![US Appeals Court Affirms [Hold on] Mandate](/iconimages/covid19/us-appeals-court-affirms-hold-mandate_ltr.gif)
US Appeals Court Affirms [Hold on] Mandate
12-07-2021, 02:13 PM
#171
Banned
Joined APC: Sep 2015
Position: 3+ hour sit in the ATL
Posts: 1,982
Originally Posted by rickair7777
I just watch the games, bro. I don't track the covid fallout 
12-07-2021, 02:33 PM
#172
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2018
Posts: 2,382
Originally Posted by Drum
That's not how this works. What was premise for United's mandates? That's right, they were lead turning the Fed and OSHA. When Kirby is sworn under oath, he will have to admit this otherwise perjure himself. United jumped the shark and are going to pay.
The problem you will have at United is that you guys VOLUNTEERED to take the jab. Kirby bluffed you and you folded like a cheap suit. That is the issue any judge will have with you.
But I fully support YOUR decision to do what you think is best for you.
United is going to eat some lawsuits when people press it, and they are.
The problem you will have at United is that you guys VOLUNTEERED to take the jab. Kirby bluffed you and you folded like a cheap suit. That is the issue any judge will have with you.
But I fully support YOUR decision to do what you think is best for you.
United is going to eat some lawsuits when people press it, and they are.
Actually that’s wrong. United’s basis had nothing to do with the federal mandates. It was employee safety and schedule disruption. BTW, I don’t agree with the mandates, I’m just saying this injunction doesn’t have much weight as it relates to United.
12-07-2021, 02:35 PM
#173
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by rickair7777
They are susceptible, but less susceptible than unvaccinated.
After 4 months you’re only 40% less susceptible. After 7 months you’re not any more or less susceptible whatsoever. If you’re over the age of 50 you’re actually MORE susceptible being vaccinated after 7 months than the unvaccinated, unless you want to get a booster twice a year for the rest of your life.
You can choose to ignore the data if you want, but that last data point supports the reason why the most vaccinated areas in the U.S. and the rest of the world mostly have the worst Covid numbers, with very few exceptions.
Last edited by Thedude86; 12-07-2021 at 03:01 PM.
12-07-2021, 02:52 PM
#174
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by rickair7777
Yes the whole thing was grossly politicized, Exhibit A is the 180* post-election flip-flop on *both* sides in attitude towards the vaccines.
Do your own homework, and I'd suggest not relying on biased, agenda-fueled partisan media outlets. Or FB.
Do your own homework, and I'd suggest not relying on biased, agenda-fueled partisan media outlets. Or FB.
I also don’t think conservatives or republicans would be so hard core against vaccines if it wasn’t for the mandates. That’s really what irks most of us. Even Joey Bribes was against mandates earlier this year. Not so much anymore.
12-07-2021, 03:23 PM
#175
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Aug 2010
Position: 75/76, C-5
Posts: 322
Originally Posted by Drum
They can't make you test in lieu of either.
Again, please go read the case.
I'll paraphrase the legalese:
You can't punish an employee or force them to take any in-lieu-of measures contrary to their personal choice vis-a-vis vaccination for COVID.
The Fed mandate, effective today legally does not exist. No company can legally mandate it (well they couldn't before, this case just affirms that).
You're also missing a key point. The Fed gov DID mandate what private companies, who perform on government contracts, must do if they wanted to continue to perform on contracts or gain new ones. Of course a private company could stop performance on the contract, proabably get fined for failure to complete, but they would out from under the Fed mandate. Also a company could decide to never work a fed contract. Thus rendering the fed mandate moot as well (thus the 3 pronged mandate assault from OSHA and CMS). This is also a monkey wrench in Austin's debacle at the DoD.
The teeth is that an employee can sue now if wrongfully terminated. There are multiple thousands of wrongful termination and other type suits lined up waiting for this ruling.
So yeah if the company wants to get sued, sure, mandate away. I doubt it though as they lost their top cover from uncle sugar.
Again, please go read the case.
I'll paraphrase the legalese:
You can't punish an employee or force them to take any in-lieu-of measures contrary to their personal choice vis-a-vis vaccination for COVID.
The Fed mandate, effective today legally does not exist. No company can legally mandate it (well they couldn't before, this case just affirms that).
You're also missing a key point. The Fed gov DID mandate what private companies, who perform on government contracts, must do if they wanted to continue to perform on contracts or gain new ones. Of course a private company could stop performance on the contract, proabably get fined for failure to complete, but they would out from under the Fed mandate. Also a company could decide to never work a fed contract. Thus rendering the fed mandate moot as well (thus the 3 pronged mandate assault from OSHA and CMS). This is also a monkey wrench in Austin's debacle at the DoD.
The teeth is that an employee can sue now if wrongfully terminated. There are multiple thousands of wrongful termination and other type suits lined up waiting for this ruling.
So yeah if the company wants to get sued, sure, mandate away. I doubt it though as they lost their top cover from uncle sugar.
The DoD will be able to enact it cause of worldwide capabilities and effectiveness. Case in point, I land in Germany, and lodging says no rooms you need a non-a… every hotel wants only fully vaccinated or fully vax’d with rapid test. One crew member isn’t vaccinated now you’re affecting alert and mission times etc. ask me how I know….
