>SWA has claimed that the immediate causes of this weekend’s meltdown were staffing at Jacksonville Center and weather in the southeast U.S., but what was a minor temporary event for other carriers devastated Southwest Airlines because our operation has become brittle and subject to massive failures under the slightest pressure. Our operation and our frontline employees have endured continuous and unending disruptions since the first time our airline made headlines in early June due to widespread IT failures. Our Pilots are tired and frustrated because our operation is running on empty due to a lack of support from the Company.
I somehow notice a lot of this lately, in many different areas. I wonder if there isn't a common cause behind those. Is it just covid or something bigger?
In the past this wasn't as big as an issue because the risk was spread out amongst a multitude of small to medium size corporations. But again, over the last few decades corporations have become mega-conglomerates through buyouts and mergers/etc... Too big to fail. All the eggs in fewer baskets. Again, in an attempt to keep growing, because in our current economic system and the culture promoted in it (partially by MBA's) is the idea that if your company isn't growing it's dying. And even if it's growing, if it's not growing by a large enough amount it is failing...
So you could have a 1,000 person corporations stabley making 100 million in revenue. Providing good benefits and salaries to all. But if its not growing, then it is viewed as failing ... It's truly an absurd mindset and culture.
The "religion" of profit maximization and cost minimization has a price - it's NOT GLOBALLY OPTIMAL OVER TIME for the survival of the organization (profits, anti-fragility, etc.) nor for the larger system of a national or global economy.
Mathematically, flat, non-cycle economic systems are IMPOSSIBLE. You can never achieve it WITHOUT introducing systemic instability because you are eliminating ALL the information REQUIRED to maintain feedback control and you are removing agility of the system. Once the error signal goes to zero, the system is 100% out of control! It's open loop. Then any "environmental" change can tip the entire system over where that could be a competitor, other nation or "act of God" disruption.
And this is what happens when you profit maximize/cost minimize to its ultimate limit. And on the way to that extreme, you are increasingly make the system more brittle and the probabilities of failure increase.
Re having all people being "productive", the reality of things like Price's Law also make reliability worse as an organization (corporation, government, etc.) grows.
Price's Law says that the number of people who actually do most of the work is proportional to the square root of the organization size. In the case of supply chains, most of the people who are "assuring system reliability" actually aren't and generally are incapable of doing so anyway. It's a reality due to network effects (adverse ones but the same dynamic as the good ones - you can't control or differentiate the two).
Note you can take it to the other extreme: not worrying about profits is just as bad if not worse. Socialism/Collectivism doesn't work either for similar reasons actually.
Something has changed in the last 10 years - the last five in particular. I obtained my frequent flyer number from them in 1985 and have flown them hundreds, if not thousands of time so yeah, I have a LOT of experience to draw from.
A great overview of how they have optimized to the extreme to their detriment is by Juan Browne: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kO39nIcuPhQ
If HK were still alive I sincerely doubt they would be operating the way they are today :(
Luckily I'm getting ready to move back to the west coast and shouldn't have to fly regularly again - thank god!
He stepped down just a few years before his death, in 2019.
A colorful character and legendary driver of the culture at Southwest.
Finance never did produce, it's whole purpose is to extract.
Run a gasoline engine to lean and it will start to heat and stutter...
As for the growth, in a peaceful society you can grow as much as the amount of people you supply, so without war there will probably no other way than saying goodbye to growth.
When things have been built to last, there is a lot of "fat" that can be cut - for a while.
The numbers will always look better - until they don't.
When the music stops, the "lean" "financial engineers" will be long gone, and those still there will have not the slightest clue how to re-start a culture of serious product/service development or robust operations, and the corp falls into a death spiral.
If you are a trader, you DGAF.
If you are an investor, watch for numbers improving without product and operations improving, and new markets being opened.
I’ve only seen this in wealth generation instruments. Outside of those, I haven’t seen much of the “culture“ you’re referring to. In that framing, I think it makes sense and is anything but absurd.
The company is dual purpose at this point: part original mission (airline) part communal investment. Being a great airline that is comfortable with its current market definition isn’t sufficient for its second purpose. The commune’s investment expects growth in the abstract sense. They aren’t interested in Airlines, they’re interested in purchasing a piece of future growth.
Your Vanguard mutual fund’s performance depends on exponential growth - healthy retirement strategies live primarily off of growth, not principal, during the retirement phase. Maintaining value (~+2% on paper growth) doesn’t earn your company a place in society’s communal pool of assets.
Aye, I think that’s the point I’m making. Earning reports are for public companies. The company is part of society’s communal wealth if it’s publishing a quarterly earning report. Check out the companies not posting quarterly earning reports - because they aren’t publicly traded - and not building towards a public offering; I don’t think you’d find this same “culture.”
In your scenarios, the public communally purchased shares of future growth, priced in against the stated goals - and the public’s confidence the company would reach those goals.
What other outcome would you expect? If you think this is the market being irrational, you -personally- can buy at the “failure” price. If you’re right, you’ll do well over a long time horizon.
There's a decent summary of the book (and the general problem) in the 2012 Time article "Driven off the Road by MBAs" as well.
 - https://www.amazon.com/Car-Guys-vs-Bean-Counters-ebook/dp/B0...
 - http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2081930...
Nothing wrong with making an effort to lean out an organization, which is simply meant to make it more efficient and more competitive. It's not specifically just cutting staff, it's a lot of things. The trick is to not confuse leaning out with cannibalization. Like Musk says, if you aren't having to add stuff back in, then you aren't deleting enough.
The airline industry is under insane pressure given the environment, and this stuff is bound to happen. Safety may even be unintentionally sacrificed. This space is far from thermodynamically sound right now. If somebody has an easy answer for it, that would be some fat consulting stacks for the BTC fund.
I'll counter your generalization with my own: F250's are hammered with middle-management baggage. MM makes shitty decisions, and still causes tons of wait states. Having consulted for five F500's now, my observation so far is that the 250-500 range are much more incentivized to do what it takes to become more competitive. OTOH, the F20's I've consulted for severely need some waves of boomer (my gen) retirements.
