Federal Court Temporarily Blocks New York's Prohibition on Religious Exemptions from Its Health Care Worker Vaccine Mandate

Judge David N. Hurd just decided this in A. v. Hochul; it's a temporary restraining order, to maintain the pre-mandate status quo until Sept. 28, when the preliminary injunction hearing will take place. (The mandate requires a vaccination by Sept. 27 for some covered employees and Oct. 7 for others, so its practical effect may be quite short, if the judge hands out a decision on the preliminary injunction at the hearing or shortly after it.) The order doesn't give detailed reasons, but that's not uncommon in such temporary orders.

Because the rationale for the order has to do with the rights of religious objectors (chiefly under the Free Exercise Clause and under federal employment law), the order suspends the vaccine mandate only as to the state's "enforcing any requirement that employers deny [or revoke] religious exemptions from COVID-19 vaccination." It doesn't block the mandate more generally.

Comments

[Tom for equal rights]

The religious exemption should be quite narrow - limited to few denominations, such as christian scientists, jehovah witnesses, possibly menonites, and amish.

[Greg J]

Nope, the religious exemption should be incredible broad.

Because there's no scientific evidence justifying the mandates.

See my comment below for the details

[Don Nico]

I agree with Tom. Refusing medical treatment should be an established practice of the faith.

[Josh R]

Doesn't Thomas v. Review Board suggest otherwise

it is not within the judicial function and judicial competence to inquire whether the petitioner or his fellow worker more correctly perceived the commands of their common faith. Courts are not arbiters of scriptural interpretation.

[Don Nico]

Maybe, let the potential plaintiff sue.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

There should be no exemptions. Get another job if you feel compelled to refrain from vaccination.

Are those pushing limitless religious objections prepared for the backlash as organized religion continues to decline -- particularly among the young and the educated -- in America? Becoming known mostly for old-timey bigotry and virus-flouting disaffectedness seems a poor strategy for those with adult-onset superstition.

[Nisiiko]

What happened to "my body, my choice?"

[Aladdin's Carpet]

That is not, nor ever had been, a legal standard? Its a political slogan. Are you pro-choice?

Sure you might point out hypocrisy except that no one thinks, even politically, that is the actual standard.

[Seamus]

That is not, nor ever had been, a legal standard? Its a political slogan.

A political slogan that does not, nor has ever, reflected what those shouting it actually believe.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If you choose to reject vaccination, society will -- and should -- impose consequences, such as disqualification from healthcare positions.

Carry on, clingers.

[Nelson]

It's "my body, my choice", not "my body, my choice, and I don't have to accept any of the consequences of that choice".

I agree you should have the choice to take the vaccine or not. I even agree that governmental mandates on private businesses is an area that is very, very dangerous.

That said, actions have consequenses. Make an informed decision for yourself, based on your beliefs. If you belong to a religion that restricts or eliminates medical care, that is pretty clearly genuine. But there are very few that seem to have such restrictions as part of their doctrine. If yours doesn't, don't dress your personal choice up in a faith-costume. It's a lie.

[Greg J]

"don’t dress your personal choice up in a faith-costume. It’s a lie."

The don't dress u your religious kookery as "science".

Are you vaccinated for Covid?

If you vaccine is good, you have nothing to worry about. So you don't need other people to vaccinate.

If the vaccine is crap, then you have no business forcing other people to take it.

If the vaccine is "leaky", so that people who have had the vaccine can still get the disease, and can pass it on to others even if they don't show symptoms themselves, then your at pretty much just as much threat from someone who's vaccinated as you are from someone who isn't.

So, again, you have no justification for forcing a vaccine mandate on other people

[Tom for equal rights]

Concur
At this point being infected with the live covid virus appears to provide significantly better immunity. Based on the Israeli study, the french nursing home and the Texas nursing home outbreak, the vaccine appears to be as effective as the annual flu shot (basically a 50/50 )

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Pandemic management tips from half-educated, gape-jawed, fairy tale-addled culture war losers are always a treat.

Keep those tips coming, clingers!

[Nelson]

What would you consider "religious kookery"? Do you believe that Quakers count?

Your synopsis of the efficacy of the vaccine has a lot of blurry edges and false assertions.

I'm going to go out on a limb and assume that "leaky" isn't a medical term for breakthrough infections.

Over 50% of the US population is vaccinated, but to make the comparison easier let's just say half of all American adults are vaccinated. The other half are either unvaccinated and had Covid or unvaccinated and haven't had Covid.

30% of infections are in the vaccinated. 70% of infections are in the unvaccinated (whether or not they have had Covid). Since a previous infection provides, at the very least, the same protection as the vaccination, what does that tell you about infections? Is it more or less likely in one population or the other?

I am increasingly convinced by the argument that those who have had Covid should be considered equivalent to fully vaccinated person, although I'm not quite there yet. I'm listening to a Munk Debate about it, so I will have a stronger opinion once I finish. They choose very good people for both sides of their debate resolutions.

However, the evidence seems overwhelming that the immunologically naive are more likely to catch Covid, transmit it, suffer worse symptoms, and are 97% of severe disease and death. That reality indicates two goals for that can be aided by mandates: slowing transmission and easing the pressure on the health system.

I'm not even talking about the beds in ICUs. If you have noticed, during the 4th wave there have been more and more hospitals who have said they have the beds, but not the personnel. Unless they are pressed, they won't say why this is: increasingly medical workers (specifically nurses, but also doctors and support personnel) have said that they will not work the ICUs any more. A big reason is that there is a lack of sympathy and empathy for unvaccinated patients. I have three friends who I have talked to in the last two weeks who have watched large numbers of their colleagues make that choice over the last month or so and are seriously considering doing the same.

So there are a lot of good reasons for a mandate. I, personally, am frightened by the potential "slippery slope" so I am not in favor of them. But to pretend there's no reason is disingenuous.

[Greg J]

What would you consider “religious kookery”?

People who believe that cloth masks are going to provide any real protection from Covid are religious kooks. So are those who follow the "6' social distancing" delusion (the droplets easily travel 40 - 50 feet indoors)

Your synopsis of the efficacy of the vaccine has a lot of blurry edges and false assertions.

Such as?
The vaccine offers protection from a Covid infection. If you worry about that, get the jab. If you don't worry about that, don't.
But in either case, don't be an authoritarian dick and try to force other people to get the jab.

That reality indicates two goals for that can be aided by mandates: slowing transmission and easing the pressure on the health system.

You know what would really "ease the pressure on the health system"? Forcing everyone to eat less, and exercise more. That would havefar more positive health outcomes than forcing everyone to get the jab.

I know, we could have a two way vision screen in every home, that everyone has to get in front of, every morning, and do the compulsory workouts together!

And we could have the government weigh everybody, and issue us ration coupons the determine how much we're allowed to eat, so we can all be at our proper goal weight!

Yeah, that's the ticket!
It would save a hell of a lot more lives. That's the standard, right?

A big reason is that there is a lack of sympathy and empathy for unvaccinated patients.

I wonder what the response would have been to people saying "I'm not going to work the ICU. There's too many AIDS patients, and I don't give a damn about those gays!"?

It seems the answer is clear: We need to attack the "two minute hate" going out against the unvaccinated, and stop encouraging it.

Maybe we could start with that asshole Biden

[Don Nico]

"(the droplets easily travel 40 – 50 feet indoors)"
Wow! Greg not only generates fantasy biology, he generates fantasy physics.

[Nelson]

"The vaccine offers protection from a Covid infection. If you worry about that, get the jab. If you don’t worry about that, don’t.
But in either case, don’t be an authoritarian dick and try to force other people to get the jab."

If you believe that this is a comprehensive and exhaustive list of the issues at hand regarding a vaccine mandate, you need to do more research.

Yes, an infectious disease is exactly the same as obesity. If you can't see the problems with your comparison, you aren't thinking hard enough.

"I wonder what the response would have been to people saying “I’m not going to work the ICU. There’s too many AIDS patients, and I don’t give a damn about those gays!”?"

It wouldn't impact staffing, since there are vanishingly few people who would find an equivalence between an STI and an airborne virus. Additionally, thinking that people deserve to die because they had sex and caught a disease with no vaccine is a pretty callous attitude for a decent human, never mind a medical professional.

However, feeling a lack of sympathy for someone who chose to make themselves vulnerable to a pandemic when there was a safe, effective, free, and available way to protect themselves and others is pretty sensible.

Also, not feeling sympathy is a far cry from hate. For example, I don't hate the unvaccinated. I just hope they don't kill anyone else, don't create a more virulent variant, and don't think they deserve sympathy if they are dying of Covid.

[Brett Bellmore]

"Wow! Greg not only generates fantasy biology, he generates fantasy physics."

You do realize we're not talking about droplets the size of peas, right?

Respiratory droplets from coughs, sneezes can travel beyond 6 feet: study

[Don Nico]

Brett,
Multiple group at MIT have done experiments to measure the distribution of droplets and aerosols of various sizes at a function of the distance from the source and initial velocity.
It is not as is Greg's number is impossible, but 40 to 50 ft would require a very large droplet size and very high initial velocity, both characteristics being at the far tail of the distribution from human sneezes and but being stopped by even a single layer of cloth.

Such wild exaggeration only detracts from the credibility of an argument

[Brett Bellmore]

Or it would require a ventilation system moving the air around, rather than the still air the tests were conducted in.

[Greg J]

Don Nico:

Read this many months ago
https://www.wired.com/story/the-teeny-tiny-scientific-screwup-that-helped-covid-kill/

Read something else that put 40 - 50feet travel indoors in my memory.

if it's only 27, glad to hear it.

The fantasy biology" is the belief that "6 feet of separation" matters

[Greg J]

Wow, so I, as the government, get to do anything I want to you, completely and utterly violate your "bodily integrity", unless you're part of a religion that refuses all medical treatment?

Boy, you sure got up on the extreme side of the bed today.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

The constitution doesn't mention anything about bodily integrity. Just because you don't like something doesn't make it unconstitutional.

Which yes is a lesson people on the left should also learn, but actually make an argument or shut up.

[great Unknown]

surely bodily integrity is a penumbra of the right to privacy!

[Greg J]

Let me know when Roe, Casey, Lawrence v Texas, and Obergefell have all been repealed.

Until then? You have no right to violate my bodily integrity

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Thats not what any of those cases actually say.

Obergefell has nothing to do with "bodily integrity"

And Roe doesn't much either. Bodily integrity is a liberal talking point. It's not a legal standard.

Drugs are still illegal, bodily integrity be damned.

[Greg J]

"Drugs are still illegal, bodily integrity be damned."

That's because the Left are a bunch of lyings sacks of shit.

But the people bitching about the TX abortion law can STFU about vaccine mandates, and so can anyone who voted for Biden

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

No one is threatening your bodily integrity, Greg J.

But better Americans are deciding that being an antisocial, virus-flouting, half-educated, disaffected jerk will have consequences, including disqualification for positions involving healthcare.

Whine about it as much as you like, clingers, but you will comply.

[Greg J]

Better watch out, Rev

Because if Americans ever decide that that being an antisocial,, half-educated, disaffected jerk will have consequences, you're fucked

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

If I ever confront a Great Clinger Uprising, Greg J, I will try to recall that you warned me.

[MollyGodiva]

You are an example of what is wrong. Religious exemptions must be based on sincere religious objections. Not believing the science is not a religious objection (and thus a fraudulent use of the exemption) and thus must be rejected.

[DWB]

Yo ... evil: such exemptions are also available to the non-religious who have their own moral objections. What do they all have in common? They own their own bodies and do not have to answer to YOU.

[Greg J]

Medical demands should be based on honest and well understand science.

Which does not apply to the Covid mandates.

You cover your side, then you can whine about me not covering mine

[Bob from Ohio]

"Not believing the science is not a religious objection"

Good thing this is not the subject of this lawsuit.

The plaintiffs say right in the first paragraph of the motion what their objection is. Why do you and everybody else just ignore that?

[DaivdBehar]

Is there anyone arguing for a rational exemption, like a prior infection with COVID confers immunity? Like immunosuppressing drugs block IgG production induced by the vaccines. Like a prior serious adverse reactions to vaccines.

I am not aware of any mainstream religion that prohibits vaccinations. Most support health, and would say, vaccine refusal is a sin.

This subject is just more utter lawyer stupidity from the Supreme Court.

[Tom for equal rights]

the religious exemption should be narrow based on existing case law.

Whether their should be a mandate or no mandate is a separate policy / public health issue.

