Skip to content

Biden issues ultimatum: Get vaccinated or get fired

Well, this is going to be fun. President Biden has finally decided that enough's enough on the vaccine front, so he has instructed the Department of Labor to write a rule requiring all employees of large companies (over 100 employees) to be vaccinated. Also all federal employees. Oddly, though, he didn't take this opportunity to mandate vaccinations for air travel.

Anyway, it will take some time for OSHA to write up the new rule, and it will instantly go to court after it's issued. My tentative take is that . . . I'm not sure about the president's authority to do this. If it were a state government doing it, I don't think there would be any question. But can the federal government do it? At one time I would have been inclined to think that the Interstate Commerce clause provided sufficient authority, but obviously the current Supreme Court will be a hard sell on that. Beyond that you have the vague "promote the general welfare" argument, but that's hardly a slam dunk either.
In any case, only about 27% of the adult population has yet to be vaccinated, and I'd guess that close to half of these people work for small companies and won't be affected by the mandate. So even if Biden wins in court, I figure this will get us up to maybe 85% or so. Not bad, but still not enough.

70 thoughts on “Biden issues ultimatum: Get vaccinated or get fired

  1. golack

    Hmmm....
    Well, it will give corporations cover..."I didn't want to do this, but I have to now..." In other words, Biden is willing to take a political hit amongst some to help the country.

    As for the anti-maskers and anti-vaxxers....they are just interested in owning the libs, hence they are trying to co-op "liberal" talking points. "My body, my choice" would only make sense if that wouldn't lead them to spreading the infection to others. Event the Texas "law" allowing random people to sue those helping with abortions past 6 weeks was modeled after some environmental laws where organizations can sue polluters in civil court (though in the case of environmental law, their has to be some standing, which is kind of huge).

    1. Rattus Norvegicus

      Yes, but the environmental laws have both governmental and private enforcement mechanisms. Trying to do an end run around the constitution is something new.

  2. Mitch Guthman

    It’s a good start. Now we need to exclude the voluntarily unvaccinated from all nonessential activities and public places. No vaccine = no restaurants, no movies, no airplanes, no supermarkets, no gyms, etc.

    And if a voluntarily unvaccinated person gets Covid-19, their admission hospitals should be treated as elective and not as an emergency; if there’s a spare bed—fine. Otherwise they can gobble up horse paste and die at home.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            The point here is that you have two right which are mutually exclusive. As we’ve seen over the past two years, the “right” to determine mine public health measures and whether other people will get sick on an individualistic basis is not compatible with the right of other people not to be endangered.

            For the past two years we’ve coddled the MAGA crowded and allowed their “rights” to trump ours; with the predictable disastrous consequences. That needs to stop. These people cannot be allowed to spread disease to innocents. If they want food, for example, they can get vaccinated or they can just fuck off and die. Enough is enough.

          2. lawnorder

            I don't see any particular need to drag them out in the street, but for some time I've been advocating for "grab them and shoot them, with a hypodermic needle loaded with J & J vaccine". (I chose J & J so they don't need to be grabbed and shot a second time.)

          1. oakchairbc

            Let's look at your links for why over 60 studies are bogus.

            Apparently a study from Colombia showing the "horse paste" reduces the resolution of symptoms from 12 days to 10 means 10 double blind studies showing the "horse paste" reduce deaths by around 60% are bogus.

            Your link says double blind studies are needed. My link has over 10 double blind studies.

            But I'll concede that the data from over 10 double blind studies showing the "horse paste" reduces deaths by 60% isn't enough to say it reduces deaths. In order to avoid double standards we have to also say that the Covid vaccines do not save any lives because the data in the double blind study done by Pfizer has the vaccine group with more deaths.

            One red flag in your links are the massive amounts of ad hominem, appeal to authority and censorship fallacies. The use of logical fallacies is the opposite of what science is about.

        1. ey81

          Systemic racism again. The lowest rates of vaccination are among minorities, so let's starve them to death. For their own good, like everything we've done to them.

          1. Mitch Guthman

            We’re making good inroads with minorities. We are already seeing good increases in vaccine acceptance. And if we had clear national polices, national vaccine mandates, and national vaccine passports I believe the problem with minorities will quickly resolve itself.

            That’s clearly not the cases with the MAGA and anti vaccine hardcore and it’s to them that my harsh criticism and draconian proposals are directed. Indeed we’ve seen time and time again that the MAGA hardcore has deliberately spread disinformation in minority communities to use minorities as cannon fodder and human shields.

