Court Reverses Denial of Unemployment Compensation to Employee Fired for Religious Objection to Vaccination

From Washa v. Actalent Scientific, LLC, decided two weeks ago by Minnesota Court of Appeals Chief Judge Susan Segal and Judges Peter Reyes and Randall Slieter, but just posted on Westlaw:

Actalent Scientific employed Washa and placed him as a medical lab technician with North Memorial Clinics. On January 3, 2022, North Memorial terminated Washa's assignment because he refused to obtain a COVID-19 vaccination as required by North Memorial's policies. Washa had requested an exemption from the vaccine requirement, but it was denied….

Washa was denied unemployment benefits, administratively appealed, and participated in a hearing before the ULJ [unemployment law judge]. When the ULJ asked Washa about his reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine, Washa testified:

[I]t's a matter of not wanting to be defiled. It's like the God that actually comes, like, has a spot in me, and I need to keep the spot good, otherwise he's not as able to enter as well, where ultimately I could go to hell over it. But it's a matter of purity of a person's body. Body is a temple type belief.

Washa testified that he had not received any vaccines for the past 15 years. Washa testified that his beliefs derive from the Bible and that he attends a Bible study with a group of friends about once every two weeks to "go over the Bible in different ways." …

The ULJ issued a final decision determining that Washa had committed employment misconduct by failing to comply with the vaccination mandate, that his refusal of the vaccine was not based on sincerely held religious beliefs, and that he was therefore ineligible for benefits. The ULJ found: "Although Washa is a religious person, his testimony shows that it is more likely than not that his concerns about taking the Covid-19 vaccine are based on secular concerns about his perceived health risks of taking the vaccine, and not a sincerely held religious belief." …

An applicant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if he was discharged because of employment misconduct. Employment misconduct is defined as "any intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct, on the job or off the job, that is a serious violation of the standards of behavior the employer has the right to reasonably expect of the employee." "[A]n employee's decision to violate knowingly a reasonable policy of the employer is misconduct." But even when the definition of employment misconduct is satisfied, a decision denying unemployment benefits may be subject to reversal if it violates constitutional rights. Minn. Stat. § 268.105, subd. 7(d)(1)….

A decision denying unemployment benefits infringes an applicant's free-exercise rights under the First Amendment if the applicant was forced to choose between his sincerely held religious beliefs and his employment. [This goes back to the Supreme Court's decision in Sherbert v. Verner (1963). -EV] Such an infringement is subject to strict scrutiny and thus can only be sustained upon demonstration that it is the least-restrictive means to meet a compelling government interest….

Washa did not testify that he refused the vaccine because of safety concerns. Instead, he testified to concerns about "not wanting to be defiled" so that God … [can] enter" and he can avoid "go[ing] to hell over it." He also testified to his consistent refusal of any vaccines over the past 15 years. The record in this case is distinguishable from others in which we have affirmed ULJ findings that vaccine refusals were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs. See Logue v. Olympus Am., Inc. (Minn. App. 2022) (concluding ULJ's finding was supported by substantial evidence because relator "directly questioned the safety of the vaccines" and stated that she was unwilling to take vaccine "right now" but intended to reevaluate her decision based on subsequent studies); Potter v. St. Joseph's Med. Ctr. (Minn. App. 2018) (concluding ULJ's finding was supported by substantial evidence because relator testified to receiving other vaccinations that she perceived to be effective and testified that, "if the flu shot was scientifically proven to be effective she 'probably would' receive it")….

Because substantial evidence does not support the ULJ's finding that Washa's refusal of the vaccine was based on safety concerns rather than religious beliefs, we reverse the ULJ's decision determining Washa was ineligible for unemployment benefits.

And from an opinion (Quarnstrom v. Berkley Risk Administrators Company, LLC) about a similar issue released the same day by Chief Judge Segal, though this one was joined by Judge Judges Theodora Karin Gaïtas and Sarah I. Wheelock:

The ULJ found that Quarnstrom's reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were personal rather than religious, but some of the ULJ's reasoning appears to be based on a misapprehension about the nature of free-exercise rights. The ULJ reasoned that Quarnstrom's reasons for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine were not based on sincerely held religious beliefs because she did not cite to particular passages in the Bible, had not been instructed by a religious advisor to refuse the vaccine, and conceded that other members of her congregation could, consistent with their faith, choose to get a vaccine. But "the guarantee of free exercise is not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect." The ULJ erred by relying on the variability of beliefs within Quarnstrom's congregation as a basis for finding that she was not motivated by sincerely held religious beliefs….

