Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates • Hacker News Board

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#381

Post by throwaway248329 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:13 AM UTC

olliej wrote: post #378

dgfitz wrote: post #336

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To get it out of the way, I’m fully vaxxed and I don’t think it should be mandated. No people aren’t being rounded up and stuck with needles against their will. Getting fired from a job is a big deal. Not being able to pay bills or buy food or care for a family, no health insurance, that’s a big deal. Surely you’re bright enough to distinguish between “forced full stop” or “forced and in extremely dire financial stra…

You are making a categorically, and objectively false, equivalence. But I suspect you know that. If your job requires interacting with other people, then your not being vaccinated directly risks the health and life of those people. You don't get to say "it's my choice to intentionally risk harm to others" and then say "it's illegal to stop me from doing that". For example, no one is required to be licensed as a docto…

Getting the vaccine does not stop you from spreading the virus.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#382

Post by _Understated_ » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 8:25 AM UTC

lpcvoid wrote: post #377

_Understated_ wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Vaccines should not be a personal freedom choice. I don't do personal attacks but in your case I'll make an exception: you are a fucking psychopath if you think it's ok to tell people to get a jag for something that is killing literally no one right now! We're at around 100 deaths per day right now in the UK [0] and those stats don't actually tell you if they died FROM covid or merely had covid 28 days earlier when…

Wouldn't this imply that the vaccine is physically harmful to you? There is literally no argument against it if you don't imply that. Do you think it is? I am really interested to discuss this with somebody who isn't a conspiracy theorist, so I'd be happy if you can answer.

> Wouldn't this imply that the vaccine is physically harmful to you?

I have no evidence to say that the vaccine is physically harmful to me, personally, but there are plenty of stories on the web where people in the prime of their health, have been struck down with something after taking it.

However, there is plenty of evidence to say that covid itself is not harmful at all... look at the stats - literally no one is dying!

These jags are also brand new: they're a few years old so there is ZERO data on long-term risks. None! For all we know, in a few years people may start dropping dead with heart conditions.

Now, if covid was as life-threatening to the majority of people as it is being marketed as, then I can potentially see a case where people should get it but the figures do not lie: almost no one is dying from covid.

Remember, this covid jag is a treatment for something that it's unlikely you will succumb to. So, should you get every vaccine going just in case?

Additionally, the gov wants you to keep taking it, over and over again! That will increase your long-term risk (again, zero data on the long-term effects!).

Plus, by giving in and taking it each time you're told, what kind of world are you leaving your children? They're going to have to get a medical procedure to go to the pub ffs!

So, in answer to your question about whether it's harmful... we don't know and the thing is do you really want to risk your health and that of your children for something that has almost zero chance of affecting you?

Edit: Forgot to say, the point of these jags (despite them incorrectly being called vaccines) is only to make you feel better when you catch it. Make no mistake, they DO NOT prevent infection, DO NOT prevent re-infection, DO NOT prevent spreading... so what the hell are they for? I believe that the newest strain that was discovered in South Africa was in someone with the covid jag...

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#383

Post by encryptluks2 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:15 AM UTC

hammock wrote: post #356

ufo wrote: post #355

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The studies that got the vaccines approved in the first place had to show that they were effecitive for all adults. I'm sure that with some digging it should be possible to find the data split by age group. More recently, we've also gotten data for many vaccines showing that they're also effective for children and adolescents. Lastly, another important group is the elderly. Some studies suggest that they respond more…

>More recently, we've also gotten data for many vaccines showing that they're also effective for children and adolescents. This is my principal area of concern. If I recall correctly, the studies that were submitted to FDA for approval for young children did not show improvement in hospitalizations or deaths, in fact there was not a single death in any of the groups, rather they relied on showing the jabs successfull…

Recently some of the data touted here actually showed increase death counts at times in children that were vaccinated than those that weren't.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#384

Post by encryptluks2 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:17 AM UTC

smohare wrote: post #187

bko wrote: post #3

> Doughty said the CMS lacked the authority to issue a vaccine mandate that would require more than 2 million unvaccinated healthcare workers to get a coronavirus shot. > "There is no question that mandating a vaccine to 10.3 million healthcare workers is something that should be done by Congress, not a government agency," wrote Doughty. That's a good point. You can agree that its within the federal authority to mand…

In what universe should such important public health decisions be made by elected officials largely ignorant of basic science, whom also represent also represent some of the most uneducated and misinformed people alive? There’s a reason, for example, why we don’t let the market or public opinion dictate the efficiency or safety of drugs.

And when some department of unelected officials test radioactive oatmeal on children or infects people with syphilis, we somehow ignore these issues and pretend like that it would never happen to us.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#385

Post by encryptluks2 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:21 AM UTC

spiderice wrote: post #75

0xB31B1B wrote: post #7

Garbage ruling from the least democratic branch of government in the US. The whole project of "dismantling the administrative state" of which this decision rolls up to is absolutely insane in 2021 and will lead this country to a path of ruin. This decision is part of a much larger play by Federalist Society judges to remove the ability of our government to do virtually anything.