            There is no constitutional right to endanger others by exposing them to highly contagious, potentially deadly diseases. If the MAGA idiots and anti vaccine nutters want to embrace Covid-19, I say that’s fine as long as they are respectful of the rights of others.

          2. Mitch Guthman

            It also turns out that you’re wrong in another way. If you look at whites as a group, they have the highest percentage of vaccine uptake. But if you isolate MAGA and Republican-affiliated groups such as Republicans and white evangelicals, the picture is quite different. We know who our enemies are and will need to stop coddling them.

            https://www.forbes.com/sites/roberthart/2021/06/30/here-are-the-groups-that-still-wont-get-the-covid-vaccine-and-why/?sh=1b333fd32ad4

            https://www.businessinsider.com/white-republicans-more-likely-to-reject-covid-19-vaccine-2021-3?op=1

            https://www.voanews.com/covid-19-pandemic/unvaccinated-americans-whiter-more-republican-vaccinated

  3. rick_jones

    So even if Biden wins in court, I figure this will get us up to maybe 85% or so. Not bad, but still not enough.

    Where “enough” is what percentage?

      1. iamr4man

        Is that total or eligible? I’ve heard Fauci say 85% but I believe he was speaking of total population. Since about 15% of the population isn’t eligible to get the vaccine I suppose that makes it really difficult to reach the 85% mark.

        1. Mitch Guthman

          Definitely. But also somewhat predictable that a far more contagious variant would come along. I think Biden recognizes the danger politically and from a public health standpoint. But without national vaccine passports and public health measures, it will be years before we’re really out of the woods.

  4. ey81

    Promote the general welfare? I don't think there has ever been a case upholding a federal action solely on the grounds that it promoted the general welfare. (Maybe some things have been struck down on the grounds that they don't promote the general welfare.)

    There's the further issue that even if Congress has the power to mandate vaccines, it's not clear that the executive branch alone can do it. That was the issue with the eviction moratorium.

  5. oakchairbc

    Here is the method/data from the Pfizer study for their Covid injection.
    -Their injection prevents 4 out of every 100 people from getting "symptomatic Covid"
    -The injection group had a non-statistically significant 7% higher all cause mortality rate compared to the placebo.
    -8 out of every 100 people in the study had infectious symptoms but were not tested for Covid. This group was nearly equal in both the injection and placebo groups.
    -Zero health testing done.
    -For the first several weeks the vaccine group had 40% higher Covid infection rates. This data was not included in the efficacy results.
    -Systemic negative effects reported as 35% having fatigue, 25% having headaches, 25% having muscle pain, 15% having joint pain. 30% used other medications due to effects.

    https://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2021/01/04/peter-doshi-pfizer-and-modernas-95-effective-vaccines-we-need-more-details-and-the-raw-data/

    That is what the corporation that has been fined billions of dollars for committing dozens of cases of fraud says about their drug. Their own data doesn't even pass a cost benefit analysis.

    World wide all cause mortality data show that the start of Covid injections and higher amounts of Covid injections are correlated with increased all cause mortality (ourworlddata).

    High Covid vaccination countries such as Israel now have more Covid cases than before vaccination. Mongolia now has a higher all cause mortality rates. Gilbrador which has near 99% vaccination rate has seen cases go up by 5x more than they were before vacciantions. Covid vaccinations are not correlated with having less current Covid cases (ourworlddata).

    1. racunniff

      Nice cherrypicking. A 9-month-old *speculative* blog post which is mostly just asking for the full data from the vaccine trials. To compound this cherrypicking, M. Oakchairbc trys to slander the vaccines by calling them "Covid injections". None of the vaccines are COVID virus injections. The Pfizer and Moderna are MRNA of the spike protein, and the Johnson and Johnson is an adenovirus-based vaccine.

      An example if there ever was one of comment sections needing moderation. I would suggest "-5 Troll" as an appropriate moderation for M. Oakchairbc's comments.

      1. golack

        So true---
        and for "real world data" our current Covid wave is pretty bad--and it is a pandemic amongst those who are not vaccinated.

      2. oakchairbc

        "Nice cherrypicking."

        I posted the data from the drug corporation about their own drug.
        Are you really trying to claim that the drug corporation data is biased against their own drug?

