The Volokh Conspiracy
Mostly law professors | Sometimes contrarian | Often libertarian | Always independent
Religious Exemption Claim Brought by Employees Who Objected to COVID Vaccination and Testing Can Go Forward
So says a federal appellate court, applying federal employment law, which requires employers to exempt religious objectors even from generally applicable job rules, unless exemption would impose an "undue hardship" on the employer.
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (as amended in 1972) goes beyond just banning religious discrimination by employers; it requires employers to exempt sincere religious objectors even from generally applicable, neutral employment rules, unless granting the exemption would work an "undue hardship." And, as with American religious exemption regimes more generally, the question is whether the employee has a sincere religious objection, not whether the objection is endorsed by a large religious group, or makes logical sense. Here's how this was Friday's Eighth Circuit decision in Ringhofer v. Mayo Clinic, Ambulance, written by Judge Duane Benton and joined by Judges Ralph Erickson and Jonathan Kobes, applies this statutory rule:
During the Covid-19 pandemic, Mayo required all employees to receive the vaccine. Any employee exempted from vaccination was required to test weekly. On December 3, 2021, Mayo notified all employees that they must comply with the policy by January 3 or be terminated.
The plaintiffs sought religious accommodations for the vaccination requirement, citing their Christian religious beliefs. Mayo denied the accommodations for Shelly Kiel, Kenneth Ringhofer, and Anita Miller, who refused to get the vaccine. It granted vaccination exemptions to Sherry Ihde and Kristin Rubin, but required them to test for Covid-19 weekly, which they refused….
Kiel, Ringhofer, and Miller were denied vaccination accommodations and fired for not taking the vaccine. Each argues that their Christian religious beliefs prevent them from taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Each plaintiff invokes two principles in arguing that their religious beliefs conflict with the vaccine mandate: (1) their "body is a temple," and thus they shall not inject it with impure or unknown substances, and (2) their anti-abortion beliefs, rooted in their religion, prevent them from using a product developed with fetal cell lines…..
At this early stage, when the complaints are read as a whole and the nonmoving party receives the benefit of reasonable inferences, Kiel, Miller, and Ringhofer adequately identify religious views they believe to conflict with taking the Covid-19 vaccine. Each of these three plaintiffs plausibly connect their refusal to receive the vaccine with their religious beliefs:
- Kiel's complaint states that her "religious beliefs prevent her from putting into her body the Covid-19 vaccines … because they were all produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies. Receiving the vaccine would make her a participant in the abortion that killed the unborn baby."
- Miller's complaint states that her "religious exemption was based on opposition to the use of vaccines produced with or tested by aborted baby cells. Plaintiff Miller believes in the sanctity of life from conception until natural death. She lives her life according to her sincerely held religious beliefs. … She is Christian and has determined she cannot, consistent with her conscience, take the Covid-19 vaccine, and to do so would make her complicit in the killing of the unborn babies from whom the cells used in the vaccines came."
- Ringhofer's complaint states that "his body is a Temple to the Holy Spirit and is strongly against abortion. Plaintiff Ringhofer believes the Vaccine Mandate violates his religious beliefs and conscience to take the Covid-19 vaccine because the vaccines were produced with or tested with fetal cell lines. Ringhofer … [believes] that 'Using the fetal cells in the development of it, knowing about it, is against my religion.'"
The district court[, which rejected plaintiffs' claims,] did not "consider the complaint as a whole," instead focusing on specific parts of the complaints to rule the anti-vaccine beliefs "personal" or "medical." As EEOC Guidance says, "overlap between a religious and political view does not place it outside the scope of Title VII's religious protections, as long as the view is part of a comprehensive religious belief system."
The district court erred by emphasizing that many Christians elect to receive the vaccine. This does not defeat the plaintiffs' beliefs…. "[T]he guarantee of the Free Exercise Clause[ ] is 'not limited to beliefs which are shared by all of the members of a religious sect.'" …
Rubin and Ihde received exemptions from the vaccine mandate. As part of Mayo's policy, however, they were required to undergo weekly testing for Covid-19. They did not receive a testing exemption, refused to submit to it, and were fired. They contend they plausibly pled a religious belief that conflicted with Covid-19 testing:
- Rubin's complaint states: "Now the Holy Spirit dwells in her and she believes her body is a temple for the Holy Spirit that she is duty bound to honor. She does not believe in putting unnecessary vaccines or medications into her body, or going to the doctor or allowing testing of her body when it is not necessary. Accordingly, it violates her conscience to take the vaccine or to engage in weekly testing or sign a release of information that gives out her medical information."
