• edric@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    15
    ·
    1 year ago

    Assuming you’re in the US, no one was banning you from traveling or gathering with loved ones. There was nothing close to an actual lockdown that was implemented in the US. Losing income is a different story. Coming in to work and endangering other people’s health without their consent is not acceptable. Not to mention that most antivaxxers are antimaskers as well, which made it worse. If you purposely do not take the necessary precautions to keep other people around you safe, then you shouldn’t be working there. That applies to anything, not just Covid.

    • Shake747@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      1 year ago

      I’m not in the US - but also thank you for responding without malice.

      Losing income is a big deal, especially with dependants, but that aside - you’re right about your point of possibly endangering others.

      However If the vaccine fully protected you (as it was advertised at first) this wouldn’t be the case - anyone who was vaxxed would’ve been immune. Also having natural immunity is just as good, if not better - but instead of doing any sort of antibody testing, we stuck with “be vaccinated or lose your job”. Wouldn’t anti body testing instead of mandates be the pinnacle of making sure those around you are safe? Especially at a time when we didn’t know the risks or effectiveness of the vaccine.

      • BeardedGingerWonder@feddit.uk
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        1 year ago

        No company or government agency claimed the vaccine fully protected anyone, the efficacy results were published long before the vaccines were made available to the public. Natural immunity isn’t better at all, it’s as good in some cases, but less consistently so across the board and hybrid immunity was better than either. No, antibody testing would be unnecessary overkill vs just vaccinating everyone for this reason.