Bowsite.com

i think you are correct.

The medicare and medicaid health care mandates is more of a gray area to me. Since those health care facilities receive funds from the government to fund their operations, I guess the SC decided they were also employees of the government, just like the military is, and therefore are subject to their employer's (the government) mandates.

Just my initial thoughts.....

Matt

Doubt this particular ruling will sway them, even though illegal.

Especially once the process of weakening and ending the pandemic is complete. It will also be tough to hold hostage any employee that doesn't want to receive it, because now businesses are free to choose whether or not to require it making the job market that much more open...

i read it lawdog. looks to me that the only part of the mandate that was struck down was the part being enforced by OSHA. The part of the mandate that applies to federal employees and federal contractors, as well as health care workers is still in effect...currently.

looks like private employers are still free to require vaccination as a condition of employment if they choose to do so.

The issue this has is, as the concurring opinion states, the vaccine stretches beyond the workplace and into the very personal lives of employees (as does the testing), which neither OSHA nor the employer have any dictatorial authority for occupations that don't present any "grave danger" that you would normally see in a medical (or research) facility where that very "new hazard" exists.

The dissenting opinion was whiney and read like a broken record. They could have easily summed it up in half the length of content.

So, the analogy (in a very simplified version) would be that I have to use safety protocols at work when using a ladder or when splicing a circuit AND I have to use those same protocols at home regardless. No choice. If OSHA found out that I didn't, they could fine me. If my employer found out I didn't, they could reprimand me. These two conditions cannot be enforced by either in my personal life off the clock.

Also, it kicks back the authority to the states. The implication it has is that crybaby blue ran states can implement this on a state level, only to have it challenged in state courts. However, once again, making someone receive the vaccine stretches beyond the limits of "while on the clock". Although the opinion concludes the states have more authority to manage the health of its residents than does the federal government, nothing in the law (federal or state) prevents a resident to flee to another state that doesn't require it as a condition of employment, nullifying the effectiveness of the requirement in the first place. Also, the concurring spells out that without the legislative process involved, a single [executive] branch can rule indefinite and unchecked by bureaucracy rather than democracy which could nullify a state from taking things too far.

I read the opinion as well. Almost all 30 pages because I lost interest in the dissenting opinion on page 27....

Umm, who wrote it?

Not much, as I understand it. Your employer can still mandate vaccines, if they choose to, unless otherwise prohibited by your state's legislation. The federal government can't mandate what your employer chooses to do, based on today's ruling.

Someone correct me, If I'm wrong.

Matt

An employer can "mandate" anything they want. However, a vaccine mandate will stretch beyond the environment it is for, and, for a hazard that is not necessarily absolute.

As we read more and more about vaxed/boosterd folks still getting the virus, ya have to question the hysteria over this.

Maybe. They also get to assume full liability...

not likely. its still the employees choice to get vaccinated or leave.

total crap. even where the mandate is still in effect 1. vaccine is not experimental 2. nobody is forcing anyone to do anything 3. the "nuremberg code" is not a law

Now if I’m not mistaken, we have established the fact that vaccinated folks can still get infected and spread it? Am I correct? And if so, why is it acceptable for a vaccinated person to spread it around, but the unvaxed, need to positively mask up? What am I missing here? And please don’t tell me it’s a safety measure to protect the unvaxed.

Yes, these injections are experimental. They are only approved under the EAU.

There is no liability to the manufacturers of these injections since they are under the EAU.

So far they are proving to be ineffective and unsafe.

Take all you want. I will pass

The Pfizer vaccine received full FDA approval in August of 2021. Perhaps you missed the news.

Matt

There is no liability to the manufacturers of these injections since they are under the EAU."

false. The pfizer shot has full fda approval.

the law you claim codifies the nuremberg code does not apply. even under the vaccine mandate, nobody is being forced to take part in a medical experiment. 1. the vaccine is not experimental as it has full fda approval 2. nobody is being forced to take it anyway. everyone has the choice to walk away. may not be the choice you like, but you still have the choice.

you might have a case if people were being detained, against their will, and given a forced injection. we both know that is not happening.

Take all you want. Hell you can have mine! I’m not forcing anyone to take it or not.

There in lies the problem…. You guys still don’t get it. Have fun!

I’m just trying to figure out if I’M ignorant as hell, or has common sense completely left the building ?

Where do you get this nonsense? Let me guess, you heard it on a Joe Rogan podcast. LOL. There is only one Pfizer vaccine. They are currently working on another that is suppose to target Omicron specifically, but don't expect to have that done until March.

Matt

Same formulation and Phizer is protected against liability for both by the PREP act.

