ADVERTISEMENT

Making Covid permanent?

We’ve lost 49,000 staffed hospital beds in the last year and 16,000 in the last 30 days in the middle of a major surge. This is why even though it’s crazy for healthcare workers to refuse vaccination, it was idiotic to force them out of their jobs for it.
 
Supremes just ruled health care workers could be forced to take the vaccination. Makes sense since other vaccinations are required as terms of employment.

They also shot down Biden’s vaccine mandate for large employers by a 6-3 decision ruling OSHA lacked the authority.
 
  • Like
Reactions: URedskin54
Legally I don't have any problem with an employer requiring vaccination as a condition of employment. Pragmatically, you have to look at the conditions on the ground and understand the secondary and tertiary effects. Millions of people are irrationally against getting vaccinated against covid and many of them are healthcare workers. The marginal benefit you get in reduced covid exposure by firing them doesn't even come close to the hardship you cause through staffing shortages.
 
On a less dramatic level the same thing has happened at my software company. Nearly all of us work remote and yet we're firing / forcing resignations from employees who won't get vaccinated and it's crippling us right now. Some of our best developers and engineers gone and replacements will take months to onboard while we have projects that are months behind deadlines for clients. Zero common sense is being used.
 
SCOTUS cancelled Biden's OSHA mandate for large companies claiming it was not really a workplace issue. Really?
Trump is crowing it's a victory while at the same time criticizing Biden not for not getting the virus under control. The idiocy of those who have worked the hardest to obstruct any measures to control the virus being the ones complaining about the virus would have been incomprehensible ten years ago. Now it is the new normal for half the country.
 
watu05 said:
SCOTUS cancelled Biden's OSHA mandate for large companies claiming it was not really a workplace issue. Really?
Trump is crowing it's a victory while at the same time criticizing Biden not for not getting the virus under control. The idiocy of those who have worked the hardest to obstruct any measures to control the virus being the ones complaining about the virus would have been incomprehensible ten years ago. Now it is the new normal for half the country.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately the measures which have been tried by the Biden Admin have failed miserably to control the virus. As is evidence by the records we are setting with new cases and hospitalizations. Appears we have thrown in the towel and are now admitting that a majority of people will now get Covid. Zero hope now exists to stop or even slow the spread.

The one thing I will take from what’s occurred in the last two weeks is even after two years of fighting this virus we are unable to remotely control the same. If we are ever faced with a more lethal virus we are doomed. Our efforts from the government down to our scientist have been futile. Scary stuff . Sleep well tonight America.
 
As far as the SCOTUS mandate ruling, I will never understand those who support giving OSHA the authority to mandate private employers can’t employee people who haven’t taken a vaccine. A vaccine which doesn’t prevent the person from contracting the virus btw. They are supporting a federal agency ordering private individuals to do an act which federal law forbids. Simply short sighted guided solely by blind partisanship. Where does it stop? If said mandate was upheld it would set the precedent of using federal agencies to subvert the law of the land at the whim of the White House. Yet there are those who support said mandate.

Go through the legislative process. We have a system of government and laws. Follow them. Hint….next time an Admin wants to use a federal agency to get around the law don’t state that’s the purpose of using OSHA. You might get quoted in a Supreme Court decision :).
 
lawpoke87 said:
Unfortunately the measures which have been tried by the Biden Admin have failed miserably to control the virus. As is evidence by the records we are setting with new cases and hospitalizations. Appears we have thrown in the towel and are now admitting that a majority of people will now get Covid. Zero hope now exists to stop or even slow the spread.

The one thing I will take from what’s occurred in the last two weeks is even after two years of fighting this virus we are unable to remotely control the same. If we are ever faced with a more lethal virus we are doomed. Our efforts from the government down to our scientist have been futile. Scary stuff . Sleep well tonight America.
Click to expand...
Sleep well world would be the more appropriate adage.
 
