Posted on 10/23/2021 4:44:28 AM PDT by Kaslin
Vaccine mandates are interfering with the provision of goods and services; causing shortages of experienced health care workers, of police and of firefighters; culling the ranks of the military; causing experienced intelligence officers to resign, be put on leave, or be fired; and exacerbating supply chain problems. As more mandates are imposed, more resignations, early retirements, and terminations will ensue. Predictably many otherwise served by the employees pushed out will find themselves helpless or with substandard care, resulting in preventable deaths and injuries. The rise in unemployment from the mandates will leave many able-bodied people out of work, harming them and their families, and retarding economic recovery or precipitating a recession.
There will not likely be a benefit in lives saved greater than lives lost and injuries incurred due to the mandates. There will likely be no causally provable improvement in health outcomes due to the mandates. Any incremental improvement possibly measurable from the mandates is overwhelmed by the many directly causal losses in life, health, and employment due to the labor and supply shortages brought on, at least in part, by the mandates. On balance, the mandates are poor public policy, as is mandatory vaccination and masking of children. They deprive Americans of their liberty and personal autonomy on a false, speculative promise of better health outcomes.
If the unvaccinated present a health risk at work, they likely present an even greater health risk at home, because the spread of the disease occurs most often where people tightly congregate, such as in homes. Moreover, breakthrough infections are appearing with greater frequency, albeit the overall incidence of COVID-19 is declining. It remains the case that almost all under the age of 65 survive COVID-19 and, when they do, they frequently have a fulsome immunity, equal to or greater than that attainable from vaccination. Those who are dying and will continue to die are largely outside of the work force and unaffected by the mandates (aged 65 and older).
Truth be told, almost all of us will become infected with COVID-19 over time and almost all will survive infection with strong immunity. It is likely in coming years that the virus will become less virulent. That too will aid the world in recovery. The vaccination mandates will not likely alter that course.
The anticipated OSHA rule (pending approval at OMB) will mandate all employees with few exceptions in companies that employ over 100 be vaccinated or tested weekly, or face termination. The moment the rule issues, it will face legal challenges nationwide that may well result in its invalidation. Under Section 6(c) of the OSH Act, the authority to promulgate the Emergency Temporary Standard that Biden has ordered, without opportunity for notice and comment rule making, is limited by proof not easily established and by a six-month duration. The government must prove employees are exposed to a grave COVID danger in the work place. Second, the government must prove the ETS necessary to protect employees from that grave danger.
Among the most instructive federal decisions, the Fifth Circuit’s Asbestos Info. Ass’n v. OSHA, described ETS as a “most drastic weapon,” an “extraordinary power” available only in “limited situations” and not entitled to judicial deference under the Administrative Procedure Act. OSHA has adopted an ETS nine times since 1971. Six of those nine standards were challenged in federal court, and only one survived judicial review.
The Courts give ETS a “hard look,” a higher degree of scrutiny than a rule adopted under the APA. In assessing whether a “grave danger” exists, the Courts reject speculative and uncertain evidence. The danger must be grave, i.e., life-threatening, under real world conditions and within the rule’s six-month duration. For those under 65 (the overwhelming majority of workers) the vast majority will survive COVID-19, a weighty fact against the ETS. Moreover, workers with natural immunity and those who work remotely from home, alone in a truck or car, or outside, pose no provable risk to anyone, let alone a grave risk. These are among many bases that prove the uncertainty of the risk.
Even if a grave risk were provably certain, OSHA cannot reasonably prove an ETS “necessary” to achieve the projected benefit of eliminating a grave COVID workplace risk. Employees are exposed to COVID-19 not just where they work but at home and in all other places they frequent (the grocery store, the gas station, restaurants, places of worship, theaters, airports, etc.). Most employees are under 65 and, so, will survive infection by overwhelming numbers. Thus, the ETS cannot be said to protect employees from COVID-19 exposures or reliably enable their survival. Indeed, unlike a hazardous chemical that originates in and is confined to the workplace, COVID-19 is ubiquitous making the ETS of dubious protective effect. Moreover, breakthrough infections are increasingly common. Finally, those who have natural immunity, work from home, are alone in a truck or car, or work outside present no provable workplace risk. In short, proof of ETS “necessity” is sorely lacking.
In government and in private employment, employees are also variously protected under the First Amendment and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 against religious discrimination. Consequently, workers who object to vaccination on religious beliefs may not lawfully be terminated. In addition, those with medical objections based on pre-existing conditions may not be terminated consistent with Title I of the Americans with Disabilities Act.
As cases wend their way through the courts, ultimate determinations will be reached that define protections for those who dissent from the mandates. That arduous and costly process will take time. Before it reaches its zenith, the vaccine mandate wrecking balls will tear the country apart. A favorite of Democrats, mandatory vaccination may ultimately prove their political death knell and will likely be abolished in 2022 if there is a Republican sweep of the House and Senate and a loss of key state offices to Republicans. If that transformation takes place, repeals will stem injuries but will not alleviate the suffering experienced from the mandates until that time.
I’m not taking the jab. I might lose my job in Dec in which case I could decide to retire earlier than planned. Going completely Galt is definitely something I might choose.
Or I could take any sort of job at all to keep me busy in 2022. But I’m guessing I can be back with my current job (or equivalent) within a year.
bkmk
Of course they’re tearing the country apart.
Part of the plan by President Potato-head’s Geppettos.
Except the shortages began before the vaccine mandates were ever in place. They started with the lockdowns and the payments to the unemployed and the damaged citizens.
True. The mandates are like tossing an anchor to an economy that was just getting its head above water having been nearly drowned by the lockdowns and market deformations.
The marxist left knows that their “new” system is unpopular and that people won’t just let go of the free enterprise system. They know that they must tear down the old system and create such despair that people won’t have anything to grasp onto except the “new” system...communism.
How will the private companies who have government contracts be able to put unvaccinated workers on administrative and unpaid leave be able to do this while not paying unemployment benefits? Sounds like a layoff to me.
I’m in the same situation. Thanks for standing up for liberty. I’m not capitulating either.
Trump got conned and jumped feet first into the scamdemic. Trump, acting at the behest of Fauci, did tremendous damage. The “vaccine” is Trump’s warp speed nostrum. This fact seems to be forgotten as the Chinese satrap in DC laps Trump on Covid scam misery inflicted upon the country.
This Washington DC bunch doesn’t care if their mandate brings a Greater Depression. They care zero for the people of America.
Is there an actual mandate or merely a vaccine press release?
“Trump got conned and jumped feet first into the scamdemic. Trump, acting at the behest of Fauci, did tremendous damage.”
We MUST include Pence when condemning Fauci — every time. He’s worked with Fauci before so he carries much of the blame. He knew the goblin was working against Trump and could’ve released him from the Covid Task Force at any time, but he never did.
Fauci = Pence.
Pence = Fauci.
Trump does NOT support mandates.
True, but Trump, not being a scientist, had no reason at that point to suspect that the vaccines would be largely ineffective and even somewhat dangerous.
Of course, he doesn’t. Are you trying to give him a pass for the unnecessary scamdemic misery he signed off on in 2020? I’m not. We elected him to protect us from the very same DC Uniparty Strongmen who enlisted Trump’s support in pulling off the greatest, most destructive scam in human history.
Not only Pence but the entire damnable nest of Uniparty vipers that Trump brought into his cabinet.
Trump gave Fauci the podium for an hour nearly every day to spew his bullsh&t. Fauci literally had the biggest megaphone on the planet for months.
ez wrote:
“True, but Trump, not being a scientist, had no reason at that point to suspect that the vaccines would be largely ineffective and even somewhat dangerous.”
^^^^
THIS
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.