BTW, the general reason M&A activity increases is because the associated market space has contraction pressure on it. What else are you supposed to do? The beginning of the end for markets, governments, empires. That's just the way us humans do things.
These trite rules get repeated so often they become like The Mandalorian "This is the way".
I think every industry is full of this kind of nonsense. Some closer to home examples : everything needs to be in the cloud; immutability is good; use 3rd party SaaS services for everything; code comments are bad; ...
OTOH didn't Facebook just demonstrate why building everything in-house is dangerous?
You have to accept some risk, and it's often hard to compare risks on the business side vs risks on the technical side.
You are lowering you cost but by doing so, you are increasing your risk.
Furthermore, by using external saas, some business will have a tendency to get rid of some IT people to "really" save on cost which means you'll lose manpower for when something happens.
Software development has changed in the last decade and now everybody knows that they have to take failure into account when building software. Chaos Monkey opened the eyes of a lot of It people.
There should be some "MBA" level chaos monkey solution.
The COO may have been there 30 years, and may lack an MBA, but increasingly it is this type of CxO that has been reyling upon MBAs and other consultants (operations research) to restructure the organization into an optimized-but-fragile state.
It is the rare old-hand that can standup to younguns talking tech and math, subjects he does not feel comfortable with.
money, responsibility, prestige
> that reward a certain style of business
profitable, growing, innovative
* they operate literally one type of aircraft, and therefore only have to train their crew once, keep the specific set of parts, etc.
* they optimize the hell out of making sure their planes are in use carrying paying passengers for the maximum amount of time
* they fly a vast network of point to point using secondary airports, as opposed to coordinating at massive hubs
These are all things that would make recovering from a massive widespread disruption very hard, and Southwest has been doing it better and longer than anybody else.
Southwest had plenty of older 737s as well, but the new MAX planes both fly farther and have more seats, so while the grounding was in effect Southwest was essentially paying to keep the things on the ground while scrambling to reconfigure their flight network, and it affected them the most.
> why you’d prioritize that over the aircraft’s ability to stay in the air.
This is an egregious misunderstanding. There was nothing wrong with the purpose of the the MCAS system nor the concept of it. What went wrong was its failure to follow the dual path design, and do a proper failure analysis of its design. There was a further problem with some pilots not understanding how to deal with stab trim runaway.
These problems have since been corrected, and MCAS is still on the 737MAX.
They could’ve made a small sized aircraft that had commonality with the 787 rather than the 737.
If the pilots followed runaway trim procedure, which is how the MCAS failure manifested, they would have been fine. In fact, that's what the other unmentioned crew of a 737MAX did that survived MCAS malfunction and landed without incident.
Boeing issued an Emergency Airworthiness Directive about the procedure, which the Egyptian Air pilots didn't follow, either.
If plane going from A -> B is late it cannot become flight B -> C. If crew for this plane are stuck in the ground long enough, they have to wait til the next day to fly as they‘re only allowed to be awake and work for so long.
Distributed systems can also be more complex to re-converge after a major disruption.
I'd imagine it's non-trivial to re-plan a network, given equipment and crew limitations.
And as context, we're talking about 24 hours later, now?
In the event of widespread disruption, planes will not make it to their next airport to become a different flight, nor will their crew. Crew can also only be awake and working for a limit of time, so if the disruption causes a crew to go over that limit they are not going out until the next day, etc.
With cloud computing, it‘s a bit different because which host you‘re using in a region doesn‘t really matter, but for airline a specific plane with specific people need to be in a specific time and place.
At the higher end, it certainly isn't necessarily the best any more, but I do think that's mostly because Southwest has kept to its two free checked bags, whereas the major carriers now make significant revenues from checked bag fees.
While Southwest remains my favorite airline.
This type of event is the obvious possible downside that is well known when you structure a company this way. It’s not that events like this aren’t expected, it’s that prepping for them costs more than the loss from not being able to absorb them.
The human element doesn’t matter at all? Their workers are fed up.
This tunnel visioning on financial metrics is so superficial and narrow that it makes me angry. A company is a community of interacting, real people, not a video game.
So, from a purely rational perspective, if the company makes $100m profit over 10 years then gets "sick", well, job done - you just start another one and carry on. Money doesn't care for future consequences; if anything, inflation puts pressure on disposing of profits quickly while postponing losses (and risk), even if doing so will eventually kill the company.
Extreme "financialization" of our ways of production has given us great rates of efficiency and innovation, at the expense of long-term stability.
This is a purely financial take, not necessarily a purely rational one. I say that because it's pretty easy to dismiss all the human aspect of a company dying, all the suffering it creates as something to not be taken "rationally" but what it actually means is to push the human-factor into the statistics field and be done with it.
I don't agree with this worldview.
Companies shouldn’t exist for the sake of longevity.
Failure to maintain altitude above ground level and failure to maintain solvency are in many ways equivalent.
Both domains involve taking risks, but with severe consequences when either risks are miscalculated or ground truths change. Financial bets can be hedged in ways flight profiles often cannot be, and Southwest are credited for doing this (with fuel purchase futures notably), but there's a sense in which businesses are arbitraging latent risks for present profits in ways which can prove catastrophic. (Venture start-ups are particularly prone to this IMO.)
Southwest's single-airframe fleet affords efficiencies, but also risks should faults arise with that airframe or subsystems of it (as with the 737 MAX scenario).
It's usually not a problem for a business to incur a short term operating loss.
It's not quite as simple as cash-on-hand, turnover, or profitability. Start-ups without revenues or net profits may be solvent if investment capital is available, premised on future profitability or a viable exit strategy. But it's fairly strongly related.
Airworthiness is more an overall assessment of risk.
A substantially compromised aircraft, with expert piloting and favourable weather, can still land successfully.
A fully-airworthy aircraft experiencing CFIT won't. Nor will one flown into unanticipated adverse conditions such as violent weather, volcanic ash, or wind shear.
