28 Days Later, The Biden Administration Still Has Not Released An OSHA Employer Vaccine Mandate

Biden's announcement has a strong ad terrorem effect: the government can get its way without actually doing anything.

|

On September 9, President Biden called on OSHA to implement a vaccine mandate for employers. In the ensuing days, I wrote several blog posts that parsed a non-existent rule (1, 2, 3, and 4). I fully expected the rule to be issued imminently, which would trigger a mad dash to the courts. Yet, 28 days later, we still do not have a proposed rule. What is going on? Where is the urgency?

I have a few tentative thoughts. First, OSHA planned to adopt an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS). This fast-track process bypasses the usual notice-and-comment process. Perhaps the agency determined that it needs more time to make its rule iron-clad. Admittedly, this process is very complicated. And the need for deliberation counsels in favor of seeking public comments, not rushing through the policy unilaterally. Ultimately, this delay undermines the case for emergency action.

Second, thankfully, COVID numbers have declined precipitously over the past month, as the Delta surge has peaked. And vaccine rates have increased in the absence of a federal mandate. The longer this process takes, the less essential a federal mandate becomes.

Third, the mere announcement of the rule is having its intended effect. Employers nationwide are adopting vaccine mandates to get ahead of an actual rule. As more employees get the jab--in the absence of a federal mandate--resistance to the inevitable rule declines. In this fashion, Biden's announcement has a strong ad terrorem effect: the government can get its way without actually doing anything. By the time the rule is finally released, the vaccination rate will have increased substantially. This approach reminds me of the eviction moratorium: the government adopted a policy that would likely be halted in the court, to ensure enough time to distribute funds. Biden can win, even if he loses.

NEXT: The President at War

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Did. . . did Prof. Blackman give Biden some respect (or at least some positive consideration), just now?!?

    1. I believe he did!

      1. Grudgingly, but yes

    2. What's positive about it? Rule through fear is not an American virtue.

      If you have a policy you think is good for the country, make it official, so others can review it, decide if its legal, challenge it if they can, and if not live with it.

      1. +1 This "the process is the punishment" style of issuing threatened policies with no intention of actually implementing them just builds mistrust and disgust.

        1. The only “fear” was the fear of being infected by unvaccinated idiots.

          The only “punishment” was getting Covid.

          1. Isn't this a fear you can avoid simply by getting vaccinated yourself?

          2. Congress tried to increase OSHA fines on employers -- by both increasing the cap (more than quintupling it), and instituting a minimum (of 37% the original maximum). That was an attempt to help OSHA's unelected bureaucrats rule through fear.

          3. If only there was some way to greatly reduce the chance of being infected and even infected greatly reduce the chance of it being serious...

      2. Spot on comment, Bored Lawyer.

  2. What are the rules for when an ETS may be issued? Does there have to be some colorable emergency?

    Because if you can wait more than 28 days before promulgating the rule (and OSHA presumably had a heads up on this before Biden announced it) it sounds like there's no real emergency, and this is just a pretext to avoid the notice and comment process.

    1. I'm told Covid is still an "emergency", and we first learned of it 22-23 months ago. (Evidence has surfaced that the Chinese knew of it perhaps 4-6 months earlier.)

    2. The alternative theory is that Biden is hoping people will decide to be grownups and just get vaccinated.

      1. K_2,
        You could have written "will be convinced" rather than insulting those that have a good reason, such as pre-existing robust immunity.

        Full disclaimer: I'll get my booster shot today.

        1. Don, see my response to Brian below.

          1. " I don’t care what good reasons they think they have, this pandemic has got to be brought to an end, period, full stop. And if they’re too stupid to get vaccinated, they’re too stupid to be working for me."

            I don't buy that line, because while getting vaccinated does improve the integrated public health, it does not mean that the pandemic will be ended. You've overdrive any headlights that medical science may have provided. And you've denied that anyone has good reason not to be vaccinated. That clearly is untrue. Of course, if you are the employer, you can just fire the person for any reason not illeagl or for no reason whatsoever.

            1. Don, eventually the pandemic will come to an end, the question is when and how. Even the black death eventually burned itself out. But we need to be taking all available measures to end it sooner rather than later.

              As far as having a good reason not to get vaccinated, have you been listening to the anti-vaxxers? Their reason consistently is that they don't want to be told what to do. Excluding the de minimus number of people who have medical problems that the vaccine would exacerbate, who else has a good reason? Not the people talking to television reporters.