The “least democratic branch”, as you say, just blocked a very undemocratic order in favor of just using the democratic process and going through congress. Not sure what you’re complaining about. You seem to both want more and less democracy at the same time. Just because the president is elected doesn’t make him a king, and doesn’t make anything he does democratic.

The party that claimed to be anti-authoritarian has suddenly become the party demanding authoritarianism.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#386

Post by encryptluks2 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 10:26 AM UTC

thinkingemote wrote: post #326

docflabby wrote: post #169

If we can't convince medical workers to recieve a vaccine from their peers we are doing something wrong.

This was my initial gut thought, but an employment lawyer helped me seee that most healthcare workers are not university or college educated and they are basically lower middle class. In other words most healthcare workers share the same demographics as those who currently have low uptake on the vaccine.

This assumes that only uneducated uninformed people are choosing to not get vaccinated. It couldn't possibly be that they understand natural immunity still provides immunity, or that the risk in their group and based on their health is very low, or that they've learned how bureaucracy can be used to influence the medical community... not like they had to learn about the atrocities committed by the medical community in the past, and how bureaucracy was used to promote things that are now seen as unethical and mistakes.

Or maybe they are aware of drugs that received authorization in the past and that the same companies that are making bank of the vaccines, don't have the best history with being honest and transparent.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#387

Post by bingohbangoh » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 11:42 AM UTC

javagram wrote: post #372

bingohbangoh wrote: post #338

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, that's my point -- this is unprecedented and thus falls under "Congress needs to allow these agencies to do this" _not_ "these agencies can do this by default."

Even though Congress already wrote a law that gave the agencies authority to do unprecedented actions? What I'm not seeing is engagement with the actual text of the statutes that Congress already wrote and put on the books. For instance, the OSHA Act specifically gave OSHA power to regulate "new hazards". https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/USCODE-2019-title29/html... "1) The Secretary shall provide, without regard t…

Literally any power can be constituted as appropriate under such a broad interpretation. At that point, why have congress at all?

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#388

Post by chronofar » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 12:33 PM UTC

olliej wrote: post #379

chronofar wrote: post #299

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> There is plenty of room for dissent, but it stops being “dissent” when it is simply denying reality. Ah yes of course, when the common view gets the label of “reality” dissent is no longer “dissent.” /s If only everyone could see the line in the same place, but well if that were the case I don’t suppose there’d be any dissent at all.

... cool, so if I can produce measurable numbers of objective fact is that now an opinion that is up for discussion? I mean that is a common refrain among the various anti-basic science groups, but I'm curious if that is the view you take

And it’s a common refrain of “follow the science” dogmatists to attempt to paint things as “objective facts” in a decidedly unscientific way. Just what “measurable numbers” are you referring to and what “objective facts” do you think they reveal?

You would be very hard pressed to find a self respecting scientist who calls any of their work “objective fact.” There are several ways to display views that are “anti-basic science,” and you are displaying one of them.

But to try and wrangle your question into what I think it was intending (though severely misled such that I needed the above preamble): Do I believe established high probability scientific consensus and recommendations can be discarded or disagreed with as mere opinion? Absolutely not. I am not at all “anti-basic science” in the way that you think I am. I think it’s quite possible to accept the scientific consensus on COVID as it exists so far and still argue currently against mandatory vaccinations in different settings.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#389

Post by cmh89 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:13 PM UTC

exodust wrote: post #376

cmh89 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.

> I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job The difference is you flipped the switch and decided to turn up to work without clothes. You decided to radically change your behavior and actions in the workplace. This will obviously have consequences due to your unsightly naked body offending co-workers. When someone doesn't flip any switch, but continues to work exactly as they did before, they have not done a…

The difference is totally irrelevant.

>Unvaccinated people are not suddenly shedding and dangerous, in the way a naked person is shedding pubic hairs everywhere.

Unvaccinated people are inherently dangerous. The change is that we now have the ability for them to become vaccinated people who aren't nearly as dangerous to their clients.

In June 2020, we had no choice but to have unvaccinated health care workers. Today, we do.

Re: Courts block two Biden administration Covid vaccine mandates

#390

Post by cmh89 » Thu, Dec 02, 2021, 3:18 PM UTC

refurb wrote: post #373

cmh89 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Choices have consequences. I have the choice to stop wearing clothes to my job and the consequence of that choice is that my job would fire me. The ability of the government to establish vaccination requirements is long established. It's only becoming a hot topic now because anti-science folks have been programmed to fear a safe and effective vaccine.

It's clearly not an established process since Biden's mandates is being struck down.

The court really has nothing to do with whether or not something is well-established. The judge who blocked the mandate is an ideological, inexperience trump appointee.

I'm talking about 'well-established' in that it's been happening for 200+ years. The conservative right-wing theocratic extremists that trump appointed will destroy our judicial norms for the next 50 years but that doesn't make them right.