Other parts of the ULJ's reasoning are based on permissible evaluations of Quarnstrom's credibility. The ULJ found that Quarnstrom's objection to the seasonal flu vaccine is not based on religious beliefs or practices but instead on an overall sense that she is in good health and does not need to be vaccinated and that she believes the COVID-19 vaccines are unsafe and ineffective. These findings are similar to those made by ULJs in cases where we have affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits based on vaccine refusal in violation of employer policies….

Because the ULJ's decision is based at least in part on an erroneous legal analysis regarding free-exercise rights, we conclude that it is appropriate to remand this matter to the ULJ for a revised decision consistent with applicable precedent on this issue. The ULJ in its discretion may reopen the record.

UPDATE: There was also a third case, issued two days later, McConnell v. Federal Reserve Bank; Judge Slieter, joined by Judge Reyes, likewise concluded that the ULJ in that case wrongly found that applicant's beliefs were insufficiently religious:

Although McConnell testified to concerns regarding the safety of the COVID-19 vaccine, she repeatedly tied those concerns back to her faith. She testified that she did not contact her doctor about her concerns because it was more of a "spiritual thing" and "religious belief." And she testified that, although she believes in some medical interventions, she "prayerfully consider[s] things." The ULJ found McConnell's testimony regarding safety concerns credible and rejected her testimony regarding her religious beliefs as not credible. "When the credibility of a witness testifying in a hearing has a significant effect on the outcome of a decision, the unemployment law judge must set out the reason for crediting or discrediting that testimony." The ULJ offered no reason for crediting only part of McConnell's testimony, and we can discern none. Moreover, although not dispositive, we are mindful that FRB interviewed McConnell and determined that McConnell's refusal of the vaccine was based on sincerely held religious beliefs.

Chief Judge Segal dissented:

The record here contains substantial evidence supporting the ULJ's credibility determination. For example, in response to the ULJ's question about why her religious beliefs prevented her from the getting the COVID-19 vaccine, McConnell testified that it was "[b]ecause the COVID vaccine was in its early stages, and it's not tested. The health risk associated with it from my … demographic seemed like [a] risk I cannot take." She acknowledged that she has no religious objection to vaccines in general and that she received a tetanus vaccine in 2021. McConnell explained that she took the tetanus vaccine because "the tetanus shot has been around for a hundred years, and there's … plenty of public data, and history to back up its validity whereas the COVID-19 one is fairly new. Just this last year."

McConnell testified that part of her concern over the vaccine was the possible side effects. She testified that she did research online and spoke with a medical professional about the safety of the vaccine. McConnell also noted that her grandmother had had a
stroke after receiving a COVID-19 booster. She noted that, ultimately,

as a 27-year-old healthy female that getting COVID versus getting the shot that has possible side effects [of] stroke, heart attacks, blood clots, I just felt … I'd take my chances with COVID over the possible side effect[s from the vaccine]. Of course, I don't believe it is fully natural either.

With regard to her religious beliefs, McConnell testified that she will pray about everything she does and characterized her reasons for not trusting the COVID-19 vaccine as "more of a spiritual thing. Like a religious belief." This type of testimony can support a conclusion that McConnell's motivation for refusing the COVID-19 vaccine was mixed, including both secular and religious reasons. My issue with that  approach, however, is that the ULJ made a credibility determination that McConnell's reasons for refusing the vaccine were secular, not religious. Rightly or wrongly, First Amendment jurisprudence leaves to the fact-finder the task of determining whether an action is the result of a sincerely held religious belief and we defer to findings of fact as long as they are supported by the record. To conclude otherwise would require that we accept—at face value—an employee's statement that they were motivated by a religious belief. While that might be a preferable approach from the standpoint of keeping the courts out of the business of trying to assess the sincerity of a person's religious beliefs, that is not the current legal standard.

Thanks to Prof. Howard Friedman (Religion Clause) for the pointer to McConnell.