And of course, a sufficiently crippled craft cannot be landed successfully no matter what.
(An additional case is of a landing with partial survival of passengers and crew. We'll omit that.)
Airworthiness increases he probability of a successful flight. It's neither strictly necessary, nor sufficient. It is part of the overall risk assessment, effectively a creditworthiness rating.
An airworthiness certificate is a specific certification of such airworthiness.
Don't forget all of the future losses by losing the trust of both the customers and the employees.
> it’s that prepping for them costs more than the loss from not being able to absorb them
This assumes that they can absorb these losses.
> Don't forget all of the future losses by losing the trust of both the customers and the employees.
> This assumes that they can absorb these losses.
You can see how this is a problem, right? This essentially means the market is not working as it should - instead of improving quality of service, it makes people absorb the bad experience, ad infinitum. The market is not able to deliver feedback to the companies, who instead rely on some degree of "capacity for suck" in their customers, and the fact that there's a new sucker born every minute - by the time they burn out a cohort of their clients, a new population of naive, hopeful people shows up to replace them.
Actually the market works just fine: it transfers price pressures efficiently across all participants - including human beings. It's society that doesn't work anymore, because it has now lost any meaning of 'value' beyond monetary terms for most of the population. Most consumers now cannot choose not to minimize expenditure: either because they cannot afford it, or because they simply don't know how to look at experiences through a lens different from "what is the price".
Leaving aside flying private--which is a whole different magnitude of cost--consumers can absolutely choose to pay more to insulate themselves from much of the unpleasantness of flying. Doesn't help much when flights are canceled or delayed of course but you have Pre-Check, airline lounges, business class seating, etc. which do generally improve the experience.
But, yes, society in the aggregate does not value the better experience at what it would cost to deliver--certainly not to the point of effectively excluding a significant segment of the population from routine flying but, in the process, making it a more pleasant experience for others.
If people want cheap flights, they will keep flying southwest and deal with the occasional problems that come with dancing on a razors edge.
> You can see how this is a problem, right?
It's the market working exactly as intended.
If "the price we pay" is a day or two of one airline (not any of the others) grounding most of its fleet, most likely due to a controversial internal HR policy, it's an exceptionally low price.
This is the thing with markets: whatever optimization you make, you won't reap the fruits of it for long. Someone - either competitors or adjacent third parties - will show up to suck out your margin, leaving you mostly as you were, but locking that optimization in as a permanent fixture in the industry. This means that when companies over-optimize, shoot past the optimum "value to profits" ratio and aim for higher margins still, they make the industry permanently (well, until next collapse) worse for everyone.
As opposed to...? tons of cargo and millions of people are being moved around everywhere, welcome to the modern world. The US commercial flight industry sucks in the grand scheme of things mostly due to a lack of competition. Flying in the US is expensive compared to Europe/Asia.
Just imagine that most businesses are equivalent to running your whole stack on a single, self hosted at home, RPI. Including the git repository, and no backups.
> The pilot emailed following the first Southwest post today (and provided his SWA ID to prove his identity). He asked that I paraphrase the email.
> Essentially, the union cannot organize or even acknowledge the sickout, because doing so would make it an illegal job action. Years ago, Southwest and its pilots had a rough negotiation, and the union would not even let the pilots internally discuss the possibility of working-to-rule (which would have slowed Southwest to a crawl).
> But at the moment the pilots don’t even have to talk to each other about what they’re doing. The anger internally - not just among pilots but other Southwest workers - is enormous. The tough prior negotiations notwithstanding, Southwest has a history of decent labor relations, and workers believe the company should stand up for them against the mandate. Telling pilots in particular to comply or face termination has backfired.
Considering all of the other household items that are also commonly tested using fetal cell lines (including acetaminophen, aspirin, ibuprofen, albuterol, pseudoephidrine), the analogy doesn't apply.
As an example, here's a 2018 study on Tylenol using the HEK 293 line: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/29273526/
I don't appreciate this YouTube channel doing what they are doing, it is pouring fuel on a giant nothingburger.
That's their MO.
> Wikipedia can be a great tool for learning and researching information. However, as with all reference works, Wikipedia is not considered to be a reliable source as not everything in Wikipedia is accurate, comprehensive, or unbiased.
So, there's also that to consider.
Here's a Nature Communications paper on HEK293 containing a brief history with an impact factor ~13. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms5767
Above 10 is considered of significant worth.
If that's not good enough for you, stick to whatever it is you're good at, and stop citing trash.
The fact that fetal cells are used in testing has been public for a long time.
This article dates back to last December, for example: https://www.nebraskamed.com/COVID/you-asked-we-answered-do-t... (and here's me citing it two months ago, in case you want to claim a ninja-edit "last week": https://www.reddit.com/r/bestoflegaladvice/comments/p6f6yl/l...)
The “it’s the vaccine mandates!” argument has to figure out a way to explain why all the other airlines weren’t similarly affected when they instituted theirs.
Alex Berenson is… not a reputable source. https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/04/pandemics-...
And many other examples.
OTOH, Derek Thompson predicted in 2017 that Bitcoin is overpriced at $16K, so maybe he knows something we don't?
It can not be that high skilled professionals oppose having their body autonomy revoked... it can not be that "my body my choice" should extend to more medical choices than 1...
no no. this can not be allowed
Before the vaccine was widely available you may have had a case but once you become vaccinated your risk level drops to well below other risks we already accept as part of having a free society.
I cannot have murder, child porn, or heroin use be a part of my religious ceremonies. I cannot have libel be a part of my free speech and expression. I cannot be Typhoid Mary and spread disease around. I cannot open a restaurant that skips hand washing. I cannot go to public school unvaccinated for measles and a number of other diseases in most states. I cannot drive drunk, despite research showing doing so actually improves my chances of surviving an accident (https://www.scientificamerican.com/podcast/episode/odds-favo...).
Immunocompromised people exist. Tens of millions of children aren't yet eligible for the vaccines. I'm inclined to consider their individual freedoms not to be needlessly infected by a pandemic disease as important, too.