My opinion is that it should be an individual choice based an a rational assessment of the risk.
for most all individuals over age 50 -absolutely agree that getting the vaccine is appropriate. For those under age 30, unless the person has underlying health issues, probably better to not get the vaccine, since the person acquires much better long term immunity. See the Israeli study (not kentucky study).

[shawn_dude]

Let me just say up front, I'm not a doctor and I'm especially not a virologist. Nor do I play one on TV or even in my daydreams. So my opinion on whether someone should or shouldn't get the vaccine based on the Israeli study or the Kentucky study or the many other related studies should be ignored. I can only glean the gist of these studies because I don't understand enough of the details.

However, what I do understand pretty darned well is this: the science on acquired immunity says that they don't yet know how it all works or how long it will last. One study isn't enough. Further, they do know that antibody tests don't measure immunity and it is possible to be exposed to COVID 19 enough to trigger an antibody test without having a full-blown COVID infection. So, antibody tests aren't a good measure of resistance.

Given that people can catch the disease and die faster than science can measure and come to agreement on acquired immunity, one should probably consider getting the vaccine if they are able. The one thing science has figured out so far is that the vaccine works.

If I had gotten COVID and gone through what I've heard is a pretty nasty disease even if you don't end up in the hospital, I'd get the vaccine. It's free for most Americans. It takes mere minutes to get. It's proven safe and effective. And it reduces the likelihood that I'd have to suffer through COVID again or, worse, pass it on to someone I care about.

[Greg J]

However, what I do understand pretty darned well is this: the science on acquired immunity says that they don’t yet know how it all works or how long it will last.

You're right, you don't know shit about immunology.

The only way a vaccine can possibly work is if the body can form a long-lasting immune response to epitopes on the virus.

If that is so, then natural immunity, which comes from your body building enough immune response against the entire virus in order to stop it's attack in the first place, is always going to be superior to an immune response your body forms to one protein of the virus that was sitting in your arm muscle for a little while.

If gov't doesn't know what's going on, that's a reason why gov't and the "experts" should STFU until they DO know what's going on.

it's not a justification / excuse for them to bully people.

[Tom for equal rights]

Shawn dude's comment _ "However, what I do understand pretty darned well is this: the science on acquired immunity says that they don’t yet know how it all works or how long it will last. One study isn’t enough. Further, they do know that antibody tests don’t measure immunity and it is possible to be exposed to COVID 19 enough to trigger an antibody test without having a full-blown COVID infection. So, antibody tests aren’t a good measure of resistance."

I am pleased that you made that comment since it highlights one of the many intentional representations of actual medical science in the name of covid. As if well known medical science should be ignored because it is Covid.

While it is true that we dont know the long term immunity.
Based on when is known and well established at this point in time, immunity from an actual covid infection is highly likely to be much better than the long term immunity from the vaccine.

[shawn_dude]

Better for whom?
Certainly not the heart patient that was, according to multiple news sources, turned away from 43 hospitals due to a lack of available ICU beds.
The big difference between acquired immunity and vaccine immunity is that the latter carries dramatically lower risk of ending up in the hospital and creating additional burdens on an overburdened medical system.

[iowantwo]

one should probably consider getting the vaccine if they are able. The one thing science has figured out so far is that the vaccine works.

Unlike you, I don't care about what "you" should or should not do.
I'm safe, so I have no opinion on what others are doing.

I worked with a partner last week. He wore a mask. He is fully vaccinated, but scheduled for surgery in 3 days, so he took control of his own health care.
This is how it is supposed to work

I used to motorcycle +10,000 miles a year. I always assumed everybody on the road was aiming for me. I'm still alive, because I did not depended on govt laws to protect me. I also understood my choice exposed me to needless risk. That's how things are supposed to work.

[Don Nico]

You don't care; that is fine for you. But public health authorities are supposed to care. That does not make them wise or right, but it is within their mandate

[Brett Bellmore]

Oh, sure, they can care. But, “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. They may be more likely to go to Heaven yet at the same time likelier to make a Hell of earth. This very kindness stings with intolerable insult. To be "cured" against one's will and cured of states which we may not regard as disease is to be put on a level of those who have not yet reached the age of reason or those who never will; to be classed with infants, imbeciles, and domestic animals.” C.S. Lewis.

The problem is that they don't settle for "caring", they proceed from that to "ordering about".

[shawn_dude]

The Constitution references the "general welfare" and not "everyone for themselves."

How does one "take control of their own healthcare" when the person *not* wearing the mask who doesn't care about spreading the disease to others gets on public transit with them? Since wearing a mask only protects others and not yourself, the only choice one can make to avoid infection is to withdraw from the world. In the same vein as a "heckler's veto," this creates a "Typhoid Mary" or perhaps "COVID Donald" veto.

But another way those of us can protect ourselves from those that don't care about spreading the disease is to ban them where the law allows--like from private businesses, events, and certain public venues like schools where vaccination is a customary requirement.

[branford]

The government doesn't get to evaluate and approve religious doctrine, nor may it favor or disfavor any particular religious denominations.

The analysis is only whether the individual has a sincerely held belief, and whether the vaccine mandate (as there's no longer an "or weekly testing" option available) is sufficiently narrowly tailored to advance a compelling state interest.

[Nelson]

Awesome. All women in Texas who want an abortion have a sincerely held belief that life begins at live birth. Problem solved!

And the fact that they were a brief convert doesn't mitigate it.

An interpretation of religious exemptions this broad allows virtually anything to be claimed as a religious belief.

[Greg J]

Women who have abortions are murdering another human being.

People who refuse to take a vaccine shot are not.

Let me know when people's who've "had the jab" can no longer infect anyone else with Covid. Until then?

No public health rational

[Aunt Teefah]

"Women who have abortions are murdering another human being."

What does that matter? They promise that they "sincerely believe" that they aren't. And who are you to question someone's faith?

[Greg J]

Because, oh stupid one, your personal religious beliefs don't give you a free ride to harm other people.

If they do, my religions believes that no Biden supporter is actually a human being, and therefore they can be shot whenever anyone wants to. Just like you don't believe those babies are human beings

[Nelson]

A fetus is not a person. First establish your conclusion as a generally recognized truth, THEN you can use it to make an argument.

[Greg J]

"Slaves aren't people, they're property"

"The unborn aren't people, they're fetuses"

You Democrats never change, do you.

If it's got a heart beat, brain activity, and a human genetic code that's different than the mother's, it's a separate, distinct, individual human being.

Unless you're going to go all religious on us, and tell us "oh no, the Soul doesn't enter the body until the beginning of the 3rd trimester, so it's not human until then!" you've got no other valid dividing lines.

Viability? So when we make an artificial womb that will take you from conception to birth, then life starts at conception?

Pull your head out

[Nelson]

I'm a libertarian, not a Democrat. You know, capitalism, free speech, personal liberty, religious freedom, etc. It's very different than a Democrat's issue profile.

I realize that if you believe something without any organs (or even differentiated cells) is a human being that this may not register, but the "heartbeat" you are referencing happens before a four chambered heart develops. But saying "beating noise made by blood being pushed through two tubes that will eventually grow into a heart", while accurate, isn't as catchy.

And the brain doesn't start developing until about 10-12 weeks and doesn't have the activity necessary to sustain bodily functions until 26-30 weeks.

So yes, I do have valid dividing lines. Yours, however, seem kinda arbitrary. It has a unique genetic code at fertilization, a heart at about 9 weeks, a brain at about 16 weeks, and brain activity that supports survival at about 28 weeks. Which one do you believe is the "valid" one?

My line is the brain activity to support life, which happens at about 28 weeks. Simple, logical, defensible, and convincing to a majority of honest, intelligent, morally competent Americans for the last 25+ years.

My head is just fine, but yours seems a little confused. Get back to me when you figure out what you believe. I'll be here at my "life begins when the brain can sustain it.

And yes, I believe that brain death is death. Also very defensible.

[iowantwo]

Fetus? baby?
The only way to decide is legislatively.
The judiciary lacks any direction to make a determination.

[Nelson]

No, checks and balances are there so that a legislature that ignores the rights and protections provided by the First and Fourteenth Amendments can be told to go pound sand.

With such a large percentage of Americans rejecting the "life begins at conception" and "abortion is murder" positions, the anti-abortion position clearly isn't convincing anyone. So when the legislature and executive conspire to deny Americans their Constitutional rights, especially to religious freedom, the courts are the last resort of those who love freedom and liberty.

[Don Nico]

" your personal religious beliefs don’t give you a free ride to harm other people."
Your "Free Ride" rhetoric is just a propagandistic device to make up for a chasm in your chain of logic.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Women who have abortions are murdering another human being. "

Superstitious hayseeds are among my favorite culture war casualties -- and the core audience of a White, male, right-wing blog with a scant academic veneer.

[Tom for equal rights]

actual science is not the Rev's strong suit

[shawn_dude]

Your lack of imagination or, for that matter, ability to read the news doesn't mean there's no public health rationale.

Here's one for you: reduction of COVID patients in hospital ICUs leaves those beds available for cardiac and other patients. People are dying from heart attacks and other emergencies because there's no hospital beds available. COVID-deniers are filling up the hospitals. Vaccines would fix that.

[Greg J]

Hospitals opening up more ICUs would also fix that one.

Doctors giving HCQ + Zinc + a "z-pac" to anyone diagnosed with Covid, before it gets serious, would cut down on that one.

So would Ivermectin to the newly diagnoised.

"Least intrusive means"

[Nelson]

They don't have the personnel to staff more ICU beds, nor the equipment necessary to make it an ICU bed. But other than staff and equipment, there's no reason they can't open more ICU beds.

All of the "treatments" you mentioned are indistinguishable from snake oil. None of them have actually shown clinical success. If you want to take a heartworm treatment (my experience with Ivermectin is the monthly heartworm preventative I give my dogs), have at it. But it has no relevance to treatment of Covid by doctors, nurses, and other trained medical personnel.

[Greg J]

All of the “treatments” you mentioned are indistinguishable from snake oil

Bzzt, thank you for playing, now get lost.
3 seconds searching:
https://news.yahoo.com/study-shows-hydroxychloroquine-zinc-treatments-210300816.html?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly9kdWNrZHVja2dvLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAMzKWOH6TRCS0EVdEi8GDayuSYfBNxflsf4jAdyvra9X_bj-Jr84O24ihxym3BdQuSLCqznXJs5x8JgJrWeulIg79bA_FjLQ_Iv5XO4ELO5qM8owQPezOypG28UzFcMgWL3mRRGUX9FClBtc-veVjfypiDX1Q214UldDT40sVPWT

The observational study, published by medRxiv, found that antimalarial drug hydroxychloroquine, along with zinc, could increase the coronavirus survival rate by as much as nearly 200% if distributed at higher doses to ventilated patients with a severe version of the illness.

“We found that when the cumulative doses of two drugs, HCQ and AZM, were above a certain level, patients had a survival rate 2.9 times the other patients,” the study’s conclusion states.

Why ARE you losers so desperate to force everyone to get vaccinated, that you work to block any effective treatment of Covid?

[Nelson]

Right back at you: BZZT!, thank you for playing.

If you want to understand the limits of observational studies, here is a paper that not only addresses the issues, it has the advantage of being published before Covid, so there wasn't a political framework or impetus to it.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0040595718302464

If you don't want to follow the link, here is the summary:
"After looking at some case studies, we will remind in this paper how observational studies regarding drug exposure or delivery are prone to various biases and structural limitations. These biases lead us to be extremely cautious regarding the implementation of results from such studies in clinical practice, and to question the reliability of such studies to determine the position of a given treatment into the therapeutic strategy. We will conclude on the respective place of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational approaches, which are obviously complementary, but not interchangeable."

When your support is observational, the vast majority of research supports the cpunter-argument, and they have peer-reviewed RCT studies, you are engaging in confirmation bias. As well as wishful thinking.

[Greg J]

"When your support is observational, the vast majority of research supports the cpunter-argument,"

No, it doesn't.

Which is the point I've repeatedly made, and you've ignored, since it blows your "point" up.

Provide the research where they gave patients HCQ, Zinc, and Z-Pac, or not, in a random manner, and didn't get benefits.

A VA study where they gave the medicine to the worst cases, and then compared them to the non-worst cases that didn't get the medicine, doesn't qualify.

I note that you have not actually provided a link to a single study that supports your claims, just made grandiose claims and assumed your truth.

Generally indicative of someone who's spouting BS.

But I'm willing to be educated: provide your best study and I'll check it out

[David Nieporent]

Yet another non-peer-reviewed study.

[David Nieporent]

Why ARE you losers so desperate to force everyone to get vaccinated, that you work to block any effective treatment of Covid?