Comments

[AtR]

The courts should never be in the business of deciding what is or is not a sincerely held religious belief.

Either all exemptions should be permitted (as required by "informed consent" and about 50 years of bioethics) or none should be.

[ReaderY]

No on both counts.

The Supreme Court has upheld mandatory vaccination. The state wouldn’t necessarily have to give religious exemptions at all because the state has a compelling interest in vaccinations. No consent, informed or otherwise, is required. The state can compel life-saving treatment in general if wants. The bioethics position you state is merely one opinion, a duty to preserve life is another, and the state can choose either or balance. Even if the state doesn’t compel treatment in general, it is entitled to do so for vaccinations specially, because vaccinations are not just a personal health matter but involve the public health, directly implicating the health of others.

Permitting employers to fire for non-vaccination but giving religious exemptions when it comes to unemployment compensation is a permissible balance between private and public interests, not the only possible balance but a permissible one. If the state gives religious exemptions, it is entitled to ensure the religious belief is sincere.

[Joe_dallas]

Readery - true the courts have upheld mandatory vaccination for vaccines that actually work. That is simply not the case with covid vaxes.

[ReaderY]

The evidence they work is pretty good. Vaccinated people are less likely to get COVID, and when they do they generally get milder cases and are much less likely to become hospitalized or die. No medicine works perfectly. A vaccine doesn’t have to completely prevent any trace of the disease 100% of the time to be considered effective. Making the disease less likely to occur at all and much less severe when it happens is gopd enough.

[Joe_dallas]

The evidence that the covid vax works is pretty weak. With the exception of the vunerable, the evidence is that vax is counter productive in achieving the long game/end game.

For the young, the covid vax is very counterproductive.

[David Nieporent]

The evidence that the covid vax works is incredibly strong. (Hint: even if your notion that natural immunity were as protective as vaccination were true, that would be irrelevant to the issue of whether the vaccine works, as it only compares vaccinated people to the subset of infected who survived.)

[Joe_dallas]

David Nieporent 13 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
"The evidence that the covid vax works is incredibly strong. "

Earth to Major david
a vax that wanes so drastically after 5-6 months is not by any stretch of reality evidence that is incredibly strong.
Evidence that the vax provides virtually zero incremental benefit for the young and healthy is not evidence that the evidence is incredibly strong.

[David Nieporent]

a vax that wanes so drastically after 5-6 months is not by any stretch of reality evidence that is incredibly strong.

Did you know that water keeps you from dying of dehydration, but that its effects wear off after only a few days?

[Joe_dallas]

If you think that something that only works is strong evidence of effectiveness - then go for it
I prefer reality

[Toranth]

With an IFR of less than 0.1% including the nursing-home elderly, your "survived COVID" population of 99.9+% is actually a very good sample.

Just as there's a good Cochrane review of masks, showing they're just as worthless (as we knew decades ago), there's an in-progress review of the various COVID vaccines. So far, the couple of hundred thousand people covered in RCTs show that the vaccines are very effective in the elderly and middle aged, moderately effective in the young, and have no detected effect in those under the age of 20.

Except for Sinovac - that has low-to-no detectable effect on COVID spread or death rates among any group.

[David Nieporent]

Actually, the Cochrane review is not good and does not show that.

[Toranth]

Yes, the Cochrane review is good, and yes, it does show that.

Perhaps you are ignorant and don't understand the difference between a mask and a respirator, or are easily confused by concepts like respirator etiquette. Either way, I'm certain you didn't read the review (not that you would have understood it if you tried).

When it comes to COVID, you are one of the worst spreaders of misinformation and outright lies on these forums - and that's even being compared to Dr Ed.

[Bruce Hayden]

Nope. You are very wrong there. You keep spouting the same government misinformation. The COVID-19 artificial mRNA gene therapies (“vaccines”) kinda of worked up through the end of 2021, until Omicron pushed out the Delta variant in this country. Omicron has different spike proteins than were in the vaccines, and all of the antibodies produced are for the wrong spike protein. Studies conducted in 2022 and later are showing that the vaccines do less well than no vaccines against Omicron. Prove me wrong. Find me the studies using 2022 and 2023 data that show the vaccines working. And explain how the vaccinated are the ones catching the virus over and over again.

