What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

Covfefe-19 The 12th Part: The Only Thing Worse Than This New Board Is TrumpVirus2020

Status
Not open for further replies.
Current cumulative yearly excess deaths at:

> 2020: +13.6%
> 2021: +15.0% (estimated)

FI7yUG6VIAEij2w
 
Vaccinations don't work. That's why I heard a report this morning on police officers having a culture of not getting vaccinated. Then I saw this this morning online.

Covid-19 was the leading cause of death for police officers in the U.S. for the second year in a row, a new report found. 301 law enforcement officers died in the line of duty because of direct exposure to the virus, it said.
Click to expand...
 
ScoobyDoo said:
Vaccinations don't work. That's why I heard a report this morning on police officers having a culture of not getting vaccinated. Then I saw this this morning online.
Click to expand...

The news also pointed out the number of shooting deaths. Which was 1/5 the number of COVID deaths. (+300 vs. 61)

Imagine the news if those were reversed. The country would be in a major panic over cop deaths.

Then again, we have passed the total deaths from the Civil War in just about 2 years of COVID, and people still want to pretend this isn't a big deal. I'm sure jebbers will try to say those cops has underlying problems. Too many doughnuts.
 
MissThundercat said:
Cool. Go ahead and take Spiro and other anti- androgens for C-19. I'll be over here laughing my *** off when these people can't get it up anymore.


https://www.mediamatters.org/coronav...sgender-health
Click to expand...

And like 3 days ago a different doctor on Faux was saying to use Viagara. (of course made by Pfizer)

Part of me thinks drug companies are paying these doctors to lie about them to get people to take drugs that tend to not be big sellers.
 
Last edited:
Mayor of Boston employee vax mandate was upheld in court yesterday. Don't have the 1st jab by Sat you're out; don't have the 2nd jab by Feb 15 same result.
 
I thought once you got Covid once, you were immune?

Huh.

I guess, just like vaccines, natural immunity doesn't work. So much for trusting my immune system.
 
SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
  • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
  • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.
 
Swansong said:
SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
  • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
  • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.
Click to expand...

The primary problem the OSHA regulation is going to have is the arbitrariness of it. Like so much of the response to the covid pandemic, it's just someone in a position of authority pulling something out of their azz and declaring that's the rule. Like standing six feet away or five days without symptoms instead of 10.

Congress has granted to OSHA rulemaking authority to address safety issues in the workplace. That's fine, and even necessary. We wouldn't want Congress to have to come up with and decide all of the rules on their own.

But when OSHA says something like this rule only applies to employers with more than 100 employees, it completely undercuts the need for the rule.

For instance, I suspect there are many OSHA rules that apply to employers who have their employees work in trenches, a very dangerous work condition because of the possibility of collapse.

But what if OSHA just said, "this only applies to employers with at least 100 employees." If that's the case, how necessary really is the rule? How dangerous is the condition that OSHA is trying to address.

Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.
 
SJHovey said:
Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.
Click to expand...

That would be a interesting twist- trying to give some relief for the small companies in the intent, but forcing it because you can't give small companies legal outs for a safety item.
 
Interesting observation in the local news- it was about the large amount of stuff confiscated trying to cross the US-Canada border in Michigan.

While it wasn't mentioned, there was a picture of bottles that said "Ivermectin" on it, along with a lot of characters that are from an Asian language- would guess Chinese.

Ivermectin has made such an impact that it's being smuggled into the US.
 
MichVandal said:
The news also pointed out the number of shooting deaths. Which was 1/5 the number of COVID deaths. (+300 vs. 61)

Imagine the news if those were reversed. The country would be in a major panic over cop deaths.

Then again, we have passed the total deaths from the Civil War in just about 2 years of COVID, and people still want to pretend this isn't a big deal. I'm sure jebbers will try to say those cops has underlying problems. Too many doughnuts.
Click to expand...

I saw a stat somewhere to the effect of, "for people under 40, more Americans have died from COVID than have been murdered in the entire time they've been alive."
 
Swansong said:
SCOTUS released two COVID-related decisions. Both aren't final, they're effectively whether or not to stay the OSHA and CMS mandates for vaccination/test while the actual cases work their way through the lower courts.
  • CMS: Rules upheld. Healthcare orgs that receive federal funds (so... virtually all of them) will require vaccines for all staff.
  • OSHA: Rules stayed. Vaccine-or-test mandate is on hold until the case is finally decided.
I've been reading a lot about the OSHA case, as the CMS case seemed fairly open and shut (and Kavanaugh and Roberts both voted to uphold it as well as the liberals). Per the constitution, Congress is supposed to be the governing body regarding these laws, but they've delegated entirely to OSHA, which is under the Executive branch. The legal challenge is entirely questioning whether they've delegated this to OSHA. It's a good legal question, as OSHA has never tried doing something exactly like requiring a vaccine or test program. I'm not terribly surprised that SCOTUS ordered the stay on enforcement and it may or may not mean anything for the mandate itself.
Click to expand...

The reasoning the SCOTUS used was absolute nonsense. They said this wasn't strictly a workplace hazard. Think about that for a second. It's the dumbest logic I've ever seen from this court.
 
It definitely is in some industries, but considerably less so than others. I don't know how you have different rules for different sectors without lawsuits though.
 
SJHovey said:
The primary problem the OSHA regulation is going to have is the arbitrariness of it. Like so much of the response to the covid pandemic, it's just someone in a position of authority pulling something out of their azz and declaring that's the rule. Like standing six feet away or five days without symptoms instead of 10.

Congress has granted to OSHA rulemaking authority to address safety issues in the workplace. That's fine, and even necessary. We wouldn't want Congress to have to come up with and decide all of the rules on their own.

But when OSHA says something like this rule only applies to employers with more than 100 employees, it completely undercuts the need for the rule.

For instance, I suspect there are many OSHA rules that apply to employers who have their employees work in trenches, a very dangerous work condition because of the possibility of collapse.

But what if OSHA just said, "this only applies to employers with at least 100 employees." If that's the case, how necessary really is the rule? How dangerous is the condition that OSHA is trying to address.

Strangely enough, OSHA would probably stand a better chance of having the rule upheld if they just said it applied to all employers.
Click to expand...

I disagree entirely that it is arbitrary, and they explained the 100-employee cutoff fairly well, in my opinion.


I am relieved that the CMS mandate was (for now) upheld, but I'm less concerned about the OSHA mandate. I think it was a good try by the Biden Administration and, even now, it did get a lot of people vaccinated and a lot of companies mandated it (and don't plan on un-mandating it). I feel like it served it's purpose even without really going into effect. I would not be heartbroken if it was withdrawn.


The CMS mandate was the truly important one. We absolutely cannot have clinical staff that refuse to be vaccinated.
 
FadeToBlack&Gold said:
It definitely is in some industries, but considerably less so than others. I don't know how you have different rules for different sectors without lawsuits though.
Click to expand...

Right, but as of now, I am working from home. I don't need to go outside. For me, it could be that my work is the only way I am exposed. Obviously that's not the case here, but it kind of points to a really ominous future where hazards that aren't exclusively workplace hazards are no longer regulatable (is that a word?) by OSHA. Take hearing proteciton. If you you work in an area where your time-weighted average is above a certain dB, you are monitored for hearing loss. If you have a threshold shift, meaning your loss of hearing passes a threshold, that loss is going to be covered as a workers comp injury. But the problem is, how do you know that person isn't going to the gun range and shooting without hearing protection on the weekends? You can't. So should hearing protection not be regulated by OSHA because it's not exclusively a workplace hazard?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top