- Ihde's complaint states: "My faith is in my Creator who is my Healer (Ex 15:26). Faith is belief combined with action (Jam 2:17). Shifting my faith from my Creator to medicine is the equivalent of committing idolatry-holding medicine in greater esteem then Elohim (Col 3:5). I believe it is legitimate to utilize modern medicine for life-saving purposes; however, there is a fine line between using it and abusing it… Excessive procedures, vanity surgeries, and redundant intrusive testing of healthy, asymptomatic humans is irresponsible and crosses the line violating my conscience before Elohim…"
Rubin and Ihde plausibly pled that their religious beliefs conflict with the testing requirement. As discussed, beliefs do not have to be uniform across all members of a religion or "acceptable, logical, consistent, or comprehensible to others." By connecting their objection to testing to specific religious principles (Rubin's belief that "her body is a temple" and Ihde's belief that testing in this case may be "the equivalent of committing idolatry"), they have satisfied their burden at this stage.
All plaintiffs adequately pled a conflict between their Christian religious beliefs and Mayo Clinic's Covid-19 policy.
The Court of Appeals therefore sent the case back down to the district court for further proceedings. Those proceedings may include a jury trial on whether plaintiffs' objections were indeed, as a factual matter, sincere and religious, and may also include legal judgments or factual findings as to whether allowing the plaintiffs an exemption from the vaccination and testing requirements would impose an "undue hardship" on the employer (which the Court has defined as "substantial increased costs in relation to the conduct of its particular business").
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. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Politically motivated efforts by courts to empower religion to strait jacket public health policy will lead to predictable catastrophes. To let plaintiffs prevail in cases like this one encourages widespread vaccination resistance, at lethal cost. The specific legal tests being applied unwisely sidestep that fact.
Ours is a world of increasing population density, ever-more-efficient travel, and widespread ecological disruption, all factors to encourage the development and spread of pandemics. It is not a matter of if, but only of when, this nation confronts a pandemic far more threatening than Covid-19—a new pandemic disease without Covid19's innate limits, capable to kill a notable fraction of everyone, regardless of age or other demographic factors.
When that happens, enforcement of the legal doctrines espoused by the court in the OP risk creation of widespread delays and political resistance. The tendency of the law to bypass rare and tiny exceptions to customary practice is at odds with a characteristic of contagion—to multiply indefinitely and geometrically the consequences of tiny exceptions. The consequent loss of life could run into tens of millions of people.
That hypothetical—verging on certainty—is what the judicial system should prioritize. Under that circumstance, the only religious test the court should consider is willingness of vaccination resisters to sacrifice employment for the sake of religious conscience.
Perhaps a day will come when advances in medical science enable a public health response to pandemic disease which avoids completely the onerous limitations and requirements which for now must sometimes be imposed on everyone. That time is not yet. Until that becomes possible, extraordinary emergency burdens must be shared alike by everyone during times of extraordinary threat to life.
Why stop at loss of employment Lathrop? If they're still resisting, they could wreak havoc. "The consequent loss of life could run into tens of millions of people." Let's just go straight to camps.
Wasn't that was what was supposed to have heppened? And yet it didn't.
You seem very confused about our legal system, and not for the first time. Courts have to follow the law, not Lathrop's whims.
Actually, Nieporent, in national emergencies courts will do what they actually do, not what you say they have to do. Neither my whims nor yours have anything to do with it.
If it comes down to a question whether mass life-and-death policy questions—or questions implicating the survival of the nation—will be decided by the Supreme Court, or by the administration, the Supreme Court will never act to take on management of an existential crisis itself. That has never happened.
There was no expectation at the time of the founding that that would happen. And it has not happened since. History provides multiple examples to the contrary.
Actually, Nieporent, in national emergencies courts will do what they actually do, not what you say they have to do. Neither my whims nor yours have anything to do with it.
What they are supposed to do is follow precedent.
Some would call school shootings and gang violence an emergency. And yet.
https://archive.md/mgil3
“The erosion of the rights of people on the other side of town will ultimately undermine the rights of each of us,” Andersen said in refusing to lift a ban he imposed last month.
