mean all risks are equal. The vaccine works, but it isn't 100%. Acting like that means we shouldn't bother is weird.
It’s not weird. Vaccine mandates for covid are demanding people make health decisions they haven’t bought into. It’s not like covid is polio. The risk models are different.
I had covid, it was like a really bad flu. I got vaccinated because I wanted to travel, and the adenovirus vector didn’t seem that risky. Why would I push that choice on someone else given what I know first-hand of the disease?
So COVID has been killing people at over 100x the rate of polio at its worst.
Also, polio didn't overload the capacity of the healthcare system the same way COVID keeps doing. This causes consequences for people without COVID who need access to healthcare.
>I had covid, it was like a really bad flu.
COVID has highly variable symptoms; taking your particular experience as typical is a mistake. In a lot of cases, COVID is asymptomatic. In another lot, it's roughly like yours. In a smaller, but still significant fraction, it's much more serious, involving hospitalization. (Also, something like half of symptomatic cases involve ongoing "long COVID" symptoms.) In an even smaller, but again still significant (see above) fraction, it's fatal.
The risk of death if you get polio is much higher than COVID, but the probability of getting COVID is much much higher than it was of getting polio. This makes the overall current risk if dying from COVID roughly 100x the overall risk of dying from polio was in 1952. I realize that, psychologically, a low-probability-high-risk event can seem scarier than a high-probability-lower-risk event, but is it really unreasonable of me to expect people to also be able to make rational assessments of overall danger? Do you really think we're complete slaves to our psychological biases?
> ... is it really unreasonable of me to expect people to also be able to make rational assessments of overall danger? Do you really think we're complete slaves to our psychological biases?
I think that asking a bunch of "chimps with logic" to be rational actors when they're being fomented by propaganda/half-truths/conspiracy theories is unreasonable. At the very least, I believe it will lead to your disappointment.
In my mind, this applies to the people that are hyper pro and hyper against getting vaccinated for covid.
Because what you know first hand of the disease is useless for others. My 54 year old uncle had COVID. He was just in the hospital for 5 days and came back no different from before COVID. My 29 year old friend spent 2 weeks ventilated in ICU and dying of multi organ failure
The symptoms of COVID 19 are not always flu like. It is a spectrum of symptoms which is not yet understood why it expresses in different bodies differently.
During the Second wave in India a lot of my friends and acquaintances got it and their symptoms were all over the place. Some had diarrhea like symptoms, some had no visible symptoms at all, some simply lost the ability to smell and became physically weak.
Knowing this information, trying to be safe from COVID by catching it is no less than playing Russian roulette and it makes choosing to take a vaccine no brainer.
Were your examples vaccinated? This thread is talking about having issues with /others/ not being vaccinated. My point stands: if the vaccine works, why am I (a vaccinated person) worried about what someone else does?
I can keep taking boosters, keep wearing masks, keep trying to stay healthy. That has nothing to do with people (who are not me) doing whatever they want with their situation.
As for my examples, they were hit by COVID a month before vaccines were made available to them
Vaccines work when a significant part of the population has them, if workplaces and schools can institute vaccine mandates against diseases like Diphtheria, Measles, Rubella etc. Why should a disease much more infectious than them not get a mandate?
> As for my examples, they were hit by COVID a month before vaccines were made available to them
I'm sorry for your relations that caught it, but my question was rhetorical. Using unvaccinated people's suffering doesn't help the argument that we should force people to get vaccinated against their will, if the vaccines work for people who want to take them.
If you suffer when you are unvaccinated-by-choice, then that is on you.
> 1. Less reservoirs for viruses to mutate into more harmful strains.
As opposed to the population that has taken the vaccine, but is still capable of catching it due to "break through cases"? Wouldn't a "leaky" vaccine cause more mutation due to evolutionary pressure than people catching it and building immunity?
> 2. There are people who are immunocompromised , who cannot take vaccines . They are protected by those who are healthy and have been vaccinated.
