According to the Wall Street Journal, the number of new job listings that require vaccination is skyrocketing:
This is how it's going to happen. States, unfortunately, won't put broad mandates in place, so it's going to happen bit by bit. The military will get mandatory vaccinations. Federal employees will get mandatory vaccinations. New job openings will require vaccinations. Foreign travel will require vaccinations. Getting into sports events will require vaccinations. Etc.
This is slow as hell, but eventually it will work. There will always be some holdouts, but increasingly you'll have to be something of a hermit if you insist on staying unvaccinated.
Why are vaccination rates so low for police and firefighters? I don't want to think they're all right-wingers, but no other explanation comes to mind. The idea of an unvaccinated EMT makes no sense.
They are pretty much all right wingers.
Eh, nope.
Since they are treated like fake medical workers by the rest of the medical workers, my guess is most EMTs got SARS2 months ago.
But yes they are 80% right wingers. People who have actual left wing beliefs don't join the police.
Lol, what's "left wing beliefs?????". You sound like a retard.
You should read your own posting history
I don’t think that’s true. I understand that data is not the plural of anecdote but over the years I’ve known a great many police officers who had some political views that were well to my left. I’ve been to meetings and conventions of groups for government lawyers involved in capital litigation who considered themselves to be liberals but who felt that capital punishment was justifiable.
It’s important not to confuse non ideological issues of policy on areas such as criminal law and procedure with left or right wing viewpoints. I think you’ll find a significant distribution of views on legal issues across the political spectrum.
We also need a ban on interstate travel by unvaccinated people. And that’s particularly true for states like Texas and Florida.
Never going to happen. Constitutionally a dead duck.
Would need to have an overwhelming justification to get that ok by courts and just not there as covid is widespread enough in all states.
The only time this was close to legally justifiable was real early on when covid was spreading in my metro area and we could have quarantined the ny metro area with great difficulty.
Remember when trump threw out that idea and the democrats were all outraged? Did you support trump on that then?
At that time, still.was not justifiable as too late to do much good although it would have slowed things down somewhat ( ny did seed a lot of places). Realistically , the time to even think of this is when cases are still low and limited to one area. I.e before the public perceives there is a problem and there is political will. Same thing with Intl bans. Almost always going to be too late. Basically have to act before you can really know it is needed and the half of the time it turns out you made the wrong decision, you will be politically crucified.
And I assume you also agree more with Republicans now and think Biden should hard close the southern border too.
If you want to ban travel from texas but allow migrants over the Mexican border, you are just being a partisan idiot..
If your post was just being sarcastically snarky and not serious, then the above would not apply but some have stated this seriously.
The Southern border is already closed.
I think that, in terms of the constitution, neither a federal quarantine of states with out of control Covid-19 nor a state requirement that individuals entering a that state be vaccinated would be a problem in terms of “right to travel” provisions.
I appreciate that Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (1905) isn’t directly on point but it’s very close and I think most judges would find it reasoning to be applicable. In particular, I think Justice Harlan’s ruling upholding the Massachusetts vaccination requirement is very persuasive:
"[I]n every well ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand" and that "[r]eal liberty for all could not exist under the operation of a principle which recognizes the right of each individual person to use his own [liberty], whether in respect of his person or his property, regardless of the injury that may be done to others.”
I don’t really see what migrants from Mexico have to do with anything. But, clearly, the same analysis suggests that Jacobson would certainly allow the federal government to require anyone entering the country to be vaccinated or to submit to vaccination. I think it would be a closer question whether a state could use its plenary police powers to enforce such a requirement against the wishes of the federal government (federal immigration power is essential plenary, too, and question would be whether supremacy clause trumps state power—-which I think it would.
But I think Jacobson means that vaccine mandates or prohibitions against entry of unvaccinated people by states would definitely be upheld (especially if there was a provision offering free vaccinations to incomers) and probably a federal quarantine against travel out of Covid-19 hotspots would likely be upheld, too.
"Almost always going to be too late. Basically have to act before you can really know it is needed and the half of the time it turns out you made the wrong decision, you will be politically crucified. "
Well, the countries that really successfully dealt with the epidemic, I'm thinking about Taiwan, New Zealand, maybe Australia, all instituted early and severe travel bans. And internal travel restrictions have played a role in these countries when small outbreaks were recognized. In this highly interconnected world, in fact, you can know it is needed even before the first cases become apparent in your own country. Once the world saw what happened in Wuhan, I think it would have been prudent for us to completely close down all our borders, even before the first cases were recognized If you act early, the first you cases that get in unrecognized may ignite a small outbreak, but it will be small enough to manage with test, trace, quarantine and isolation (or it would have been if we had developed adequate testing).