Matt

Maybe. Depends on the ability to leave, as in replaced employment. It's not as simple as you think to just job hop. If an employee "must" take the vaccine, or face termination with zero prospects to replace that employment, and there is an adverse reaction, yeah, the employer can be liable. It could be argued the employee made a choice under duress from the employer.

Simply quitting a professional, 6 figure a year job to go work at Subway making sandwiches hardly constitutes for replaced employment, especially when filing for unemployment. All you are obligated to do is apply for like-kind employment that is within the scope of your skillset and expertise...

There isn't any meaningful difference. It just means they haven't started using the vials with the new label on it, yet. Like you said, it's the same vaccine, with the same liability protections under PREP, which makes complete sense. Can you imagine the can of worms, if the liability changed just because of a labeling change?

The point is, Treeline's posts were just another example of the misinformation that is promoted by the likes of Joe Rogan and his guests. And it's a reflection of how dangerous confirmation bias has become to our society. I'm glad you don't form opinions that way.

Matt

didnt say it was simple. not all life choices are simple. if an employer requires a clean drug test, and you choose to test dirty, you are subject to termination...six figure professional position or not. you are not guaranteed a job, comparable or otherwise. choices have consequences.

please read the fda link. both the comirnaty and pfizer-bioNTech covid-19 vaccines are included in the 8.23.21 fda approval. that is a fact.

prep act has been around since 05 or so and is nothing new for the covid-19 vaccines. been used many times.

millions including me were bullied/coerced/forced into the shots

unfortunately i think that was the goal from the start.

Then don't say that if you don't like it, just quit.

"if an employer requires a clean drug test, and you choose to test dirty, you are subject to termination"

Not the same thing. Drug tests are covered under the authority of OSHA. When you sign up, you knowingly understand the consequences of testing hot. You also agree to submit to the drug test pre-employment as well as while under employment. Vaccines thrown in all of a sudden because of a democrat's narrative, yeah, not the same thing.

"...six figure professional position or not. you are not guaranteed a job, comparable or otherwise. choices have consequences."

The point was, not as easy as you think to walk away from 6 figures to go make minimum wage. Just quitting ain't an option really...

Does anyone care? It's tennis, after all. ;-)

Matt

as it stands right now, doesn't every traveler entering the united states by air have to prove vaccination? he should have to abide by the same rules as every other traveler. i guess he could always fly into mexico and walk across.

Matt

Obey? What, is this chic a Kindergarten administrator or something? The political leanings of a company's leadership will tell you what you need to know...

id say its pretty shitty reporting at Texas News Today considering what she really said...

"Our goal has always been to keep everyone at Citi, and we sincerely hope all of our colleagues take action to comply."

that reporter should issue an apology.

Obey, comply. It's just semantics and it's still the same thing...

To a point.

Members of boards for a company choose CEO's based on the investors bias. If investors tend to lean more liberal, CEO's chosen will be more liberal. If investors are more conservative, you get the idea. A liberal CEO likely won't be appointed to a fossil fuels company unless investors want that company to go more "green"...

some are real and some are fake.

"Our goal was to keep everyone in the city at all times. We sincerely hope that all our colleagues will take action to obey,”

"Our goal has always been to keep everyone at Citi, and we sincerely hope all of our colleagues take action to comply."

if you think those quotes...one real and one fake...imply the same thing i dont know what to tell you. the actual quote is simply saying that Citibank sincerely hopes to keep all their employees, therefore they hope everyone complies with the mandate.

the fake quote has a very different tone and meaning. that was the intention. if i was the person supposedly being quoted, i would be demanding a retraction and an apology.

Never once said the quotes were the same. Said the words "obey" and "comply" were. Because they are...

nope, i agree with you. it's not our job to research quotes...its just a damn shame we cant trust those whose job it is. thats why this country is in the fix its in. the people who we are supposed to trust to give us the news are pushing a narrative.

I'll take blame for posting the Texas News article with the inaccurate quote. The original article was from the WSJ. They got the quote correct. But, since WSJ requires a subscription to read, which I don't do, I decided to post the Texas News piece instead. I failed to see the inaccurate quote in it. I agree with Ricky that the editor of Texas News should issue an apology, and edit the article appropriately.

Matt

Hopefully it's true what the stats say...those that have been vaxed usually don't get hit too hard with the virus.

Then there are those that are afraid of their own shadow because don lemon and rachel maddow told them to be.

theres a number of treatments readily available...especially if early in the infection. various monoclonal antibodies and at least one antiviral are all available. early detection is always best even with more conventional treatments. besides if you are positive, wouldnt responsible adults want to know so they can try to avoid possibly infecting others?