Care to address that or do you just want to keep building strawmen?
Again, this is fairly key. A large portion of the country is not yet eligible for the vaccines at this time.
> That is a very weak rebuttal
That is a very weak rebuttal.
1. Vaccinated people still spread covid, Vaccination primary effect makes a person asymptomatic, this has been proven.
2. "Large portion" is false, it is children under 12, who have a lower chance of serious illness than a vaccinated person. That said if you as a parent feel that risk to do high then you as a parent can take measures to ensure you children only come in contact with vaccinated person, this however does not mean you can impose that desire via government. To be clear I am fine with parents advocating business require vaccinations of their own business policy, I am not fine with government telling a Bar that is for adults they also must require vaccinations. Government mandates bad, private business choices good.
Vaccinated people still spread COVID, but they're less likely to. https://www.nbcnews.com/health/health-news/vaccinated-people...
"When infected with the delta variant, a given contact was 65 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated with two doses of the Pfizer vaccine. With AstraZeneca, a given contact was 36 percent less likely to test positive if the person from whom the exposure occurred was fully vaccinated."
> "Large portion" is false, it is children under 12
That's about 50 million Americans, a number I consider fairly large. https://www.statista.com/statistics/457786/number-of-childre...
Firstly, NBC? They're not exactly going to give you a balanced view, are they. Anyway. The article is about an academic study. Those are near worthless: even theoretical studies with 100% external validity frequently come out too late to be informative. The real world data is what matters here. Perhaps someone who was literally just jabbed spreads it less, but if the protection lasts three months it's irrelevant and misleading to make a temporally unbounded claim "vaccinated people are less likely to spread COVID".
Previously, if there was a shortage of say plane brake discs, the wholesaler would jack the price up 10x for the last 3 sets. That would lead to one of the 4 customers who wanted to buy them to say "nah, it's too expensive, we don't need it that badly".
The person who wouldn't get a set was probably the guy restocking the spare parts shelf, while the people who really really needed those parts right now so a plane can takeoff got them.
In todays world, it's illegal to jack the price, one customer buys all the cheap stock (one to use, 2 as spares cos they heard about a shortage), and now 2 planes can't take off.
The same happens for thousands of other products all across the world. The end result is the people who really need goods can't get them, while others sit on piles of stock 'lucky we bought some just before they ran out!'. Endgame: The economy grinds to a halt over tiny shortages everywhere.
The proper solution is to allow and encourage price gouging again, and have a PR campaign to explain to the public how changing this law really is in their interests, even if it appears on the surface that paying $100 for a flashlight in an emergency can't be good for anyone.
Price gouging laws are exclusively a local and state matter, and only apply at the retail level. Although there have been proposals for price-gouging laws at the federal level, none have been enacted. State laws don't generally apply to B2B interactions.
Any goods wholesaler I know of goes straight from "in stock, the price is X" to "out of stock, even if you offer a million $ you can't have any". Nobody auto-increases prices as stock runs low.
Perhaps it isn't illegal to do so, but nobody does it, probably because businesses believe it's illegal to do so.
Also as a practical matter the software they're running simply doesn't have the feature to dynamically change prices based on inventory and lead time. So someone would have to manually update all the parts prices, then lower them again later. Not worth the hassle.
The answer might be affirmative, but that doesn't mean that doing so is a good business move. If you were in charge of sourcing at a company, and a supplier pulled that shit on you, you'd be finding a replacement supplier rightquick. If a supply will gouge you for this reason, you can be sure they will be looking for other reasons in the future.
TL;DR: price gouging, even if legal, is bad optics.
Ad-hoc heuristic decision making + political in-fighting can get you off the ground, but it can't keep you reliably airborne.
Nowadays, no one runs with any sort of buffer if that isn't explicitly demanded by government or other regulations... and when the shit hits the proverbial fan, it hits hard as a result.
Vaccine mandates. All the staff have walked off the job rather than be jabbed.
Southwest it seems reached it before others.
> There are false claims of job actions by Southwest Pilots currently gaining traction on social media and making their way into mainstream news. I can say with certainty that there are no work slowdowns or sickouts either related to the recent mandatory vaccine mandate or otherwise. Under the RLA, our Union is forbidden from taking job action to resolve labor disputes under these circumstances. SWAPA has not authorized, and will not condone, any job action.
In reality, a lot of pilots can just message each other on the side and say "f-it". Idk how many it takes to take down the system, but I suspect even 20% out sick could cause a cascading failure.
What I suspect is actually happening is much larger.
Pilots either "sit reserve" or "hold a line" based on seniority/airframe and to a lesser degree rank (ie a pilot may choose to sit reserve as a captain when they could be a line holder as an FO). Line holders have a set schedule that they bid on (again based on seniority). If someone calls in sick, misses a flight, or if a flight goes unscheduled, scheduling contacts a pilot that is sitting reserve who then fills in the missing position.
When sitting reserve they get paid to hang out near the airport. Pilots are typically based out of some airport, reserve pilots need to be able to get to their airport within a set amount of time after being called (iirc 2 hours).
It's not that there aren't real reserve pilots, it's that there are exactly the number of backups that there needs to be under normal circumstances. Airlines don't like paying people to sit around and they've got scheduling down to a science. I think I was in high school the last time my dad sat reserve. It felt like he had to fly almost every time (but not every time!) he was on reserve.
So, as I said, no redundancy for abnormal circumstances. If they are sitting on a reserve roster, but nearly always fly, then those aren't really a reserve pool. One or two extra people calling in sick and there won't be backups available.
> Employee exodus could 'cripple' Washington ferry system as dozens of sailings canceled again Friday
> 'The new norm': Washington ferry workers call out sick in protest of COVID-19 vaccine mandate
They couldn't admit it if that's what they're doing. They'd have to deny it either way. Even an "unofficial" unorganized sick out.
On the other hand- if a pilot knew he was getting fired in two weeks for not getting vaccinated, and he happened to have two weeks sick pay, well then the company policy did all the "organizing" that needed to be done.