        "M. Oakchairbc trys to slander the vaccines by calling them "Covid injections"

        When your response is "he used the term injection instead of vaccine that's slander" your comment is an example of grasping for straws and a poisoning the well fallacy.

        "-5 Troll" as an appropriate moderation"

        Ending with an ad hominem fallacy and a call for censoring posting the data is the epitome of the substance of your comment.

    2. Larry Jones

      @oakchairbc
      Are you saying that we should stop vaccinating people right now or pause vaccinations until the raw data from certain studies is released to the public? I'm hearing on the news every day from hospital administrators all around the country that 90% or more of their Covid hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated. And how does your position square with the advice from pretty much every public health official in the world that mass vaccination is the only way out of this pandemic? (Same officials advise that the horse dewormer is not effective against Covid-19.) Do you think they are lying? Do you think they are stupid? Do you think they are corrupt? Serious questions.

      1. oakchairbc

        Giving/coercing experimental drugs to hundreds of millions of people without evidence of their effects isn't a rational thing to do.

        " I'm hearing"

        When Trump used that line what were your thoughts about it? "Everyone is saying" isn't a evidence based comment.

        "all around the country that 90% or more of their Covid hospitalizations are among the unvaccinated."

        1. That conflicts with the giving out a "booster injection".
        2. In the Pfizer data weeks after the first injection the injected group had 40% higher Covid infections. "Vaccinated" is defined as 2 weeks after the second injection.
        3. The CDC has different criteria and Covid tests for vaccinated and unvaccinated people. Vaccinated people get the PCR at 28 cycles compared to 40. Hospitalized vaccinated people don't get tested unless they have severe Covid symptoms while unvaccinated get tested regardless.
        4. Your comment was about "covid hospitalizations." That is cherry picking. We could bring Covid deaths and hospitalizations to zero if everyone was given an opioid overdose. You don't recommend that because a cost-benefit analysis includes all results not a select few.
        5. A stat making the rounds was that 96% of Covid infections were in unvaccinated people. The stat used data starting from Jan 2021 when less than 1% of people were vaccinated. It would be like saying only 95% of polio deaths occurred in people who did not eat fast food.

        "does your position square with the advice from pretty much every public health official"

        As someone who utilizes the scientific method and logic I'm not interested in appeal to authority fallacies.

        "mass vaccination is the only way out of this pandemic?"

        The real world data already showed that statement is false.

        1. J. Frank Parnell

          For someone who claims to utilize scientific method and logic your lack of citations is puzzling. It's as if you were one of those right wing bat shit crazy bull shitters.

          1. oakchairbc

            "your lack of citations is puzzling"

            Sure if we exclude the sourced data from Pfizer's study and the stats from ourworlddata I lack "citations".

            "people are considered fully vaccinated 2 weeks after their second dose in a 2-dose series,"
            https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/fully-vaccinated.html

            “How to send CDC sequence data or respiratory specimens from suspected vaccine breakthrough cases
            For cases with a known RT-PCR cycle threshold (Ct) value, submit only specimens with Ct value ≤28 to CDC for sequencing,”
            https://www.icpcovid.com/sites/default/files/2021-07/Ep%20149-2%20COVID-19%20Breakthrough%20Case%20Investigations%20and%20Reporting%20_%20CDC%2021%20June%202021.pdf

            "In May, the CDC made a decision to reduce tracking and collecting data on breakthrough infections"
            https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/covid-19-surge-why-we-need-more-data-on-breakthrough-infections

          1. rational thought

            I will defend oak and some of his comments but disagree on others.

            To start with what seem to be valid points to me,

            1) In point #5 in your post above re the statistics about % of cases, hospitalizations and deaths from 1/1/21 are in vaccinated, yes. But your example is not the real egregious thing . Saying 96% of cases from 1/1/21 are in unvaccinated people itself is a valid statistic, as long as it is used properly and you consider the average of the number of vaccinated vs. Unvaccinated throughout the period AND weighted by the relative risk through the period. Where it is misused more overtly is when they take the total number of vaccinated cases and then divide by number vaccinated at the end of the period and do the same for current unvaccinated. That is deliberately constructing a statistic designed to be misleading or else being an idiot.
            But honestly seems that abusive statistic is not being used as much and getting more on current cases over a short recent period vs current status, which are good data.
            Based on good data , it seems vaccines lower infections by maybe 2 times to 4 times. So not near as much as initial phizer studies but still does something.