Some would call absolutely nothing an emergency except kids and women getting health care.
"Neither my whims nor yours have anything to do with it. "
Yet, you pontificate with near metaphysical certainly, based not on knowledge of the law, nor of epidemiology, nor virology, but on your own inner vision.
My father was made to take vaccines before storming Normandy - where he was shot in the stomach and ankle but lived. He didn't petition the circuit courts
Our legal system is designed to address actual wrongs, standing, and rarely address hypotheticals, no standing, thus there was never a reason to require "public health" to issue requirements or suggestions, for others to follow without proving someone was indeed ill and actually had or is transmitting a disease !
Then, and only then, could there be reason to allow discrimination on the basis of purported health concerns.
Heh, as I watched from Portugal, I saw all the school children there happily playing, wearing their masks. Then on TV I saw all these tough patriots in 'Murica - newly religious - throwing tantrums in stores, airplanes, work. In towering irony holding signs 'I can't Breathe', 'My Body my Choice'. Fragile, frightened creatures.
It’s an Amurican thang, we don’t like anyone, especially slimy Euro-trash telling us what to do, even if it’s good for us, Sopranos had an entire episode with that theme, if Paulie had just put the remote in the Docking Station…
Frank
Well, the whole "the masks do not do a damned thing in the first place" shows that the go-along-to-get-along mentality of Portugal was asinine.
Just forfeit your rights whenever the government asks you to. Feel free.
Is that your stand? If something doesn't work for you or your kit or kin, disregard the law? Can I apply this to things I don't like?
Is that your stand? If something has been proven to not work for anybody, if the science on that subject has been settled for decades, if there has been no dissent for that position from anybody, not even the cranks, government should go ahead and mandate that thing anyway, and everyone is just supposed to nod their heads and comply?
I'm willing to take bets that whenever a liberal describes any particular issue — say, climate change — as "settled science," that Alphabet Man is first to line up to say "that's not how science works."
'if there has been no dissent for that position from anybody, not even the cranks,'
If the dissent only comes from cranks, sure.
Especially because masks do work.
Maybe the Portuguese weren't the ones jumping on the scientifically invalid bandwagon?
Did you actually read the study linked in that article? Because it does not say what you imply.
Masks, worn properly by the immuno-compromised (who have an incentive to learn how to wear them properly), do indeed provide protection from some respiratory illnesses. General masking of the entire population, however, has no support in the underlying data.
Most likely did not read the study
Very heavy on the political science aspect.
Included the bangladesh study which has numerous well known flaws
That is not to say masks dont work, they do to some extent, but not nearly as effective as promoted by pro masking advocates
They do, in fact, work.
Nige - masks work only marginally.
If masks worked as well as you think they worked, then the infection rates would not have been so high.
Or they worked and the infection rates would have been much higher without them.
"as well as you think they worked"
because the majority of people wear masks in a way that greatly reduces there prophylactic potenial
Did you read the study? Because you seem to have created that interpretation, that's completely contrary to the study, out of thin air.
Here is a literal quote from the study:
"The use of masks and respirators is particularly important in the early stages of a pandemic, when drugs and vaccines are unavailable and to protect health workers"
Oh, and another one:
"An increase in seasonal respiratory infections such as influenza and RSV above a preset threshold locally or nationally could warrant setting-specific or more widespread mask use, along with other measures aimed at reducing infections and disease burden. "
Maybe this is the bit that confused you? (there's not much other mention of immunocompromised:
"These are recommendations for mask use by individuals for whom the consequences of infection are likely to be significantly worse than for others (including people who are elderly, pregnant, immunocompromised, or living with severe long-term conditions (327)) and those for whom avoiding infection is particularly important (e.g., those about to have surgery, travel, or participate in critical activities such as high-stakes sporting events). The scope of mask use would depend on individual risk assessment and management, but would typically be indoors and either intermittently or continuously, depending on the risk assessment."
Why is it your business if someone else chooses not to wear a mask.?
Because, as a society, we chose to protect ourselves in that way. We were counting on you to help
No, WE as a society chose to follow the settled science that said masking was pointless. Only a few bureaucrats chose to mandate something useless.
