Supreme Court halts COVID-19 vaccine rule for US businesses
- Thread starter cigaretteman
- Start date
The timeline on vaccine efficacy seems to have gone a little something like this:
At launch - "the vaccines are 94% effective at preventing infection."
3 months later, breakthrough cases start appearing - "It's probably more like 84%. Like we said, they're not going to provide 100% protection."
3 more months go by - "We're thinking it's closer to 78% now."
2022, Omicron is raging across the country - "Fvck it, everyone's going to get the virus at some point no matter what they do. Just get vaxxed anyway so you probably won't end up in the hospital."
At launch - "the vaccines are 94% effective at preventing infection."
3 months later, breakthrough cases start appearing - "It's probably more like 84%. Like we said, they're not going to provide 100% protection."
3 more months go by - "We're thinking it's closer to 78% now."
2022, Omicron is raging across the country - "Fvck it, everyone's going to get the virus at some point no matter what they do. Just get vaxxed anyway so you probably won't end up in the hospital."
Actually, ICU capacity is at 90%, and pretty critical right now
U.S. COVID Risk & Vaccine Tracker
Covid Act Now has real-time tracking of your community's COVID risk level. Explore how New Mexico is doing.
covidactnow.org
Firings have already started. Then they turn around and put on the TV that nurses and Doctors are overworked...
New Mexico ain't lookin' all that great (along with lots of the rest of the country)
I think you're mistaken on who made shit up in this fiasco
Methinks you cannot read statutory laws in place.
Read the article: SC justices argument was that hazards which exist BOTH within and outside the workplace are not covered by the law. Which has clearly never been the case, nor is that written in the statutes.
Reservations and Hispanic culture not big on the vaccines. What’s also interesting we have had mask mandates for almost 2 years. With only a brief 2 months last summer.
You've never been able to accept plain facts. There's no reason to think that would change now. Have you actually read the SCOTUS opinion?
Did you read the article, and dissents?
Do you understand the "selective application" of the statutes they used? Which are inconsistent with the laws as written?
The Navaho reservation is not in the "red areas" in NM....
And, FWIW, they've done a fantastic job of vaccinating in their areas.
I know someone involved in that campaign, and their vaccination rates exceed most of your "red counties".
Is this a euphemism for your penis
Again we have a situation where Joe is asked a very simple question and does not answer.
I read the SCOTUS opinion. I don't need other people to explain it to me.
The opinion was well reasoned. It doesn't matter what I think, though. 6 Justices know better than you. The other 3 weren't applying the law, they were looking out for 100,000 hospitalized children.
"we were promised"
Don't be childish. This is a new variant. Our immune systems, with or without help from vaccines, react differently to it than to the prior variants. The rules have changed.
The vaccines still confer advantage. They are still a good idea. But they aren't as good a "fit" as they were before omicron.
We were told that everyone had to be vaccinated to protect the vulnerable.
That didn't pan out at all.
It's not childish to believe what we were told. I think we were also told the vaccine would be effective against new variants. That turned out to be false.
Why exactly does it matter if they required testing at the Supreme Court hearing? Completely separate topic from the ability of OSHA to enforce testing/vaccine at employers over 100. Did their ruling prevent individual establishments or cities or states from establishing testing and vaccine rules? Heck Minneapolis and St. Paul just decided to require vaccinations or negative tests to enter dining establishments.... They are going to put a lot of places our of business, but that's the local governments decision and within their power.
It's an overreach to try shoving this PUBLIC HEALTH POLICY trough OSHA. Especially now that the vaccine doesn't prevent you from spreading Covid.
There's nothing "childish" about my post. The vaccines do little or nothing to slow the spread of Omicron. Breakthrough cases are rampant. We have more than 3x the number of new infections that we have ever had at any time, including before vaccines even existed.
Vaccine mandates were largely based on the notion that everyone who isn't vaccinated is contributing to the spread of COVID. That's an antiquated notion at this point. I agree that vaccines are still a good idea. But the best thing vaccines do now is help keep you from getting severe symptoms and ending up in the hospital or morgue. And that seems to me like a personal choice whether or not to protect yourself.
The "we were promised part" of your earlier comment was absolutely childish. "But you promised, mommy, wah, wah, wah."
I love the way you only focused on breakthroughs, and only grudgingly admit that vaccines "help keep you from getting severe symptoms and ending up in the hospital or morgue" under pressure. But, hey, at least you are finally admitting what most of us (and the scientific community) are talking about. So I guess that's an improvement.
You just blatantly misrepresented my current and past statements multiple times in that post. I've been fully vaccinated since last summer and have been quite clear for a long time that I believe they protect us from severe symptoms. That's nothing new at all. The only issue I have with the vaccines is that they currently do almost nothing to slow the spread. Omicron has been a game-changer in that one aspect. And when the game changes, you have to change your strategy.
If you're going to comment on my posts, at least make a token effort to make sure you know what the fvck you're talking about.
Your vaccination status was not discussed.
Nor do your other claims ring true when you have been attacking vaccines because they don't prevent catching omicron as well as they prevented catching delta.
That's simply a wrong-headed argument against the vaccines. First, because we all know that, and nobody is saying otherwise. Second because being less protective against omicron doesn't mean they aren't a good idea for other reasons - like lowering the risk of death.
I'm not arguing against vaccines, dumbass. I'm arguing against government entities ordering private businesses to fire employees who refuse to get vaccinated.
Again, take the time to read and comprehend my points or don't bother wasting your time and mine by replying with nonsensical horseshit. You falsely accused me of only recently and only grudgingly acknowledging that vaccines help protect against severe symptoms, hospitalization, and death. That's a blatant lie. I have never disputed that fact. Not one time ever.
Do you concur that "just because a risks exists outside the workplace", that OSHA should then not be allowed to regulate that risk WITHIN the workplace, where workers do not have a choice?
Because that is their argument. And you could certainly extrapolate this to "bloodborne pathogens" for healthcare workers, since they could be exposed outside the workplace, that OSHA could not mandate protections for them to prevent their exposure to HIV.
We were told that everyone had to be vaccinated to protect the vulnerable.
That didn't pan out at all.
Sure, protective equipment, but not mandating the pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV. No one has ever mandated that.
Hospitals are full at this time of year every year. They don't call it the well and healthy season. It's called the flu and cold season.
And don't forget. Hospitals admit according to staffing. Being full due to staffing shortages and being full to hospital capacity are 2 totally different things.
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
-
Missouri State Transfer WR Raylen Sharpe Visiting Iowa on Tuesday- Latest: Eliot Clough