Legal basis for vaccine mandates…
09-25-2021, 12:09 PM
#1
Perennial Reserve
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Jan 2018
Posts: 11,503
Legal basis for vaccine mandates…
A lot of people think that the legal mandate for vaccination is a done deal, citing an ancient 1905 Johnson vs Massachusetts case. There are some huge differences though.
Smallpox fatality rate was 30%. COVID’s is about one-eightieth of that.
A smallpox immunization lasted AT LEAST 10 years, and likely for life. Covid immunizations last maybe six months before you can be reinfected.
Even Massachusetts never mandated that those who already had had smallpox get vaccinated. Current COVID mandates don’t exempt people who have recovered from COVID - even for six months.
Mandatory vaccinations MAY stand up in court, but I wouldn’t bet my 401k on it.
Smallpox fatality rate was 30%. COVID’s is about one-eightieth of that.
A smallpox immunization lasted AT LEAST 10 years, and likely for life. Covid immunizations last maybe six months before you can be reinfected.
Even Massachusetts never mandated that those who already had had smallpox get vaccinated. Current COVID mandates don’t exempt people who have recovered from COVID - even for six months.
Mandatory vaccinations MAY stand up in court, but I wouldn’t bet my 401k on it.
09-25-2021, 02:42 PM
#3
Speed, Power, Accuracy
Joined APC: Sep 2007
Position: PIC
Posts: 1,702
Previous infection and recovery should ABSOLUTELY be authorized as a substitute for vaccination. The immunity is more durable and more complete against variants than any of the vaccines. But NOTHING will be allowed to detract from the VAX VAX VAX narrative being pushed by the Statists.
Unless a brave judge makes it happen and is ultimately validated by SCOTUS.
And a LOT has changed since 1905, especially the concept of "my body, my choice" in force since 1973.
Unless a brave judge makes it happen and is ultimately validated by SCOTUS.
And a LOT has changed since 1905, especially the concept of "my body, my choice" in force since 1973.
09-25-2021, 03:10 PM
#4
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Apr 2017
Posts: 3,595
Real simple... the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to mandate vaccines on anyone. The military and might even maybe federal workers might be the exception. But on the general population or a federal mandate via OSHA and employers onto employees? Nope, not Constitutional at all.
09-25-2021, 05:20 PM
#5
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2013
Position: C-172
Posts: 463
Originally Posted by SonicFlyer
Real simple... the Constitution doesn't authorize the federal government to mandate vaccines on anyone. The military and might even maybe federal workers might be the exception. But on the general population or a federal mandate via OSHA and employers onto employees? Nope, not Constitutional at all.
09-25-2021, 06:05 PM
#6
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,123
“‘Whatever happens, we have got, the Maxim, and they have not”
Law is what the men with an exclusive monopoly on violence says it is. Mao got that one right.
If this does become a federal mandate, only a fool would resist it. 100% serious.
The “nudge” sounds nice, but in the end, it’s really this.
Not to worry. SCIENCE!!!!
Law is what the men with an exclusive monopoly on violence says it is. Mao got that one right.
If this does become a federal mandate, only a fool would resist it. 100% serious.
The “nudge” sounds nice, but in the end, it’s really this.
Not to worry. SCIENCE!!!!
09-26-2021, 08:25 AM
#8
Prime Minister/Moderator
Joined APC: Jan 2006
Position: Engines Turn Or People Swim
Posts: 39,292
The NY teachers got an injunction, which is fairly routine in a situation where the issue in question would be hard to reverse or cannot be reversed (ie you cannot get un-vaccinated after you get vaccinated). Doesn't really speak much to the merits of the case which appear pretty clear based on precedent.
Natural immunity might actually hold up as an alternative... but the big "But" there is whether anyone can reference sufficiently robust studies and data. The standard for vaccine efficacy is formal double-blind trials. Simply referencing a bunch of third-party data without controls might not be enough.
Also you'd need suitable tests to verify that natural immunity exists... just showing antibodies that might be associated with something in the coronavirus family might not be enough.