And that doesn’t even address side effects. The government, along with esp Pfizer, but also Moderna, have been hiding the evidence since the first EUA was signed. Part of what Pfizer was trying to hide with their agreement with the FDA not to disclose their regularity filings for 75 years were the side effects they found in testing. Because of the rush to get the vaccines approved, long term testing was skipped for them. Regardless, based on the regulatory filings, the FDA ordered Pfizer to run a study looking for myocarditis and pericarditis in its vaccinated patients. That study was supposed to run between 6/21 and 6/22, and report on the study by 12/22. 2022 came and went, and no report. A FOIA request turned up that Pfizer had requested an extension until 6/23, without giving a reason, and the FDA had approved it. This is testing that would normally have been required before approval, if an EUA had not been involved.

And that was the tip of the ice berg. Researchers now have the tools to detect vaccine injury - stains that highlight SARS-2 spike proteins, and when found without the viral capsid, indicate that they came from the mRNA vaccines. They are finding myocarditis victims with heart muscles riddled with these stained spike proteins. Melanoma cancer cells riddled with these spike proteins. Etc. Everywhere pathologists seem to be looking at potential vaccine injury victims, they are finding stained spike proteins riddling the tissue.

[Sarcastr0]

The government, along with esp Pfizer, but also Moderna, have been hiding the evidence since the first EUA was signed

Good thing Brice has the wherewithal to figure out the government coverup, just like every conspiracy theorist ever.

[Joe_dallas]

It should be noted that many of the studies showing higher death rates for the unvaxed have significant data base errors, which is fairly well known in the CDC community.

The covid death rate for the unvaxed was running about 50 per week per 100k in the 65+ age group in the Nov2020-Jan2021 wave. The covid death rate for the unvaxed in the Nov 2021-jan 2022 wave varied between 170-240 per 100k for the 65+ age group (depending on the state). Totally implausible that the death rate for the unvaxed would increase 3-5x for a less deadly variant. Everyone involved with the data bases know there are errors in the data bases. A combination of misclassifying vaxed deaths as unvaxed and understated denominator for the unvaxed population.

[Absaroka]

"The covid death rate for the unvaxed was running about 50 per week per 100k in the 65+ age group in the Nov2020-Jan2021 wave. The covid death rate for the unvaxed in the Nov 2021-jan 2022 wave varied between 170-240 per 100k for the 65+ age group (depending on the state). Totally implausible that the death rate for the unvaxed would increase 3-5x for a less deadly variant."

Are you assuming that there were no behavioral changes between those two periods? At least in our circle of 65+ friends people were going to much greater lengths to avoid infection in 2020 than a year later.

I know that's true of my wife and I as well ... the first very early estimated fatality rate I saw for people in their sixties was 15%. I remember looking at my wife and saying 'those are Russian Roulette odds'. We drastically changed our behaviors, enough to drive our odds of infection almost to zero, but as the data accumulated over time showing that was an overestimate by an order of magnitude we went back to a more normal life.

[Joe_dallas]

Behavioral changes are not going to cause that drastic of a change,

Most of the data base errors I have seen involve understating the unvaxed population resulting in an understated denominator. The other data base error is coding a vax death as a unvaxed death. Because the pool of unvaxed in the 65+ age group is small, small errors of either type will greatly inflate the reported per capita rates.

The error should have been obvious to everyone looking at the reported death rates. 85+% of death were in the 65+ age group which was 80-85% vaxed. The death rate between the two waves should have fallen by 70-80% if the vaxed worked, instead the death rate only declined by 20-30% (which is consistent with a less deadly variant). The failure of the expected decline in death rates points to data base errors, Delving further in the discrepancy points to the two flaw mentioned above.

[AtR]

The state can do whatever it deems itself capable of doing. The state can and has done many horribly unethical actions, even in the short history of the US and with the consent of the Supreme Court (Japanese internment, forced sterilization of "imbeciles", slavery, ...).

That is orthogonal to the ethical principles that came out of the Nuremberg doctors' trials (and, ironically enough, actually preceded them even in Nazi Germany). Unfortunately, ethical principles rely upon a common framework of belief, which we do not have in this country.