            2) I do agree that some parts of the phizer trials deserve some skepticism. But one issue I think in measuring only symptomatic cases was not just that they did not care about infections and spread, but that initial thinking was that asymptomatic infections would not be a real contagious threat .

            Where I disagree

            3) I read your cite on the 28 threshold for vaccinated cases as that would be a serious charge if true. But I think you misread that in good faith.
            I believe it only says to limit reporting of breakthrough cases for genetic sequencing ( i.e. to determine the exact subvariant) and it says because ineffective to do that with over 28.
            But I see nothing there saying that a different CT threshold is used for vaccinated and unvaccinated in reporting whether there is a breakthrough case .

            4) you say vaccinations are not correlated with case numbers. Oh yes they are. But really more important to look at how cases are changing, the "R", not current number , to see how vaccinations affect spread. Raw case numbers also dependent on how high you started before vaccinations . But using R, still have a correlation after you control for other factors ( or even if you do not).
            But what I have been saying, and many just refuse to consider, is that there is an even bigger correlation with natural immunity.

        2. Larry Jones

          @oakchairbc
          Looks like you've decided unrestricted transmission of Covid-19 is better than the vaccine, and you've found some outlying information on the internet to support your position. I'm thankful people like you are not in positions to make policy.

      1. Larry Jones

        @ScentOfViolets
        It went to more trouble than the usual troll, with its links and statistical "analyses," so I was fooled into responding. But then it lashed out in its response to my questions, so I knew I'd been taken. My apologies to the group.

  6. Salamander

    Speaking as a vaccinated person, I'm getting sick and tired of all those "Gotta Pwn the Libz" folks who refuse, and who are preventing everybody else from going back to a relatively normal life. You know, restaurants, movies, in-person meetings, visits with friends and relatives.

    Plus, it's harming The Economy. Yeah, crack down on those deadbeats.

      1. Salamander

        Well, I'm going more by the howls of business owners. And if anybody is guilty of "lazy" analyses, jumping to conclusions, and hyperbole, it's our business community.

        If anybody is keeping accurate records, I'd put my money on the federal government over "businessmen."

  7. Spadesofgrey

    Covid cases are collapsing. No surprise, since 40% of hospitalization and cases were from 2 states. Biden's first political gaff, though in the end,it may be forgotten. Definitely the most overhyped of the waves. Just let it pass.

    1. J. Frank Parnell

      Sorry Spades, but we are concerned with what is going on in the real world, not the fetid bat shit crazy conservative swamp bubble.

      1. Spadesofgrey

        Lolz, this is the real world moron. I am just relaying information. Positivity is down sharply, cases are falling and hospitalization is peaking. What don't you get???? Do you need a nostril grip and rip.?

  8. J. Frank Parnell

    Biden's vaccination mandate is being done through the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, which has the power to regulate workplace safety. The Occupational Health and Safety Act was signed into law by Nixon back in 1970. If it is really unconstitutional, wouldn’t it have been successfully challenged before now?

    1. Austin

      Abortion has been legal since 1973 and it gets challenged all the time. Nothing lasts forever especially if Republicans hate it.

    2. Jasper_in_Boston

      An action of the government (based on a novel interpretation of 50-year old legislation) is not identical to the legislation itself. It's possible the former could be ruled illegal while the latter remains constitutional.

  9. bbleh

    Just nitpicking, but "over 12" are not the "adult" population; they're the "eligible" population. 27% of those over 12 have not been vaccinated, but less than 25% of adults have not been vaccinated.

  10. Vog46

    Interesting news out of Nevada:
    https://www.reviewjournal.com/news/politics-and-government/nevada/about-40-cases-of-mu-coronavirus-variant-detected-in-nevada-2436563/
    {snip}
    Cases of the mu variant first identified in Colombia have been found in 42 countries and at least 47 states in the U.S., according to the website outbreak.info, a project of labs at Scripps Research supported by the National Institute for Allergy and Infectious Diseases, the National Center for Data to Health and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

    There have been 1,742 cases of mu identified in the U.S., amounting to 0.05 percent of sequenced cases. California leads the nation with 243 cases, the most recent spotted Aug. 16, according to the website.

    The WHO said in a bulletin that although the global prevalence of mu is declining, its prevalence in Colombia and Ecuador has consistently increased.

    Scientists are focusing attention on the mu variant because of mutations already found in other variants that could make it more contagious as well as resistant to monoclonal antibodies and antiviral therapies, epidemiologist Katelyn Jetelina wrote recently in her coronavirus newsletter.