  • Like
Reactions: lawpoke87
lawpoke87 said:
Didn’t neglect it. Didn’t see it. What did Joe say ?
Click to expand...
URedskin54 said:
We’ve lost 49,000 staffed hospital beds in the last year and 16,000 in the last 30 days in the middle of a major surge. This is why even though it’s crazy for healthcare workers to refuse vaccination, it was idiotic to force them out of their jobs for it.
Click to expand...
I think it was idiotic of the Supreme Court to not allow a broad mandate. We shouldn’t have allowed the healthcare workers the opportunity to just change careers so they could avoid a civic duty.

It would be like saying that we were only going to allow a draft of postal workers during wartime.

The decision on whether or not the federal government should have the power to mandate vaccines should not be argued with how well or how poorly the current vaccine is effective or how deadly or not deadly covid is…. The precedent needs to be set with the idea that a hugely virulent illness is sweeping the nation and that a the government believes there is a vaccine that will cure people… now, there probably needs to be some checks and balances (and oversight) on that authority to avoid a Jonestown type event…. But it is a necessity for the government to be able to prevent transmission across state lines.

I suppose Congress could use the commerce clause of the constitution to say that no interstate commerce could occur without a vaccine and that any company active in interstate commerce would be required to mandate vaccines. That was essentially the power that Biden was trying to use because it was a power somewhat delegated to him by Congress during the creation of OSHA, but it would be interesting to see if the SC would block Congress itself from using that authority.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
I think it was idiotic of the Supreme Court to not allow a broad mandate. We shouldn’t have allowed the healthcare workers the opportunity to just change careers so they could avoid a civic duty.

It would be like saying that we were only going to allow a draft of postal workers during wartime.

The decision on whether or not the federal government should have the power to mandate vaccines should not be argued with how well or how poorly the current vaccine is effective or how deadly or not deadly covid is…. The precedent needs to be set with the idea that a hugely virulent illness is sweeping the nation and that a the government believes there is a vaccine that will cure people… now, there probably needs to be some checks and balances (and oversight) on that authority to avoid a Jonestown type event…. But it is a necessity for the government to be able to prevent transmission across state lines.

I suppose Congress could use the commerce clause of the constitution to say that no interstate commerce could occur without a vaccine and that any company active in interstate commerce would be required to mandate vaccines.
Click to expand...
You’re missing the argument. The federal government does have the authority to mandate vaccines. Through the proper legislative process. The executive branch does not have the power to use a federal agency for such an action. This not only is the right decision but the only decision. Furthermore, this was a limited mandate directed at certain private individuals. If the emergency is such that a federal agency must be used for a mandate then said mandate should be across the board. Mandating a certain segment of the population will not prevent a lethal virus from spreading across the country. Again…. Legislate the mandate across the board if safety is the goal. Allowing the executive to use a federal agency to go around the law and legislative process is a very dangerous precedent. Most of us knew the act was not constitutional. Some of course objected to that notion :)
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
I think it was idiotic of the Supreme Court to not allow a broad mandate. We shouldn’t have allowed the healthcare workers the opportunity to just change careers so they could avoid a civic duty.

It would be like saying that we were only going to allow a draft of postal workers during wartime.

The decision on whether or not the federal government should have the power to mandate vaccines should not be argued with how well or how poorly the current vaccine is effective or how deadly or not deadly covid is…. The precedent needs to be set with the idea that a hugely virulent illness is sweeping the nation and that a the government believes there is a vaccine that will cure people… now, there probably needs to be some checks and balances (and oversight) on that authority to avoid a Jonestown type event…. But it is a necessity for the government to be able to prevent transmission across state lines.