[Dr. Ed 2]

"If the state gives religious exemptions, it is entitled to ensure the religious belief is sincere."

Do you realize the implications of that?

HINT: The state could ask "Do you accept Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior"? Might that be problematic?

[Nige]

I wonder what hoops you have to go through if you can't take it due to some physical ailment or disability?

[Dr. Ed 2]

SCOTUS upheld a fine for not being vaccinated -- a century ago.
It's a pre-Warren decision that I doubt would be upheld today.

[Don Nico]

" compelling interest in vaccinations. No consent, informed or otherwise, is required. "
Except that the case for efficacy of preventing transmission is far from compelling. In the case of the omicron variant. The efficacy is at best fair, making strict scrutiny a reasonable standard

[Rossami]

re: "The courts should never be in the business of deciding what is or is not a sincerely held religious belief."

Why not? Mens rea is an important consideration and a routine judicial determination in all sorts of other laws and contexts. What makes it so different here?

[AtR]

For the same reason that there is no "reasonable person" in real life. The ability to determine mental state is a legal fiction that we use to try to deter grossly criminal activity.

[Rossami]

On the contrary, we use mental state to determine all sorts of things. Did you truly consent to a contract? Was your murder premeditated, a crime of passion or a complete accident (and therefore maybe not a murder at all)? Was the cop justified in tazing the suspect? Was the cop even justified in stopping the suspect? Should I say good morning to you or wait until after you've had your coffee?

Mental state itself is not a legal fiction - mental state clearly exists. The "fiction" is that we can know it. But that's no different from the legal fiction that we can figure out what happened at the crime scene based on the evidence. Yes, there is uncertainty in our determinations. We all still make and act on them.

[M L]

Just to play devil's advocate....

Mens rea is important in criminal law when assessing culpability and determining punishment, because what you are punishing is the malign intent and depraved heart that sought to commit a heinous act. The distinctions being made are ones such as the difference between a serial killer who intentionally killed people, and a child who picked up a gun he didn't understand and accidentally fired through a wall and hit someone.

Should this reasoning apply to areas other than traditional crimes and criminal liability? For example, commercial activity and regulation broadly, employment, medical decisions, bodily autonomy, etc.

One person declines to take a vaccine because they are skeptical of the blatant lack of any long-term testing for safety and efficacy. Another because they, in their minds, believe in "natural" healing and all things "natural." A third because they have some claimed "religious" objection to a vaccine.

What is the great distinction between these people that justifies treating them differently? With the criminal example, it's obvious, a 3 or 4 year old understands this naturally and intuitively as they work through discipline with their parents. Not so here.

If the answer is simply, the Constitution affords a prerogative based on the one premise and not the other, then fair enough, I'd have to think more about whether I agree with that, but the comment here seemed to be about "ought" rather than "is."

[Sims]

We are in bizarro world where you're off the hook if you don't take the jab because of religious beliefs but not if you refuse it for safety concerns.

[John F. Carr]

That was my reaction too. The situation illustrates well the difference between rational basis review and strict scrutiny. If the vaccine might do something good, the state can require it. Rational basis review can not be overcome simply by pointing out that the emperor has no clothes. Plenty of people see his clothes. Who are you to say they are wrong?

I note that cities and states are backing off vaccine requirements due to some combination of low effectiveness and public resistance. In my area there is a shortage of nurses and the stricter the work conditions the fewer will be willing to work. California is ending the vaccination requirement for medical workers, and in the East some fired public employees are getting their jobs back.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The good ones aren't coming back as they have other jobs now.

[Bruce Hayden]

Part of the resistance is the rapidly increasing evidence that the mRNA vaccines are dangerous - significantly more dangerous to younger demographics than the virus itself is.

[David Nieporent]

There is no such evidence. Damar Hamlin was not replaced by a clone or CGI or whatever the latest nutjob theory is.

[AtR]

Spouting propaganda does not make it true ... see https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0264410X22010283?via%3Dihub

[Sarcastr0]

Combined, the mRNA vaccines were associated with an excess risk of serious adverse events of special interest of 12.5 per 10,000 vaccinated

Read the shit you link.

[AtR]

I read the article ... did you read beyond the abstract?