    It also has a mutation that is unique, one that could inhibit the immune system’s B- and T-cell response to the virus, according to Jetelina, an assistant professor at the University of Texas Health Science Center at Houston. “Researchers are quickly studying this change. It could be concerning but it also could be nothing,” she wrote
    {snip}
    And this:
    {snip}
    As the coronavirus continues to evolve as a result of ongoing transmission, he believes a descendent of delta eventually will become the next dominant strain. The delta variant, also called B.1.617.2, accounted for 90 percent of Nevada’s sequenced cases in the past 14 days, according to a Sept. 3 report by the state lab.

    “Delta has proven to be extraordinary in its ability to spread,” he said. Through natural selection, strains that evolve from delta may be more deft at spreading.

    Delta has so far produced 25 or so descendants. The handful or so identified in Nevada have tripled in the past week, Pandori said, contributing to his theory that a delta descendant eventually will dominate.

    “We’ve got a bad situation here, because we’ve got a lot of unvaccinated people that can serve as replication entities for the virus, which drives mutation,” he said. “Yes, vaccinated people can do the same thing, but they do it slower and for a shorter amount of time.”

    With many people unvaccinated, the virus continues to rapidly evolve and the pandemic to linger, Pandori said. Constraints on normal living remain.

    “There’s a lot of variants because we’re creating them,” he said “And as long as we continue to create these variants, we’re going to continue to live the lives that we currently live.”
    {snip}

    The variants are being driven by the un vacinated who keep passing this among themselves. The PROBLEM with Mu is that it evades vaccine protections and protections from those who had COVID already.
    And its' really a problem in South America.
    It won't be good enough to vaccinate 85% in this country because we live in an intertwined world that will continue to produce variants
    So, between the political jerks who don't want to get the vaccine to own the libs
    To - the kids who aren't even eligible for the vaccine yet
    To - those that cannot take the vaccine
    And you ADD to that billions world wide who can't get a shot in the first place and you see what we are up against.
    I look back at our initial outbreak here in NC and we traced it back to one of our big pharma companies having a symposium in Boston at one of their satellite locations. (Biogen I think it was). People in Boston were already sick with it, come knew it - others had not become symptomatic yet. The pharma employees brought it back here with them and infected multiple people on the planes.

    Keep in mind they are not sequencing enough samples to get an idea on Mu. Even if Delta fades Mu will continue to evolve, and even newer variants will come forth world wide.
    Delta is the worst variant - but I have to add - so far. My guess is Mu gets designated a VoC by end of Sept - which is the next step after Variant of Interest

    1. rational thought

      Vog,

      You keep beating the same horse with mu and stating the same misconceptions.

      You did quote that researchers are studying the mu mutation and it could be a concern becomes it MIGHT be able to avoid immunity but also that it could be NOTHING . But then later you say that the problem with mu is that it evades vaccine and natural immunity. But, no, that is not known yet . They just see one mutation that are concerned that could be but might not .

      And , post here if you know something different, but my understanding is that the concerning mutation is in the spike protein which most vaccines focus on , so the concern is far greater for it evading vaccine immunity than natural immunity ( which has a more diffuse focus).

      And note that, even if it does evade immunity somewhat, it still also has to outcompete delta . If delta has an inherent transmissibility advantage of 50% over mu, but mu evades 40% of immunity, still not going to outcompete delta.

      I expect your other concern about another delta mutation is more of a worry than mu.

      And I would note that the population of most concern for developing a vaccine resistant mutation are the vaccinated. Not unvaccinated as there such a mutation has no advantage.

      1. Rattus Norvegicus

        One thing about mu, is that it was first identified in January and does not seem to be out-competing delta. This probably means that it does not have any magical qualities, but it is probably keeping an eye on. Just remember that delta took over the world in just a couple of months.

      2. Vog46

        https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/01/covid-vaccine-dr-scott-gottlieb-says-people-who-had-covid-wont-be-immune-forever.html
        snip

        Gottlieb’s comments Wednesday follow recent studies that have examined immunity from prior Covid infections versus those who received a vaccine for the disease.