Why are they "protected", and the people who aren't vaccinated by choice not "protected"?
> 3. >90% of all recent COVID deaths in the US have been of unvaccinated persons. A non trivial percent of the vaccinated dead by COVID were immunocompromised who were infected by unvaccinated folks.
What happens when an vaccinated person has a break through case and gives it to an unvaccinated person who is immunocompromised?
> If these reasons cannot convince you, I don't know what can.
I'm not convinced. This seems more like an ethics litany than a reason we should a) create two classes of citizenry (the vaccinated and the unvaccinated) or b) violate people's body autonomy "for their own good".
You had a ~3% chance of dying and a much larger chance of having lasting debilitating symptoms. Everyone you infected while having transmissible COVID faced the same odds. If you infected 100 people, it’s likely 3 people would die.
It is definitely relevant to your point because assumptions are being made about which has a worse outcome. Turns out on the national level drunk driving is a pittance vs unvaccinated. To bad they don't have equal liability
1) Why does that ignore the science? The evidence I see is that studies are ongoing but generally show no harm from vaccinating those people, and increased protection. If studies show otherwise, then policy makers should change the mandates, not an inherent issue with the core concept.
2) This point makes no sense. Yes, of course they can, but at hugely reduced rates. Something not being perfect doesn't mean it isn't valuable or necessary. Seatbelts are not perfect, but they are mandatory because they save lives.
3) If someone has a medical issue with the vaccine, they are exempt from every mandate I have ever seen. If that is not the case, then change the mandate. It's not an inherent issue with the concept. They are the very people who most need mandates, as the people who cannot have it themselves need as many others to be vaccinated as possible.
1) Mostly agree, except the risk reward balance is slightly reversed the other way, even though both are small values. As such, it's true that it's more a question of principle than of medicine.
2) Not that reduced. Effectiveness is down to around 40-55% after a couple of months, as you can read in the latest peer-reviewed studies from last week in Nature , The Lancet and by the ongoing statistic report of the Imperial College in London  on request of the UK govt. There are plenty others publications older by a month or three who show the same from the UK, France, China and Israel.
3) Whether you are in the UK, US, Israel, France, and a lot of other places, 93-97% of >50y.o. are already fully vaccinated. They are the most at risk. As for the current state of mandates, YMMV depending on where you live. To change them ?? You might have not noticed, but people requesting changes in the mandate are considered just shy of domestic terrorist plague rats of late...
1. Not true, my mother-in-law, who works in healthcare, caught COVID early during the pandemic, and received a positive test. The vaccine mandate recognizes that and her vaccine passport consider her adequately vaccinated with a single dose.
"you received a first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (Pfizer, Moderna, AstraZeneca, or Covishield) at least 21 days after contracting COVID-19 (confirmed by a nucleic acid amplification test) and it has been at least 7 days since you received this dose;"
2. The jury is still arguing this one, but another aspect is that the more people who gets vaccinated, the lesser they risk going into the ICU and overloading the healthcare system.
3. There's a reason why they ask you to stay after getting the vaccine, to take you in charge of a medical emergency in case of an adverse reaction. That applies with any other vaccine, and if the first reaction is severe enough (according to a professional), they'll receive a proper exemption.
The jury is still out on natural immunity to COVID and how well it protects individuals. There’s lots of variability (same with vaccine immunity). The data are showing that if you had COVID and also got the vaccine you have robust protection. As to point two, the mandates aren’t about not spreading it, it’s about reducing severity and death. I guess because vaccinated or unvaccinated can spread it we throw up our arms? The mandates are that it makes us all safer (including mostly yourself). As to point three medical exemptions exist so not sure what you are going on about especially when you are talking about a very small number of adverse reactions.
Then why should other companies comply with mandates then? Isn't that the exact same line of thinking? People have clearly recovered, and are not forced to work if they don't want to. If they feel the job is unsafe, you can quit and find another one.