Since there is still skepticism from the other commenters too, if the union was lying could someone explain their motives?
Like what benefit does would the union have to provide confidence to the nature of the disruption? Or to cover for their pilots/employees?
Otherwise their statement being the truth is cool too
>...our Union is forbidden from taking job action to resolve labor disputes under these circumstances...
> Indeed, contrary to the claims of Malone and others, the Comirnaty vaccine has the same liability protection as the vaccine approved under the EUA. That’s because of a law known as the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act (PREP Act).
> In early 2020, after the coronavirus emerged, Health and Human Services Secretary Alex Azar invoked the PREP Act to “provide liability immunity for activities related to medical countermeasures against covid-19.” So that covers all vaccines that might be produced to combat the coronavirus, whether fully authorized or not.
> “The liability protections afforded under the PREP Act are tied to the declared public health emergency and not whether the vaccine is sold under an EUA,” Castillo said. “Therefore, both Comirnaty and the Pfizer-BioNTech covid-19 vaccine receive the same liability protections as medical countermeasures against covid-19.”
Approval was never going to change the liability status. That's not the point of FDA approval.
The airline is saying it's something to do with weather, but somehow they're the only airline effected.
Everybody online seems to the think it's some sort of labor strike, but the union denies this and nobody can find anywhere where people are planning this.
And yet thousands of people are stuck in airports all over the country right now.
It just seems like something is going on, and that everybody is lying about it. Can't say I've ever really seen anything like this, and it genuinely freaks me out.
Edit: deleted link to tweet, comment below points out that it was from a suspect Twitter account.
Of course, zero pushback on this nonsense idea
In favor of Pfizer for that age group. Not in favor of "don't get the vaccine".
”A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records, has not established a causal link to COVID-19 vaccines”
I can find 10 credible news reports of healthy individuals that died within 48 hours of receiving the vaccine in a minute of searching, so we know that the number 0 is complete nonsense.
Since the CDC numbers are comically wrong, we have to go to the next best source. The CDC itself is creating vaccine hesitancy by lying and misrepresenting statistics, which leads people to wonder what else they are lying about. Just the idea that they report adverse reaction rates based on number of doses administered, and not the number of vaccinated people, intentionally cuts the effective incident rate per person in half since two doses are required. That calls into question everything else they do. Nobody cares if it’s the first or second dose that kills or injures them. So the next best source is VAERS.
The White House thinks they can force unilateral changes to the union contracts.
If the unions admitted to what was going on, the White House would have more legal authority to intervene more directly with the unions.
Well, yes. Contracts can't override Federal regulation. "Sign this contract exempting you from OHSA protections" won't (generally) fly, right?
> Experts said that legal challenges to the rule were all but assured, but precedent is most likely on Mr. Biden’s side. In the past 20 years, “every standard that has been challenged in court has been upheld by federal judges,” David Michaels, a professor at the George Washington University School of Public Health who was a head of OSHA during the Obama administration, said in an interview.
> OSHA also has the authority to quickly issue a rule, known as an emergency temporary standard, if it can show that workers are exposed to grave danger and that the rule is necessary to address it. The rule must also be feasible for employers to enforce.
At the state level, there's plenty of legal precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
It's so strange. Do people really prefer to push an agenda here rather than understand the nuance and truth of what is going on?
We're trying for a different site here, and feeding the flames is the opposite of it. It just makes things worse.
If you wouldn't mind reviewing https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html and taking the intended spirit of the site more to heart, we'd be grateful.
Note this one: "Don't feed egregious comments by replying; flag them instead." (a.k.a. please don't feed the trolls)
Since you're deriding mine, you seem to have a better explanation for why a huge part of our transportation infrastructure went dark a day after the Southwest pilot's union went to court to try to stop the vaccine mandate. Would you care to share it? I'm certain we would all love to hear it.
While they’re all wrong, anti-vaxxers are a whole spectrum. I do think one big of nuance is important here though: there are a lot of strongly pro-vax people, like myself, who are strongly anti-mandate. The choice to take the vaccine is the correct choice. The other choice hurts not only yourself, but others. However there is no circumstance in which I’d support the government requiring a medical procedure to be performed on someone without their consent.
I’m vaccinated, but very uncomfortable with the government ordering me to be.
This is a very lax "mandate." Nobody is going to require vaccination to drive a long-haul truck.
So they are conscripting others to mandate you get vaccinated on their behalf.
Gee, that sounds an awful lot like they are conscripting companies to be state actors on their behalf. Good luck with any company trying to hide behind that. It hasn't yet sunk into corporate America the liability plank they are about to walk off of but they better wake up fast or it's going to get expensive very quickly.
So you are happy to accept bodily harm to innocent "others" (from your comment) to protect the power to refuse to get a vaccine shot?
You do realize vaccine mandates aren’t new? The chicken pox vaccine has been mandates for all children attending public schools for over 20 years now. It has been enormously successful in eradicated what used to be a very common disease.
The child vaccine requirement analogy is flawed for at-least 3 reasons
1. We have all kinds of things we apply to children we do not to adults. They are children after all. For example kids are banned from smoking, but adults can.
2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school.
3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children. Many of us do not, I think parents should vaccinate their children, I do not believe it is the role of government to mandate that no more than I believe it is the role of government to mandate the COVID vaccination
That is basically what it is comes down to is do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy
It clear what choice you have made
For which vaccine was a year's safety record not sufficient to detect side effects? Which one needed a decade to discover side effects?
> Rates of events that resulted in seeking medical advice or taking time off work were 7.9% after the first dose; 5.1% after the second dose; 3.0% after the third dose; and 3.1% after the fourth dose.
A decade of monitoring wasn't necessary to spot them; they were deemed fairly normal, and the vaccination program restarted.
I'm looking for an example of a vaccine where a year is not enough time for side effects to surface, that would justify the claimed need for a ten year study before being mandated.