There was and is no settled science anywhere in the entire world that said masks didn't work. Staking out the stupidest postiton in the world and defending it to the death, or to lots of other peoples' deaths, really is the hallmark of the right these days.
" the settled science that said masking was pointless"
there is no such 'settled science'." Stop kidding yourself.
My Spidey Sense tells me Reverend Revolting will have some thoughts on this one, Me? I’m for Freedom, might even start a “Freedom Club” with “Free the World” as our motto, surprised nobody’s used it before, get the shot, don’t get it, no sweat off my sack
Frank
I feel like refused testing should be considered a less justifiable objection than refused vaccination, but the law probably doesn't agree or else doesn't care. So it comes down to (1) are they lying? and (2) is it an undue hardship to require the employer to let asymptomatic, unvaccinated, untested people come to work? Anybody with symtomatic COVID or even a cold would get a sick day. I talked to a nurse who worked in a hospital during peak COVID. She said the reduction in sickness caused by anti-virus precautions was compensated by an increased willingness to call in sick for minor afflictions. About as many nurses called in sick as pre-COVID.
I realize that unconventional or even bizarre religious beliefs are legally protected, and I understand the reasoning applied by the Court of Appeals here.
That having been said, these plaintiffs are loopy. Especially the plaintiff who claims that receiving a vaccine produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies "would make her a participant in the abortion that killed the unborn baby." [Italics added.] Participant?? Really? That abortion has occurred, and it is irreversible. The nexus between (or absence thereof) the abortion and the derivation of the vaccine either exists or it doesn't -- irrespective of whether any individual receives the vaccine.
This reminds me of the discussion about stem cell research. I understand why one person would want to discourage the performance of an abortion by or on behalf of another person. As to potentially life saving research derived from fetal cells from abortions that have already occurred, I cannot understand that line of reasoning. It seems to me that such stem cell research is pro-life in the same manner that a parent's donating the organs of a child for post-mortem transplant into still living children is pro-life.
I'm not taking a position on the validity of the plaintiffs' claims, but:
"[T]hese plaintiffs are loopy. Especially the plaintiff who claims that receiving a vaccine produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies “would make her a participant in the abortion that killed the unborn baby.” [Italics added.] Participant?? Really? That abortion has occurred, and it is irreversible. The nexus between (or absence thereof) the abortion and the derivation of the vaccine either exists or it doesn’t — irrespective of whether any individual receives the vaccine."
Couldn't one make the same argument about consuming child porn that has already been produced? Doesn't doing so make the consumer a "participant" in the making of the child porn? That's a common (and, I think, correct) interpretation. There are differences, of course, as currently viewing old child porn in a sense inflicts a new harm on the victim, but that's not the only reason for taking that position.
I also think this is a more plausible claim.
Would you object to a lamp main with human skin? With slave labor? After all, the people involved have already died/been enslave and the lamp has already been produced.
Exactly
This is what happened: Right-wing-world decided it would be fun & profitable to go anti-vaxx even while lacking any argument to support that stance. It’d just be a neat way to rile their dupe base.
So that put a lot of pressure on the lemmings to produce “reasons” of their own. Suddenly people who had multiple vaccines from their childhood – who had their own children vaccinated – whose parents, grandparents, siblings, relatives and friends were all vaccinated – “discovered” vaccines were against God’s will.
Likewise the stem cell bullshit. When this fake objection was raised, there was reporting on the long list of medical items that had an equally tangential connection to stem cell research as the covid vaccine. Who here believes all these whiners hiding behind God’s skirts gave the slightest damn about any of those other products?
I understand it’s legally difficult to distinguish between hucksters using God as an excuse to throw a snit & true religious belief. It’s hard for a written law to differentiate the two. I get that. But we’re outside the courthouse here, so why not be brutally honest about these weseally hypocrites?
I agree with you that these people are full of shit, but I don't think that's a very good accusation of hypocrisy. People having been vaccinated as kids didn't have any say in the matter, and the fact that someone's parents, siblings, or other relatives got vaccinated is irrelevant to their own beliefs.
It was IVF embryos that were going to be discarded…but thanks to homos marrying those embryos now might be saved!?! Is nothing sacred anymore??
The real issue with the claim is those fetal stem cell lines have been used in the testing of countless drugs, yet it's only when they were used to test COVID-19 that it became a problem.