"These results raise concerns that mRNA vaccines are associated with more harm than initially estimated at the time of emergency authorization."

[Sarcastr0]

I didn't see a baseline beyond the 0.1% there. But assuming that 'raises concerns' point is supported, that’s not at all the same as this: “mRNA vaccines are dangerous – significantly more dangerous to younger demographics than the virus itself is.”

Read the shit you reply to, if not the shit you link.

[Toranth]

If there's a 0.1% harmful effect from vaccinations amongst young people (under age 20) then YES, that's more risky than COVID itself, which has an IFR and SAEs indistinguishable from zero for that age group.

[AtR]

Please don't let me keep you from reading the article and developing an informed opinion.

[Dr. Ed 2]

The more interesting question will be employer liability for vaccine complications, real and imagined, including psych.

I don't see why they wouldn't be.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I suppose Washa is only "off the hook" to the extent that he can collect unemployment benefits. It doesn't save his job. As ReaderY says above, it seems like a decent balance.

[Bob from Ohio]

"We are in bizarro world where you’re off the hook if you don’t take the jab because of religious beliefs but not if you refuse it for safety concerns."

Nothing bizarre about it. We value religious freedom so much that it is in our federal Constitution and our state constitutions.

[Joe_dallas]

This case concerned the denial of unemployment compensation, which means it was not worth the employer's time as noted by the failure of the employer to appear at the appeal.

The case fails to mention the age and health of the employee. The employee was terminated Jan 2022 which was 4-5 months after it was well known in the medical community that the vaccine was very ineffective and which provide less immunity protection than a natural infection.

[Krayt]

Denial of unemployment is to stop people from quitting perfectly good jobs. So no voluntary, or stupid stuff like crime or insubordination. “You suck!” counts though.

Here, the company can say “your religion or your job” (pending statutory protections) but the government cannot treat it as insubordination for the purpose of denying benefits. “Your religion or your benefits”, as in “…or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”.

[John F. Carr]

As the second decision suggests, claimants may still face administrative judges who want to rule against them. Being forbidden from saying some things on the record does not stop a judge from thinking, "I had to get my shot and you can get yours too."

[SRG]

Even crazy and irrational employees have rights.

[Bob from Ohio]

Good news for you!

[SRG]

Good one! 🙂

[Nige]

What the hell does vaccination status have to do with unemployment benefits? If the guy was willing to be fired rather than get the vaccine, then he was pretty sincere about it, whether it was religious or not, calling it misconduct is just unnecessary and nasty, it should be irrelevant, it's just one of the myriad ways the unemployed get punished for being unemployed. Glad it got reversed, hope it stays reversed.

[Mr. Bumble]

Usually at odds with your comments, but I have to agree with you here.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

I agree with you that unemployment benefits should be easier to get in general. But in this case, the statute seems to define misconduct pretty clearly, and Mr. Washa should have known prior to taking the job that it included a vaccination mandate.

[Joe_dallas]

Likely he took the job prior to covid, thus taking the covid vax was not a requirement.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Ummm -- when was he hired?

[John F. Carr]

"Misconduct" is not the end of the story.

Eugene Volokh mentioned Sherbert v. Verner, a Supreme Court case ruling in favor of a claimant who was denied unemployment insurance. She couldn’t get a job because she refused to work on Saturdays for religious reasons. Private companies at the time did not have to respect religious beliefs of employees. The state said she refused to work and was not eligible for unemployment. The Supreme Court said the denial of her claim was government action and subject to the First Amendment.

Because my state’s laws are quite protective of employees who claim a religious desire to take days off I do not remember the current state of federal law on that subject. The case was decided in 1963 when all sorts of things we now take for granted were not yet law.

[David Nieporent]

What the hell does vaccination status have to do with unemployment benefits?

The reason one is unemployed has everything to do with unemployment benefits. Unemployment benefits are for people who become involuntarily unemployed — not for those who choose to leave their jobs or who constructively do so by engaging in misconduct at work. If your employer tells you to do something and you refuse to do it without good reason, that’s deemed to fall into the misconduct category.

You may want to convert unemployment benefits into UBI, but that's not the regime we have in this country.

[bevis the lumberjack]

The guy was pretty obviously screwed since his religious belief certainly appears sincere.