Mongo
12-07-2021, 03:53 PM
#176
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2020
Position: Enoch Powell Enthusiast
Posts: 2,141
Nothing inspires trust in "science" like
1. Blanket immunity from liability for manufacturers making billions and billions
2. 55 years before the "science" data will be fully released for peer review (wait, what?)
3. Promises from the absolute highest ranking politicians being advised by the "best scientists/TOP MEN" that you'll be protected AND the vaccine won't be mandated.
4. Take this shot or lose your job. Because you don't have a right to your job.
1. Blanket immunity from liability for manufacturers making billions and billions
2. 55 years before the "science" data will be fully released for peer review (wait, what?)
3. Promises from the absolute highest ranking politicians being advised by the "best scientists/TOP MEN" that you'll be protected AND the vaccine won't be mandated.
4. Take this shot or lose your job. Because you don't have a right to your job.
Last edited by DeltaboundRedux; 12-07-2021 at 04:08 PM.
12-07-2021, 06:22 PM
#177
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Mar 2020
Posts: 454
Originally Posted by Thedude86
After 4 months you’re only 40% less susceptible. After 7 months you’re not any more or less susceptible whatsoever. If you’re over the age of 50 you’re actually MORE susceptible being vaccinated after 7 months than the unvaccinated, unless you want to get a booster twice a year for the rest of your life.
=12pts.
12-07-2021, 07:29 PM
#178
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by Nvrgofullretard
do you have a source? Please provide a legitimate peer reviewed source document. Not a partisan propaganda news outlet. Thanks
Not peer reviewed yet, but it has been submitted. From the Swedish Ethical Review Authority. I doubt they’re a propagandist site. Data gathered from their Covid registries nationwide. Almost 1.7 million people. Not a random hospital the CDC found in Kentucky with 20 patients.
The highlights are on the main page. After 210 days no effectiveness in anyone. If you want to see the data on negative effectiveness after 7 months in people over 50 you have to download the PDF.
If you won’t believe the reality unless it’s peer reviewed… well… if you’re still alive in 2076 you’ll get your answer when the FDA releases the vaccine data. Until then, only the drug companies and the FDA will have that information.
12-07-2021, 07:52 PM
#179
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jun 2017
Posts: 1,109
Originally Posted by DeltaboundRedux
Nothing inspires trust in "science" like
1. Blanket immunity from liability for manufacturers making billions and billions
2. 55 years before the "science" data will be fully released for peer review (wait, what?)
3. Promises from the absolute highest ranking politicians being advised by the "best scientists/TOP MEN" that you'll be protected AND the vaccine won't be mandated.
4. Take this shot or lose your job. Because you don't have a right to your job.
1. Blanket immunity from liability for manufacturers making billions and billions
2. 55 years before the "science" data will be fully released for peer review (wait, what?)
3. Promises from the absolute highest ranking politicians being advised by the "best scientists/TOP MEN" that you'll be protected AND the vaccine won't be mandated.
4. Take this shot or lose your job. Because you don't have a right to your job.
Shows Pfizer has signed 73 government contracts around the world for their vaccines. Only 5 of them have been made public. All 5 show that Pfizer is free of liability. Several countries walked away from that deal at first, but later agreed to it. My guess is Pfizer didn’t initially bring their lobbying (bribing) A game. Other leaked contract language shows that the governments can not make known their relationship or comment on the existence of their relationship with Pfizer.
That combined with not knowing the vaccine data for 55 years is no reason for concern. Just take the heart inflamma… I mean vaccine. Nothing to worry about.
Last edited by Thedude86; 12-07-2021 at 08:04 PM.
12-07-2021, 09:14 PM
#180
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2006
Position: This side of the dirt.
Posts: 891
Originally Posted by rickair7777
The jab works fine. It doesn't work as well for delta, but it still keeps you out of the hospital.
99% survival means 1% of 330 million would die in the US, so 3.3M. US annual deaths for 2019 (pre-covid so it should be accurate) was 2.8M. So if everybody got covid with no vaccines over a 2-3 year period that would be a very large increase in mortality for that period. Too scary for many people. Also delta is getting more working age people, who don't have the luxury of hiding at home like retirees... I personally know three of those in my circle since Aug. Prior to Aug, I only knew one covid death, a senior who was terminal in hospice anyway.
I agree that natural immunity is better, and the best is natural + vaccine. Wife and I have the later, and are postponing boosters for at least a year based on that.
99% survival means 1% of 330 million would die in the US, so 3.3M. US annual deaths for 2019 (pre-covid so it should be accurate) was 2.8M. So if everybody got covid with no vaccines over a 2-3 year period that would be a very large increase in mortality for that period. Too scary for many people. Also delta is getting more working age people, who don't have the luxury of hiding at home like retirees... I personally know three of those in my circle since Aug. Prior to Aug, I only knew one covid death, a senior who was terminal in hospice anyway.
I agree that natural immunity is better, and the best is natural + vaccine. Wife and I have the later, and are postponing boosters for at least a year based on that.
Theyve made boosters safe, accessible, and free and youre holding off? Someone who’s patience is “running thin” is gonna run out!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