> Although many individuals have expressed health concerns after receiving anthrax vaccine, a congressionally directed study by the Institute of Medicine (part of the National Academy of Sciences) concluded that this anthrax vaccine is as safe as other vaccines. The Academy considered more than a dozen studies using various scientific designs, and heard personally from many concerned US military service members.
So the government is allowed to be "your master, your parent, or king" of children but not for adults? Be consistent.
>2. It only applies if attend a public school, parents can opt out by sending their child to a religious school, private school, or home school.
What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument.
>3. You assume people that oppose government mandates for COVID support government mandates for children.
Anyone who is 100% ok with mandating vaccines for children but not for adults is simply not being logically consistent. This is the same "point" as (1).
>do you believe the government is your master, your parent, or king. Or do you believe in personal freedom and autonomy
I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state. I hope you will join me in fighting for me rights to operate my vehicle whenever I want. Why should the government tell me I'm not allowed to drive when I've had a couple beers? Is the government my parent? I know I can drive well when drunk and the other guys who have killed others were just idiots. Why does the government infringe on my autonomy to drive by forcing me to get a license? Why do I have to be put into a government database? I paid for my car after all. What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?
You use this also has hyperbolic statement as if there is not arguments to abolish drunk driving laws, which often are abused by the police as a pretext for other actions they are barred from performing..
>>What's the argument here? If you don't want to get vaxxed, then don't use public resources. Not sure how this is a flawed argument
What are you considering public resources here? I am fine with an employer on their own requiring a mandate as a condition of employment, I am even fine with a business requiring vaccine before they provide services. I am not fine with government requiring these businesses to do this
Do you see the difference? I am not talking about "public resources" I am talking about the government interfering with private business transactions.
>>I'm sorry, you are right. I forgot that America was anarchist state.
Ohh I can only dream of that...
>>What's next? Will Biden require me to get a license to operate my toaster?
I am sure people like you would desire that
I think you’re right, but I also think that anti-anti-vaxxers are at least as cult-like - disparaging Ivermectin as “horse dewormer” is as disconcerting as insisting that their healthy 20-year-old cousins friend dropped dead after getting the vaccine.
Only when black people are tool to prove a political point is when you start caring about healthcare for black New Yorkers.
> Young Black New Yorkers are especially reluctant to get vaccinated, even as the Delta variant is rapidly spreading among their ranks. City data shows that only 28 percent of Black New Yorkers ages 18 to 44 years are fully vaccinated, compared with 48 percent of Latino residents and 52 percent of white residents in that age group.
(I do share the skepticism that the stat was brought up out of genuine concern for the health and safety of that population, though.)
Are many folks hesitant to get it? Yes. Is it for the reasons mentioned? Who knows.
One thing is clear - lots of people are doing things that are getting them in deep, deep pain because of BS, rumor mongering, and fear. It’s pretty terrible.
Vaccine mandates have existed since shortly after vaccines existed, and for good reason. Because otherwise thousands or millions of people end up dead that didn’t need to, often completely innocent folks who never even had a choice in the matter, and often horribly to boot.
Huge numbers of folks have had these vaccines and the fatality rates and serious hospitalizations have plummeted because of it.
I had the vaccine, everyone I know has had the vaccine - zero serious problems whatsoever. And for me personally, when I had to take care of my 2 year old because he caught covid, so I had a highly infectious toddler screaming in my face for hours sometimes? It probably saved my life. It definitely saved my father in laws life.
It still sucked though.
You don't know what saved your life, you're guessing based on propaganda you've been fed. It could be true, but nobody really knows.
Also, adverse reactions to the COVID shots are far more common and more serious than you're willing to admit.
If you have actual data that adverse reactions are more common, please do share. Having had the worse reaction of the 20+ people I’ve talked to that had it (weakness for a day or two, 103+ fever, brain fog for a week), and being a bit pissed about it, in hindsight it was just because I hadn’t been sick for so long I’d lost all context. That’s literally less bad than getting the flu.
This is what I mean by losing ones mind - there is no rational basis for comparing this to the Nazi’s literally throwing people in prison camps based on their various racist and eugenic minded shitty ideals and experimenting on them randomly until they were dead. Literally zero. But if there is an unresolved anxiety or other issue going on? That
makes perfect sense. And if the anxiety is due to not being willing to face something difficult or not being able to address underlying problems - one natural reaction is to pretend the other thing is actually bad, point fingers, etc.
The problem is? That causes more pain later, because this stuff isn’t going away.
I’ve personally had someone in my life have a severe mental health breakdown over their own inability to face a real danger with Covid and prepare for it (instead opting for the comfortable feeling that ‘it couldn’t happen to us’), resulting in their child getting severely hurt - because they didn’t do the basic diligence it would take to prevent it (with Covid), and the problems it has caused, including the guilt that they also can’t face and end up projecting onto others, and the ongoing behavior issues and blowback has ruined their life. It took something that could have been a nothingburger and instead turned it into a traumatic event with consequences that will echo through generations.
Please, seek help. This is a legitimate problem you appear to be having, and avoiding addressing it will only harm you and everyone around you.
There are many people have died and had severe reactions to the vaccine shortly after getting them. Look at VAERS, look at claims that even VAERS is greatly under reported. look at how many more people are dying, despite the vaccine. The vast majority of American's have some form of natural immunity. Forced vaccinations or tying them to ones ability to feed their family is unconscionably evil. You'll see in 2022.
1% dead means around 3.5 million dead, in the US alone. Do you consider that acceptable?
Of course the choice isn't that simple or binary in the real world, but there's elements of that choice at play and I stand by the point I'm making.
The absurdity of peoples' accusations of world-ending authoritarianism and censorship is baffling.
No. But mandating a brand new vaccine is new. We don’t know what the long term effects are. Nothing about COVID or the way in which tyrants around the world are using it to seize new powers is normal.
People at the FDA are resigning left and right . Nobody wants their name on this thing.
Perhaps you don't owe "dumbfuck kids" better, but you certainly owe this community better if you're participating in it.
Such a severe lack of empathy is disturbing.
