From by the submission a few days ago, this comment linked a substack that claimed they couldn’t make it an official union action because it was about the vaccine mandates.
This source does not seem like a credible one. If someone who has some real stake to lose by reporting unsubstantiated claims makes this kind of a report, I would have an easier time believing it. But this is just some website that I didn't know existed before today.
It could just as easily be some bogus report on Blind or any other anonymous site and I would have just as much trouble believing it.
Think of a million other news reports you have heard where a union or CEO makes claim X/Y/Z and a news agency refers to a specific individual (or airs an interview with a disguised voice/appearance individual) who contradicts those claims.
Berenson rightly called the vaccine efficiency drop with actual data and was castigated for it. These outlets are more fixated on character assasination rather than hash out his arguments because that's so cool nowadays.
It’s not about being right. It’s about being right for the right reasons.
If you make a million predictions one of them is bound be true. Just because you’re the first to predict one thing doesn’t mean that everything you say is true, or that you shouldn’t be criticized for jumping to conclusions.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28825929