Legal basis for vaccine mandates…
09-26-2021, 09:31 PM
#21
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by Excargodog
Except chickenpox DOESN’T inevitably have lifelong immunity - it simply goes dormant in the host. Eventually when immunity wanes - naturally acquired or from immunization - it does recur as shingles, which CAN be transmitted to chickenpox susceptible. And shingles occurs in almost one-third of people over the course of their lifetime, sometimes multiple recurrences.
https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html
and although zostavax is 50% efficacious and two shots of shingrix are 90% efficacious, nobody mandates that anyone get them and immunization rates even in the elderly are only about 35% in the Anglo population, much less in Hispanics and Blacks. Yet nobody seems to be going in high dudgeon about it, even though it can be a serious disease.
https://www.cdc.gov/shingles/surveillance.html
and although zostavax is 50% efficacious and two shots of shingrix are 90% efficacious, nobody mandates that anyone get them and immunization rates even in the elderly are only about 35% in the Anglo population, much less in Hispanics and Blacks. Yet nobody seems to be going in high dudgeon about it, even though it can be a serious disease.
Seniors would reasonably NOT be granted an immunity passport based on childhood chickenpox infection. But since seniors don't tend to spread it to other seniors (or anyone else), it's a moot point. Kids on the other hand do spread chickenpox so immunity status matters.
Originally Posted by Excargodog
And of course for those who develop varicella pneumonia, the case fatality figures rival those of smallpox - approaching 10-30%. .
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732098/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2732098/
Almost everyone who gets that is immune compromised.
09-26-2021, 10:49 PM
#22
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Vaccine performance been quantified, in accordance with accepted processes which bureaucrats can hang their hats on.
I'm not saying natural immunity isn't a thing, I'm saying there's not an established bureaucratic path to recognize it without some specific testing. Somebody has to make a decision to go there, and that somebody is not me.
It could be done, it's common enough with chickenpox, but obviously we have a lot of experience with that bug...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac...c-immunity.htm
But we're not talking about forced sterilization here, that's a red herring. If the lawyers use THAT in their argument they'd probably get tossed out on the sidewalk.
Don't waste that on me, save it for the SCOTUS hearing. I'm not telling you what's right or wrong, I'm just telling you what's probably going to happen legally.
Yes, yes given all of the lawsuits filed some plaintiff somewhere will find some fringe circuit judge to give them a favorable interim ruling, which will of course be appealed.
It will go to SCOTUS, and they will accept the case (or one of them anyway) given the gravity and import of the situation. So the real question is do you think the conservatives on the big bench will throw this one out? Conventional wisdom (from reputable and fairly conservative sources) is that Biden's mandate will survive challenges intact or mostly intact. Nothing we say here will affect that. Personally I think the safety valve is that there is NO vaccine mandate whatsoever, so you can't litigate something that doesn't exist. Lets unwad our panties and recall that you can simply get tested instead of vaccinated... nobody even has to lose their job (unless you're a truly committed anti-vaxxer who flies widebodies to foriegn countries who enact an actual *mandate*).
So really the only arguments left are:
1) Can private entities fire people who don't get vaccinated... lot's of precedent for yes on that. Vaccine performance numbers don't matter much (people can be required to get the flu shot, which can have much lower efficacy than the covid vaccines). Vaccine safety numbers could actually matter, but the vaccines are certified and demonstrated to be statistically quit safe. You can trot out the VAERS database to try to fool people on APC but that won't work in court
2) Is it fair for the government to mandate covid tests for anti-vaxxers
Still be interesting to watch.
I'm not saying natural immunity isn't a thing, I'm saying there's not an established bureaucratic path to recognize it without some specific testing. Somebody has to make a decision to go there, and that somebody is not me.
It could be done, it's common enough with chickenpox, but obviously we have a lot of experience with that bug...
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd-vac...c-immunity.htm
But we're not talking about forced sterilization here, that's a red herring. If the lawyers use THAT in their argument they'd probably get tossed out on the sidewalk.
Don't waste that on me, save it for the SCOTUS hearing. I'm not telling you what's right or wrong, I'm just telling you what's probably going to happen legally.