As for your revelatory question, go back and read my post you commented on. In fact, let me help you: "Unless you need to know because of someone your associated with may have a real adverse complication from it"

Weak argument about wanting to know and the infection of others. Asymptomatic spread it also...

remdesivir

"Asymptomatic spread it also..."

which is even more of a reason to test, even if symptoms are barely noticeable.

If the treatments are effective, the "pandemic" would be over...

I can't speak to everyone's motivations, but my wife and I decided to test ourselves before her grandmother's 90th birthday party. We had been around a number of COVID positive cases over the weekend prior, and thought it prudent to test ourselves before spending time in close proximity to family that were in a higher risk category. We had no symptoms at the time, but decided to test anyway. We both tested positive and decided to abstain from the party. While this strain of the virus is obviously much less severe than others, people are still dying and we figure why take the risk. That was our rationale for testing as of late. We were not "scared" of getting the virus, and for anyone that is scared of contracting, testing themselves will do nothing to prevent them from getting the disease. The only thing it can do from a preventative perspective is to help prevent you from transmitting the disease to others.

so now everyone that gets tested is a hypochondriac? I know a number of people that have to be tested at least weekly for work....every time they travel...for medical procedures...etc. like bigeasygator said, many people choose to get tested just because it is the responsible thing to do.

"If the treatments are effective, the "pandemic" would be over..."

treatments don't stop the pandemic, they treat a person once infected.

as far as the vaccines go, they are very effective in terms of preventing hospitalizations and death. so for the vast majority of those vaccinated and boosted, the pandemic actually is over. sure, they might get infected but the chance of serious illness and death is extremely slim. thats all most people ever wanted. as far as the treatments not being that effective, monoclonal antibodies are quite effective but all in all id rather not need them. the most effective thing we have for preventing serious illness and death from covid-19 is the vaccine. thats a fact. some people choose not to take them and thats fine...but some people choose not to wear a safety harness in their bowstand too.

"The only thing it can do from a preventative perspective is to help prevent you from transmitting the disease to others."

Eventually, this will be the norm. All "diseases" are transmitted one to another. Just depends on when the so-called experts decide it's acceptable...

There are reasons to test, but I do see the irony in so many testing so often.

In all of the above my wife never tested, when I popped positive, she had same symptoms and just assumed "yup, you got it too"

Tonga Geological Services, Government of Tonga. J0an6uar1iy p1os1o0 atr 0124aldcu:20 PM · 7 Days with no further eruption from Hunga Volcano. It is now declared dormant. ---------------------------- This is a Public Notice from the Tonga Geological Services monitoring the Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai (HTHH) Eruption issued at 6:30 AM, 11/1/2022. Observations of satellite images captured between 6:00 AM, 10/01/2022 yesterday and 5:30 AM, 11/01/2022 this morning are as follows. No volcanic plume was detected during this observation period (see Figure 1). Over 7 days have passed since the last volcanic activity at Hunga-Tonga-Hunga-Ha’apai. Volcanic activity is considered to have ceased, and the volcano has reverted to its normal, non-eruptive state (see Figure 2).

agree...but when 99% of the medical community all agree on both the safety and benefit of the vaccines, is it a smart idea to believe the 1%?

But then the 1% took to YouTube and Rogan podcasts which became the alternative source of medical advice for ~30% of American adults.

My own local family practice of doctors had 5 MDs. They were 80% vaccinated as one of them, a 53 year old male, decided not to get the vaccine. He died of Covid.

That said, I am against mandates.

i stand corrected...95+%

I'm not against vaccines, just mandates.

ditto.

both what?

All I am looking for in a vaccine is preventing death.

what shots? we didn't have any covid-19 shots in 20.

However, I gotta say he gets caught up in the madness sometimes. Just blurting out things for a reaction. Think about it strin. if the first shot gave you heart problems, who’s to blame for standing inline for the second one?

Just sayin’…….

And here I thought I was the only one seeing Shawn’s hypocrisies. Thanks for confirming I was wrong.

Matt

I was put to sleep with the understanding that when I woke, my problem was going to be gone. Imagine my surprise when I awoke post surgery, to half that team hovering over my bed. Ecstatic that instead of removing the problem, they were able to “fix” it.

Two years later, the tumor they had in their hands while planning on removing, they put back inside my body. To grow and spread throughout my body. At that point, I was statistically given a 30% chance of surviving 5 years post treatment.

My whole point is I understand trusting doctors. But, I also understand not one doctor can determine your treatment minus your compliance.

I’ll pray you recover from the side affects. And, congratulate you for waking up concerning your own input in your healthcare.

"Gave me the “feel free to forego any future jabs other than than the yearly one”

so you wont get any more covid-19 shots...other than an annual covid-19 shot? how would your reaction to that one be any different than your reaction to the others?

You feeling OK, bud?

Matt

Do you need a hug, bud?

Matt