Why are you so desperate to avoid vaccination that you would come up with these absurd arguments? Are you just a baby scared of a needle? I mean, let's suppose hypothetically that this study was valid. It would show a way to treat people on ventilators. Whereas vaccines, you know, prevent people from ending up on ventilators.

[Don Nico]

"Why are you so desperate to avoid vaccination"
That is the question on point. There may be excellent medical reasons; therefore there are medical exceptions. There may be religious reasons, but those has better hold up to scrutiny.
But otherwise, the excuses offered are generally pretty shallow.

Wait. What about the argument that in 4 to 6 months the present generations of vaccines won't be effective against a wide spread of the lambda and mu variants? And therefore vaccination now only offers a false sense of security?
That could be true. But as a risk averse person I'd take the 4 to 6 months of reduced risk offered and keep my eyes and ears open.

[Greg J]

"Why are you so desperate to avoid vaccination"

I'm not. I got it, as soon as I could.

Which I've pointed out multiple times.

What I am, is opposed to junk science, and bullies and thugs getting their jollies by forcing other people to do what they want.

Which is what you're doing here.

1: There is no scientific justification for forcing people who had Covid to get the vaccine

2: These vaccines, like all vaccines, have side effects. Including essentially giving people a day+ of feeling like the got Covid, from the vaccine reaction.

3: For people in with no co-morbidities and under the age of 60, on total there's probably more misery from taking the vaccine than from not taking it

4: With a real vaccine, if you've had the shot, you're good, and don't care wither or not other people get it too. Getting your panties in a wad because other people aren't getting the jab means that even you believe the vaccine is crap

5: I always oppose supporting the dishonest. The CDC et al are lying about the vaccine (see the study where you bought the headline like a chump). For that alone I would oppose everything they're trying to do, until everyone involved is fired

[Nelson]

Say it in an honest way:
*You believe* women who have abortions are murdering another human being.

That is much, much, much less settled than public health impact of the Covid vaccine. Which seems to fall on the "more likely to be a benefit than not" side of the equation. Barring compelling evidence otherwise, requiring a jab for immunologically naive people seems to be reasonable.

I find myself convinced by the philosophical arguments if the people who say that prior infection should be equivalent to full vaccination, if the studies referenced are reinforced by others. It seems like a compelling argument.

Either way bringing in abortion, especially with a tiny, extreme belief presented as fact, is intellectually dishonest.

[Greg J]

"Which seems to fall on the “more likely to be a benefit than not” side of the equation. Barring compelling evidence otherwise, requiring a jab for immunologically naive people seems to be reasonable."

No.

If the gov't wants to use force against people, and that's what a "vaccine mandate is", you need a hell of a lot more than "it seemed like a good idea at the time."

Until you have compelling evidence, no mandates.

And given how the "public health community" has fucked up on Covid from the beginning to now, they're not the ones who get to decide what qualifies as "compelling evidence".

[Nelson]

You believe HQC treats Covid, so I'll take their approach over yours.

Vaccine mandates aren't some sort of new, untested legal theory. The relevant cases, from what I've seen in posts by lawyers, are 100 years old. I have no idea what the legal threshold is for them, but it definitely isn't as extreme as you seem to think.

I actually share the general concern you are expressing, that vaccine mandates need to be approached with skepticism and the case for them needs to be made with evidence. I just don't think that one side is the side of freedom and the other is the side of tyranny. Nothing complex is ever that black and white.

[Greg J]

Vaccine mandates aren’t some sort of new, untested legal theory

They are at the Federal level.

As for HCQ, see my post above, then get yourself some actual education

[Nelson]

Wait, the Supreme Court isn't on the federal level? Because I could have sworn it was, and it has made multiple decisions upholding vaccine mandates.

For HCQ, see my post above and try to understand the actual meaning of the things you post. An observational study that comes to a minority conclusion disputed by RCTs and the majority of inquiries is ... well, calling it weak is a generous assessment.

[branford]

Looking past the irrelevant sarcasm, the religious protections provided to federal employees are both constitutional as well as statutory, and still require that the individual have a sincere belief, and then permits the government to overcome religious objections with a sufficiently narrowly tailored policy that advances a compelling state interest.

Assuming a party holds a sincere belief (a fairly low standards), and trying to stop the spread of a pandemic is almost certainly a compelling state interest, the examination will focus on the government policy. I believe the government will have a difficult road as they're already permitted an alternative testing regime, and are applying such standard to millions of private employees. Moreover, exemptions for people like nearly half a million of postal employees will need to be properly explained.

[shawn_dude]

The LA Police department union is fighting the alternative testing regime as well as being too personally "intrusive."

On the one hand, I'm disappointed that first responders aren't so concerned about the "serve and protect" portion of their duties, while on the other I'm not surprised given the tendency for police to be conservative.

For represented employees, union contracts might limit what management can do without renegotiation.

[Nelson]

Postal employees don't have an exemption. That was erroneous reporting that has since been corrected.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Congress and their staffers do. Have an exemption.

[Sarcastr0]

Congress staffing can't be regulated by an executive order.

For obvious reasons.

[Greg J]

If it's such a good idea, why isn't Congress, both Houses of which are controlled by Democrats, pushing it themselves?

[Don Nico]

And yet they are Federal employees.

[Sarcastr0]

So?

[Don Nico]

And so an executive mandate should cover them. Or Roberts, Pelosi and Schumer should issue their own mandates.
Anything less lowers the credibility of Mr Biden and staff

[Sarcastr0]

No. Executive mandates cover the executive branch.

[Greg J]

Got a link for that?

How about public school teachers, do they have an exemption?

[Nelson]

Congress and their staffers do (because why would anyone complain about them treating themselves differently than the general populace? *eyeroll*). Public school teachers do not.

[Doug Heffernan]

But not Scientology? They've sued before to prove that they are a bona fide, honest-to-goodness, totally on the up and up religion that can be sincerely held. Tom Cruise is couch jumping sincere about it. So, you had better include them unless you want a world of trouble.

Any sincerely held religious belief should get one off the vaccine hook. If I sincerely worship my android tv dongle, and the preachers that come through it (newsmax) preach about the evils of the vaccine, that should be enough. So long as I sincerely believe it, even if it is mostly nonsense.

The sincerity of the belief is what gets you off the hook. Since there are limited ways to test sincerity, really just a declaration (helpful boilerplate available on the web) should be enough in practice to get almost anybody who says they believe almost anything off the hook.

[Don Nico]

This is not so complicated. But mere boilerplate is not enough.
You sign an affidavit under penalty of perjury and potentially other violation of that you do not and have not taken medications or medical prophylactics for the past five years as evidence of your sincere belief.

[Bob from Ohio]

"have not taken medications or medical prophylactics for the past five years as evidence of your sincere belief"

Its not a general objection to medicine.

The claim is objection to taking "vaccines that were tested, developed or produced with cell lines derived from the bodies of aborted babies."

[Don Nico]

That is BS Bob. I'd throw you out f my courtroom.

[Bob from Ohio]

" In various stages of vaccine development and manufacturing, some of the COVID-19 vaccines used cells originally isolated from fetal tissue (often referred to as fetal cells), some of which
were originally derived from an aborted fetus. "

https://www.health.nd.gov/sites/www/files/documents/COVID%20Vaccine%20Page/COVID-19_Vaccine_Fetal_Cell_Handout.pdf

[Don Nico]

Some of which, Bob. Do you KNOW about the cells lines used? Of course not.
You're just making excuses.
Man up and get your shot.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Great. The mRNA vaccines are not manufactured with aborted cell lines. If that is the objection it is very easily overcome with the facts of the matter.

Saying any covid vaccine had in any stage of development used an aborted cell line therefore I cannot use anything is completely ridiculous. It just is. I can make a connection between any immoral act and any action. People died creating the golden gate Bridge, therefore I have the right to another bridge? You can make evermore ridiculous arguments with this line of reasoning.

It is legitimate to argue that I can't use something with aborted cells. It is somewhat less legitimate to argue that about aborted cell lines, which stem from those cells over 20 years ago (and the creation of new lines, as far as I can tell, is illegal BTW, or at least highly discouraged for this exact reason).

But even if you hold both, neither of those things are true!

And this is exactly the point. Sincere religious objections should be allowed. Kneejerk made up objections due to a pre-disposition to not wanting the vaccine, like this one, because of political and irrational in-group collectivism on the stupidest possible level should not be!

[Bob from Ohio]

"Kneejerk made up objections due to a pre-disposition to not wanting the vaccine, like this one"

Objections to things produced indirectly from abortion is long standing and fairly wide spread.

You have no idea if these doctors and nurses opposed vaccines in general.

Any knee jerking is your own.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

And again, the mRNA vaccines are not even indirectly related to aborted stem lines, unless your definition of "indirectly" is so broad as to encompass all of modern medicine.

In which case, yeah show you refuse all medication and you'll happily get the exemption.

[ReaderY]

The Supreme Court has held that the Free Exercise Clause covers beliefs of individuals, not just denominations.

But nonetheless, I think the sincerity requirement should have some teeth in it. I think a claimant should have to prove, for example, that their belief preceeded the rule, and wasn’t invented in response to it. So I think that for example someone who has had no problem with vaccines in the past but suddenly has a problem with this one would be suspect.

[Doug Heffernan]

Why should a sincerely held belief have to be old? Why should it have to be about vaccines in general and not just a specific vaccine?

I could have a divine perspiration directly from god tonight specifically about this particular vaccine and I could sincerely believe the heck out of it, but my sincerely held belief should be cast aside because it is recent?

Tests for sincerity seem like a good idea, but people who believe the nuttiest of things often are the most sincere about them, even if they just started believing them yesterday.

[Don Nico]

Okay, if you are Saul on the road to Damascus, you get off.
But otherwise you affirm under penalty of perjury that that you do not and have not taken medications or medical prophylactics for the past five years as evidence of your sincere belief.

[ReaderY]

Why should a court acquit a genuinely guilty person just because there’s no evidence of guilt? If the person is genuinely guilty, why would evidence be needed?

Same here.

[ReaderY]

The reason why guilt is similar is fhat courts can’t know absolute guilt any more than they can know absolute sincerity. They can only know the kind of guilt that can be proved in court. So that’s the only kind of guilt that exists so far as courts are concerned. The fact that other kinds of guilt can exist simply doesn’t matter.

Same with sincerity.

The fact that the believer has to prove sinceritu establishes that the only relevant kind of sincerity is the kind that can be proved. Any other kind may as well not exist so far as the First Amendment is concerned. Just like guilt, or anything else where there is a burden of proof.

[Bored Lawyer]

"So I think that for example someone who has had no problem with vaccines in the past but suddenly has a problem with this one would be suspect."

Come on. This is a new vaccine, with no long term studies of its side effects, because such is impossible. To compare that to vaccines that have been around for decades is ridiculous.

(For the record I and everyone qualified in my family are vaccinated, and IMO the risks are now minimal. But not zero.)

[shawn_dude]

IANAL, but I think the polio vaccine was mandated without long-term studies first. So there's probably case law there that applies here.

For the most part, this really isn't about individuals per se but society in general. The vaccine prevent mass death and the collapse of the healthcare system. If religious exemptions are so broad and flimsy that anyone can get one, we're back to mass death and a collapse of the healthcare system. So, in this case, the "general welfare" should override insufficiently strong exemptions.

[ReaderY]

Of course it makes a difference with respect to secular medical considerations.

But a religious difference?

All vaccines were once new.

[bevis the lumberjack]

But you can't do a technical objection or a safety objection. Hard to see how an "untested vaccine" objection fits into a religious objection slot.

The aborted fetuses or stem cell objection is perfect. I'm not even sure that it needs to be true. Or needs to have been part of the vaccine you're objecting to. "My preacher tells me that it is and I believe it' or "it was part of the process that ultimately lead to this vaccine" both probably work, particularly the latter one.

I'm also vaccinated as is everybody I'm related to except for one nephew who's way off in cuckoo land. (The vaccine will change his DNA/Rna).

[shawn_dude]

The stem cell objection would be something based on fact first. I don't saying a believe my preacher's lie is going to work.

[Don Nico]

BL,
You're correct. The risks are not zero. Both my son and I have persistent side effects, his much worse than mine. But I'd get a booster when offered and he almot certainly should not.
Still those risks are much lower than the risks of serious illness from Delta.

[Bob from Ohio]

"The religious exemption should be quite narrow – limited to few denominations, such as christian scientists, jehovah witnesses, possibly menonites, and amish."

This particular religious objection is to taking a vaccine made with aborted tissue/cells. Many, many mainstream Christians [and others] share this objection.

[David Nieporent]

The vaccines are not made with aborted tissue/cells.