        *****One study***** conducted in Israel found that natural infection offered “longer lasting and stronger protection” against the highly transmissible coronavirus delta variant than Pfizer’s two-dose Covid vaccine.****** It has not yet been peer-reviewed.*******

        By contrast, *****a study***** in the U.K., which****** also hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet, arrived at a different conclusion******. “Effectiveness of two doses remains***** at least as great***** as protection afforded by prior natural infection,” the researchers wrote. Unlike in the Israeli paper, participants in this study included recipients of AstraZeneca’s and Moderna’s two-dose vaccines, in addition to Pfizer.

        “I think on the balance it’s unclear whether vaccine-induced immunity is better, slightly better, slightly worse, than” natural immunity, Gottlieb said.
        {snip}

        Sturgis was a perfect example of how incompetent we are as a people.
        Reports indicated that 75% of the people in Sturgis had "herd immunity" of either natural or vaccine induced protection. Yet, we all know these numbers are not accurate for a couple or reasons. But they still had a 600% increase in the number of COVID cases
        FIRST - pharma industry does NOT WANT anyone to question their business. They tout their vaccines as effective. They are, to a point correct in that they do reduce the severity of illness
        SECOND - as indicate by President Trump we shouldn't test as much. He as ADAMANT About it. He didn't want to see just how bad the problem was/is. THESE two items alone have skewed both arguments and badly. By not testing early and often we have no baseline
        THIS has skewed all data since then. Once a person gets ill enough to get tested their body is already fighting the infection. If that person HAD been tested we'd know the "natural" anti bodies had worn off. If they HAD been vaccinated then the vaccination protection would have worn off.
        Big Pharma has a vested interest in making sure the public BELIEVES in the American pharma industry is the best argument
        Others want to to believe natural immunity is best for various OTHER reasons.
        Neither has been proven right as conflicting studies indicate

        Sturgis indicated everyone was wrong, but again we don't know for certain because we don't know the baseline. We don't know who had COVID previously because once your body starts fighting it its hard to determine what your "normal" anti body level is.

        Columbia is a really good case study. They are a poor country compared to the U.S.. Do we assume that variants A & B along with DElta - had their way with the population? They have only vaccinated 35% to 37% of their population. If Delta along with A & B variants were rampant than the argument FOR herd immunity falls apart - especially when you consider the Mu variant now accounts for 39% of all cases there. (and just how many cases are being sequenced in a poor country). In Columbia Mu seems to be having an easier time competing with Delta

        By playing down the seriousness of COVID at the start and NOT testing as many as possible we ended up with unreliable data. Now, with the virus changing we aren't sure how many cases are break throughs, and we don't know if those break throughs are happening to people who had the virus before or not. Vaccine records are at least kept by someone.

        The United States is the land of personal freedoms - but - those freedoms do NOT allow for you, me, or anyone else to act in a way that causes pain, illness or injury to others, especially KNOWINGLY.
        The OSHA argument is silly at best. There are 25 STATES that are allowed to operate their own OSHA program. NC is one of them. The Commissioner of Labor is elected. Can s/he weaken OSHA regs? NO. Can they be made stiffer than OSHA regs? Yes.
        But s/he can influence how hard those rules are enforced and they do that routinely. I've seen both DEMs and REPs do this here.

        Herd immunity results in too many preventable deaths and hospitalizations BEFORE you get the protections needed. Vaccines do work but not as good as advertised.
        Trump berated the science and medical communities. Played down the seriousness of the virus then proposed really weird solutions - only to get the virus and get vaccinated. He went a million mph in a million different directions and ended up getting nowhere

      3. Vog46

        And YOUR focus on natural immunity is alos incomplete:
        https://www.cnbc.com/2021/09/01/covid-vaccine-dr-scott-gottlieb-says-people-who-had-covid-wont-be-immune-forever.html

        ******One study conducted in Israel***** found that natural infection offered “longer lasting and stronger protection” against the highly transmissible coronavirus delta variant than Pfizer’s two-dose Covid vaccine. *******It has not yet been peer-reviewed.******

        By contrast,****** a***** study in the U.K., which also ******hasn’t been peer-reviewed yet*******, arrived at a different conclusion. “Effectiveness of two doses remains at least as great as protection afforded by prior natural infection,” the researchers wrote. Unlike in the Israeli paper, participants in this study included recipients of AstraZeneca’s and Moderna’s two-dose vaccines, in addition to Pfizer.

        “I think on the balance******* it’s unclear whether vaccine-induced immunity is better, slightly better, slightly worse, than” natural immunity***********, Gottlieb said.
        {snip}.