Yes, yes given all of the lawsuits filed some plaintiff somewhere will find some fringe circuit judge to give them a favorable interim ruling, which will of course be appealed.
It will go to SCOTUS, and they will accept the case (or one of them anyway) given the gravity and import of the situation. So the real question is do you think the conservatives on the big bench will throw this one out? Conventional wisdom (from reputable and fairly conservative sources) is that Biden's mandate will survive challenges intact or mostly intact. Nothing we say here will affect that. Personally I think the safety valve is that there is NO vaccine mandate whatsoever, so you can't litigate something that doesn't exist. Lets unwad our panties and recall that you can simply get tested instead of vaccinated... nobody even has to lose their job (unless you're a truly committed anti-vaxxer who flies widebodies to foriegn countries who enact an actual *mandate*).
So really the only arguments left are:
1) Can private entities fire people who don't get vaccinated... lot's of precedent for yes on that. Vaccine performance numbers don't matter much (people can be required to get the flu shot, which can have much lower efficacy than the covid vaccines). Vaccine safety numbers could actually matter, but the vaccines are certified and demonstrated to be statistically quit safe. You can trot out the VAERS database to try to fool people on APC but that won't work in court
2) Is it fair for the government to mandate covid tests for anti-vaxxers
Still be interesting to watch.
Where's your proof on that outside the DoD? Or orgs affiliated with it?
I'm not taking either about shots that have been around for decades.
Show me in the last 50 years where an employer, outside the USG, like say McDonald's, has mandated this type of rushed jab and fired employees for not complying.
There is none.
So much for that claim you made eh?
09-27-2021, 06:27 AM
#23
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by Drum
You're hopelessly twisting in the wind with this word salad of a grasping at straws post Rick.
Where's your proof on that outside the DoD? Or orgs affiliated with it?
I'm not taking either about shots that have been around for decades.
Show me in the last 50 years where an employer, outside the USG, like say McDonald's, has mandated this type of rushed jab and fired employees for not complying.
There is none.
So much for that claim you made eh?
Where's your proof on that outside the DoD? Or orgs affiliated with it?
I'm not taking either about shots that have been around for decades.
Show me in the last 50 years where an employer, outside the USG, like say McDonald's, has mandated this type of rushed jab and fired employees for not complying.
There is none.
So much for that claim you made eh?
FDA approved probably = "not rushed" for legal purposes. But no point in debating it here, that's peeing in the wind either way lets wait and see.
09-27-2021, 08:22 AM
#24
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,504
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes I know all that, and it's neither here nor there. My reference (if your read it) was for kids. Senior citizens don't usually get asked to show chickenpox immunity before they go to daycare, summer camp, etc.
Seniors would reasonably NOT be granted an immunity passport based on childhood chickenpox infection. But since seniors don't tend to spread it to other seniors (or anyone else), it's a moot point. Kids on the other hand do spread chickenpox so immunity status matters.
Almost everyone who gets that is immune compromised.
Seniors would reasonably NOT be granted an immunity passport based on childhood chickenpox infection. But since seniors don't tend to spread it to other seniors (or anyone else), it's a moot point. Kids on the other hand do spread chickenpox so immunity status matters.
Almost everyone who gets that is immune compromised.
But my point (including the Buck vs Bell decision) is that the legal situation is largely unprecedented and even the 1905 SCOTUS decision may not stand up to future litigation. Many rulings from that era and later have been overturned. There is real speculation that this court may modify or overturn the far more recent Roe vs Wade. And we have more lawyers per capital than ever before.
I simply don’t believe the legal status of mandates is as decided as some people believe. I think we’ll be seeing lawsuits for the next half decade over actions taken by governments and companies in response to or fear of COVID, and exactly how the courts will ultimately rule on them is not written in stone by a 115 year old precedent relating to a disease with 80 times the case-fatality rate and a vaccine that didn’t require frequent boosting. Just the issue of ‘is a vaccine mandate the least intrusive method of satisfying the governments purpose’ is a very real legal issue.