[Bob from Ohio]

They derive from them.

Let the state of NY refute the lawsuit's allegation.

[Aladdin's Carpet]

Except that is only true for one of them, and no one said you have to take that particular one.

[Commenter_XY]

Bob from Ohio....I read your cite above. It was informative and helpful. I take it the objection is to the J&J vaccine and not the mRNA vaccines since only the J&J vaccine used a fetal cell line.

[Nelson]

Stop using facts and logic. Jeez, next you'll be telling people that unfounded opinion isn't more important than general consensus. We can't have that!

[Don Nico]

Nelson,
You have identified why I have little patience with stupid people

[AtR]

And which dictator should decide what denominations should be granted exemptions? Do I get to decide what the Catholic church and the Church of England believe?

[Don Nico]

Nope, we only need an affirmation of the basis of your object under penalty of perjury granting the police permission to investigate

[Bored Lawyer]

But that is not what the poster said. He identified certain denominations that in his view should get an exemption, the rest not. That is not proper for a secular court to do.

[Don Nico]

Fair enough.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Which dictator gets to tell us that we have to take a new medicine with no long term studies?

[Nelson]

You don't. You just can't work at a job that requires it if you don't. With choice comes responsibility.

[Bored Lawyer]

I don't know if you are a lawyer or not, but there is no legal way to do what you are suggesting. Secular courts do not get to decide which religions legitimately object to something or not. They DO get to decide whether and when religious objections override secular mandates.

[Rossami]

So 'Tom for equal rights' is now the final arbiter of religious doctrine for all faiths, sects and denominations? Good to know.

[Greg J]

Cool, sounds like time for everyone to get religion.

Note: the headline on the CDC release is a lie. What's more, anyone who reads the first sentence of the press release knows it's a lie:
https://www.cdc.gov/media/releases/2021/s0806-vaccination-protection.html

Headline: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

First sentence: In today’s MMWR, a study of COVID-19 infections in Kentucky among people who were previously infected with SAR-CoV-2 shows that unvaccinated individuals are more than twice as likely to be reinfected with COVID-19 than those who were fully vaccinated after initially contracting the virus.

Everyone in the study had previously had Covid. The study does not address whether the Covid vaccine gives better protection than having had Covid. All it addresses is whether having had the Covid vaccine recently, after already having had Covid 6+ months ago, gives you any boost in your protection from Covid

Bottom line: There is not one shred of scientific evidence that getting the vaccine and not having had Covid makes you more protected than getting Covid and not getting the vaccine.

The fact that the CDC blatantly lied about the study strongly indicates that, in fact, natural immunity is better than vaccine protection (as the Israeli study found)

And nothing in this study says that getting the Covid vaccine after having had Covid makes you less likely to pass Covid on to someone else.

So there's not the slightest shred of scientific evidence to justify the Biden* mandates

[M L]

Hah. Just more of the usual same.

[Don Nico]

1) Greg should learn the definition of a lie.
2) Greg should learn that calling others liars is the best way to destroy any credibility that he might have
3) Greg should get vaccinated.
4) All that having been said the MMWR is misleading and fails to tell the whole truth.
It is almost unquestionable that a COVID-recovered person will get a higher antibody count if s/he gets a subsequent vaccine. But that is not the CDC's pitch. Comparing apples to pears is hardly at the level of honesty that we should demand of government officials.

[Brett Bellmore]

The headline IS a lie, I've read the study.

General rule of headlines is, never, EVER trust them.

But the headline is a lie.

[Don Nico]

Brett,
I don't buy "lie."
I do buy deliberately misleading

[Bored Lawyer]

The difference between a "lie" and being "deliberately misleading" is not one worth haggling over. Both are patently dishonest.

[Artifex]

If you are arguing the difference between "lie" and "deliberately misleading", I would rank this sort of dissembling right up there with either.

You are drifting perilously near to Sarcastro territory.

[bevis the lumberjack]

Seriously. "Deliberately misleading" is ok?

The biggest problem we have here is that the media spent the Trump years pissing away their credibility and that the public health officials have spent the last year+ doing the same.

The vaccines are a miraculous achievement of modern science and a big group of people (not just conservatives) aren't buying because there's nobody they trust to tell them that.

[Don Nico]

No one said that deliberately misleading is okay. But I quibble with the statement that the difference with a lie is nothing.
A deliberately misleading comment can be consist of true statements.
It is the difference between the truth and the whole truth.

[Greg J]

The problem is that in this case they did not use true statements

"Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection"

This is roughly equivalent to a headline "Jeff Jones won the 100 meter dash at the Olympics"

Then you open up the article and the first sentence says "Jeff jones came from behind to win the marathon at the Olympics, passing three competitors in the last 100 meters."

They did not compare "Vaccination" to "Previous COVID-19 Infection".

They compared "previous COVID-19 Infection and vaccinated" to "previous COVID-19 Infection".

Now the fact that they cherry picked their data, looking at less than 800 people out of a pool of over 500 thousand, and weighted the scales in favor of vaccination (since all the people in the study had to have had Covid last year, at least 5 months before the studied time. Whereas the vaccinations had pretty much all occurred in the two months before the studied time), means their preprint study is questionable, at best.

But the claim that they compared "vaccinated" to "previous COVID-19 Infection" is simply false to fact.

They didn't tell a story that was "true from a certain point of view," they just lied.

[Greg J]

A different analogy:

You come across a headline that says "Study shows that pepperoni is 3 times more popular than [add topping of your choice here]"

You open up the article, and the first sentence says "In a study comparing preferences of non-vegetarians, pizzas that had [topping of your choice] and pepperoni were 3 times as popular as pizzas that only had [topping of your choice].

What, pray tell, is your response to that? Is it "that headline writer lied to me"?

Because by falsely describing the study he lied.

Just as the CDC did with their headline

[Greg J]

Well, Don, could you please further my education, and explain to be the difference between "lie" and "deliberately misleading"?

This should be fun

[Don Nico]

Deliberately misleading material can consist of all true statements.
It i not so difficult to understand.
That is why one demands the whole truth.

[Greg J]

So, which were the true statements in the headline?
Here's the headline:
Headline: New CDC Study: Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection

The study did not even look at that question.

How can it be "true" to say a study answered a question that it didn't address"?

If a headline says "Starbucks coffee now costs 5 cents", and the article says it costs $5.05, are you trying to claim it's "not a lie" because if you add those words " plus $14 to the end of the headline it would be correct"?

[Greg J]

1: I have
2: They are lying, and anyone with enough brain to be arguing this should be able to figure that they're lying
3: Did that, months ago
4: No, it's is not "misleading", it is "false to fact."
The study is not about whether "Vaccination Offers Higher Protection than Previous COVID-19 Infection", and offers no information WRT that question.
A study directed at that question would compare people who were vaccinated, and never had Covid, to people who had Covid, and were never vaccinated
That's not what this study did
To claim your study addressed Question X, when it only addressed Question Y, is to lie

It is almost unquestionable that a COVID-recovered person will get a higher antibody count if s/he gets a subsequent vaccine. But that is not the CDC’s pitch

Great! So we're in complete agreement!
1: The study, as designed, is pretty much worthless
2: The study provides no evidence for the claim made in the headline.
So, since we're in such wild agreement, why are you arguing with me?

[Don Nico]

We are in partial agreement.
CDC made a conveniently structured pitch to support the Administration's opinion.
That does not mean its work is worthless.
And if you stop reading at the headline, then your reading has no value to you except to feed a polemic.

[Greg J]

I didn't stop reading at the headline.

I went and read the rest of the press release. Which told me the headline was a lie.

Then I went and read the article. Which told me that the study was so poorly done as to be mostly useless.

It also left me believing that the following have a hgih probability of being true:

1: It is CDC policy to push "Covid vaccines for everyone, no matter how unneeded"
2: The KY data reveals that the Israeli study is correct, and infection provides significantly superior protection to the Covid vaccines.
3: I need to keep track of the authors of the study, because anything they write will be politicized, and probably trash
4: I need to significantly downgrade my respect / trust level for anyone pushing the study. With the probable exception of someone who uses the study as a demonstration that any immune response to Covid degrades with time far faster than we would normally expect it to degrade (which sucks).

What did you take away from it?

[M L]

A real-world observational study in Israel has concluded that natural immunity, gained through a previous infection of COVID-19, is likely more protective against infections of the delta variant, than a full (i.e. typically a two-dose) vaccination regime. . . .After adjusting for comorbidities, the researchers reported a 27x higher risk of symptomatic breakthrough infections relative to symptomatic reinfections. https://science.thewire.in/health/natural-immunity-covid-19-greater-protection-delta-variant-vaccines-israel-study/

[David Nieporent]

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

[Greg J]

The CDC study is "early release". Which means preprint. Which means "not peer reviewed"

The CDC's press release, which you fell for hook, line, and sinker, isn't even "preprint"

It's boob bait for suckers. You know, people like you

Tell the truth. You just read the headline of the press release, nothing else, then walked away proud of your ability to "listen to the experts". Right?

Because nothing else can explain the stupid things you've been saying about it

[David Nieporent]

I haven't been saying anything about the Kentucky study other than that it exists.

[Greg J]

You have been saying it provides proof that the vaccine protects from Covid better than prior infection does.

it was your claims about the Ky study that caused me to hunt it down and find out what bullshit it was

[David Nieporent]

Notably, you don't actually provide a quote — let alone multiple ones, which is what "have been saying" implies — where I said it "provides proof of" anything.

(I would not cite a single study — especially not a non-peer-reviewed one — as "proof" of anything. Studies provide evidence. Lots of evidence may colloquially be described as "proof," but a single study? No.)

[Greg J]

Fine, Mr. BS artist:

https://reason.com/volokh/2021/09/12/can-the-federal-government-require-vaccination-of-health-care-workers/#comments
Bruce Hayden: After all, there is significant evidence that their immunities are superior to those vaccinated with experimental therapies
You: A single un-peer-reviewed study.
Me: You got a study that proves otherwise, David?
You: There is in fact a study out of Kentucky saying otherwise

So, let's cut through all the bullshit, shall we?

1: A basic understanding of immunology tells you that a person who has had and recovered form a viral infection will have greater immunity to reinfection than does a person who's been given two shots that had one surface protein from the virus.
If you don't understand this, you are welcome to do some research and find out for yourself it's true.
Or you can accept my "expert" statement

2: There is an Israeli study out, with over 100,000 people studied, that shows that this is true for Covid 19, even / especially for the Delta variant

3: There does not exist, anywhere in the world, a study that shows the opposite, which is to say a study that shows that the vaccine provides better protection from reinfection than actually having had Covid supplies

4: There is one (early release, not peer reviewed) study of less than 800 people that claims that having had Covid last year, and then getting vaccinated this year, gives you slightly better protection than having had Covid last year, and not getting vaccinated.

5: The CDC dishonest hyped this study as proving #3, despite the fact that they didn't even try to address #3 in their study design

6: Given the data they claimed they had (I do not dispute their claim, I'm just being especially precise here), it would have been trivial for them to actually study the question for #3.

7: They didn't. Which is a strong indication that they got the same results as the Israelis did, didn't like them, so refused to publish them.

8: Instead, they produced a press release that lied and claimed the result they wanted, rather than the result they had

Now, would you care to explain to us why you are so desperate to ignore the science, and force people who have no real need to take it to take a not very good "vaccine"? Something that's not quite "flu shot" levels of ineffectiveness, but is pretty close?

Or are you simply going to continue shouting out "but it's not peer reviewed" with the fervor of a holy roller shouting "Jesus loves you!"?

[Don Nico]

"Which means “not peer reviewed""
Actually we don't know it it will ever submitted to an independent journal to be peer-reviewed

[Don Nico]

"what does this mean?"
For the CDC it means that a suitably authorized supervisor has put his/her initials on a routing slip

[Doug Heffernan]

“The researchers also observed that natural immunity against the delta variant waned if the infections occurred between March 2020 and February 2021”

Waning might be an issue for both the naturally immune and the merely vaccinated populations alike. So, the never vaccinated but naturally immune should be calculating when they should get their first vaccination, assuming that their naturally acquired immunity was from an infection in the relatively distant past. Someone like Rand Paul, for example, who as infected in March of 2020, should be lining up for a vaccination something like yesterday.

[Greg J]

Possibly.

But since the CDC refuses to do an honest study on the subject, we have claims, but no knowledge.

Here's what some honest studies would look like, given the data the CDC had for the crap study they did:

Easy: Just raw numbers. For each month since March 2020 record how many were infected, how many have been re-infected, and the average time between 1st and 2nd infections.
For bonus credit, also list the number who also got the vaccine after their infection, and break out the reinfection numbers between the vaccinated and the not.

Also easy: Do same study, but with 10 case controls per reinfected individual, rather than 2.
There's only 246 "doubly infected" in the study. There's over 600 in Kentucky who've had Covid. It should not be difficult to get 2,460 controls.

Also easy, does the above study, but report for April, May, June, July, and maybe August, individually.
Once you've got the data, and got your algorithms set up, changing the target month is a trivial task.

What they obviously should have done (and what the Israelis did):
Compare people who came down with (or recovered from) Covid in the week X with people who's vaccination was finished in week X, and compare reinfection rates for each group.

There's lots of ways they could look at the data. It's pretty pathetic that they only reported what they did.

it might even lead one to believe that the reason why they didn't report looking at the data any of the other obvious ways, is because those "looks" didn't give the desired results.

[Nelson]

I believe that the Israeli study also broke a group of previously-infected people into two groups and gave one a vaccine and one nothing. The vaccinated group had higher resistance than the unvaccinated group. So it does make a difference if you are vaccinated. But does it make enough of a difference to treat the naturally infected like the immunologically naive? I don't see that argument holding up to scrutiny.

[Greg J]

Nope.

They looked at people who were previous infected, and had gotten one shot of Pfizer.
They didn't chose for anyone
1: They found that having had Covid gave you a significantly better outcome than just having the vaccine.
2: As for had Covid + 1 shot of Pfizer, we get this:
20 [in Covid + vaccine] had a positive RT-PCR test, compared to 37 in the previously infected and unvaccinated group. Symptomatic disease was present in 16 single dose vaccinees and in 23 of their unvaccinated counterparts. One COVID-19-related hospitalization occurred in the unvaccinated previously infected group. No COVID-19-related mortality was recorded.

Those are so not "of course we must do this" numbers.

Esp. since people who've had Covid appear to have much stronger negative reactions to getting the jab (which makes sense: their immune system is already primed to respond, and most of the misery comes from your immune system's response, not from the virus).

So it's rather sadistic to force those people to "get vaccinated"

[Nelson]

I have said before that the argument for previously infected people being treated like fully vaccinated people looks to be supported by evidence. In fact, at least one hospital system has shifted from "must be vaccinated" to "must have antibodies".

However, the immunologically naive don't have anyibodies, so they still have to get the jab or get a new job.

And, once again, no one is forcing you to get the jab. They are saying, "Here is what getting the jab results in and here is what not getting the jab results in. Your choice" not liking the consequences of your choice isn't the same as not giving you a choice. All choices in life have consequences.

[Don Nico]

Greg,
Your so called study is poorly designed. It certainly is not a double blind evaluation. It does not had any serological data. It has no way to control for asymptomatic infections. I could go on.
Moral: It is easy to criticize and not so easy to do.

However, CDC certainly has scientists who could set up a rigorously reviewable study. They just have not do so.

[Bored Lawyer]

Interesting that you mention that. My son is studying in Israel, just got there a few weeks ago. They have something called a Green Pass, that let's you go into certain restaurants, museums, etc.

The interesting thing is, it is not dependent on proof of vaccination. It is rather dependent on an anti-body test. If you have anti-bodies, you get it, if not, not. Does not matter if you got the anti-bodies through contracting and recovering from COVID, or from vaccination.

So I think they are ahead of the U.S., where vaccination is the only recognized way of being resistant.

[Doug Heffernan]

That seems reasonable. Would this green pass style anti-body test system go over in the US with the willfully unvaccinated cohort any better than vaccination has? My guess is probably not, if the government has anything to do with such system.

[Brett Bellmore]

It has the advantage of being rationally defensible.

[Bored Lawyer]

Hard to know. Suppose Biden's mandate added an option that you could keep your job if you got an antibody test, and it showed a high enough level of antibodies. And you would have to take that not every week, but maybe every four months. Would make the mandate more palatable. Not everyone would accept it, but many would.

[Greg J]

Nothing would make a Federal Gov't vaccine mandate issued as an executive order / OSHA regulation acceptable.

Because there's no legal basis for it to be issued. Esp. without going through the APA "Notice and Comment" period

[Nelson]

I agree. I don't see why the separation can't be between the immunologically naive and those with antibodies rather than between unvaccinated and vaccinated.

[Brett Bellmore]

Because that's not what they're telling us to do. Seriously. It's a power trip, and we're not doing as we're told.

[David Nieporent]

Well, one answer is that it's easier to administer the latter than the former. Everyone who has been vaccinated has proof of it; everyone who has been previously infected does not.

Relatedly, if it does turn out that immunity wanes, then people can get booster shots of vaccines. But one can't get booster infections. (I mean, not deliberately.) So we could say that to be considered safe, one must have been vaccinated within, e.g., the last six or nine or 12 months. But one can't reasonably do that for naturally acquired immunity with an antibody test.

[Bored Lawyer]

So we could say that to be considered safe, one must have been vaccinated within, e.g., the last six or nine or 12 months. But one can’t reasonably do that for naturally acquired immunity with an antibody test.

Why not? One could require an antibody test every 3 months. Would be a lot cheaper and a lot more convenient than the weekly PCR test that is now the only option to vaccination.

And what is going to happen when the vaccines start wearing off -- which has already begun happening in some places? Is someone who was approved to work with the vaccine now have to prove he/she received the booster?

[Nelson]

I agree. Plus, since previous infection and vaccinated people both seem to get an advantage from a booster, there is a strong parallel between the two.

I think we're probably heading to a place where there is a period of time (8-9 months is the consensus right now, I believe) after vaccination or natural infection when a booster will be required to maintain protection, but the immunologically naive will have to get vaccinated or accept the professional consequences their employer has laid out. Including termination.

[David Nieporent]

One could require an antibody test every 3 months.

Let's say that someone produces the results of an antibody test, showing positive results. This shows that someone had been infected and then recovered; it does not show when they were infected.

And what is going to happen when the vaccines start wearing off — which has already begun happening in some places? Is someone who was approved to work with the vaccine now have to prove he/she received the booster?

Well, if it turns out that boosters are needed, then sure. (What would be the alternative?) My kids' schools require that my kids show proof of vaccination for numerous diseases, including relevant boosters as appropriate.

[Bored Lawyer]

"Let’s say that someone produces the results of an antibody test, showing positive results. This shows that someone had been infected and then recovered; it does not show when they were infected."

And why does that matter? If they have immunity above a certain level, then one should be able to calculate a reasonable time that we can assume it remains. 3 months seems right to my lay view, but if someone send 2 months or 4 months, I would not disagree.

I suspect that those who have antibodies, whether through infection or vaccination, lose them at different rates, such that for some people it lasts longer than others.

I still have not yet heard a good argument against this, and as I said a version of it is being used in Israel today. Certainly have not seen any evidence that the Biden Administration or the CDC considered it as an alternative. It would not satisfy everyone, but would be less offensive than the current mandate.

[Bored Lawyer]

For the record I never had COVID, was fully vaccinated in March, and when tested in September had significant anti-bodies. So I don't think it runs out that quickly.

[Greg J]

"Let’s say that someone produces the results of an antibody test, showing positive results. This shows that someone had been infected and then recovered; it does not show when they were infected."

It shows their immune system is still reactive against the vaccine, Mr "I only read the headlines"

If we need reactivity of a certain level, you structure the test to find it.

What is it that causes you to get your rocks off at forcing people to take a crappy vaccine?

[Commenter_XY]

Have a meaningful fast, Bored Lawyer.

[Bored Lawyer]

Thank you. You too. And an easy one.

[Brett Bellmore]

There's something about being under existential threat that clears the mind. And having cleared the mind on one topic, the effect is general.

Israel, unlike the US, has been under such a threat since its origin, they tend not to have time for nonsense.

Mind, this doesn't mean I'd like US to be under an existential threat. But it does have compensations.

[Don Nico]

BL,
Isn't that amazing that one country is able to use a standard serological test to determine if a person has antibodies over a threshold level. But in the US such a test is discounted as irrelevant by the CDC and the White House.
Why should that be?

[Brett Bellmore]

Because you're not dealing with medical science here, you're dealing with politics. They've issued their order, and they don't want a reasoned response, they want reflexive obedience. And they're going to keep ramping up the pressure until they get it, because they want a population of obedient drones, not thinking individuals.

[David Nieporent]

Because nobody has established what the threshold level should be?

[Bored Lawyer]

Not nobody. Israel has, presumably based on some science.

[Don Nico]

Not a good objection, David.
Anti-body levels generated by a single dose would be a reasonable level.

[M L]

Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

Conclusions This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.

[David Nieporent]

This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

[Bob from Ohio]

"[what does this mean?]"

Other researchers read the study and say "yup, sounds right" or "nope, I disagree". Its just a kind of religious blessing.

Libertarians pimping for vaccine mandates is a strange position

[shawn_dude]

How would a real libertarian in a fully free society take responsibility for spreading a deadly disease?
Is it up to the survivors of their victims to sue and prove transmission?
Or is it just a Darwinian bloodbath with mass deaths in a race between economic collapse and herd immunity?

[bevis the lumberjack]

Those of us that are vaccinated are supposed to be protected from serious Covid symptoms. And it certainly seems that we are. Believing otherwise suggests that we don't believe the vaccines work and therefore shouldn't be pressing others to get a vaccine we think doesn't work.

The minority of the population that is unvaccinated is doing this to themselves, with a mortality rate much less than 100% and (unfortunately) some collateral damage related to other medical issues and filled ICU beds. But that's as much the fault of the medical community for not being fully staffed as it us the Covid sufferers.

[Brett Bellmore]

Keep in mind that about a third of the unvaccinated have already had Covid, by the CDC's estimates, and are about as well protected against future infection as if they'd been vaccinated.

The government wants you to forget about them, because it just wants obedience: It has told people to get vaccinated, and doesn't want any back talk from people who don't need to get vaccinated.

I believe the plan here is to demand vaccinations, and then demand boosters, and six months later demand boosters again, and just keep ramping up the pressure until people fall into line and stop questioning their orders.

[Don Nico]

"Its just a kind of religious blessing."
Bob,
How can you write such stupidity?

[Brett Bellmore]

Exactly, I've commented on this study myself.

Peak immune response only lasts so long, all the Covid infections they were studying were 6-8 months earlier, or more. Due to when the vaccine became available, the vaccinations were all much more recent.

So, for all we know, having been vaccinated a month ago, and having had Covid a month ago, are indistinguishable in effect, and you'd still have seen this result.

They were comparing long term effects of a Covid infection to the peak effect of the vaccination. And, sure enough, having been vaccinated a few weeks earlier beats having had Covid half a year or more earlier. Why would anyone be surprised by that? It was almost a foregone conclusion.

Which would be better in a head to head comparison? The study can't say. It was designed not to be able to say.

I'm not joking about that, they could easily have obtained records for people who had contracted Covid in the same time period where the vaccine was being distributed, and matched infection and vaccination times, and come up with that comparison in addition to the data they produced. They made a deliberate decision to do something else, they actively avoided having that data.

I've been seeing this a lot in Covid research, it really looks like there are pertinent questions the government doesn't want the answers to, and won't pay you to study. And since almost all the research is funded by the government, ultimately, you don't see those answers.

[Don Nico]

I find Brett's argument compelling about what would constitute a valid measurement of relative immunity.

[Greg J]

Good. Some Israelis did that study. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1

They found that natural immunity was 13x better than "vaccine" immunity.

You know, the complete opposite of what the CDC Press Release claims

[bernard11]

The first part of Brett's comment may be a valid criticism. I haven't read the paper but if his description is correct then it's a sensible point.

The trouble is, he then veers off into his usual paranoia about how it's all deliberate deception and "they" don't want the public to know the truth, etc., etc.

Presumably, in his mind, "the government," - all of it - has some sort of dark secret here, some nefarious plan, that involves as a first step getting as many people vaccinated as possible. Then comes Step Two.

[Don Nico]

It is no dark secret, bernard. It is the same old bureaucratic inertia and fear of retribution from superiors. There is no need for a conspiracy when human frailty explains it all.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes. The princple of CYA explains a lot.

[Nelson]

Or Hanlon's Razor. One of the most effective ways to dismiss many of crazy conspiracy theories.

Occam's Razor handles the rest.

[David Nieporent]

They made a deliberate decision to do something else, they actively avoided having that data.

I’ve been seeing this a lot in Covid research, it really looks like there are pertinent questions the government doesn’t want the answers to, and won’t pay you to study. And since almost all the research is funded by the government, ultimately, you don’t see those answers.

