More Supreme Court Madness!!!!

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
The Supreme Court declined Thursday to take up a legal challenge brought by health care workers in New York who oppose the state’s vaccination mandate on religious grounds.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case.

When the requirement was first imposed in August to help prevent the spread of the latest coronavirus variant, it allowed exceptions based on medical reasons or religious objections. But the religious exemption was later removed.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is Roman Catholic, said that she wasn’t aware of any “sanctioned religious objection from any organized religion” and that religious leaders, including the pope, were encouraging people to get vaccinated.

Sixteen health care workers sued, saying they had religious objections because fetal cell lines were involved in the testing, development or production of Covid vaccines. They said the mandate violated their religious freedom because it allowed others who were unvaccinated to continue working.

Lawyers for the state said the Covid mandate was similar to long-standing rules requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against measles and rubella. Those requirements, too, allow exemptions only for medical reasons. Laboratory-grown stem cells, which derive from cells collected from a fetus nearly 50 years ago, were also used to test the rubella vaccine, the state said.

“The presence of a single, limited medical exemption to a vaccine requirement does not require the State to provide a blanket religious exemption from vaccination,” they said in their written submissions.

Writing for the three dissenters, Thomas said confusion remains about a mandate that provides no religious exemption, like New York’s. He said the court should have taken the case now to head off similar confusion in the future.

In December, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily block the vaccination requirement in the case. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said then that the court should have granted the request to put the mandate on hold.

Since last fall, the court has declined to block other vaccination mandates that don’t provide for religious exemptions, applying to New York teachers, Navy sailors, health care workers in Maine and Massachusetts, and college students in Indiana.


This court has been very deferential to religious freedom, but not here...

And it makes no sense. The Covid vaccination does not stop anyone from getting it or spreading it.

If it did (like with measles and rubella) that would be a different story, but it doesn't do that.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
The Supreme Court declined Thursday to take up a legal challenge brought by health care workers in New York who oppose the state’s vaccination mandate on religious grounds.

Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito and Neil Gorsuch said the court should have taken the case.

When the requirement was first imposed in August to help prevent the spread of the latest coronavirus variant, it allowed exceptions based on medical reasons or religious objections. But the religious exemption was later removed.

Gov. Kathy Hochul, who is Roman Catholic, said that she wasn’t aware of any “sanctioned religious objection from any organized religion” and that religious leaders, including the pope, were encouraging people to get vaccinated.

Sixteen health care workers sued, saying they had religious objections because fetal cell lines were involved in the testing, development or production of Covid vaccines. They said the mandate violated their religious freedom because it allowed others who were unvaccinated to continue working.

Lawyers for the state said the Covid mandate was similar to long-standing rules requiring health care workers to be vaccinated against measles and rubella. Those requirements, too, allow exemptions only for medical reasons. Laboratory-grown stem cells, which derive from cells collected from a fetus nearly 50 years ago, were also used to test the rubella vaccine, the state said.

“The presence of a single, limited medical exemption to a vaccine requirement does not require the State to provide a blanket religious exemption from vaccination,” they said in their written submissions.

Writing for the three dissenters, Thomas said confusion remains about a mandate that provides no religious exemption, like New York’s. He said the court should have taken the case now to head off similar confusion in the future.

In December, the Supreme Court declined to temporarily block the vaccination requirement in the case. Thomas, Alito and Gorsuch said then that the court should have granted the request to put the mandate on hold.

Since last fall, the court has declined to block other vaccination mandates that don’t provide for religious exemptions, applying to New York teachers, Navy sailors, health care workers in Maine and Massachusetts, and college students in Indiana.


This court has been very deferential to religious freedom, but not here...

And it makes no sense. The Covid vaccination does not stop anyone from getting it or spreading it.

If it did (like with measles and rubella) that would be a different story, but it doesn't do that.
Yep. Always smart to have Covid infected workers in the hospital. Nobody is vulnerable there.
 

Theyset.theStage

Team MVP
Sep 25, 2019
208
364
63
f4807ced5e6201615349d6e7885a0618e6edacb186065bb153d9c30318b1924a.jpg
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
You think it is a good idea for a Covid positive nurse to be working in an ER without knowing if the patients are vaccinated?

Derp.

You can be fully vaxxed and boosted and still be infected and spreading it. Literally hundreds if not thousands of our employees have had breakthrough infections.

You're arguing for mandatory COVID testing, not vaccination.
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroupThink

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
Derp.

You can be fully vaxxed and boosted and still be infected and spreading it. Literally hundreds if not thousands of our employees have had breakthrough infections.

You're arguing for mandatory COVID testing, not vaccination.
Trad. What is the purpose of the vaxx? If someone is in the hospital with a pre-existing condition has a covid positive clinical staff the chances of dying skyrocket. You think the hospital would except that. You don't live in reality. This is just because you are a little baby that had a hard time during covid with your CNAs.
 