              1. "But we need to be taking all available measures to end it sooner rather than later."

                Even if those measures exacerbate discriminatory racial results?

                1. That's too stupid to even respond to.

                  1. Racial discrimination is "too stupid to even respond to"?

                    1. No, the idea that mandatory vaccines are racially discriminatory is too stupid to respond to. I'm sure this will be good: Why do you think they're racially discriminatory?

                    2. Disproportionate effects, of course. We don't have to use a crystal ball to read anyone's mind. We just have to look at actual, hard statistics. And those numbers say that vaccine mandates disproportionately affect minorities, forcing them to do things that they do not want to do. That makes vaccine mandates racist, according to standard leftist orthodoxy. (It also makes them anti-racist, according to modern leftist racist orthodoxies.)

              2. The pandemic will end when people stop getting temporary mrna fixes and the Poly A tail runs out. When the tail runs out is anyone's guess as it contains a somewhat unique interrupt. However, I would posit that the A tail is exhausted after about 6 months whereupon spike protein stops being produced. See the most recent Israeli Studies relating to breakthroughs and boosters.

              3. "As far as having a good reason not to get vaccinated, have you been listening to the anti-vaxxers?"

                Let me give you a good reason. Monoclonal anti-body therapy for patients with blood cancers can work by destroying B-cells and rendering the vaccine induced immunity useless. That effect is patient and treatment specific. But it is a bona fide reason why such a patient need not and even should not get a vaccine at certain stages of the therapy.

                Why do you dump this question into a political question about people whose politics that you don't like and lump all people who decline vaccination into one pot to be scorned?

                1. The number of people who aren't getting vaccinated because they're receiving monoclonal antibody therapy for blood cancer can be counted on one hand with enough fingers left over to count the occasions on which Donald Trump told the truth during his presidency.

                  Less snarkily, yes, there are a tiny number of people who cannot get vaccinated for medical reasons. These people are not running the anti-vax movement. That is a political movement.

                  1. David,
                    That is a ridiculous claim. You just don't know that. K_2 does not believe that there are good medical reasons. He is wrong.
                    Very clearly I was not discussing the anti-vax political movement.
                    But I also do not believe that all people with serious reservations are nut jobs or lepers

                    1. BTW, I am scheduled to get my booster shot this Saturday. ANd I advise people who ask to get a vaccine or at least consult with their primary physician and take her/his advice.

              4. "eventually the pandemic will come to an end, the question is when and how. "
                Of course. When and how are very different questions.
                Scenario 1) The end could come with a whimper as the virus becomes endemic and relatively as benign as influenza after 5 years.
                Scenario 2) As delta seems to die out lambda and mu may move from south America through Central America to the US. As these variants of interest have enhance ability to avoid immunity provided by present vaccines we may see a couple of new waves with mortality levels several times that of seasonal flu.
                Those scenarios are far from exhaustive.
                Scenario 3) New vaccines may stop transmission of all variants giving vaccine mandates potential to snuff out the virus.
                Scenario 4) Etc....

                No one knows.

              5. The number of survivors with immunity is more than 'de minimus'; to pick one large group that has good reason.
                Being told "what to do" is also different from being forced to inject an experimental, unapproved vaccine.

                1. Long,
                  The Pfizer-Biontech vaccine is no long experimental and is fully approved for all from ages 12 upward.

              6. " But we need to be taking all available measures to end it sooner rather than later."

                It's characteristic of a moral panic that people refuse to do any cost/benefit analysis, but instead are outraged at anybody who suggests doing it.

                No, some of the available measures simply make no sense in terms of their ratio of cost to benefit. Poverty kills, too.

                1. The problem is that the same people against high cost approaches — quasi-lockdowns (the U.S. never did real lockdowns) — are also against low cost approaches (masks, vaccination).

                  1. "(the U.S. never did real lockdowns)"
                    David,
                    Explain what you mean by that. Are you referring to the Wuhan style martial law with Army troops blocking the streets? Do you mean strict curfews? of no more than 2 in a car? Or what. In CA we had a pretty strong lockdown for nearly a year yet we had a very large number of cases and deaths.
                    Why do you think that something more drastic would or could have done better?