But why is he not allowed to object to a basically untested vaccine - in a long term sense - based on his “secular concerns about his perceived health risks of taking the vaccine”? Free society and body autonomy and all. This vaccine is lacking something that basic childhood vaccine have……

[Bruce Hayden]

Esp since these vaccines are only available under Emergency Use Authorizations (EUAs), which legally require voluntary informed consent to be administered.

[David Nieporent]

Still lying about this, I see. Pfizer has been an approved vaccine for a year and a half now. It's not an EUA.

[Don Nico]

Yes, David, the vaccine is approved.
Yes, it does seem to lessen the illness for the large majority of those vaccinated.
No, it does at best a fair job of protecting people from getting omicron variant SARS-CoV-2.
Consequently it does only a fair job at reducing transmission.

[Sarcastr0]

Untrue of the boosters, Don.

https://www.thelancet.com/action/showPdf?pii=S1473-3099%2822%2900732-0

Statistically significant protection against asymptomatic and symptomatic SARS-CoV-2 omicron infection was found only for those who received a BNT162b2 or CoronaVac booster dose, with a vaccine effectiveness of 41·4% (23·2 to 55·2; p=0·0001) and 32·4% (9·0 to 49·8; p=0·0098), respectively.

It's not a longitudinal study, but will serve as a counterexample to your post.

[Alpheus W Drinkwater]

Perhaps he could have made that argument. But it seems that he only raised a religious objection. The religious objection was enough to reverse the unemployment decision.

[JimM47]

Note that the court also issued another one not linked.

They are available for now at https://www.mncourts.gov/CourtOfAppeals/RecentOpinions.aspx, by clicking on the “Order Opinions” tab.

They will be available in perpetuity by searching A22-1000, A22-1040, and A22-0934 on https://macsncchv.courts.state.mn.us/ctrack/publicLogin.jsp

[John F. Carr]

All three are nonprecedential. I gather that is what "order opinions" means.

[Rev. Arthur L. Kirkland]

Gullible, superstitious, antisocial, virus-flouting dumbasses have rights, too.

And plenty of fans at a white, male, right-wing blog.

Enjoy the snowflake-class special privileges while you can, clingers.

[Nige]

Seven million people dead worldwide? In three years? Which common flu are you thinking of?

[David Nieporent]

I see the nutjobs are out in full force again.

[Dr. Ed 2]

Yes, including George Floyd. We all know he died of Covid...

[Nige]

He died of the common cop.

[Joe_dallas]

Floyd died because of the inability of the avleio to exchange / swap out the co2 in the blood with oxygen due to the fluid in his lungs which was due to drug overdose.

Note that floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe long before the knee on the shoulder/upper back. Note also to the ME report noting the excess fluid in the lungs. Note the lack of pecs in the lungs.

might want to read your 8th grade biology book for some basic biology info.

[Nige]

‘Note that floyd was complaining about not being able to breathe long before the knee on the shoulder/upper back’

Yeah, see, that is the opposite of exculpatory for his killers.

Wow SOMEONE managed to change the subject from 7 million covid dead as compared to the common flu.

[Joe_dallas]

nige - just correcting your statement on floyds cause of death.

[David Nieporent]

might want to read your 8th grade biology book for some basic biology info.

Is that what makes you think you're an expert? Did Green Eggs and Ham make you a nutritionist, too?

[jimc5499]

Exactly right. A co-worker's son laid down his motorcycle to avoid a deer and went into a tree, killing him. The Death Certificate stated "Traumatic Head Injury w/COVID" as the cause.

When my Nephew passed away the hospital pushed my Sister and her Husband to let them call it COVID instead of what it turned out to be. My Nephew had Spina Bifida and had a shunt to vent cranial pressure. Appointments to check on the shunt were cancelled because of COVID. The shunt failed and the pressure pushed his brain down on his brain stem causing him to quit breathing.
I've seen several articles stating that COVID deaths were miscounted resulting in high numbers.

[Joe_dallas]

basic math and science - you might try to learn it someday - if its not too late for you.

[Joe_dallas]

You cant dispute anything I have stated - so you resort to insults which demonstrates how little knowledge you have the basic subject matter.

You simply cant point to any statement that I have made that is incorrect.

