Hello! What do you think about IT companies that allow ONLY vaccinated people to work from the office? The rest are limited only for working from home.

Not a good way to encourage people to get vaccinated as I’m sure many would rather work from home

From my pov it should be mandatory just as many others, so my opinion is that if you want to go to the office, respect their rules, else, just work remotely

I think It's a reasonable precaution in a time of world wide pandemic that's slowly mutating into something more dangerous than what it started as.

If you can do your job from home then stay home or get vacc'd and go to the office. Your social desires are second to a literal pandemic.

If you have a job you can't do from home however, then you should be allowed an exception given you follow proper procedures, mask around people and all that.

I don't see why people are freaking out so much, use your common sense for once. If it helps, imagine you're playing a sim game like Game Dev Tycoon and you're facing a pandemic. Your employees demand to work from office without vaccines but getting half the company ill for two weeks will cost you precious dev time, not to mention the media outrage if someone dies... What is the most game theory decision to do if not ask everyone to WFH or come only if safe (vacc'd)?

Sounds perfectly reasonable. Why put people in danger? Even if you're not feeling charitable, it's lost revenue.

@Demolishun so, do you have your tinfoil hat on or are you joking?

The vaccine seems at least as dangerous as the virus, and doesn’t seem to protect you from it much anyway.

Work from home.

@Root Well at least it lowers my risk of dieing from it. I don't care if I have to love in isolation for 14 days. It's not perfect and people shouldn't be forced to get vaccinated but it's a nice option to have

I’m sure when the first vaccines were made available to the general public many people were not at ease with being injected with some dead or weakened virus. However back then social networks didn’t exist so there wasn’t all the bullshit being spread about the vaccines as is the case today with this new type of vaccine. If we had listened to all the skepticism back then, we’d still be living in a world with tuberculosis, polio, tetanus, rabies… Now wouldn’t that be great !!

@Root

What Im more worried about is that the coof seems to cause longterm issues for some people.
I know at least 2 older people now that had the coof and their psyche changed in the same way towards being much more scared and cautious. I don't mean like scared of the virus but just much more cautious and sedantery in general...

There were a lot of different news regarding Cov2. Almost all of them were blown out of proportion, but the fact stays that we know even less about the virus than we know about the vaccines, which are literally studied for over a decade.

It's a pick your poison situation. But by all records the new mRNA vaccines are actually safer and spend less time in your body than inactive virus vaccines, and I already trusted those just fine

@Demolishun
Yes yes, half if the population of earth is going to die. Definitely what's going to happen. Because that's how this always works out.

I got vaxed and still healthy as an 18 yr old (outisde of bad acid reflux lol). Very few people actually died from the vaccine and they had a history of bad reactions to vaccines to begin with

@Demolishun Source? Unsurprisingly this rant turned into whether people are pro-vaccination or not

@Demolishun Source?

@Demolishun Yeah, same as @Root : you just write more statements without giving your sources

So now the topic has switched to full on conspiracy, great. After a quick search I found this, I guess that's where it's coming from : https://health.com/condition/... which basically says that the 6% is the percentage of people who died as a direct consequence of getting COVID. The rest of people had existing issues that worsened when they caught covid

@Demolishun It's not up to people to find the sources of what you claim.

@Demolishun when you say something it's up to you to provide proof of what you say. That's basic arguments. It's how research papers, courtroom proceedings etc. also work, even if you're just citing stuff that other people have said. It's not about people being lazy, it's about guiding your argument along with the stuff *you want to use* to back it up. You're presenting the argument, you provide the stuff to back it up. Not doing so *is* sufficient reason for people not believing you.

Imagine if lawyers went like "Your Honour, my client is not guilty. Prove it yourself." or a scientist said "there is life on Mars. Find it yourself." They'd be laughed out of their professions. It's still fine if the scientist had said "there is life on Mars because [Cuthbert 2016] said so", then the onus of proof is on the source cited (i.e. you don't have to always prove things yourself, just link to others' work and it's still better than nothing.).

To use my own argument, here's a link that somewhat substantiates what I said about scientific circles https://wheaton.edu/academics/...
And combine it with the burden of proof section from here https://effectiviology.com/burden-o...

This applies whenever an argument is being made, because the whole point is to actively convince somebody of what you're saying.

tl;dr you want to claim an opinion, substantiate your claim with evidence/proof. Otherwise, we're entirely justified in not believing a word you say.

People are looking for options to get into the office or adapt to the conditions of remote work. I am sure that such educational resources will make it possible to adapt to the conditions of remote work and study. Writing reports and abstracts can be fast and affordable.

good post!