I suppose Congress could use the commerce clause of the constitution to say that no interstate commerce could occur without a vaccine and that any company active in interstate commerce would be required to mandate vaccines. That was essentially the power that Biden was trying to use because it was a power somewhat delegated to him by Congress during the creation of OSHA, but it would be interesting to see if the SC would block Congress itself from using that authority.
Click to expand...

most of these losses occurred before any court ruling. Ability to change careers because of a court decision doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Like at my company I’m guessing lots just dropped out of the workforce altogether for a while. My general point though, is that while some laws may seem appropriate all things being equal, there are always repercussions they should be weighed against. In the case of healthcare it wasn’t a particularly difficult cost/benefit decision. Shortages are already the issue in a surge. Losing tens of thousands of healthcare workers is simply something you can’t allow to happen and you certainly shouldn’t do things to worsen it. It’s looking even worse now that the policy in some places is to allow vaccinated Covid positive nurses to go to work
 
Last edited:
lawpoke87 said:
You’re missing the argument. The federal government does have the authority to mandate vaccines. Through the proper legislative process. The executive branch does not have the power to use a federal agency for such an action. This not only is the right decision but the only decision. Furthermore, this was a limited mandate directed at certain private individuals. If the emergency is such that a federal agency must be used for a mandate then said mandate should be across the board. Mandating a certain segment of the population will not prevent a lethal virus from spreading across the country. Again…. Legislate the mandate across the board if safety is the goal. Allowing the executive to use a federal agency to go around the law and legislative process is a very dangerous precedent. Most of us knew the act was not constitutional. Some of course objected to that notion :)
Click to expand...
This is funny. Had the supreme court makeup been different that certainly would not have been the verdict. You knew it was unconstitutional because you knew the people interpreting the constitution had inherent bias toward your viewpoint. It would be like saying "we knew the heartbeat law was constitutional" despite the fact that it would not have been considered so for the previous 50 years.

The legislative branch delegated it's power to regulate matters related to workplace safety via their interstate commerce power to the executive. Like it or not. They can always undelegated that power if they feel that they should retain both the power and the global oversight.

I don't disagree that it should have been legislated across the board, but no federal entity has been given that power by the constitution. If the executive or the legislature tried that it would have been shot down as a 10th amendment violation. (Powers not enumerated are granted to the states) This is just another case of the constitution again being imperfect in helping modern society solve a novel problem.

Congress has the incredibly broad power to regulate interstate commerce. They do not have the power to regulate intra-state commerce (even though that's been been a hard category for an employer to fit into) and that's where a nationwide mandate would have failed. Limiting the mandate to those participating in interstate commerce is to my knowledge, the only way the federal government had the power to make such a regulation.
 
Last edited:
URedskin54 said:
most of these losses occurred before any court ruling. Ability to change careers because of a court decision doesn’t really have anything to do with it. Like at my company I’m guessing lots just dropped out of the workforce altogether for a while. My general point though, is that while some laws may seem appropriate all things being equal, there are always repercussions they should be weighed against. In the case of healthcare it wasn’t a particularly difficult cost/benefit decision. Shortages are already the issue in a surge. Losing tens of thousands of healthcare workers is simply something you can’t allow to happen and you certainly shouldn’t do things to worsen it. It’s looking even worse now that the policy in some places is to allow vaccinated Covid positive nurses to go to work
Click to expand...
You can't cost benefit a precedent with the potential for extreme ramifications during future events. It's similar when you're making literally any regulation. You have to understand that yes, your decision and it's interpretation can cause undue problems for the parties being regulated.... but if you, via legal precedent, give up your power to effectively handle an even worse situation that could occur as a result of your lack of power to combat it.... then you really have a problem. You're going back to the courts to have them overturn precedent, and you're trying to do it based on Data which we know can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, etc...
 
if it is constitutional to mandate the vaccine and ruin careers, why havent proven vaccines been mandated.
 
Diptheria, Tetanus, Pertussis, Polio, Varicella, Mumps, Measles, & Rubella vaccines mandated by all 50 states. It only 'ruined' the career because they were attempting to refuse the vaccine.
 
Last edited:
astonmartin708 said:
You can't cost benefit a precedent with the potential for extreme ramifications during future events. It's similar when you're making literally any regulation. You have to understand that yes, your decision and it's interpretation can cause undue problems for the parties being regulated.... but if you, via legal precedent, give up your power to effectively handle an even worse situation that could occur as a result of your lack of power to combat it.... then you really have a problem. You're going back to the courts to have them overturn precedent, and you're trying to do it based on Data which we know can be misinterpreted, misrepresented, etc...
Click to expand...