That and their weird argument against testing, it seems a lot more likely they just didn't want to be tested for political/annoyance reasons.
"it seems a lot more likely they just didn’t want to be tested for political/annoyance reasons."
Yes, that would go to the sincerity of the claimed belief.
However, as the appellate court said, that is an issue for a jury to decide, not an issue for a judge to consider on a motion to dismiss or on a motion for summary judgement.
Gosh, did you know that there's a US federal ban on ivory being imported from Africa?
That's nuts, isn't it? The elephant is already dead. Why shouldn't we be able to ship that ivory over to the US for willing buyers. I mean, the elephant isn't going to be un-dead if there's a ban in place.
Those loopy environmentalist beliefs....
That would be a good analogy, if people were having abortions for the purpose of developing vaccines. But since they're not, it isn't.
We don't let people buy ivory because that creates a market for killing more animals for their ivory. But developing vaccines with fetal cell lines derived from fetuses from abortions performed in the 1970s doesn't create a market for more abortions.
So, let's run with the elephant analogy for a bit.
Say, you film an elephant dying a natural death in 1974...50 years ago. You harvest the ivory, then try to bring it into the US 50 years later. US Customs says "nope, illegal." You argue "There's nothing wrong with it, no one killed the elephant, it died a natural death, here's the proof"
US Customs responds "it creates a market for other people to kill elephants, or change details that may lead to more elephant deaths so they can harvest the ivory and sell it"
Likewise, the use of fetal tissue, even from old samples, raises the same ethical concerns for people. By using the tissue, you "create a potential market" for new tissue. Less than ethical abortion providers may persuade individuals to have a late stage abortion, especially if there's a potential fiscal incentive for it on their side...they could sell a 20-week fetal brain for some money to some researchers.
The edges of the market have their own incentives. If people grow to dislike ivory due its ethical concerns, even the old ivory in the US that can be legally sold, then that drives down the market price. Likewise, even older embryonic-derived cells, if they are going to be made undesirable, then that shifts the curve for researchers who might otherwise use more recent fetal tissue. They look at the ethical concerns and potential paperwork and decide to use a different system.
Armchair, the reason is because a present market is a strong incentive for poaching of elephants. That is not a "loopy belief" it is just your failure to understand basic microeconomics.
Don,
That was sarcasm in response to ng's "loopy belief" comment.
False analogies.
What does consuming child pornography or buying ivory have to do with protecting or preserving human life or preventing human illness?
"Danger Will Robinson, our argument has been shown up. What shall we do?"
"Move those goalposts Robot, move them quickly! Perhaps they won't notice!"
Harming people in the name of protecting people is nuts, especially if the "disease" is not what it's thought to be. Worry over Covid-19 was grossly over hyped from the beginning by the same media types who had smeared Trump with the false Russia thing.
Last time I checked the covid body count was over seven million and still going up.
"was grossly over hyped from the beginning by the same media types who had smeared Trump with the false Russia thing"
I guess you did not notice that in several EU countries the mortality rate from the Wuhan variant was over 10%.
But that was just liberal hype in your eyes.
ng,
I disagree. The elephant analogy is precisely why it is difficult (but not impossible) to bring a 150 yo piano with ivory keys into Japan.
Especially the plaintiff who claims that receiving a vaccine produced with or tested with cells from aborted human babies “would make her a participant in the abortion that killed the unborn baby.” "
The woman believes in time travel and acausality; it is hard to imagine more stupidity than that.
I am skeptical that religious claims that single out COVID vaccines vs. other kinds of vaccines are genuinely religious in character. In characterizing COVID but not other vaccines as “impure” with no doctrinal history suggesting this idiosyncratic result, I suspect the plaintiffs really are coating what is basically a personal political or medical judgment in religious-sounding garb.
Yeah, but who are we to question the sincerity of their beliefs? I mean, sure it looks like they only cared about their body being a temple in relation to vaccination or medical treatments or that the vaccine has some relation to stem cell lines from aborted fetus after their politics lined up with that. But that doesn’t mean that they really are just coating their views in religion to cynically get around otherwise legal mandates. It could just be a coincidence.
Plaintiffs in any legal case have the burden of proof of establishing their claim with evidence. This means that in a religion case, it is the responsibility of a plaintiff to establish sincerity.
