jamesland7 t1_jeedfj2 wrote
Of course she does. Employers have ALWAYS had the right to require vaccinations
TouchDownBurrito OP t1_jeei7f9 wrote
The “top legal scholars” of this sub were adamant that it was super duper illegal, unprecedented, and tyrannical.
Chippopotanuse t1_jeer48a wrote
Trump University proves to be a sham yet again, lol.
Aside_No t1_jefr4yd wrote
Right?! Geez I wonder where they all went lmao
donkeyrocket t1_jefxzoo wrote
Certainly they needed to lend their vast expertise to other places. Criminal and constitutional law, war strategy, childhood mental and medical care, etc.
Aside_No t1_jeg0r6x wrote
Good point, I'm sure they'll be back when we need them least
[deleted] t1_jegayg3 wrote
[removed]
50calPeephole t1_jeendcq wrote
Don't remember the "popular" argument, but the only place this would have held up is that the vaccine was basically experimental and not fda approved. As soon as the vax was approved however that argument flew off the table.
jamesland7 t1_jeepja0 wrote
Except that argument was never the REAL argument, haha. The actual argument was just “fuck liberals, smart people, and acknowledging this pandemic is real”
McFlyParadox t1_jefa8bz wrote
An EUA is being approved. An EUA is authorized during public health emergencies, after all the hurdles regarding efficacy and hazards have been cleared, but the rest of the bureaucracy hasn't been completed just yet. There never were any "unapproved" vaccines or treatments floating around, at any point (excluding the times when covidiots were suggesting bleach enemas and horse de-wormer),
50calPeephole t1_jefjzdy wrote
Literally ran first in human clinical trials on the vaccine during the pandemic, so I guess you can argue both sides have valid statements.
I'm not arguing who's right here when it comes to EUA's I'm pointing out that, as a medical researcher myself, the when of requirements matters. We were still collecting data when first shots in arms were being injected under the EUA.
>Under section 564 of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (FD&C Act), when the Secretary of HHS declares that an emergency use authorization is appropriate, FDA may authorize unapproved medical products or unapproved uses of approved medical products to be used in an emergency to diagnose, treat, or prevent serious or life-threatening diseases or conditions caused by CBRN threat agents when certain criteria are met, including there are no adequate, approved, and available alternatives. The HHS declaration to support such use must be based on one of four types of determinations of threats or potential threats by the Secretary of HHS, Homeland Security, or Defense.
May authorize unapproved medical products...
The vaccine didn't get approval until much later, but essentially it still wasn't approved, and still in clinical trials. The fda's own website states this clearly. Vaccines were still in phase 3, or wide scale clinical trials looking at safety and efficacy:
https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/vaccines/emergency-use-authorization-vaccines-explained
I'm 100% with the FDA on this, the benefits outweighed the risks by far.
I'm also with the workers on this- until the vaccine is officially approved no person should be forced to take it against their will as a condition of their continued employment.
How do you negotiate the middle ground of "we need workers and we need to stop the spread?" I have no answers for that, but I do not believe that terminating employees was the right way.
3720-To-One t1_jef95v6 wrote
But then they moved goal posts.
“It was rushed through approval!”
DocPsychosis t1_jeeg01d wrote
I would assume there has to be some legitimate public safety concern, it's not a carte blanche. For instance I assume a city government couldn't compel, say, librarians to get smallpox or yellow fever vaccine given actual infectious disease risks in MA in 2023.
sord_n_bored t1_jeehnak wrote
I mean, arguing against human vaccines, a universally good thing, is a hard needle to thread. There's not really any statement to be made against it unless the employer was requiring vaccines and not offering employees reasonable time and opportunity to attain them. There also isn't any reason to expect that a state entity would tell all librarians to go get the smallpox vaccine, one because smallpox now isn't like Covid-19 now, and two because most Boston librarians are, arguably, smart enough to already have been vaccinated.
