TouchDownBurrito OP t1_jeei7f9 wrote
Reply to comment by jamesland7 in SJC rules Mayor Wu had the authority to require municipal workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine - The Boston Globe by TouchDownBurrito
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!”
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments