Face-saving to themselves, conforming to their community/identity, face-saving to their community... Using rules to fight anxiety. I bet these are real sizable dynamics―can't tell from polling but we'll find out how big the true "strong opinion" folks are.https://twitter.com/VJGoh/status/1436097374678552582 …
-
Show this thread
-
zeynep tufekci Retweeted gosilent
There is a weekly testing option! I'd prefer vaccination for anyone working with elderly, ill or under 12 but for most everyone covered, this essentially makes being unvaccinated a hassle—and provides cover and a face-saving path to vaccination.https://twitter.com/gosilent/status/1436104726836301824 …
zeynep tufekci added,
10 replies 11 retweets 209 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @zeynep
I think virtually no employers with 100+ employees will be willing to take on the administrative overhead and cost of the testing. it amounts to a vax mandate.
4 replies 5 retweets 38 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm
I disagree with that framing. Stuff like this comes up with protecting other public goods: in this case non-overloaded ICUs & less-exposure/deaths. If there are multiple paths, it's on those who refuse the easiest/cheapest path to make the harder path work.
2 replies 2 retweets 22 likes -
So what this does is protect a public good, employers decide they prefer to take the easier/cheaper path is not the same as mandating it. I agree, the case for doing this via testing (should be more frequent tbh) is a hassle, and that's part of reality, not mandate.
2 replies 2 retweets 8 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
We’re agreeing, I think. My point is the testing fallback (which, yes, shld be more frequent) is less viable than it seems. Employers will not want that responsibility or cost. So there is a nominal out. But in practice I think Biden/CDC/DOL can rely on employers not to give it.
1 reply 2 retweets 7 likes -
2/ By saying it’s a mandate, I don’t mean it has that legal effect. I mean it’s as effective as if it were (which to me is a good thing).
2 replies 1 retweet 8 likes -
Replying to @joshtpm
Yes, but we should not call it mandating vaccines. It's mandating protecting a public good, and, frankly, the non-vaccine option is too light-touch compared to what it *should* be. If, even with that much of a light touch, vaccines are way way easier, that's reality speaking.
2 replies 7 retweets 43 likes -
The non-vaccine option should be testing every other day, probably (haven't done the math but one can model to figure it out), along with extensive contact-tracing and mandating high-filtration masks in workplaces to reach the same level of impact as vaccination.
4 replies 2 retweets 24 likes -
Replying to @zeynep
this was definitely an oddity. weekly testing seems likely to have multiple days when you’re infecting people. I wonder if they tacked it on as a week to give a notional choice which private sector employers still wouldn’t want to do.
4 replies 0 retweets 12 likes
Don't know but if I were an employer wanting to prevent outbreaks and allow for non-vaccination, it is way way way less than what I would do, and it is the lowest burden imaginable.
-
-
If you were an employer wanting to allow for non-vaccination you also likely would not care about testing
0 replies 0 retweets 2 likesThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.