Those are the legit technical (vice political) reasons why natural immunity hasn't really been largely accepted as vaccine-equivalent yet. We'll see what happens, but I think as more people get covid they should really look at granting some sort of passport based on demonstrated natural immunity. That's not the same as just saying you had covid, probably need some blood test(s) since individual variance can be quite high.
Natural immunity might actually hold up as an alternative... but the big "But" there is whether anyone can reference sufficiently robust studies and data. The standard for vaccine efficacy is formal double-blind trials. Simply referencing a bunch of third-party data without controls might not be enough.
Also you'd need suitable tests to verify that natural immunity exists... just showing antibodies that might be associated with something in the coronavirus family might not be enough.
Those are the legit technical (vice political) reasons why natural immunity hasn't really been largely accepted as vaccine-equivalent yet. We'll see what happens, but I think as more people get covid they should really look at granting some sort of passport based on demonstrated natural immunity. That's not the same as just saying you had covid, probably need some blood test(s) since individual variance can be quite high.
09-26-2021, 08:33 AM
#9
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
RE the united suit. It was becoming certain that UAL management was going to lose their case and be given a TRO on their mandate.
They agreed to back off it until 15 Oct at which time the judge will hear their argument. The plaintiffs have a good case here against UAL and retained a great law firm in DC, Schaerr Jaffe, to represent them.
He'll hear from both sides again then. But until such time united mandatory jab policy is on hold. Little late for those that felt "compelled" to take the poison.
MTF.
They agreed to back off it until 15 Oct at which time the judge will hear their argument. The plaintiffs have a good case here against UAL and retained a great law firm in DC, Schaerr Jaffe, to represent them.
He'll hear from both sides again then. But until such time united mandatory jab policy is on hold. Little late for those that felt "compelled" to take the poison.
MTF.
09-26-2021, 08:59 AM
#10
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
The NY teachers got an injunction, which is fairly routine in a situation where the issue in question would be hard to reverse or cannot be reversed (ie you cannot get un-vaccinated after you get vaccinated). Doesn't really speak much to the merits of the case which appear pretty clear based on precedent.
Natural immunity might actually hold up as an alternative... but the big "But" there is whether anyone can reference sufficiently robust studies and data. The standard for vaccine efficacy is formal double-blind trials. Simply referencing a bunch of third-party data without controls might not be enough.
Also you'd need suitable tests to verify that natural immunity exists... just showing antibodies that might be associated with something in the coronavirus family might not be enough.
Those are the legit technical (vice political) reasons why natural immunity hasn't really been largely accepted as vaccine-equivalent yet. We'll see what happens, but I think as more people get covid they should really look at granting some sort of passport based on demonstrated natural immunity. That's not the same as just saying you had covid, probably need some blood test(s) since individual variance can be quite high.
Natural immunity might actually hold up as an alternative... but the big "But" there is whether anyone can reference sufficiently robust studies and data. The standard for vaccine efficacy is formal double-blind trials. Simply referencing a bunch of third-party data without controls might not be enough.
Also you'd need suitable tests to verify that natural immunity exists... just showing antibodies that might be associated with something in the coronavirus family might not be enough.
Those are the legit technical (vice political) reasons why natural immunity hasn't really been largely accepted as vaccine-equivalent yet. We'll see what happens, but I think as more people get covid they should really look at granting some sort of passport based on demonstrated natural immunity. That's not the same as just saying you had covid, probably need some blood test(s) since individual variance can be quite high.
Lieutenant Colonel Theresa Long, MD, MPH, FS currently serving as the Brigade Surgeon for the 1st Aviation Brigade Ft. Rucker, Alabama responsible for certifying the health, mental and physical ability, and readiness for all 4,000 individuals on flight status on post.
The full sworn affidavit is here
https://www.deepcapture.com/2021/09/affidavit-of-ltc-theresa-long-m-d-in-support-of-a-motion-for-a-preliminary-injunction-order/
It's a good site, no spam or IP grabbers. I have the PDF somewhere, but can't find it right now.
Read her whole sworn testimony. Pretty damning.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