Dec 25, 2020
1,059
1,623
113
If you dont want to follow health mandates then you probably shouldnt work in a hospital... its not hard to understand @The Tradition

When peoples lives are on the line, its not really time to be catering to some idiot bitching about vaccines whether you believe they are effective or not. Getting required vaccines are not new to healthcare.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
Trad. What is the purpose of the vaxx? If someone is in the hospital with a pre-existing condition has a covid positive clinical staff the chances of dying skyrocket. You think the hospital would except that. You don't live in reality. This is just because you are a little baby that had a hard time during covid with your CNAs.

The ONLY possible purpose of the vaccine is to protect the person who is vaccinated from severe illness or death.

IT DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM BEING INFECTIOUS!

What part of that does not compute for you?
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
If you dont want to follow health mandates then you probably shouldnt work in a hospital... its not hard to understand @The Tradition

When peoples lives are on the line, its not really time to be catering to some idiot bitching about vaccines whether you believe they are effective or not. Getting required vaccines are not new to healthcare.

Now THERE'S a great opinion grounded in science. Good job. :rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: GroupThink

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
The ONLY possible purpose of the vaccine is to protect the person who is vaccinated from severe illness or death.

IT DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM BEING INFECTIOUS!

What part of that does not compute for you?
THAT IS WHY YOU DONT HAVE POSITIVE STAFF.
 

wjr1818

Team MVP
Gold Member
Oct 20, 2020
212
269
63
The ONLY possible purpose of the vaccine is to protect the person who is vaccinated from severe illness or death.

IT DOES NOT PREVENT ANYONE FROM BEING INFECTIOUS!

What part of that does not compute for you?
Lol this 100%. You lose global hawk.
 

Aardvark86

HR MVP
Jan 23, 2018
2,276
2,512
113
Vaccine effectiveness against hospital admission with the delta variant was 97.5% (92.7% to 99.2%). Vaccine effectiveness against infection with the delta variant declined from 94.1% (90.5% to 96.3%) 14-60 days after vaccination to 80.0% (70.2% to 86.6%) 151-180 days after vaccination.

This is what the decision was based on!
I miss the flesh eating delta variant
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
Please explain how a staff COVID vaccine mandate does anything at all for infection prevention and control in a hospital?
The vaccine was 94 percent effective against Delta infection. The breakthroughs came after these decisions were made. I was on so many freakin' Zoom and Teams meetings about this crap.
 
  • Like
Reactions: fsu1jreed

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
Moron. The vaxx was very affective against infection from Delta. This is what prompted the mandate. I don't know how to explain this in your language.

Delta is soooooo 2021

Omicron is the thing now, and it easily evades immunity.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
The vaccine was 94 percent effective against Delta infection.

First of all, define "effective"... it damn sure wasn't effective at preventing infection. Just severe illness and death.

Secondly, we're not dealing with Delta today. It's Omicron. Which is really good at evading immunity and causing infection. Vaxxed, had Covid already, boosted, whatever.

The current vaccines simply do NOT prevent infection, which destroys any moral justification for a vaccine mandate.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
First of all, define "effective"... it damn sure wasn't effective at preventing infection. Just severe illness and death.

Secondly, we're not dealing with Delta today. It's Omicron. Which is really good at evading immunity and causing infection. Vaxxed, had Covid already, boosted, whatever.

The current vaccines simply do NOT prevent infection, which destroys any moral justification for a vaccine mandate.
Yes it was against infection. We can stop now. Do you really work in health care.
 

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
110,274
82,926
113
Yes it was against infection. We can stop now. Do you really work in health care.

There was a brief period when the vaccines seemed to have worked as promised.

That lasted about three months.

By September of 2021, anyone with brain realized that the vaccines were not working anymore.
 

Jan Itor

HR Legend
Jan 31, 2009
27,905
11,963
113
Trad. What is the purpose of the vaxx? If someone is in the hospital with a pre-existing condition has a covid positive clinical staff the chances of dying skyrocket. You think the hospital would except that. You don't live in reality. This is just because you are a little baby that had a hard time during covid with your CNAs.
You keep acting as if the vaccination will prevent the healthcare worker from getting and spreading Covid. With Omicron at the door, that just isn’t the case, so your argument is BS.
 

globalhawk

HR All-American
Dec 16, 2003
4,743
5,089
113
There was a brief period when the vaccines seemed to have worked as promised.

That lasted about three months.

By September of 2021, anyone with brain realized that the vaccines were not working anymore.
Are you saying the vaccine did not prevent any infections or that they didn't prevent ALL infections? You last sentence is utterly moronic.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BelemNole