> the vast majority of the dead will be the very old, and people who took extraordinarily poor care of their health.
This is incorrect, the Delta variant is hitting young people hard, including children.
The ego-driven vaccine denial and lack of respect for distancing and mask requirements is killing people.
But keep ranting how the science is _settled_ and everyone just needs to fall in line. Give me a break.
As for your lame "lack of empathy" argument - the only way for an unvaccinated person to be a risk to anyone else with COVID is if they are symptomaic - i.e. if they have a fever. However, as a vaccinated person not only can you have COVID, you can be shedding (spreading) it without any way of anyone around you knowing unless you have been
That's what's beyond crazy - the vaccinated represent a bigger threat for covert spreading than the unvaccinated! An utter 180 from the popular narrative.
So yeah, keep on your high horse about empathy, denial, etc. At this point there is very little science in these discussions - you are espousing dogma and propaganda.
Additionally, the Delta variant (currently the most prevalent by far) hits young people and children hard.
Even if you consider the elderly, the obese and the chronically sick to be "expendable" (which is an absolutely abhorrent worldview), your claims simply are not correct.
Your last statement shows you aren’t interested in this honestly because you are more interested in virtue signalling and claiming moral superiority. How you came to the conclusion from my statement about me be young fit and healthy (and thus very low risk) to somehow mean I consider elderly, obese and sick to be expendable is beyond me.
I looked at the data for my age group and found that there’s 5-7x more deaths and a lot more serious injuries from car accidents than Covid.
Also you are wrong. Even in asymptomatic or mild cases, the viral loads is the same and you can spread the virus. The virus grows in your nose and pathways and can spread even if you are vaccinated and within the 3 month period after which the effectiveness drastically declines.
How people expect every young person to keep getting injected every 6 months is beyond me.
In Ontario, 36.6% of the cases on October 8 were fully vaccinated and 34.5% of deaths in Canada in the week of September 4-11 were fully vaxxed. We had under 10% fully vaxxed till June 10, so vast majority of our vaccinations occurred in last 3 months. The vaccine effectiveness decline is clearly visible as the weeks go by.
In Iceland, their recent outbreak started from fully vaxxed individuals even when they had around 60% of population vaxxed.
These vaccines are only a potential symptom mitigator. That doesn’t mean it should get mandated.
And what makes you think it will only be every six months. COVID viruses are the family that contains the common cold. Why have we never tried to vaccinate for the common cold? It mutates too fast and too often!
You aren't going to shelter in place or vaccine away this virus. It's here, it's a permanent part of our existence and we better figure out more sane ways to deal with it that don't also destroy the economies of the world.
Sweden never locked down - their curves match pretty much everyone else. New Zealand finally gave up on their extreme quarantine policy and admitted that the virus is there too. So much for being the darling for how to handle the virus and the rest of the world being idiots.
Moreover that number assumes everyone will get infected, but there's nothing deep driving that belief. Scientists don't understand to what extent the immune system can recognize and fight viruses based on prior exposure to other similar viruses, so they just ignore the possibility and assume no such ability exists at all. Yet it's been nearly two years now and I never got infected even after I spent 10 days self-isolating with someone who had it and had symptoms. Most of the population hasn't tested positive despite saturation levels of testing. The assumption of 100% infection doesn't seem to be a very good one.
Great upheaval brings great opportunity, if you are ruthless enough to exploit it.
There are unfortunately many actors around the world who - for various reasons - desire to create instability, because they see it as a way to profit or to gain political power.
It's the history of international politics.
If the mandates were rational, they would be centered around antibody tests.
Of course COVID itself is dangerous. But once you have had it and survived it, the science shows that you have far better immunity than the vaccine delivers. The mandates do not take this into account. That is all I was trying to say.
This isn't clear at all, e.g. "Reduced Risk of Reinfection with SARS-CoV-2 After COVID-19 Vaccination" at https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm...:
> Among Kentucky residents infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, vaccination status of those reinfected during May–June 2021 was compared with that of residents who were not reinfected. In this case-control study, being unvaccinated was associated with 2.34 times the odds of reinfection compared with being fully vaccinated.
And this is also a very significant factor to resistance to the mandates - it's beyond obvious this whole issue is more political than scientific at this point.
Think I'm exaggerating? Good luck finding the actual "approved" vaccine. The only ones that I can find within three states of me are all the emergency use versions - so more games being played. Why would anyone be suspicious when stuff like this is still going on? Yet the suspicious people who would like more information are the irrational ones?
Here's a very rational question. This technology has been in development since the late 80's. If it is unquestionably safe, then why haven't any of these manufacturers completed formal FDA approval before now?
So the odds of serious, possibly permanent injury, or death, from the vaccine are slightly higher than the odds of dying from COVID for those 35 and younger. I realize that you will now dispute VAERS numbers, but they are the closest thing we have to accurate data on this.
No it doesn't. The website you link to even specifically states "Reports are not proof of causality".
Odds of dying shortly after vaccine (for all agree groups?): 1 in 11,250
Odds of healthy 35 year old dying from covid: 1 in 2,700
So a healthy 35 year old is 4x more likely to die from covid than vaccine.
> studies show is drastically better than the vaccine, but without the dangerous side effects
Because they're the dangerous main effects ffs.
Social media has optimized the process of finding groups of people that think just exactly like you do. The fact that you are listening to one specific echo chamber that feels this way does not tell you that the entire industry feels this way.
Consider the following counter-example: United Airlines also has a vaccine mandate, and got well over 99% compliance.
But how many employees left UA along the way?
Hell the president was bragging that was exactly how they got to those percentages over the weekend.
Just make COVID-19 vaccination a requirement to pass your medical, and be done with all this hand-wringing.
Think about it for two seconds, if that really happened, there would be hundreds of witnesses, everybody would be talking about the flight number, there would be cell phone videos and corporate social media responses. None of those things exist, so either everybody on the plane, the airport, and all their friends and relatives are in on the conspiracy except this one bot account, or they're making shit up to stir up conservatives, which is what they've done all day every day since joining the site in January 2017.