                    1. I mean that in the vast majority of the U.S., "lockdown" meant only that (some) businesses were restricted in their operations, and large gatherings were restricted. We did not confine people to their homes — not with troops as in China, but not on paper, either. There were few if any "You may only leave your home for X" orders, whether enforced by troops, police, or otherwise. Even in the first few months of the pandemic when restrictions were at their peak, even in heavily hit places like NJ, it was, "You should try to limit your activities outside your home to essential ones." And then if you looked at the list of activities considered "essential," something like half the workforce was included. It was mainly things like entertainment, retail, and dining indoors that were temporarily limited.

                      I did not express an opinion on whether something more drastic would have done better, although it obviously stands to reason that a total lockdown would be more effective at reducing spread, since the virus can only spread by close proximity. I simply noted, as an aside, that we didn't in fact do something more drastic.

                      My overall point was that Brett's claim that people weren't doing cost-benefit analysis is yet another red herring. The pro-disease crowd weren't and aren't arguing for cost-benefit analysis; they've been and are arguing against doing anything.

                    2. Wait David, I must correct something here. I live in the People's Republic of NJ. It was definitely NOT "Geez, you should try to limit your activities to essential ones". That is simply not the case. Churches and synagogues were closed. Businesses were closed. People were arrested, fined and imprisoned.

                      We could not say Kaddish for family members who died. We could not attend funerals to honor and respect our dead.

                      Speaking of NJ, it shows that utter incompetence kills. Phil Murphy (governor) and the shrewish harpy that is a health commissioner (Persichilli) managed to kill thousands of elderly patients in nursing homes. My family member was one of them. They made an exceptionally bad policy choice - send covid patients into nursing homes - in plain contravention of the data that existed at that time from Italy and Spain.

                  2. So, what you're saying is, you're entitled to fail to take costs into account, if somebody else fails to take benefits into account?

                    I think we need to take measures that are sensible on balance, and refrain from measures that aren't. Where short and long term losses of our liberties are on the balance sheet, too.

                    We haven't been doing that, because our governing institutions aren't acting rationally, they're caught up in a moral panic, where they're not just irate that people are failing to ask "how high?" when told to jump.

        2. Glad you are getting your booster, Don Nico. I did the 3rd Moderna shot back in mid-August. My arm was a little more sore than before, that is about it.

          1. Thanks for the encouraging message C_XY.
            I did not have any reaction to the first two shots. I am not expecting much tomorrow.

      2. He had a funny way of showing it in his speech where he addressed unvaccinated Americans like they were children

      3. The alternative theory is that Biden is hoping people will decide to be grownups and just get vaccinated.

        Seems like such an alternative theory would need to airbrush the authoritarian tone and veiled threats (e.g., "we’ve been patient, but our patience is wearing thin") out of the speech he read a month ago when he also announced the OSHA mandate. Oh, and don't forget the 10x cap increase for OSHA fines in the $3.5T juggernaut that they clearly thought at the time they were just going to jam through.

        I know certain folks around here get their knickers in a twist whenever I use firearms as an analogy, but here again: this is "be grownups and do the right thing" at the barrel of a gun. Maybe the shift in momentum on the reconciliation grab-bag actually gave them some time to step back and realize they were alienating too much of their base with this sort of jackbooted approach.

        1. Brian, every law essentially comes down to do as you're told or we'll use force. That includes laws that you likely support. The government tells me that I may not pimp out an eight year old child, or have sex with him myself, under penalty of men with guns locking me inside a building for a very long time. And most of the time people understand that; there are some things that are important enough to tell people they just have to do as they're told, whether they agree with it or not.

          The question is whether vaccination is one of them. Given how much harder the unvaccinated are making it to bring an end to the pandemic, it's certainly understandable that patience has worn thin with people who stubbornly refuse to get a vaccine. And whatever private opprobrium they get is richly deserved. My company requires proof of vaccination as a condition of further employment, and as senior management I would happily fire any employee who refuses to comply without a second thought. I don't care what good reasons they think they have, this pandemic has got to be brought to an end, period, full stop. And if they're too stupid to get vaccinated, they're too stupid to be working for me.

          Whether the government should mandate it is a different question, and one on which I think reasonable minds may differ. But calling jack booted thugs people who are trying to end a pandemic strikes me as no more reasonable than calling jack booted thugs people who tell me I can't have sex with an eight year old. At some point, others have rights too.