[David Nieporent]

You’ve got no education, accomplishments or experiences in the relevant areas of expertise here to make any sane person you know what you’re talking about.

You forget: he read a blog written by a non-expert.

[M L]

"There were likely over and over counts as there is with any official records that massive."

Unintentionally correct. Over-counts only, as you might expect with incentives and federal payouts that massive.

[Joe_dallas]

Again - you cant point to a single statement that I made which is incorrect.
And yes I have vastly more knowledge of the subject matter than you could ever hope to acquire.

Yes - you fall prey to the fallacy that only experts have the expertise to find errors made by experts.

[Joe_dallas]

oops left off the link

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_the_United_States#/media/File:Timeline_of_weekly_confirmed_COVID-19_deaths_in_the_United_States.svg

[Joe_dallas]

Yet thats not what you are stating

[myself]

Again – you cant point to a single statement that I made which is incorrect.

Because your statements generally consist of making a factual assertion (without citations, so no one wants to bother chasing your sources) then claiming a completely unsupported conclusion. For instance, two different waves have different death rates, therefore...
the CDC is miscoding deaths at different rates? The vaccine doesn't work? You just list only hypothesis that fit your priors and nothing else.

And yes I have vastly more knowledge of the subject matter than you could ever hope to acquire.

Yes – you fall prey to the fallacy that only experts have the expertise to find errors made by experts.

That's one of the better descriptions I've heard of the Dunning Kruger effect.

[Joe_dallas]

Myself - lets test your math skills (or lack of math skills)
Below is a link a timeline of covid deaths in the US. Notice the Sept 2021 - jan 2022 wave was approx 70% of the prior wave.

Approx 85%-90% of covid deaths were in the 65+ age group and approx 85%+ of that age group were vaxed.
If the vaxed worked, then the death rate during the sept 2021-jan 2022 wave would have been 25%-30% of the prior wave. It was not, thus the obvious signs of data base errors. Simple math reveals the obvious

[myself]

Joe,

My math skills are fine, your interpretation of data is not.

The winter 2020 - spring 2021 wave was during high levels of masking, shutdowns, and self-isolation. The subsequent wave occurred after people were vaccinated and more lax in their precautions.

The lack of precautions not only lead to more people getting exposed, but when they are exposed they have a higher Initial Viral Load (which is correlated with more severe illness).

That's why you need careful studies that look at all the different factors, you can't just look at two different waves and assume there's only a single variable responsible for the outcomes.

[Sarcastr0]

Conspiracies that remain uncovered?

Only viable if you have a quite small numbers of people, with direct personal benefit.

[Joe_dallas]

The medical community pushes a lot of ineffective and unnecessary procedures due to the method of reimbursement - others may call it revenue enhancement.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen - try to become educated on the subject matter before pontificating.

your response shows you have near zero knowledge of the subject matter.

[Joe_dallas]

Queen almathea 13 mins ago
Flag Comment Mute User
Again, a person needs little knowledge to know it’s more likely that an expert knows what they are talking about and a non-expert does not.

Queen - try to address the subject matter - changing the subject is a sign you lack knowledge of the subject matter.

[Don Nico]

" it’s more likely that an expert knows what they are talking about and a non-expert does not."
Wow. The CDC sure destroyed that myth.

[Joe_dallas]

concur with the cdc destroying that myth

fwiw - Don - is the one of the few individuals who has any actual knowledge of the subject matter and is likewise fully capable of ascertaining the reasonableness of the "so called experts conclusions. Others here are too invested in talking points to bother doing any due diligence on the subject matter.

[David Nieporent]

Exactly right. A co-worker’s son laid down his motorcycle to avoid a deer and went into a tree, killing him. The Death Certificate stated “Traumatic Head Injury w/COVID” as the cause.

Sure it did.

[Toranth]

ICD-10 codes are designed to be multi-listed, and often are, especially in COVID cases. And almost 4% of US COVID deaths as reported by the CDC have both COVID and one of the Vehicle accident codes. I don't know why you think the CDC would be lying about this.

But maybe you're one of those that think that COVID is so dangerous that it's the real cause of death for someone marked with both U07.1 (COVID) and X93D (Gunshot wound, handgun, multiple).