Then again, I think it's technically illegal for members of the airline industry to actively strike. So maybe this is how it's done for plausible deniability sake.
if its internal mismanagement then they do, as always follow the money.....
> The nationwide cancellations came as the airline announced Monday that the company will now require employees to get the COVID-19 vaccinated by Dec. 8.
> Some customers said they were told the cancellations are a direct result of the vaccine mandate.
> “I asked them specifically 'is this about weather' – because if it’s about weather, they can deny compensation. They said 'no, it’s not about weather.' I said 'is this about maintenance?' They said 'no, it’s not about maintenance.' I said then 'what is the problem?'" passenger Ron Frank said. “They said this is all because of the vaccine mandate. They said we had a massive walkout. They also said that air traffic control had a massive walkout because of the vaccine mandate. But to couch 1,000 cancelations because of a thunderstorm somewhere is not believable.”
I was, at first, very skeptical that so many people would walk out of the their jobs in a seemingly organized way, until I heard about the PTO angle of the story.
I work at a company with “unlimited PTO” (because business leaders learned that they pay less with “unlimited” than they do with accrued). But in previous jobs, it was very common to accrue PTO (up to 2 to 3 weeks worth). Most employees would find it hard to get coverage or approval for taking time off, so their PTO would accrue until it maxed out. Anytime I was going to leave a job where I had banked PTO, I would take my time off, and then resign when I came back because if you leave with accrued PTO, they would pay it out, taxed as supplemental income, which is at a higher rate.
3 weeks is a common max accrual for folks that have worked somewhere longer than a year or two, and looking at the calendar, we’re almost exactly 3 weeks from November.
These workers are getting (PTO) paid to strike, plus they’re not breaking any rules, or committing to resigning (or being terminated due to COVID policy), yet. Three weeks to take a much needed break, speak their values, and not miss a check? Now that sounds more like human behavior.
If employees are using PTO by claiming they're sick (assuming there's no separate "sick days" they would normally use), Southwest might have recourse to deny paying PTO but whether or not they will is another question.
This doesn't make any sense at all. If a vaccine-mandate induced ATC walkout was the cause, all air carriers would be disrupted, not just Southwest.
I suspect this is someone pitching his own views about a situation he doesn't know the true cause of.
Jacksonville FL, for example is a major SW hub, and was completely shut down. Similar issues exist in two other major SW hubs - Houston and Phoenix.
Also, not all other airlines have mandated vaccinations. ...and those that have aren't in heavily anti-vax cities.
COVID vaccine shenanigans with a large chunk of the workforce near retirement age and just saying "fuck your mandate, I'll retire early" is just the cherry on top.
> It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
I'm not sure I can think of a precedent for being so willing to eject that many people from the workforce in such a way.
These mandates will only cause people to dig in their position to become martyrs. It's bad policy, and its not helpful. We need more carrots than sticks here.
This is a disingenuous way to frame it.
The current govt is anti-Nazi, but it's never tried to mandate that all employees found to be Nazis must be fired.
The reason vaccines are an issue of employment (only at larger employers, by the way) is that unvaccinated people endanger their coworkers.
People have a right to be unvaccinated, and the rest of us have a right to protect ourselves from them.
If your vaccinated and have the protection, what's the real issue?
If you want to go down the whole "protection" rabbit hole - and ostensibly I'm going to assume you mean protection from exposure to the virus, then the vaccinated are far more of a problem. An unvaccinated person can not shed (spread) the virus unless they are symptomatic - ie. have a fever. Checking for a fever is trivial to do in a non-invasive way.
Vaccinated people can not only be carrying but shedding (spreading) the virus while showing zero symptoms. So the only way to tell if a vaccinated person is a potential super spreader is through testing - that is neither as quick or easy as just taking someone's fever.
An utter 180 from your position. If anyone is concerned about protection from exposure, you would be looking at protection from the vaccinated - not the unvaccinated!
No you don t. You took a vaccine that s supposed to protect you. You don t have any right to impose it through mandates on others. This is hiding malicious intent behind "what about the children" argument. You got your shot, you re protected
and under no threat, move on with your life and leave people and their rights alone.
This isn't based on risk assessment, this is based on ideology. There are situations developing where someone who is less likely to transmit COVID is being fired while someone more likely to transmit the disease is kept on - and everyone involved in the process knows it.
Despite all these measures you are still going to be exposed to the coronavirus. Just like the every flu that we've dealt with for the last however many thousand years. This rigmarole is just upsetting people for no real gain to you.
Our media and so-called health leaders have dramatically oversold the value of these vaccines. Yes, they can help with the severity of reaction when you are exposed but they aren't some defensive bubble.
And I think that's the real issue here - being exposed to the virus and each persons reaction and risks carried in that reaction to the exposure are two different things, but they are lumped together - which shouldn't be.
There is no reason for a vaccinated person to view an unvaccinated person as a threat.
* Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree
* Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective
For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
Nothing is, but my risk from COVID post vaccination is less than other society risks we accept as normal risks of living in a free society, for example my risk of dying in an auto accident is many times greater than my risk from COVID post vaccination
>> Vaccinated people do still spread the infection, albeit to a smaller degree
I am not sure how this statement is relative to question on if an unvaccinated person poses a risk to me to the point where we must violate their body autonomy for forcibly inject them with a medication against their will
>>Some people cannot be vaccinated, and for others it's less effective
While true, this means those people should take additional risk mitigation, this however is NOT a justification for vaccine mandates, not in my view. These people should wear N95 Masks, take extra pro cations and be extra vigilant about social distancing and/or going to large public events.
>>For the above reasons, it's beneficial to me and society at large if as many people as possible are vaccinated.
Sure, but that is not what is being debated. The question is do those reasons justify the use of force,threats, and ultimately government violence to forcibly inject people.
I say no.
Your are correct that I do not find the small risk vaccinated person's have from an unvaccinated person to be at a level to justify mandates as reasonable
"Not allowing" - how are you going to "not allow" without using force of some sort?