          1. The question is whether vaccination is one of them.

            No, no -- it's not a question at all whether people resisting mass inoculation with hot-off-the-press technologies should be classified anywhere in the same realm as child rapists. This is a pretty weird next step from "be grownups," and I think it just reinforces my point.

            calling jack booted thugs people who are trying to end a pandemic

            That's the grade of "trying" that birthed the participation trophy. Even setting aside the fact that the "pandemic" is over by any reasonable historic usage of the term and we're now well into endemicity, there's now way too much data on the table about the rate of contraction and transmission by vaccinated people for anyone but authoritarians and wishful thinkers to take the position that mass inoculation is going to stop ongoing periodic transmission cycles. And wishful thinking certainly doesn't justify the degree of coercion we're experiencing over this.

          2. Yes, every law comes at the point of a gun. This is why Libertarians want *less laws*, and for every law that should exist should be one where pointing guns at people is *justified*.

            1. Laws with respect to corporations do not come at the point of a gun. You don't need a gun to kill a corporation, only paper.

              1. Sure you do. The paper just delivers the sentence, but what happens when the corporation continues functioning as though the sentence hadn't been delivered?

                1. That's fine, until someone sues and gets through to a member.

                  That lawsuit may be enforced via force, but whatever original issue that lead to the dissolution of the corporate form was just stroke of the pen.

                  1. Right, so you can deliver the death sentence with a piece of paper, but need the threat of violence to execute it.

                    1. No, you are referring to a subsequent action.

                      Respecting the corporate form is something the government must affirmatively do, and no force is required to just stop doing it.

                      This is a dumb and pedantic conversation anyway.

          3. Kaz-2 - "The question is whether vaccination is one of them. Given how much harder the unvaccinated are making it to bring an end to the pandemic, it’s certainly understandable that patience has worn thin with people who stubbornly refuse to get a vaccine. And whatever private opprobrium they get is richly deserved. My company requires proof of vaccination as a condition of further employment, and as senior management I would happily fire any employee who refuses to comply without a second thought."

            Are you going to fire someone who already had covid who refuses a vaccine?

            Are you going to fire someone who has multiple prolonged exposures so that person has antibodies already?

            Are you going to fire someone when the natural cycle of pandemics is going to end by the summer of 2022 in the natural course of all pandemics with out intervention?

            are you going to fire someone when the effectiveness of the vaccine is 60% or less after 6 months?

            1. Yes, yes, yes and yes. Because the whole point of using vaccines to achieve herd immunity has nothing to do with whether any particular person getting vaccinated could have gotten on without it.

              1. kry_2 -
                I am impressed with lack of knowlege of real medical science

                Guess you are not aware that someone who has had covid already has a much stronger vaccine. The vaccine from mother nature.

                guess that you are not aware that the man made vaccines are proving much less effective than the natural vaccine.

                1. Actually, my undergraduate degree is in biology. What was yours in? And since we're impressing each other, your bullheadedness is pretty remarkable.

                  Yes, someone who has had Covid now has Covid antibodies, but the vaccine provides an extra layer of protection, which further enhances both herd immunity and protection for the individual. It's the reason Fort Knox has live guards, electronic surveillance, alarms and access passcodes. Is all of that overkill? Would less of it suffice? Maybe. But if what you're protecting is valuable enough, redundancy is not a vice. Why not get the extra layer?

                  And yes, manmade vaccines are less effective but that is not the same as zero effective. We're basically playing odds here, and the more protection the better.

                  1. Krychek_2
                    October.7.2021 at 4:23 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    "Actually, my undergraduate degree is in biology."

                    Which doesnt explain why you are making 6th grade mistakes.

                    Krychek_2
                    October.7.2021 at 4:23 pm
                    Flag Comment Mute User
                    :Yes, someone who has had Covid now has Covid antibodies, but the vaccine provides an extra layer of protection, which further enhances both herd immunity and protection for the individual."

                    Which someone with a undergraduate degree in biology should know that extra layer of protection is so trivial that it is near meaningless - or should know that it is near meaningless.

                    1. Tom, funny, that's not what people who do epidemiology for a living are saying, and I'm more inclined to trust them. I already offered you the opportunity to share with the class your own sterling scientific qualifications and you punted.

                      And here's the problematic dynamic: People who don't do epidemiology for a living think that by spending an hour on the internet, or listening to other people who also don't do epidemiology for a living, that they know just as much about the subject as the people who actually are experts because they've spent years studying it. It's really not that much different from the non-lawyer who thinks he knows more about it than people who actually went to law school and then gets his head handed to him when he goes to court.