My consistent view has been that a plaintiff has to point to a pre-existing body of doctrine or practice, and can’t simply make things up as they go along to fit around a particular desired outcome. This makes it harder on do-it-yourself people then members of organized religions, but not impossible.
I tend to agree with the District Court that the belief COVID vaccine but not other vaccines is “impure” is likely an essentially medical/political position, not a religious one. The plaintiffs have put forward no pre-existing concept of “impurity” that they apply to their lives that could extend to this instance.
That said, the plaintiffs are entitled to present evidence of e.g. other things they have abstained from as “impure..”
But if it turns out that their “impurity” doctrine applies to this vaccine and only this one vaccine, and especially if a uniquely applicable doctrine came into being after the vaccine came out. I don’t think courts are obligated to accept their sincerity.
I was skeptical too until I learned there's 10 times more recommended vaccines today than 60 years ago, 10 times !
Vaccines are not perfect, some may be of use, but with over 60 being pushed these days ... it's wrong.
To paraphrase Wolfgang Pauli, this isn't right. It isn't even wrong. It's utterly nonsensical. Why would it be "wrong" to use new scientific inventions? How many more cell phones are there today than 60 years ago?
Bringing measles back by refusing to vaccinate your kids is wrong.
The plaintiffs worked for the Mayo Clinic?
seems that they participated actively in a number of medical treatments and procedures that would violate their beliefs, just not on their own bodies.
Normally I'm sympathetic to similar claims but in this case I'm skeptical.
Not being a Christian I am not familiar with the passage in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus says "Thou shall go forth and infect they fellow man with pestilence and disease".
So living normal life infects fellow man with disease and pestilence?
This dude wears a mask alone in his car. He has a mask emoji next to his syringe, blm, and gay flag emoji's and neo-pronouns in his email signature.
In a time without a massive disease, yeah, you'd be correct. Lord, it's like talking to children
During a pandemic? Yes. Are you unfamiliar with the concept?
What's normal about a pandemic when disease and pestilence are being spread all over the place?
Well, it wasn't in the Sermon on the Mount, but Jesus reportedly gave demons permission to enter a herd of swine, which led to about 2,000 of the pigs drowning.
What were pig herds doing in Judaea? Were they kosher pigs? I’ve always wondered about that.
The story takes place in the area of the Decapolis ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decapolis ), an area consisting of ten cities which were Greek colonies. It was in a center of Greek and Roman culture, so pigs. In fact, when Pompey the Great conquered the area from the Jewish Hasmoneans (the dynasty founded from the Maccabean revolt against the Seleucids, one of kingdoms left over from the break up of Alexander the Great's empire) in 63 BC, the local Hellenistic inhabitants viewed him as a liberator, and he rewarded them with some local autonomy under Roman protection
One more year and the Branch Covidians are going to telling us COVID even happening was a conspiracy theory. This comes after the big Scooby-doo like reveal where they lift off of the mask and find out it was Uncle Sam all along!
Then they'll memory hole it, and the Sacrapstr0's and David Neiropoints will be out here policing every comment that mentions COVID calling them crazies and Flat Earthers.
One more year and the Branch Covidians are going to telling us COVID even happening was a conspiracy theory.
Nah. It was God's judgement for allowing gay marriage or for boys to dress up as girls, or something. Or boys dressing up as girls and getting gay married while chanting Black Lives Matter!
Does anyone remember Heather Nicole Cauvel?
She used to work as a bartender in Barnacle's in hermosa Beach, before becoming a nurse.
She resigned to protest the vaccine mandate.
https://www.facebook.com/KUSINews/posts/heather-cauvel-a-registered-nurse-resigned-from-her-job-over-the-vaccine-mandate/10159201902171068/
She truly is a hero for the ages!
The strange things people do in the name of religion...
In Rubin's and Ihde's case, they seem to eschew medical testing and medications they deem "unnecessary" to their own selfish interests, but seem happy to receive medical care they deem "necessary" to achieve their own selfish interests. If they eschewed all medical care and put their faith in their god instead, that would make sense. But since they seem to believe that their god is inferior to medical science (as indicated by their willingness to pick medical care instead of relying on their god's benevolence in some cases), why do the persist in eschewing testing/vaccines in cases where it might help them as well as help others? Odd...