Yes, it's an international conspiracy, Brett. Led by the freemasons and the lizard people. And the (((you know whos))), of course.

[Brett Bellmore]

" Led by the freemasons and the lizard people."

Only lizard person I'm aware of is James Carville, I don't think he's involved.

But, look, people tend not to pay for answers they don't want, and if an area of study is dominated by government financing, it tends not to study things the government doesn't want studied.

Other country's governments have different incentives, of course. But YOU give a good reason why they cut off the Covid cases before the vaccine was available.

[David Nieporent]

But, look, people tend not to pay for answers they don’t want, and if an area of study is dominated by government financing, it tends not to study things the government doesn’t want studied.

You don't "the government" — but which government? The state of Kentucky or the federal government? — wants the prevention of covid infection to be studied?

[Greg J]

Wow, David, what has you so desperately in love with Pfizer and Moderna?

I mean, seriously.

You say we must ignore a solid pre-publication study, because of a dishonest Press Release about a different, also pre-publication, study.

When the flaws in the study are pointed out, you start babbling about lizard people

Do you need to get your meds checked? WTF?

[David Nieporent]

What is the basis for your claim that it's solid? That you like the conclusions?

[Greg J]

1: That they compared people who got vaccinate / infected at about the same time
2: That instead of using 600k who have had Covid in KY, they used 16,215 x 2 people for their first test, 46,035 x 2 for their second, and 14,029 x 2 for their third. Real numbers, no cherry picking
3: They asked the right questions:
A: Covid v vaccine, time matched
B: Covid v vaccine, not time matched
C: Covid + vaccine v Covid no vaccine.
4: They didn't produce a press release that blatantly mis-stated what they'd done, and what they'd found

Better study size, better questions. Other than the fact that you hate the outcome, what's not to like?

[David Nieporent]

Nothing's "not to like," if the study is valid. You know that competent peer review consists of more than "I eyeballed the abstract and it looks good," right?

(Also, I know you say "Pfizer and Moderna" above, but the Israel study didn't look at Moderna. Another reason why one can't knee-jerkingly rely on a single study.)

[Don Nico]

David,
Shame on you.
Brett never said it was a conspiracy. It is just employees towing the line and currying favor

[David Nieporent]

Employees of whom? Toeing (not towing) what line? Currying favor with whom?

[Don Nico]

Federal employees towing the tine to curry favor with their supervisors (Branch chief, office chief, assistant secretary, what have you.)
That also happens in private corporations with employees who know what side their bread is buttered on

[David Nieporent]

Two of the five authors were not federal employees. And why would this be a line that they have to toe (not tow!)? What evidence do you have that their supervisors want them to produce this result?

[Don Nico]

Because the Federal employees had to get permission for public release from their line management. That is the usual requirement.

[Bored Lawyer]

Google "beating up on a straw man."

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

" Cool, sounds like time for everyone to get religion. "

The Congregation of Exalted Reason is way ahead of you (not surprisingly). Our reason-based sacraments -- rejection of racism, misogyny, gay-bashing, and xenophobia; embrace of most recreational drugs; veneration of reproductive freedom; shunning of guns outside the home; shunning of mercenaries; refusal to fund unjust military action and many covert foreign operations -- are entitled to every bit of constitutional protection granted to superstition-based claims.

[Bored Lawyer]

Pray tell, what does The Congregation of Exalted Reason have to say about immunity gained from COVID vaccines vs. recovering from COVID and how that should affect public policy?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

We have not considered it.

But we find it entertaining to watch half-educated, roundly bigoted, obsolete, superstitious hayseeds parse the science at a White, male, clinger blog.

[Bored Lawyer]

IOW, you only apply "reason" to assuage your inferiority complex by looking down on others, not to solving the problems of the day. Great religion.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I look down on those who deserve it. Others may wallow in political correctness, but I call a bigot a bigot, a culture war casualty a culture war casualty, a superstitious hayseed a superstitious hayseed, and a bigoted, superstition loser a conservative.

[Bored Lawyer]

QED

[legalizemushrooms]

If both vaxxed and unvaxxed are spreading the virus, how should there be compulsory measures?

[Life of Brian]

Apostate! The vaccinated spread only pure, sanctified virus -- not the base, unwashed particles of the unvaccinated. Abandon your heretical thinking at once and pray for forgiveness lest you be excommunicated.

[MollyGodiva]

Because they are not spreading it equally. The unvaxxed are way more contagious.

[MP]

sigh...no. More infected unvaxed increase the likelihood of community spread, but they're not more "contagious".

[David Nieporent]

Yes, they likely are. There's indication that they have higher viral loads (not surprisingly).

[Life of Brian]

There’s indication that they have higher viral loads

There's also "indication" that they don't.

https://www.msn.com/en-us/health/medical/double-jabbed-carry-same-viral-load-of-covid-as-unvaccinated/ar-AANuNXh

[bernard11]

The unvaxed trivially have much higher average virus loads than the vaxed, simply because more of the vaxed have zero load.

[Life of Brian]

The unvaxed trivially have much higher average virus loads than the vaxed, simply because more of the vaxed have zero load.

Coincidentally, "zero load" is also a perfect expression for this sort of too-cute argument. The question, as you know, was about viral load for a given infected vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individual.

Three different ones of you now have taken three different but equally unsupported and ineffective swings at OP's very simple question. Maybe it's just time to admit there is no good answer.

[David Nieporent]

Coincidentally, “zero load” is also a perfect expression for this sort of too-cute argument. The question, as you know, was about viral load for a given infected vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individual.

If the ultimate question is whether someone should get vaccinated — and it is — then the question is not viral load for a given infected vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individual. The question is viral load for a given vaxxed vs. unvaxxed individual.

[Greg J]

The "average unvaxed virus load" is less than the amount necessary to infect someone.

So, by your logic, there's no problem, and no need for a mandate

[Don Nico]

Bernard,
It really is not as simple as you say. The majority of the spread is due to persons with titre levels 4 or 5 orders of magnitude greater than the median. Without know the distributions functions for vaxed and unvaxed populations, you cannot make the evaluation that you are trying to make

[Don Nico]

I should add, however, that if you are close enough to any infected person for a long enough time (>15 minutes) in a confined, poorly ventilated space, it is easy ti get infected.

[Brett Bellmore]

It does seem a bit strange, then, that there's (apparently) so little transmission within households.

I suspect it's the usual: You can get "infected" by a minor viral load, but the lower the load, the more time the immune system has to ramp up before you become symptomatic. So marginal exposures generate asymptomatic cases.

[Toranth]

???
It's been a while since I checked, but the CDC data from late last year was that the majority of transmission was between people in the same household/living facility.

[Greg J]

"Yes, they likely are. There’s indication"
Wow!

So we've gone for "we're ignoring that because it's not peer reviewed" to "there are indications"?

Do you get whiplash from your fast turnarounds?

IIUC, the vaccinated are more likely to be asymptomatic than the unvaccinated.

But the asymptomatic can spread the disease.

And the asymptomatic are far more likely to be out and about, and thus more likely to be spreading virus particles, than the symptomatic.

So you're going to need more than "indications", unless you're just a flat out authoritarian jock strap sniffer

[David Nieporent]

Apparently you don't understand the difference between the claim that there are indications — a tentative claim — and the claim that we know that naturally acquired immunity is better.

[Greg J]

When someone presents the Israeli study, you say "This article is a preprint and has not been peer-reviewed [what does this mean?]. It reports new medical research that has yet to be evaluated and so should not be used to guide clinical practice.

Then you turn around and say "we should force everyone who doesn't want the vaccine to take it, because there are 'indications' that they might be more contagious than the vaccinated."

If you can use "indication" to drive your preferred public policy, then you need to STFU about "that's a preprint study"

[David Nieporent]

It's not so much me saying it, as the very publication in which you saw the study saying it.

As to the second point, of course unvaccinated people are more contagious than vaccinated people, because unvaccinated people are more likely to be infected in the first place.

[Don Nico]

David,
Omitted words do matter.
What you can say is "unvaccinated people are [more likely to be] more contagious."

[Don Nico]

Actually Molly neither you no I nor the CDC KNOW that from empirical evidence.
To KNOW that you need to measure the distribution of titre levels in a large sample of persons both vaccinated and unvaccinated with respect to a similar distribution of variant infections.
Most of the infections ar spread by a very small fraction of the infected, namely those with titre levels 10,000 to 100,000 greater than the mdian

[Brett Bellmore]

That, I think, was the reason their infection spread modeling was such a bust. They were modeling the spread as though it depended on the average person transmitting it to the average person. When it was actually a tiny minority of super-spreaders, resulting in a highly random progression.

[shawn_dude]

People without immunity are filling up the hospitals leading to the deaths of non-COVID patients for lack of bed space.

The vaccine reduces the severity of the disease and far fewer people will need medical attention. Your hospitals thank you. Your medical insurance premiums thank you. Cardiac and other patients that need ICU beds thank you.

[bevis the lumberjack]

How much of that is related to the unvaccinated and how much of it is the inability of hospitals to staff appropriately?

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The answer wouldn't influence your partisan, bigoted, uneducated thinking one bit, clinger.

[Nelson]

There is a disturbing trend in hospitals of personnel refusing to work the ICU. They can't refuse to treat the unvaccinated, but since the unvaccinated are largely in the ICU, they can avoid treating them by refusing to work the ICU.

When hospitals are faced with the choice between losing a nurse from just the ICU or losing a nurse from the hospital, guess what they choose?

Let's face it, an unvaccinated (meaning immunologically naive and unvaccinated, to be clear) person dying of Covid doesn't elicit sympathy from most people. They made their bed. Hopefully no one else needs it before they die in it.

At this point I view unvaccinated people like drunk drivers. Hopefully they kill themselves before they kill someone else.

[Don Nico]

Nelson,
Yet you just assumed that they are "unclear" for a perverse reason.
You, we, the nurse has no way to KNOW that.

[Nelson]

Vaccine status and previous infection are two of the basic triage questions for a Covid intake. They absolutely know.

[Don Nico]

I am not so sure about previous infection(s) as we have the matter of actual asymptomatic cases, in which case the patient may reply, "not that I recall."
If the person did have a positive PCR, then yes, the absolutely do know that.

[Don Nico]

"The vaccine reduces the severity of the disease"
Again omitted words matter.
The clause should read "The vaccine reduces [likelihood of] the severity of the disease"

[Sidney r finkel]

I have a sincerely held religous belief that no one should be allowed to claim a religious right to go forth and infect their fellow humans with a serious and sometimes deadly disease.

So allow this so-called religious exemption violates my freedom of religion and my ability to practice my religion.

Of course my beliefs are firmly grounded in Judeo/Chritisan dogma and so I can understand why those who believe otherwise claim the right to spread the scourge.

[Brett Bellmore]

Yeah, I don't think the 1st amendment protects your sincerely held religious beliefs about what other people may do.

Personally, I have an evidence based belief that my already having had Covid renders me no more likely to transmit it to others than somebody who's been vaccinated. And I object on that basis to demands I get a redundant shot. But I will be getting a flu shot in a few hours...

[Sidney r finkel]

"Yeah, I don’t think the 1st amendment protects your sincerely held religious beliefs about what other people may do."

Really?? Because its seems some peoples's sincerely held religious beliefs to control what other people may do.

Sincerely held religous beliefs by some employers allow them to deny certain health care benefits to their employees.

Sincerely held religious beliefs by some business's allow them to deny service to customers whose private lives they do not like.

Sincerely held religous beliefs by some clergy allow them to deny equal rights to women.

Sincerely held religous beliefs by some 'pious' people allow them to harass people who private religous practices they do not like.

Sincerely held religous beliefs by some religions allow them to deny stores being open on their sabbath.

Well, you get the picture. Those of us who want to practice our relgions just have to make sure we have the 'right' relgions.

[David Nieporent]

Sincerely held religous beliefs by some employers allow them to deny certain health care benefits to their employees.

That doesn't affect what their employees may do.

Sincerely held religious beliefs by some business’s allow them to deny service to customers whose private lives they do not like.

Also doesn't affect what the customers may do, except to the extent that the existence of private property generally affects what people may do.

[Nelson]

It isn't sophistry, Don. There are a number of examples where the religious beliefs of one citizen (or, even worse, a company) is given preferential treatment than the religious beliefs of another. A couple of the ones that Sidney lists are very real and very problematic, even if he includes a bunch that aren't really relevant to individual religious freedom.

Abortion is the most obvious, but insurance for employees, and pharmacists refusing to dispense prescribed medications are all valid concerns.

[Bored Lawyer]

Google "state action." You might learn something.

[Nelson]

If the state creates laws allowing religious exemptions, that is state action. It is also making a law establishing religion.

I believe there is a balance, but a conflict between the religious freedom rights of two citizens that preferences one group over the other is both a state action and a violation of religious freedom.

Of course, the idea that the First Amendment is protective, preventing religion-based laws from forcing citizens to adopt religious principles which they do not accept is anathema to those who wish to coerce others to live by their religious beliefs.

[Don Nico]

Sidney,
Your argument is sophistry pure and simple. ANd you follow -up with the by-now-common manifesto of ill will toward others with whom you disagree

[Sidney r finkel]

I have the greatest respect for people with whom I disagree, but you will pardon me if I express dislike for people who exploit their political and religous freedom to infect the rest of us with pestilence and disease. Particularly since they are the ones who at the first sign of illness they have largely brought upon themselves beg for medical care (and of course for some else to pay for it).

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Don Nico wants to be on the right side of this, but he also feels the need to appease the clingers, so he is no better than the average hayseed on this issue.

[Life of Brian]

but you will pardon me if I express dislike for people who exploit their political and religous freedom to infect the rest of us with pestilence and disease

Endemic respiratory viruses are now "pestilence and disease." Who are the religious ones here, exactly?

[Greg J]

"I have a sincerely held religous belief that no one should be allowed to claim a religious right to go forth and infect their fellow humans with a serious and sometimes deadly disease."

Cool!

So we're going to quarantine everyone with AIDS, and never let them out again, right?

Or does your "religion" not extend to anything that violates left wing dogma?

What was your response to CA making it no longer a felony for someone who has AIDS to have unprotected sex with someone else without warning about the AIDS?

Does AIDS have more "civil rights" than Covid?

[shawn_dude]

YMMV, but most states have laws making transmission of HIV illegal. Since you can kiss a person with HIV and not catch the disease, I'm not sure why locking them up is necessary. And we do have medications that successfully suppress the disease to non-infectious levels and also prevent HIV negative people from catching the disease even during sex. If one does catch HIV, it's a lot easier to know by whom and they'll most likely live a nearly full life and they won't be a major burden on local ICUs.

Whereas, with COVID, just being in an enclosed space with an infected person can transmit the disease to multiple people creating an exponential spread. Knowing who gave you COVID is very difficulty making legal remedies unlikely. Hospitalization happens relatively quickly and ICUs fill up fast denying everyone else access.

Since the start of the AIDs epidemic, roughly 750K Americans have died from AIDs. COVID 19 is currently sitting at around 670K and it's only two years old.

[Greg J]

YMMV, but most states have laws making transmission of HIV illegal.

That's nice, but it doesn't do me much good once I'm already infected.

Which is why it was so egregious when CA essentially decriminalized putting someone at risk of catching AIDS from you w/o warning.

Whereas, with COVID, just being in an enclosed space with an infected person can transmit the disease to multiple people creating an exponential spread.
And anonymous sex in a gay "bathhouse" meant you could infect multiple people in one night, creating an exponential spread.

Yet the gays and the Democrats fought against shutting them down.

History didn't just start yesterday.

And the "civil rights" principles that were so dear to you when someone you cared about might have had their fun restricted?

You don't get to toss those civil rights just because you've switched sides

[Nelson]

Uh, HIV hasn't been considered a "gay disease" since the early 90s. Well, except by people who are predisposed to think gay people are bad. But reasonable, decent people aren't homophobes, so we're good.

[Greg J]

That's some amazing level of delusion you've got going there.

https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/group/msm/index.html
Gay, bisexual, and other men who reported male-to-male sexual contactsare the population most affected by HIV in the United States. In 2018, gay and bisexual men made up 69% of the 37,968 new HIV diagnoses in the United States (US) and dependent areas

[Brett Bellmore]

Politicized authorities have denied that it's a 'gay disease' from the start. Everybody else understands they're full of it.

[Don Nico]

The term ‘gay disease’ is and was always meant to stigmatize male homosexuals, not to convey any value-neutral medical information

[Brett Bellmore]

Nah, it does both. It IS stigmatizing to be identified as a likely source of contagion, but if you're being stigmatized due to the truth, why is it objectionable?

The reason there was that push to make the public think HIV was a threat to the general population, is that there was concern that the public wouldn't support expenditures to fight it if they knew the truth.

But that's a piss poor excuse for lying.

[Nelson]

"Gay, bisexual, and other men who reported male-to-male sexual contactsare the population most affected by HIV in the United States."

And Jews are most affected by Tay-Sachs. That doesn't make it a Jewish disease. Women are most affected by breast cancer. That doesn't make it a woman's disease. Just because a disease has a preferential victim profile doesn't make it "their" disease.

AIDS is just like any other sexually transmitted infection without a cure. There are treatments that can control the virus that causes them, even if there isn't a cure. AIDS hasn't been a death sentence in over a decade, nor does it require an ICU bed unless it is untreated. And that is vanishingly rare.

And 69% makes it a gay disease? The other 31% don't count? Unless it is just a way of trying to demonize gay people. It's subtle, but I think that might, possibly, be your real goal. Just maybe.

[Greg J]

"And Jews are most affected by Tay-Sachs. That doesn’t make it a Jewish disease."

1: Yes, in fact, it IS a "Jewish disease", in that if you have a set of symptoms, and you're of "Jewish extraction", any competent Dr. will thing "hmm, let's check for Tay-Sachs first", whereas with the same symptoms and "not Jewish extraction" they might consider some other disease first.

2: Tay-Sachs isn't transmitted from Jew to Jew because of their religious practices.
AIDS / HIV is passed from "Gay and bisexual men" to other "Gay and bisexual men"because of their sexual practices. That's a difference

3: "AIDS is just like any other sexually transmitted infection". No, it isn't. AIDS depends on anal sex for its transmission far more than any other STD I know of. To be more specific: AIDS transmission mostly requires blood exchange. Other STDs do not

4: "And 69% makes it a gay disease? The other 31% don’t count?"
If 69% of the people not getting the Covid vaccine were Trump supporters, most of the people here would have no problem saying that means "vaccine denial is a Trump problem".
The other 31% matter. OTOH, I'm pretty sure a large chunk of that 31% is prostitutes. Which is not to dismiss or demean prostitutes. it is just to acknowledge that the reality is that unless you're someone who routinely accepts pay to have sex with strangers, or a man who has sex with other men, you've got a significantly greater chance of dying in an auto accident than you have of catching AIDS / HIV.

If you're not willing to admit to that obvious reality, that just tells the rest of us you're delusional. It doesn't tell the rest of us that we're wrong about AIDS

[Don Nico]

Greg,
1) That the disease is most commonly seen in Ashkenazi Jews does not make it a Jewish disease. The 12 tribes were spread far and wide.
2) Your comment about AIDS pertains to transmission among gay males. It certainly can be spread via vaginal sex or other contact of bodily fluids with mucous membranes.
3) The entire argument about HIV is irrelevant to COVID which is almost exclusively via airborne transmission

[Nelson]

Applying logic to Greg's baseless demonization of gay people? Admirable, but he has proven himself immune to logic and prone to demonization, usually based on stereotypes and irrational biases.

[Greg J]

For Nelson, "telling a truth he doesn't want to hear" == "baseless demonization".

Let's do some math, shall we?

CDC puts homosexual and bisexual Americans at 3.something% of the population.

So, I'll round up, and assume that "gay and bisexual males" are 2% of the total (male and female) population.

2%* X = .69T (where X is "how much greater is the likelihood of a gay/bi male having AIDS vs all other Americans" and T is "total number of Americans with AIDS")
98% = .31T (because for everyone else the multiplier is 1, which can be dropped)

0.02*X/0.69 = T
0.98/0.31 = T
0.02X/0.69 = 0.98/0.31
X = (0.98 * 0.69) / (0.31 * 0.02) = 109

So Gay and Bisexual males are over 100 times more likely to have AIDS than any other Americans.

That's a diesase of gay and bisexual men

[Greg J]

Don:
1: Non-Jews can have a "Jewish disease". Non-gays can have a "gay disease". When the relative likelihood of person X being in group Y if person X has disease Z, is over 100x, it's a "Y disease"

2: Lots of things can happen, or can possibly happen.
That doesn't change what is likely, or common.

3: The argument is about social stigmatization of those you don't like, and about what civil rights people with a disease have.

Which of lefties appears to change by the second

[shawn_dude]

You do see the difference between consensual risk-taking leading to an infection (your bathhouse example) and the non-consensual risk of a COVIDiot getting onto a subway car without a mask, right?

And just as bathhouse operators and customers could insist on condoms, subway operators can insist on masks. And, since subways are generally public assets, the subway customers can insist on masks by electing representatives who will require it.

Meanwhile, as an HIV- gay man, I still cannot give blood.

[whey_standard]

Unless the court really wants to open up overturning Employment Division v Smith, I don't see how the challenge can prevail. I certainly don't see them changing the longstanding rule that a reasonable accommodation would include violating a state law of general applicability regarding health and safety.

[Bob from Ohio]

There is also a statutory pre-emption argument. No idea if that has merit.

Employment Division v Smith is on its last legs at the S/C but I agree, the district court won't uphold the challenge on that basis.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

"Employment Division v Smith is on its last legs at the S/C"

One more problem to be solved by Court enlargement!

[whey_standard]

My second sentence was supposed to be my response to the statutory preemption challenge, but it's not really a good explanation of the law, and the argument it's meant to communicate is more complex. The clearer, and better, argument is that a vaccine mandate of this type (specific to healthcare workers in settings where they come into physical contact with others) without religious exemption would be lawful under Title VII even if imposed voluntarily by an employer. Reading through both the complaint and the TRO motion, this appears to be a fairly performative suit. I'd be surprised if it converts to a preliminary injunction, and very surprised if it survives the Second Circuit.

[MollyGodiva]

Most of the “religious” objectors are lying. They gained this sudden and deep conviction against the covid vaccine only to try to get out of what they did not want to do anyhow.

[Bob from Ohio]

You just hate religious people.

This case involves vaccines based on aborted tissue.

[David Nieporent]

It does not. mRNA vaccines are not "based on aborted tissue."

And I reiterate: while I recognize that U.S. courts cannot make religious assessments or judge religious beliefs, the rest of us operate under no such restrictions. And we can note that when the Pope says that it's bullshit, it's bullshit. There is no religious principle — not by Catholics, not by anyone — that says that if an immoral thing happened 40 years ago, that indirectly deriving a benefit from it causes a problem.

If an adult is murdered, no religion says that — at least if you didn't have anything to do with the murder — you can't get an organ transplant from the victim. (And the issue here is even more indirect than that. There is no tissue — none — from any aborted fetus.)

[Bob from Ohio]

So much anger David.

You do know that there are Christians that don't follow the Pope.

Libertarians for Papal Supremacy seems like a small group but you can chair if you want.

[Don Nico]

"You do know that there are Christians that don’t follow the Pope. "
So what. There are people who adopt that brand but are not Christians

[Bob from Ohio]

He made the appeal to authority, I was just pointing out there are Christians who don't follow the pope. We even have a special word, Protestant, to describe them.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Just different flavors of the same, stale fairy tale.

[Don Nico]

Which is irrelevant to his main point.

[Greg J]

"And we can note that when the Pope says that it’s bullshit, it’s bullshit"

So now you're a hard core Catholic Papist?

Well, I guess that's not a surprise. After all, I no longer ask "is the Pope Catholic" as a response to a question with an obvious "yes" answer.

Since it's not at all clear that Pope Francis is a Catholic.

But, i guess that's why David has a crush on him

[Ben of Houston]

David, actually there is precedent. The Nazis performed extremely detailed research on burn treatment in the way that you would expect Nazis to do. Since they didn't have to wait for patients, they could trial and error exponentially faster than anyone with ethics.

The medical community decided to set their research aside as too horrific to use. Even if it would help, people were actively tortured and murdered in that research, and it was considered unethical to condone it by benefiting from their suffering.

[Don Nico]

Molly,
see my comment above to Greg concerning lying and liars

[whey_standard]

I mean, whether or not that's true doesn't really affect the issue of whether a religious exemption must be provided. To the extent it's a right of a good faith religious objector, excluding bad-faith religious objectors would be a job for the exemption scheme, not a justification for eliminating the right.

[MollyGodiva]

That is a valid point and I am not advocating eliminating the exception, but just point out that those who falsely claim the exemption soil it does those who are legitimate.

[Bored Lawyer]

That's true of every legal regime. Women who falsely accuse men of rape soil it for those are really raped.