        The Sturgis situation was illustrative but still not complete.
        a 600% increase in COVID cases in Sturgis when most folks believed that they had a combination of 75% immunity(vaccine and natural) and THAT number (75%) is woefully inadequate for two reasons
        First - you and I both know that the vaccines were developed using Alpha and Beta variants. They were rolling out doses when Delta arrived. It just happened to work (less effectively) against Delta than A & B variants. Of course our pharma industry wants us to believe that is the end all be all of protection
        Second - when the CDC decided not to follow NON serious cases of Covid, they took away the ONE stat that could make or break the herd immunity point. Because people thought they had a cold or flu they never got checked by a doctor. They NEVER Tested. Once you get any variant of COVID your body begins the fight against it - so when you DO go to the doctor or health department there is NO DEFINITIVE way to determine if you had COVID prior to the current onset of illness - OR NOT. This information would have been very good to have NOW given that we are dealing with delta and looking down the road at new, possible MORE contagious versions of COVID

        The vaccine companies don't want us to emphasize breakthrough cases because it makes THEM look bad. The herd immunity folks didn't want testing done earlier because they didn't want everyone to know just how badly the United States we doing with COVID. Both of these situation have put our arguments on unstable ground.

  11. rational thought

    I do think this is a hard sell constitutionally as kevin is thinking. But they do not really have to go as far as actually mandating it under osha which would be the hardest case.

    Simply setting up a situation where the employer is protected from any liability for mandating vaccines voluntarily while potentially being liable for any employee who does catch covid at work if the employer does not require it ( if that employee sues) will accomplish the same result and be less of a constitutional problem.

    What is a big weakness here is if they try to mandate vaccines even for those who can prove they have natural immunity from having had covid . There is no medical justification for distinguishing between vaccine and natural immunity in that way to justify a federal mandate .

    If the rule is only requiring vaccination for those without natural immunity, then on much stronger legal ground .

    1. rational thought

      I realize my prior post mistated what I was trying to say.

      I do think there are two serious constitutional issues, one of which kevin mentioned. But both are really not a major practical concern. Although I and some others might think there are serious constitutional issues, that ship has largely sailed and the courts for decades have allowed this sort of thing. Basically this is being done under Osha and courts have allowed that. There is near zero chance the court will overturn this on those constitutional issues.

      Where I expect any legal challenge to come from would be on statutory grounds - whether the statute authorizing Osha gives the executive this authority. I am no legal expert on the minutia of what the osha laws say, but I doubt they give the executive carte Blanche to just impose anything they want in the name of safety. Whatever rule likely needs to be narrowly tailored to reduce an actual serious health risk at the workplace and the benefits and costs need to be weighed.

      That is where I expect the issue of not exempting those with natural immunity will be an issue. There really is no actual safety grounds to require them to be vaccinated given such a miniscule risk they pose to others ( less than those with only vaccination).

      If the administration mandates either vaccination or natural immunity and only requires it for indoor workplaces where the risk spread is significant, I would bet it survives legal challenge. If they try to mandate those with natural immunity be also vaccinated, or impose a mandate on workers that pose little or no risk to other workers ( risk to customers etc. Is not an osha issue) then I bet it fails in court.

      Note the two constitutional issues would be whether the federal government itself can require this per the interstate commerce clause ( i.e. even if congress passes a law doing it). To overturn on those grounds, the Supreme Court would be overruling many federal agencies, not just osha. Perhaps this is unconstitutional but no way supreme court is doing that today.

      Second issue is, even if federal govt can do it, if congress can pass broad statutes giving the executive so much authority ( basically delegating the law making powers to the president) . Again, this is a serious issue but overruling on those grounds upends all of wash dc. Not happening.

  12. rational thought

    On herd immunity threshold, I think mitch said he is thinking 90% combined either vaccine or natural immunity.

    First at least mitch is considering natural immunity. Silly to ask what level of vaccinations alone you need as it depends on how much natural immunity there is . With current vaccine and delta , if we could have vaccinated before any cases , I expect there is no possibility of herd immunity at all ever. The vaccine helps and reduces spread by maybe 4 -6 times , but that still leaves R above 1.0. You have to have some infections and natural immunity to get to herd immunity.
    This might change if 3rd shot booster improves vaccine immunity.

    With only natural immunity ( better than vaccine) , still think you probably need 90% or more for herd immunity.