                      I have a former client right now who is doing a 30 year stretch in federal prison for whom I could have gotten a five year deal, but he knew more about it than his lawyer. And there are people dying of Covid because they know more about it than the health experts. I see no real difference between the two.

                    2. Kry - 2

                      do you seriously think the pandemic can be stopped with a vaccine that is only 50% effective after 6 months?

                      Did you actually pass any of your science classes?

                      I would presume you have noticed the infection rate among the vaxed is only 20-40% better than the unvaxed.

                    3. Krychek_2
                      October.7.2021 at 8:17 pm
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      "Tom, funny, that’s not what people who do epidemiology for a living are saying, and I’m more inclined to trust them. "

                      I stating with the epidemiologist who did the Israeli study said.

                      Which epidemiologists are you listening to ? the ones that did the kentucky study?

                    4. No, I do not think the pandemic can be stopped, all by itself, with a vaccine that is only 50% effective after six months, any more than I think that requiring drivers to stop at red lights will end car accidents. But that's not a reason to repeal the law that says you have to stop at red lights.

                      One of the most basic rules of biology is that many factors inter-act with each other, which means there is no such thing as a silver bullet. Ending the pandemic will require doing multiple things at once, one of which is getting people vaccinated. So the fact that vaccines aren't a silver bullet is both true and irrelevant, and the product of simplistic thinking that doesn't understand that things are complex. You've basically got the jargon down without having internalized the key concepts.

                    5. Krychek_2
                      October.8.2021 at 6:27 am
                      Flag Comment Mute User
                      "No, I do not think the pandemic can be stopped, all by itself, with a vaccine that is only 50% effective after six months, "

                      Kry-2 - Pandemics always get stopped the old fashioned way - Which is when the population develops a level of immunity that slows the spread to a trickle. Ask any epidemiologist for confirmation. A vaccine that is only 50% or less effective is not a vaccine, at least not a vaccine that can accomplish the long term goal of developing immunity through out the general population.

                  2. "enhances both herd immunity"
                    which many not even exist for SARS-CoV-2 given its path of viral evolution.
                    "and the more protection the better."
                    Then the prescription is to get infected, recover (kids, don't neglect this step), and then get a vaccine.
                    When public health is reduced to sloganeering, we get poor results and undermine public confidence in health officials and the political class.

                    1. Don, see my above response to Tom.

                      You're right that it "may" not exist, but until we know for sure, the prudent path is to assume and act like it does. Nothing lost if we do that and turn out to be wrong; plenty lost if we make the opposite assumption and turn out to be wrong.

                    2. K_2,
                      I am not convinced that the prudent path is to try to achieve what an ever increasing number of virologists will not exist because of the present record of mutations of this virus. Consider that there is no herd immunity to influenza. The reality is that influenza is likely to always be with us. SARS-CoV-2 has a very different physio- chemical structure than the influenza viruses. So we cannot use influenza as a models of the corona virus evolution. Still we know that this virus can and has evolved rapidly and often in single hosts with very high titre levels.
                      So I'd say that prudent medicine involves individual judgement of risks and benefits. For most people that is pretty easy and can be discerned from a credible website such as that of the Mayo Clinic.
                      For others a consultation with their physician is in order. Previous infection from SARS or SARS-CoV-2 is a legitimate consideration of both risks and benefits.
                      That is all that evidence based medicine justifies.
                      On balance persons who have not had a symptomatic case of COVID-19 are almost all advised to be vaccinated.
                      But ranting against those who thoughtfully consider their medical care don't deserve to be objects of ridicule.
                      How you treat fanatics with political excuses for refusing is a different matter. I leave that to the judgement of others.

          4. "I don’t care what good reasons they think they have, this pandemic has got to be brought to an end, period, full stop."
            You cannot prove— no one can prove— that your envisioned vaccination program will bring this pandemic to a STOP.
            You say you don't care what GOOD reason—including good medical reason— a person has. AND then you claim that such a person is stupid. No, your claim is both irrational and uncaring.

            With 730,000 Americans dead, you offer an appealing story. But is not a story consistent with hard medical evidence and sound medical practice.

            1. I cannot prove -- no one can prove -- that if I jump off a cliff, I will die. People do beat the odds. But that's the way to bet.