[Josh R]

Under Tandon v. Newsom, it would appear plaintiffs have a good case that the regulation is not generally-applicable because the medical exemption threatens the stated government interest (stopping the spread of COVID) as much as a religious exemption.

On the other hand, Eugene made a good case in his Fulton brief that the Tandon standard is ill-advised because 1) it does not permit states to weigh which secular interests deserve an exception and which do not without at the same time requiring a religious exemption, and as a result 2) because it is common (and reasonable) for laws to have secular exemptions (e.g., anti-discrimination law), Smith would effectively be negated.

Thank you, shadow docket.

[Michael Masinter]

I think you misread the application of the presumed most favored nation Tandon v. Newsom standard. Properly applied, the presumed standard begins by identifying the purpose of the mandate as the protection of public health, and from that, concludes that a medical exemption necessary to prevent imminent catastrophic health consequences for the exempt individual furthers the presumed public health standard. Because a medical exemption furthers rather than interferes with public health, it does not trigger Tandon's presumed MFN status for religious objectors since exempting them would frustrate rather than further public health.

[Josh R]

The plaintiff argues the exemption "make[s] health care workers and their patients more vulnerable to contracting the COVID-19 Delta variant" which undermines overall public health. And sure, you make a nice counter argument that overall public health is advanced by the medical exemption. But, who knows which side courts might come down on? Just look at Tandon where the Court concluded secular gatherings in retail stores, rather than secular at-home gatherings, were comparable to at-home religious gatherings.

To me, these examples bolster Eugene's argument that courts shouldn't be engaging in such hair splitting in the first place.

[Don Nico]

Slightly askew of topic is this from WaPo:
" the CEO of United Airlines seemed open to the idea of the federal government requiring vaccines for its passengers and the top U.S. infectious-disease specialist declared “you should be vaccinated” to board an airplane."
I guess that means no kids under 12 on planes.
Wait.... that is a good idea!

[Commenter_XY]

LOL....I'll be flying this weekend. Fortunately, I grabbed a first class ticket, so grubby 12-and-unders will not be a problem. The fares coast to coast are outrageously low; FC for less than 800 bucks coast to coast. Too good to pass up.

[Don Nico]

Good for you, C_XY. You made the wise choice.
Good travels.

[Greg J]

Enjoy your mask.

Oh well, I guess "health theater" is a natural complement to TSA "security theater".

Oh, and I've flown trans-con first class with a mom and her baby in the two seats behind me, and normal first with kids there more times than I can count.

So I have no idea why you think there will be "no grubby 12-and-unders" in your vicinity.

For that matter, given that the Covid virus travels 40 - 50 feet+ in air, I'm not sure why you think having them back in coach matters.

But you do you

[Don Nico]

"I’m not sure why you think having them back in coach matters."
It's the curtain Greg, the curtain

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Choose reason. Every time.

Choose reason. Every time. Especially over sacred ignorance and dogmatic intolerance.

Choose reason. Most especially if you are older than 12 or so. By then, childhood indoctrination fades as an excuse for gullibility, ignorance, bigotry, and backwardness. By adulthood -- this includes ostensible adulthood, even in the most desolate backwater -- it is no excuse.

Choose reason. And education, progress, tolerance, freedom, modernity, science, and inclusiveness. Reject superstition, ignorance, bigotry, backwardness, authoritarianism, insularity, dogma, and pining for 'good old days' that never existed. Not 75 years ago. Not 175 years ago. Not 2,000 years ago. Not ever.

Choose reason. Every time. Be an adult.

Or, at least, please try.

Otherwise, you could become a virus-flouting, poorly educated, superstitious, belligerently ignorant, lethally reckless, antisocial jerk destined to be a loser in modern America.

Thank you.

[Greg J]

I do chose reason.

Which is why i don't listen to the pathetic religious zealots telling us we all must wear the Holy cloth mask of tribal identification, or the fruitcakes who whine that someone else must get vaccinated to protect them from the virus they got vaccinated against.

[bevis the lumberjack]

You don't choose reason yourself Kirkland. You choose grudges and bigotry.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

I respond to the content of this White, male, stale, ankle-biting, right-wing blog -- from the liberal-libertarian mainstream perspective.

[Greg J]

Ah, yes, in addition to grudges and bigotry, you chose racism and sexism.

Typical Democrat

[Bored Lawyer]

From what I can tell, "Choose Reason" in your case means look down on others, and ignore the real issues of the day. That's not reason, it's self-importance.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

A two-week delay might have been the right call in this context, particularly if the judge is prepared to establish a very short leash for compliance if the requirement is vindicated.

[Mark Regan]

This calls attention to the fact that the suit was filed yesterday, with a TRO request; and unlike in some other high profile cases, the judge issued the TRO without soliciting or waiting for a response from New York State. New York's response (if it doesn't agree to everything plaintiffs want) is due September 22. As Eugene notes, the judge will hold an in-person hearing September 28 on the preliminary injunction.
I say this because just about the only substantive thing that can be read from the order itself is that Judge Hurd is concerned that prior policies allowed for religious exemptions while this one doesn't.

[Tilted]

Doesn't federal (or New York) law already prohibit employment discrimination based on religion (or creed)?

How are exemptions based on holding particular religious beliefs not discrimination based on religion (or creed)? If you hold certain religious beliefs you aren't required to be vaccinated but if you don't hold those (now favored) particular religious beliefs then you are required to be vaccinated?

[branford]

The religious belief must sincere, and if you've recently had something like a flu vaccine, that belief can be challenged.

The state may then overcome certain religious beliefs through narrowly tailoring a policy that advances a compelling state interest.

Stopping or mitigating a pandemic is a compelling state interest.

The real issue is whether the actual policy is justified. For instance, is an alternative testing mechanism appropriate? Why are certain other federal or state employees subject to different rules, such as the exemption for hundreds of thousands of postal employees? Etc.

[Bored Lawyer]

"The religious belief must sincere"

The other day, I was reminded of an incident that happened in my summer camp over 40 years ago. A girl did not like the food, so she told the camp she is a vegetarian, and they got her special food. Then on July 4th, we had barbecued hamburgers, they were really good, and she ate a couple. Needless to say, the Camp Director was not amused.

[branford]

There will always be some bad faith actors, and I imagine the phenomenon will be worse with the covid vaccine, but that's not a basis to ignore long-standing precedent as to religious objection.

I believe the government probably has a very good case in the context of healthcare workers. The justification / narrowly tailored policy issues become a lot harder with other categories of federal workers. If half a million postal workers are only "encouraged" to be vaccinated, and if the mandate for private employers only triggers with 100 employees and contains a testing exception, it's hard to argue that bona fide religious exemptions are a threat to public health.

[Bored Lawyer]

Yes, I think the government hurt its case when it gave the postal workers a break. Hard to call anything compelling when you give a break to one of the largest unions in the country.

[David Nieporent]

It did not, in fact, give the postal workers a break; that was just bad reporting. They were exempt from the federal employee part of the order, because they are not exactly federal employees. They were not exempt from the OSHA part of the order.

[branford]

If the postal employees fall under the anticipated OSHA regulations, then they will have an option for weekly testing if they don't want the vaccine. This is unavailable to other federal workers. In fact, the very existence of the OSHA testing option is evidence that a vaccine-only mandate is not narrowly tailored to overcome a proper religious exemption.

[Josh R]

Biden's hands are tied by law.

Federal executive branch employees must be vaccinated per a Biden EO. Postal workers cannot be covered by that EO and are subject to vaccine or testing per the OSHA statute. Federal legislative and judicial branch employees have no requirements at all.

Now perhaps courts will not care what the law allowed and conclude this patchwork undermines the government's arguments about compelling interest or narrow tailoring. Best of all would be courts not reaching this analysis because the regulations are neutral and generally applicable.

[Bored Lawyer]

Put aside what courts do, as a citizen, are you not concerned that some workers are subject to requirements that others are not, with no connection to their job function, but merely to whatever bureaucratic category they happen to fall under?

[Josh R]

Of course I am. But, that's a political reality I can deal with that doesn't undermine the overall regulation.

[Structured Chaos]

Given the absolute lack of data, testing, and transparency regarding the vaccines, their development, efficacy, specific formulation, adverse events, long term effects, randomized sampling of vaccines pursuant to a published protocol, manufacturing specifications, and alternative treatments, etc.. finds the belief in the efficacy and safety of these vaccines to be just that, a belief.

Biden's religious mandate should therefore necessarily allow for broad religious or belief based considerations/allowances.

https://nationalfile.com/israeli-study-fully-vaxxed-are-27-times-more-likely-to-get-covid-compared-to-people-with-natural-immunity/

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

The mainstream's patience with respect to these antisocial, half-educated, disaffected, virus-flouting misfits is diminishing swiftly.

As it should.

Carry on, clingers. Your betters will let you know how far and how long, though.

[Don Nico]

" finds the belief in the efficacy and safety of these vaccines to be just that, a belief. "
I find that an exaggeration. It is an evidence based opinion. That does not make it the "truth." But it is far from a belief that you hold without evidence

[Structured Chaos]

I was rhetorical. But it seems to be the new standard when posting to this site.

I am not disagreeing with you at all. If the standard is evidence based that is an excellent one.

Reducing the scientific method for our purposes to transparency and reproducibility - these are hall marks of reliability and when satisfied become good testable evidence upon which others may reasonably rely.

[Don Nico]

Then we agree.

[A nerdy Fred]

The evidence, in fact, is gold standard scientific experiment.
https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/nejmoa2035389
I believe massive amounts of data gathered by disciplined observers and subjected to "show your work" scrutiny.

[TwelveInchPianist]

The vaccines have all sorts of side effects that you rarely hear about. A friend of the cousin of this girl I'm hooking up with got messed up pretty bad from the vaccine. I don't think she's told anybody but me about it though.

[A nerdy Fred]

You hear about them if you track the literature.

884,000 vaccinated people got detailed followups in this study and were compared to the same number of non-vaccinated people to make sure effects were actually from the vaccine.

https://www.nejm.org/doi/10.1056/NEJMoa2110475

We know the effects of the vaccines, the rare effects of the vaccines, and the very rare effects of the vaccines.

[Bored Lawyer]

BTW, how does this case get over Employment Div. v. Smith? That seems pretty clear to dictate a win for New York.

I do see there is a federal statuory claim too, perhaps that is a stronger claim, as it requires reasonable accomodation. Still seems weak here, given the pandemic.

[Josh R]

See my above post and the plaintiff's brief (linked to in the OP). In summary, the plaintiff argues the law is not generally applicable, per Tandon because of its medical exemption. They also argue it is not neutral because it originally included a religious exemption which was then excised. That argument strikes me as very weak because two laws which were exactly the same would not be treated the same depending on the path that gave rise to the law (not very Markovian for you mathematicians).

[great Unknown]

Interesting that football coach at the Naval Academy was forced to quit after he was refused a religious exemption from the vaccine mandate. That might yet end up in litigation.

[branford]

Aren't the rules and expectations in the military much more demanding that civilian life?

[great Unknown]

He would be an employee of the military, but not himself part of the military.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

He was not forced to quit. He could have chosen vaccination. He did not. Bye!

[Nisiiko]

No one in the military was ever forced to quit. They could have chosen to not be open about their sexuality. They did not!

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Until society improved, and stopped enforcing low-grade, superstition-based bigotry.

Clingers still smarting, apparently.

[shawn_dude]

Say what?!
1) Enlisted soldiers cannot quit. The closest they can come to quitting is electing not to re-up their enlistment.
2) LGBT soldiers were often *not* open about their sexuality. The military performed investigations to ferret them out of the closet. During my enlistment, the base would send people by the gay bars to mark down license plate numbers to run against base registrations.
3) Before DADT was overturned and LGBT soldiers could serve openly, they were court martialed and could potentially spend some jail time before being dishonorably discharged. Around the time I was enlisted, jail time was becoming rare but dishonorable discharges were still common enough. I still get asked on job interviews and other types of applications for my discharge status (honorable, fwiw) and even places like T-Mobile want copies of my DD Form 214 (which shows discharge status) before they'll let me have a veteran discount.

So, a) your analogy is garbage and b) your understanding of history is also garbage.

[Nelson]

I have been helping my partner's father with medical issues for the last year and I have learned that the most important document for a veteran, bar none, is a DD 214.

[A nerdy Fred]

A couple of law professors did an analysis of how to structure a vaccine mandate to take into account how Constitutional law has evolved since Jacobson.
https://www.lawfareblog.com/Designed-Public-Vaccination-Mandates
They explore whether a religious exemption would be required. If I understand them right, they lean "yes" but leave it at a lawyerly "it depends".