But, then, this is an arena where a freshly fertilized human egg is a "person" whose "life" must be protected at all costs -- except usually if, through no choice of that "person", they are the product of incest or rape. Odd...
The Covid vax could well turn out to be a colossal disaster for human kind. It was a crappy vax addressed to a minor disease with ridiculous force.
The time might come when there is a good vax for a major disease, and somewhere around a third of all people will reject the vax due to their experience with the Covid vax.
dwshelf : “… and somewhere around a third of all people will reject the vax due to their experience with the Covid vax.”
Nope. A third of all people have not had a “bad” experience with the Covid vaccine. Not even the tiniest fraction of that number has. What you mean to say is a third of all people were scammed by their Right-wing handlers – who thought the anti-vaxx line would play well with the chumps, marks, and dupes.
You’ve heard “give credit where due”? Well, the same is true of censor. The covid vaccines didn’t cause the new anti-vaxx hysteria, Right-wing operatives lying for political gain did. If there’s a “colossal disaster for human kind”, it falls at their door. They’re the ones beyond all contempt.
Young people did not need the vaccine.
According to you nobody needs the vaccine.
Nige - You are again displaying complete ignorance of facts.
Children, with the exception of those suffering from pre-existing life threatening illness had virtually zero risk from covid.
Please
Yeah, it's a good thing covid wasn't highly infectious and even if you weren't at risk from it you could spread it to people who were, that would have been bad.
Nige - That comment is incredibly stupid, even by your standards.
The vaccines effectiveness against transmission was near zero, The effectiveness against serious illness dropped off considerably after barely 6 months.
3 years out from the introduction of the vaccines , in spite of tremendous available data and you remain that ignorant.
Keep the dream of mountains of vaxx-slain bodies alive, I guess.
"time might come when there is a good vax for a major disease"
did you ever hear of smallpox?
Evidently not.
Most of these lawsuits were brought in bad faith. These folks had no problem with MMR vaccines which have been given to children for years, which were also developed with fetal cells.
Children needed those vaccine.
Only old people needed the COVID vaccine.
Not how herd immunity works, but also irrelevant to captcrisis's point. Religious exemptions are not based on claims that the vaccines are inefficacious; they're based on claims that the vaccines are immoral because they were derived from abortions (which they were not). But if that's the reasoning, it should apply to virtually all vaccines and much other medicine.
How do propose developing herd immunity using a vaccine that proved to be very ineffective?
Note that Fauci's emails from mid to late Oct 2020 reveal that he was told the vaccines would not stop transmission of covid.
Yeah they should just let measles come back and let everyone develope herd immunity.
He probably knew what ‘variants’ were.
Effective vs ineffective vaccines
Leave it to Nige to not understand the difference or understand the facts
Vaccines were amazingly effective, they even worked across variants to a degree.
The raw data says otherwise.
The vaccines proved to be quite effective, which is why death rates were substantially lower in the vaccinated cohort vs. the unvaccinated.
Death rate in Nov/dec 2020 when no one was vaxed for the over 65 age group was approx 50 per week per 100k.
Reported Death rate in Nov Dec 2021 of the unvaxed in the over 65 age group was approx 200-220 per week per 100k for a less death variant. Implausable there was 4x increase in death rate for the unvaxed . Large understatment the unvaxed population used in the denominator.
'Implausible?'
Where was your data drawn from Joe? death rates in the >65 varied greatly in time and from place to place even with respect to the same variants
Don - I agree that the short death rates will show high variation for very short term periods / small regions, though in the long term - 30 - 60 days over wider geographical regions, the variation adjust to the mean.
Most of my dat comes from the various states reported data. with a heavy emphasis on the Minnesota data, where the unvaxed population was grossly understated. Minn had an unvaxed death rate for the over 65 of approx 230 per week per 100k during the Nov 2021-Jan 2022 time frame. vs the 50 per week per 1ook during the Nov 2020-dec 2021 time frame (the two highest waves).
Most of the other states had death rates in the 160-200 per week per 100k for the unvaxed during the Nov 2021-Jan 2022 time frame.
ME - I would include the older age group 65+, and individuals with existing life threatening illnesses. Those two groups did receive some reduction in the risk of severity from Covid. For others, especially children, there was extremely low risk from covid and there was (is) some evidence that the vaccine impeded the development of broader immunity from natural infection.