              As far as uncaring, I'm past caring about the ignorance and stupidity of the anti-vaxxers that are keeping this disease alive longer than it would be otherwise. My care and sympathy is all used up on those who got the disease through no fault of their own.

              1. Jump off a cliff (not a fake cinematic one) and your chance of survival is extremely low.
                But you snide remark is no answer whatsoever because viral evolution is a chaotic, stochastic process for which you cannot even predict the odds with any reasonable degree of confidence.
                In this case because the vaccines even come close to stopping transmission and because the distribution of level of viral titres in not measured in vaccinated covid-naive, unvaccinated recovered, and unvaccinated covid-naive (actually we know this last one for the wild Wuhan strain), you can't even estimated the number of super-spreaders in a population of any mix.
                You just deny that anyone could have a good medical reason. Good for you, but contrary to medical fact.
                By denying any range of possibilities, you are only weakening the case for urging people to get vaccinated unless advised otherwise by their personal physicians.

    3. I'll take pretext. Now that we are win a permanent emergency expect more of this. All of the cool legal eagles think its Ok

      1. I'll do you one better, there are currently lots of national emergencies, even if you ignore the military/foreign policy emergencies: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_national_emergencies_in_the_United_States

  3. Hmmmm, this would explain why my employer went through the effort of announcing they were going to mandate vaccination in compliance with the EO, then suddenly went radio silent with no follow up enforcement or orders for people to show up. They are likely waiting for the rule to actually come out.

  4. My employer announced yesterday that it was mandatory for us by December 8th. The reason given was that the US Government was one of our biggest customers and unless the Company complied they couldn't get new contracts or renew existing ones.

    I'm vaccinated but, that was my choice. I'm against mandating vaccinations.

    1. My company offered a 100 dollar bonus for employees who got vaccinated, it ran from April (retroactive for anyone who already got vaccinated before then) through September 4 (coincidentally a few days before Biden's announcement)

      There has been no communication since then on whether they would be mandating vaccinations or re-opening the bonus offer

      1. My company offered an extra paid day off for anyone who got vaccinated, if enough people got vaccinated to reach 80%.

        Making the reward contingent on what other people did just nakedly made it an effort to get you to pressure others, and everybody got their back up. The vaccination campaign failed. Does nobody in management understand social dynamics?

    2. Yeah, the OSHA mandate is moving slower than the federal contractor mandate. And legally, that's probably as it should be. OSHA is binding on all employers. Being a federal contractor is, in theory at least, a voluntary decision.

      I say "in theory" because they have so extended that definition that it now applies to
      - all banks even if the bank have any loans or deposit accounts with federal agencies
      - all entities connected to a bank through holding companies, no matter how distant
      - actual contractors for the feds (a legitimate condition of contract)
      - all sub-contractors - which is plausible if they're doing work directly for the federal project but not plausible when you start talking about the subcontractor who works on other non-federal projects or the janitorial service that cleans the federal contractor's offices.

      That said, the federal contractor argument is (or should be) invalid as an arbitrary and unilateral change to the terms of the contract which the contractor had no opportunity to negotiate nor for which the contractor received any additional consideration.

      1. Yeah, the OSHA mandate is moving slower than the federal contractor mandate

        No - it just looks that way because OSHA is a single org with a single timeline, whereas this whole-of-government requirement is going to be implemented in fits and starts.

  5. I suspect they'd like to issue it but recognize the legal fragility and have also lost some of the political cover conferred by the summer spread.

    Spread *will* return in winter (vaccine isn't very effective against transmission), so maybe they'll revisit it then when they can then point to the courts as being the evil bully who stops a necessary treatment.

    As to the federal and federal sub-contractor mandate, many businesses are choosing to interpret it as narrowly applying only to workers directly supporting federal contracts with compliance due by the time that contract comes to term. At $dayjob we started out with a more aggressive stance but when half the Facilities team indicated they'd quit we decided to re-evaluate.

  6. My employer announced a $1,000 bonus. I got vaccinated back in April.

    So when do the fast zombies start running around attacking everyone?

    1. Can you get the bonus retroactively? I was fully vaccinated in March. 1000 smackers would come in really handy now.

  7. Employer-imposed vaccine requirements are a good idea. They seem to promote vaccination, even among the crabby. They can weed out misfits and contrarians. They are not as effective as government- (school-) imposed requirements traditionally have been, but they seem to be improving our national response to the pandemic.

    To the extent Pres. Biden inclined employers to require vaccination among employees, he deserves credit and thanks.

  8. Nordic countries have suspended the Moderna vaccine in males under 30 due to heart inflammation concerns. So, I am wondering how courts would view a plaintiff arguing that they don't want to take an experimental vaccine (Moderna is still on an EUA) that has side effects severe enough to cause other countries to suspend it's use?

    1. Presumably they would tell the plaintiff to take a different vaccine if they like.

      1. like pfizer that is only 50%-50% effective after 6 months?

        certaining is more effective than actual covid from long term immunity !

        sarc

        1. If only our scientists could develop a way to improve that protection after six months . . .

          Or maybe some could rely less on science and instead hope a miracle could be divinely delivered, in the form of something that could increase protection after six months . . .

          That would solve any genuine, legitimate problem.

          1. Science like the Israeli study!

            of course in Kirkland's racist world, it is not real science because of the race that did the study

            1. "the race that did the study"
              Tom,
              The Israelis or more generally Jews are not a race.

  9. Free reading tip: The High Court of New Zealand, in Borrowdale v. Director-General of Health, issued a declaration of law saying that the requirement that New Zealanders stay at home for the 9 day period between 26 March and 3 April was justified, but unlawful.

    The reason was that on 26 March the Prime Minister gave a speech on TV telling everyone to stay at home, but only on 3 April was a legally valid decision adopted with that requirement. The court concluded that the Prime Minister's speech could reasonably be understood as stating a legal obligation, and in that case it was ultra vires because the PM did not have the power to order a quarantine.

    https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/borrowdale-v-director-general-of-health-1-1

  10. Sure, believe vaccination is the panacea that will end the debate. Have you seen this? Because Vermont proves that vaccines WORK!

    https://www.zerohedge.com/covid-19/not-supposed-happen-us-state-highest-vaxx-rate-sees-record-surge-covid-cases

    1. A Texas nursing home had an out break of 9 residents who had been fully vaxed.

      I personally know approx 25 individuals who were fully vaxed back in March/april who subsequently caught covid, 8 of which caught 2 weeks ago. Another 10-12 who caught covid since march/april who were not vaccinated. With approx 70% vax rate, that equates to only reducing the chance of catching covid by 25%-35%.

      With a virus that in 99+% survival, that 25%-35% doesnt seem to accomplish much., with the exception of reports that the severity of covid is lower after being vaxed.

    2. Reading zerohedge makes one stupider.

      Vermont's "record surge," which is not a record, is relative to Vermont. Try comparing it to Florida:

      https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FAJ0v0IWQAMtlAE?format=jpg&name=4096x4096

  11. The original EUA was only based on stopping symptoms in the vaccinated person. It has never been tested, authorized or approved by the FDA to stop the transmission. This is currently an off-label usage of the vaccine and as such should not be the basis for mandates.

    If the goal of the vaccine is to prime vulnerable people into asymptomatic carriers, wouldn't the limiting principle to this entire situation be the ability of naturally healthy immune systems to remain symptom-free?

    1. Why are you talking about an "original EUA" when Pfizer is now fully approved?

      1. Approval is based on the EUA which does not involve transmission.

      2. The Phase 2/3 study in support of approving the vaccine used "serious disease" and death as its endpoints. The vaccine was not given EUA or its eventual approval based on numbers about how well it prevented symptomatic disease, infection, transmission, or even hospitalization.

  12. OK, lets see how this goes.
    There is a "privacy right" in the US Constitution that allows killing a child.
    There is no right in the US Constitution, privacy or otherwise, to refuse an experimental unapproved vaccine.
    Have I got that right?
    Her body, her "choice".
    My body, Biden's choice.

    1. You have it right, except the FDA has now approved one of the vaccines ahead of their usual 10-15 year safety testing schedule, so you entire argument falls apart, clinger!

    1. Well that was great. Thank you, iPhone.

      Allow me to continue…

      May I suggest a fourth possible reason: that OSHA had no idea that it was working on such a rule until Biden caught them by surprise with his announcement, and OSHA is now scrambling to catch up.

  13. It is "in terrorem" not "ad terrorem." One of my pet peeves is people using foreign phrases incorrectly or spelling them wrong.

    "De minimus," I am looking at you.

Please to post comments