YMMV
09-27-2021, 08:58 AM
#25
Gets Everyday Off
Joined APC: Aug 2016
Position: Relaxed
Posts: 6,948
And, of course, when asked about being vaccinated for all the standard childhood diseases, I say no. I had them all. Included in that is having mumps, twice. I gave it to myself within a week of my first infection, in a second gland, before building immunity. So, of the 5 typical childhood diseases, I had 6. Yes, I am old.
09-27-2021, 09:48 AM
#26
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,293
Originally Posted by Excargodog
The point is that all people who have had chickenpox (and have been vaccinated against it - it’s a live virus vaccine) - are chickenpox carriers and ~30% will develop shingles sometime in their lives WHICH MOST DEFINITELY CAN GIVE OTHERS CHICKENPOX.
But in practice old folks with shingles don't spread chickenpox.
Small children spread chickenpox to other kids because their hygiene sucks, and the rash is all over their body including their face. Shingles typically manifests in one area on the torso, which is normally covered up and old folks know to wash their hands.
That's why chickenpox vaccine, or proof of prior infection, is commonly required for childhood activities. But it's not required for senior citizens to leave their house, go for a walk, go to the store BECAUSE THEY DON'T ACTUALLY SPREAD IT IN THE REAL WORLD so nobody cares.
But why are we debating this, the whole point was that there IS a precedent for natural immunity in lieu of vaccination, where vaccination would otherwise be required. It's in the childhood context ONLY and it works great IN THAT CONTEXT. What happens 60 years later is moot because shingles patients are not a significant vector.
09-28-2021, 03:28 PM
#27
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jul 2018
Posts: 704
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-58680204
Let’s translate the headline: 2/3s of infections are amongst the vaccinated….. and the UK has been consistently 2 months ahead of us through this thing. It will be interesting to see how they change narratives here IF the same thing happens here!
Let’s translate the headline: 2/3s of infections are amongst the vaccinated….. and the UK has been consistently 2 months ahead of us through this thing. It will be interesting to see how they change narratives here IF the same thing happens here!
09-28-2021, 09:46 PM
#28
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,504
Originally Posted by Desdi
https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-wales-58680204
Let’s translate the headline: 2/3s of infections are amongst the vaccinated….. and the UK has been consistently 2 months ahead of us through this thing. It will be interesting to see how they change narratives here IF the same thing happens here!
Let’s translate the headline: 2/3s of infections are amongst the vaccinated….. and the UK has been consistently 2 months ahead of us through this thing. It will be interesting to see how they change narratives here IF the same thing happens here!
https://www.cdc.gov/hiv/pdf/group/msm/cdc-hiv-msm.pdf
Similarly, Anybody CAN become infected and die with COVID-19, but the people who do are OVERWHELMINGLY the aged, and while immunizations improve those odds, they don’t stop elderly people - immunized or not - from getting sick and dying of COVID.
Age alone is such a huge attributable risk that even all the comorbidities pale in comparison and, yeah, anyone CAN die of COVID but COVID deaths in those under 18 literally get lost in the noise. And for those 18-30, it is scarcely much worse.
Nuance matters. As a society we are paying a huge price to try to keep the elderly from dying. That is reality. More kids are going to die of a whole lot of other things, like influenza, respiratory syncytial virus, bicycle accidents, drowning in swimming pools, etc., than are ever going to die of COVID.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/th...ion/ar-AAOSvNp
09-29-2021, 04:00 AM
#29
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Where is there a precedent that lawyers get to decide what's "rushed"? There is none.
FDA approved probably = "not rushed" for legal purposes. But no point in debating it here, that's peeing in the wind either way lets wait and see.
FDA approved probably = "not rushed" for legal purposes. But no point in debating it here, that's peeing in the wind either way lets wait and see.
09-29-2021, 05:04 AM
#30
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2008
Posts: 910
Originally Posted by Drum
THen create some poison. Force it on a scared ****less, neurotic and mentally challenged populace. If they resist, you know the smart ones, then take their livelihoods from them.
These people where dead anyway.
These people where dead anyway.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