    A reasonable guess for usa might be delta R0 of 7, vaccine R of 1.25, natural immunity R of .2. And end R result of 50% vaccinated only, 46% with natural immunity and only 4% with no immunity. Leaving final R of just below 1.0. But then trailing cases will maybe get another 1 % unvaccinated and 2% of vaccinated. So maybe really need 97% for herd immunity with that mix.

    And then as immunity wanes, you need more infections or vaccinations to get immunity back up and keep R around 1.0. This is going to be endemic at lower levels for the rest of our lives. Once you had it or are vaccinated, the health risk is similar or less than the flu.

    But just about all of unvacinated are going to get covid in this final wave or soon thereafter. And I expect most vaccinated are catching it too eventually.

    And this is without an even worse variant

  13. Pingback: Now that’s a vaccine mandate – Off the Kuff

  14. sdean7855

    A college classmate of mine:
    It appears that the Surgeon General may have the power to require vaccines, a power that has never been used, but that this power does not supersede contrary state laws. Here is what I found:

    “This area of public health policy is traditionally left to the states, but there are several distinct legal pathways for federal intervention. These pathways leverage the Public Health Service Act (PHSA) of 1944, which first established the federal government’s quarantine authority. Specifically, PHSA Section 311 requires the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) to assist states “in the prevention and suppression of communicable diseases.” Moreover, it mandates that the federal government cooperate with and advise the states on the “enforcement of their quarantine and other health regulations [and] the preservation and improvement of the public health.”

    Under PHSA Section 361, the US Surgeon General, with approval from the HHS secretary, is “authorized to make and enforce such regulations as in his judgment are necessary to prevent the introduction, transmission, or spread of communicable diseases from foreign countries into the States or possessions, or from one State or possession into any other State or possession.” This would seemingly confer rule-making authority to mandate immunization to prevent the interstate spread of disease, particularly where outbreaks can be traced across state lines, notwithstanding the tremendous public opposition such a regulation would likely encounter. However, PHSA Section 361 forbids any regulation that supersedes state law, limiting the Surgeon General’s ability to circumvent state-level exemption laws.”

    The above quote comes from https://www.healthaffairs.org/do/10.1377/hblog20190318.382995/full/, which was about former FDA Comm’s Scott Gottlieb recommending a federal mandate for all school age children to get a measles vaccine after a new outbreak. Other than to note that the author does not know when to use “which” and when “that,” I do not vouch for the accuracy of its contents.

  15. rational thought

    Which I doubt will work. Based on cases and deaths, I would guess that Denmark has had one of the lowest rates of covid infections- maybe 10 % or maybe 15% at most. Note their non recorded cases are likely very low so their multiple of actual infections is probably under 2. Because they are #1 in testing out of every nation in the world- more than 14 tests per person .

    So their natural immunity is just too low . It also depends on overlap . If of the 10 - 15% who were infected, zero are vaccinated, then that leaves only 5-10% with zero immunity. If that 5- 10% includes a lot of children who do not spread as easily, maybe you might have herd immunity. But surely more overlap and unfortunately looks like vaccine immunity will not bring R below 1.0. You probably need enough with natural immunity ( natural and vaccine even better ) to offset a small pool of those with no immunity.

    But I think Denmark, if they are not deluded, probably realizes this is not enough for herd immunity. And they are going to have another wave with restrictions off until they get enough extra natural immunity the " hard way" through infection before they get to herd immunity and infections go back down.

    Except that it will not be all that hard when most of those getting infected will have been vaccinated so much less illness. And most remaining with no immunity are children or very young who rarely get seriously sick . And, for those few elderly who never got covid but have refused the vaccine , oh well they made their choice.

    We need to get away from focusing on how many vaccinations are needed for herd immunity so can remove restrictions. If natural immunity low because you kept infections down, even 100% vaccination might not be herd immunity.

    But the question is whether it makes sense to keep restrictions on when you have vaccinated all but those who will never do it. At that point , if still not at herd immunity, you just are going to have more infections and no reason to delay it anymore .

    Actually for usa, I think most places have enough natural immunity that they are at herd immunity or close enough that a few more vaccinations and infections will do it. But not Denmark.

  16. azumbrunn

    One shot is not enough for delta. We really should stop using the "everyone who got a shot" metric. It was always a transparent attempt to make the situation make look better than it is.

    Our real vaccination rate is 53% of the population. If your estimate of the effect of the mandate is correct we will get somewhere near 70% in a few months. Better but still not enough for "normality".

Comments are closed.