I'm not referring to any legal aspect of this. I'm simply saying that if the benefits of a regulation are marginal and the costs are huge, as a practical matter you probably shouldn't do it, unless the point of the regulation is to signal virtue rather than produce positive results. In general I don’t have much of a problem with mandating vaccination as a condition of employment, but the results (shortages in key industries due to mass firings and resignations) were predictable and should have led to a different decision by the administration.
 
Last edited:
URedskin54 said:
I'm not referring to any legal aspect of this. I'm simply saying that if the benefits of a regulation are marginal and the costs are huge, as a practical matter you probably shouldn't do it, unless the point of the regulation is to signal virtue rather than produce positive results. In general I don’t have much of a problem with mandating vaccination as a condition of employment, but the results (shortages in key industries due to mass firings and resignations) were predictable and should have led to a different decision by the administration.
Click to expand...
if you can mandate this, you can justify a mandate in the future
 
a majority of dems think nonvax people should be confined to their home, have their children removed, and use the national guard to enforce it.

welcome to American Fascism.
 
aTUfan said:
a majority of dems think nonvax people should be confined to their home, have their children removed, and use the national guard to enforce it.

welcome to American Fascism.
Click to expand...
No A majority of Dems think that the unvaxxed should be legally mandated to be vaxxed. There is no desire to keep anyone at home or take their children away or to use the national guard. That was especially the case when the vaccine prevented transmission. There was good reason to ensure that people were communally safe.

Fascism would be firing people for refusing to salute the flag before a football game.
 
astonmartin708 said:
No A majority of Dems think that the unvaxxed should be legally mandated to be vaxxed. There is no desire to keep anyone at home or take their children away or to use the national guard. That was especially the case when the vaccine prevented transmission. There was good reason to ensure that people were communally safe.

Fascism would be firing people for refusing to salute the flag before a football game.
Click to expand...
Since the vaccine no longer prevents transmission do the Dems still support forced vaccinations? Actually….did the Dems ever support forced vaccinations on the general public? The current Admin refused to touch the idea of a vaccination requirement to receive federal aid. An idea which would likely have been to most effective imo.
 
astonmartin708 said:
No A majority of Dems think that the unvaxxed should be legally mandated to be vaxxed. There is no desire to keep anyone at home or take their children away or to use the national guard. That was especially the case when the vaccine prevented transmission. There was good reason to ensure that people were communally safe.

Fascism would be firing people for refusing to salute the flag before a football game.
Click to expand...
its a current rasmussen poll. if not fascism, its unconstitutional.

in the 40s we fought against a government that performed the same way.
 
aTUfan said:
a majority of dems think nonvax people should be confined to their home, have their children removed, and use the national guard to enforce it.

welcome to American Fascism.
Click to expand...
No A majority of Dems think that the unvaxxed should be made to be vaxxed. There is no desire to keep anyone at home or take their children away
aTUfan said:
its a current rasmussen poll. if not fascism, its unconstitutional.

in the 40s we fought against a government that performed the same way.
Click to expand...
Typical of a Rasmussen poll
 
lawpoke87 said:
Since the vaccine no longer prevents transmission do the Dems still support forced vaccinations? Actually….did the Dems ever support forced vaccinations on the general public? The current Admin refused to touch the idea of a vaccination requirement to receive federal aid. An idea which would likely have been to most effective imo.
Click to expand...
I agree that the administration didn’t support that, but the administration is acting rather middle of the road for the issue at large. I think Dems themselves would prefer mandated (not physically forced but economically punitive) vaccinations if for nothing else than it benefits the country to not have large numbers of severely ill people. (Supply chain, worker shortages, etc…)

Now that it doesn’t prevent or even inhibit transmission like it did previously, I think that attitude has shifted somewhat, but there is still a societal cost associated with people refusing the vaccine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: watu05
astonmartin708 said:
I agree that the administration didn’t support that, but the administration is acting rather middle of the road for the issue at large. I think Dems themselves would prefer mandated (not physically forced but economically punitive) vaccinations if for nothing else than it benefits the country to not have large numbers of severely ill people. (Supply chain, worker shortages, etc…)

Now that it doesn’t prevent or even inhibit transmission like it did previously, I think that attitude has shifted somewhat, but there is still a societal cost associated with people refusing the vaccine.
Click to expand...
There was zero middle of the road there. The Admin didn’t want to piss off their voters by forcing mandates on them as a prerequisite for receiving federal aid. They instead ordered the private sector to be the “bad” guy. I stated all along if they mandate was an across the board order I would have looked at it differently. A targeted mandate made zero sense other than political.

The number of workers who are severely ill today is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of employed. Supply chain issues are not being affected by the sick. I suggest you look at the decisions to shut down large portions of the economy.
 
lawpoke87 said:
There was zero middle of the road there. The Admin didn’t want to piss off their voters by forcing mandates on them as a prerequisite for receiving federal aid. They instead ordered the private sector to be the “bad” guy. I stated all along if they mandate was an across the board order I would have looked at it differently. A targeted mandate made zero sense other than political.

The number of workers who are severely ill today is a drop in the bucket compared to the total number of employed. Supply chain issues are not being affected by the sick. I suggest you look at the decisions to shut down large portions of the economy.
Click to expand...
Most Americans don’t receive significant federal aid. While mandating in that manner might have worked for some I don’t know if it would have been a greater number than the amount employed by the private and public sector combined.
 
astonmartin708 said:
Most Americans don’t receive significant federal aid. While mandating in that manner might have worked for some I don’t know if it would have been a greater number than the amount employed by the private and public sector combined.
Click to expand...
I don’t know the breakdown either. Doesn’t really matter imo as it would have covered millions. Remember the mandate only affected those employees who worked for companies who employed over 100 and in many states the mandate was blocked. The states couldn’t have blocked a federal aid vaccine mandate.
 
The vast majority of American work for companies that employ over 100 or for the state and local governments themselves.
 
astonmartin708 said:
The vast majority of American work for companies that employ over 100 or for the state and local governments themselves.
Click to expand...
Correct statement but as I said above, many states blocked the private employer mandate based on lack of constitutionality. Thus greatly reducing its effectiveness. The states couldn’t have blocked a mandate tied to federal aid.
 
I believe what WAXi did there is the now in-fashion term gaslighting. A major health system reversed their racist drug rationing policy after the threat of lawsuits. Their policy is described below.

“SSM Health, a Catholic health system that operates 23 hospitals across Illinois, Missouri, Oklahoma, and Wisconsin, began using the scoring system last year to allocate scarce doses of Regeneron, the antibody cocktail that President Donald Trump credited for his recovery from COVID-19. A patient must score at least 20 points to qualify for the drug. The rubric gives three points to patients with diabetes, one for obesity, one for asthma, and one for hypertension, for a total of six points. Identifying as "Non-White or Hispanic" race, on the other hand, nets a patient seven points, regardless of age or underlying conditions.”
 
Averaging about 500k new cases a day now. Looks like we will hit 900k deaths by this weekend.
 
lawpoke87 said:
Averaging about 500k new cases a day now. Looks like we will hit 900k deaths by this weekend.
Click to expand...
Man, I bet those vaccines and their combativeness to seriou symptoms ought to look pretty enticing right now for some.

If only there was some way to ensure that people had a requirement to get a vaccine that would probably help save lives…
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

D

Open primaries

Replies
21
Views
594
Crossfire
aTUfan
A
noble cane

US seizes Venezuelan Air Force One..

Replies
21
Views
741
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
R

COVID-19 vaccines sterilize? Crime of the Millennium?

Replies
4
Views
846
Crossfire
RIP represalia
R
W

Updating the cost of climate change

Replies
23
Views
697
Crossfire
Clong83a
C
Chris Harmon

🏈 Recruiting Closer look at Tulsa's class of 2025 football signees

Replies
0
Views
1K
Hurricane Alley
Chris Harmon
Chris Harmon
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT
Top Bottom
Back