The one (and only) actual argument to be made here is about if employers have the right to force employees to get medical procedures and under what circumstances. Right now it's fine, but if you actually wanted to make this argument you'd likely say that, it may be in the future there's a medical procedure where all USPS employees need to have mail canons installed on their arms to more efficiently deliver mail.
It's a stupid argument, and also the only one that half-makes sense.
pslessard t1_jeep51h wrote
I for one would love to see a future where all USPS employees had mail cannons for arms
MammothCat1 t1_jefb5k8 wrote
Mecha postman would be a great TV show on PBS for sure.
abhikavi t1_jef7dnb wrote
> and two because most Boston librarians are, arguably, smart enough to already have been vaccinated.
Smallpox is the one that's been eradicated, right?
maranello353 t1_jeeiq8r wrote
Jacobson v massschusetts 1905. There’s one more case I can’t remember but there’s well over a century of precedent supporting mandatory vaccinations/quarantine/isolation/masking. Public health agencies/authorities have the power to implement these interventions (and they have to meet the 4 requirements established under Jacobson v Massachusetts in order to do so)
theliontamer37 t1_jeej8c1 wrote
And there it is. While what you say is true, that specific case has been abused by states to do some really fucked up things. It was used to chemically castrate the mentally ill in state hospitals for “public safety”.
downthewell62 t1_jef0dap wrote
> for “public safety”.
what are the 4 requirements
theliontamer37 t1_jef2fr5 wrote
Necessity, reasonable means, proportionality and harm avoidance
McFlyParadox t1_jefavvw wrote
>For instance I assume a city government couldn't compel, say, librarians to get smallpox or yellow fever vaccine given actual infectious disease risks in MA in 2023.
And if there ever was - somehow - an outbreak of smallpox or yellow fever, I would 100% expect librarians to be covered under any govt-mandates regarding vaccines for those diseases.
If you're going to use hypothetical arguments, at least make sure the whole thing matches, rather than picking and choosing.
Individual_Brick5537 t1_jeep0oj wrote
In this case that concern was pretty easily met. An internationally declared pandemic, and an FDA approved vaccine. The whole time, this has been so far on the side of reasonable that the opponents just looked like idiots.
[deleted] t1_jef7odi wrote
[deleted]
[deleted] t1_jeeuhlm wrote
[removed]
jamesland7 t1_jeewl5k wrote
reaper527 t1_jefvb2m wrote
> Try again: https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-approves-first-covid-19-vaccine
FTA: >For Immediate Release: August 23, 2021
considering the mandate was announced on august 16, 2021, he was right that the mandate preceded the approval. no amount of thought police removing posts changes that.
[deleted] t1_jeewpjz wrote
[removed]
ElixirCXVII t1_jeey9xu wrote
Yes, it literally is. The COVID variant updates to the vaccine's base are no different than what is done for a flu shot each year. It's not like a flu shot goes through FDA approval every year, because it is not somehow 'different' each time.
[deleted] t1_jeeyrl1 wrote
[removed]
downthewell62 t1_jef0l1t wrote
>Also I was told this was unlike the flu. So now it is?
You realize the comparison is to the flu shot, and how the flu shot is updated every near - not a comparison to the flu sickness, right? I assume you have to just be TRYING to be difficult and dumb.
But pray tell me, what "version" of the vaccine did most people take?
OverlordLork t1_jef03b4 wrote
>Also I was told this was unlike the flu. So now it is?
This is the problem with so much political discourse these days. You're not trying to engage with the ideas here, you're trying to score hypocrisy points. You're bringing up a completely different time that different people were talking about a different comparison between covid and the flu, and using that in an attempt to discredit a perfectly reasonable comparison between covid and the flu.
reaper527 t1_jeftyyd wrote
> Of course she does. Employers have ALWAYS had the right to require vaccinations
they ALWAYS had the right to impose new, arbitrary mandates as a term of employment without negotiating it into the labor contracts of union workers?
this is a massive powergrab that the court just rubberstamped.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments