rickair7777

That might matter IF an employer specified that you get an EUA vaccine. But as far as I know, no employer says that you MUST get a vaccine, but it MUST NOT be pfizer.

So EUA is OBE.

Gov mandates provide POLITICAL top cover for sure, in that managers can deflect the blame, hate, and discontent and not be seen as the bad guy.

But liability protections are already baked into the system, very much so for fully approved vaccines.


Possibly, if an employer mandated a not-fully-approved vaccines (mfgs are protected even for EUA, due to PREP act).

But you'd also have to show that you actually got harmed.

That's a beyond ludicrous statement. Much as you may want to BELIEVE, the covid vaccines (in the US) are pretty clearly well within the normal tolerances for vaccine safety.

Tobacco OTH has obvious health ramifications for a large majority of chronic users. And it;s addictive.

Asbestos was actually blown out of proportion... it's slightly hazardous for sustained occupation exposure, but the REAL risk from asbestos comes from a COMBINATION of occupational exposure AND smoking. Of course 50+ years ago, most people smoked (blue collar workers even more so).

MiLtoMajor123

Rick....what is OBE?

Do you agree or disagree that you CAN NOT get a fully FDA approved (non EUA) Covid 19 shot in the US? Last time I checked....you still can not get the Corminaty labeled shot anywhere in the US. Wait...did you memory hole the "Fully approved shot not readily available" thread? Where did that go?

Drum

To all this I will simply refer to Sen Ron Johnson's August letter to Dr Woodcock. Of particular I would like to point out his question 2:

2) How are the Comirnaty and Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccines “legally distinct” and what
are the “certain differences”?


To date Dr Woodcock, or anyone else at the FDA, has answered this question. Wonder why.

So no Rick; EUA is not OBE. It is very much legally in play. Any person of intellect would get this.

If you are part of the mandating of the EUA (which is what's been pumped out to people to date in the USA) I hope you are searching for a good attorney.

OBE = Overcome By Events
A military acronym and part of the lexicon of the services

ThumbsUp

Just do a 2 second internet search. It doesn’t matter whether it’s EUA or not. Companies can mandate them and you wouldn’t be successful in suing them for an adverse reaction. The mechanism for recourse is the CICP for EUA vaccines and VICP for approved (non-COVID vaccines). While the PREP Act is in force, even the approved COVID vaccines fall under VICP.
Once the government has vouched for their safety, it eliminates a company’s liability. This has been addressed by ALPA, DOJ, the Houston Methodist case and the list goes on…

Nordhavn

This is 100% false. You cannot force your employees to take EUA products.

Av8rPHX

There is no chance any of this nonsense ends before 20JAN25 is there? Might as well just embrace the suck


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

ThumbsUp

No you can’t. A private employer can’t force them, just as they can’t force people to do any number of things, but can fire them if they don’t comply as long as the activity in question isn’t illegal. This isn’t a big trade secret. Just look at the Houston Methodist case in which the plaintiffs lost on those grounds or any number of legal opinions on this.

MiLtoMajor123

Currently on appeal with the 5th circuit court of appeals. You would think a Stay would be in order given it's a medical procedure.......

ThumbsUp

I’m sure they are appealing it, since they didn’t like the outcome, but it’s been months. I can’t even find the text of the appeal, although I know they were based on Abbot’s anti-mandate policy. That’s a different issue, though.

Like I said, just look at the internet. I think you’d actually be hard-pressed to find a legitimate source that says it’s an problem for the employer in terms of a mandate of EUA vs non-EUA vaccines.

MiLtoMajor123

besides the Texas case.....is there past precedent with mandates with EUA vaccines? What if it was proven that they weren't actually vaccines at all .....but a therapeutic? Makes sense why definitions have been changing lately....... it would undercut the 1905 case would it not?