Agree that politically it's a loser. And I suppose we can't expect politicians to put hundreds of thousands of lives ahead of their careers, can we?
I am not sure the example of shutting the borders when we first " saw what was happening " in Wuhan is fair. Hindsight is 20/20. Would some theoretical benevolent dictator acting only based on what is good for the nation have shut all borders then? I doubt it . We just did not know enough then to justify such a drastic action.
And one reason is that we never did " see what was happening" in Wuhan. And still do not really know today. For one, info is confusing in early stages. And here china with who cooperation was flat out lying to us. Remember they first said it was not transmissible by humans when they damn well knew different.
Just not conceivable to me that the noblest president would have shut down borders soon enough.
One problem is that, most often, the virus turns out not as bad as feared. And then your maybe correct costly reaction looks stupid in hindsight.
Do you remember swine flu or are you too young. If not look it up. I think Ford was the president and made the correct decision based on what he knew at the time. Politically courageous. But turned out bad and he was crucified for it.
And trump did shut down travel with china. Too late to help enough but probably slowed things down a bit. And biden jumped on him for that as xenophobic ( maybe even trump's motive was bad but still right decision). Although there were aspects to that process that were poorly handled, the china travel ban itself was right.
A better example was the europe travel ban. By then , seeing it in Italy, a western nation that is info transparent unlike china, we had enough info to know. But too late action there. If we had shut down travel from Europe sooner when it was clearly the right decision, still too late to stop covid like nz. We had enough covid by then to seed our outbreak. But would have slowed it down significantly.
A quarantine of ny area would have helped at one time like trump proposed ( although if he was thinking of that, should have done so a week earlier). And huge outcry at even considering it then.
Back in jan or feb 2020, were you yourself saying that we should shut down all borders? Did you say when trump stopped china travel that he was right contrary to the Democrats but should have done so earlier? If so, then I bow down to your precinct wisdom.
Another better example and I wish I was posting here then. Back when cases were real low and still falling, I advocated for keeping restrictions for a time contrary to just about everyone and argued with everyone.
Reason was actually partially because I thought restrictions were not as effective as the " experts" were saying ( and think so even more now). Why would I want to keep restrictions because I thought they were less effective? Because I still thought they helped to a small extent.
And the key was, as soon as I saw the drop in cases start to slow, even though cases were still going down, I thought we had potential problems . At that time, most Democrats were blaming the slower drop in cases as caused by reopening but I did not buy that as the big reason. Actually most Democrats were ignoring the slower rate of decline and just crowing about how great a job biden was doing with covid. And most Republicans loved reopening and just were saying you waited too long.
But I thought at the time, seeing the first reports on delta and early signs from uk, that this was a worry..and first sign would be when R started increasing even if still below 1.0.
And I think I was right . And keep restrictions then just as a method to buy time to get more vaccinated when many eager to do so were still waiting . Not going to stop it, just slow it until end of people who want vaccine being unable to get it.
Today, I see little point. Too late. This is going to spread until we get to herd immunity or stable endemic level. And nothing we can do about it. All that restrictions can do is delay the inevitable and maybe replace a few actual infections with vaccination. But restrictions cause a lot of pain to all so a few procrastinating vaccine resistors can now get vaccinated when they could have done so months earlier? Sorry, no.
Aus nz and Taiwan did things we could not have. One thing is some luck. Australia could by chance have had a few covid cases early to get it seeded before they could shut down. Quirks like soccer tournaments and holiday schedules played a random role in who got hit first. Australia by luck did not get hit before they had enough warning to act. And just being smaller ( on top of being an island) helps. All you need is a few cases to start an epidemic if R is over 1.0. Better chance a small nation can shut down in time than a large one. They just have fewer entrants anyway.
But Australia and new zealand were pretty quick and thorough ( especially new Zealand). They have citizens caught overseas who have yet to be able to return home.
However, the idea should be to buy time until a vaccine. Cannot keep shutdown forever and eventually the dam will break. So , of going thru the bad pain of harsh shutdown and restrictions, the strategy should be that going to then vaccinate asap. And they messed that up.
Taiwan is different as maybe they were one place that had warning in time and knew what was going on in Wuhan. Due to their contacts and connections, they realized china was lying from the start . And warned everyone but nobody listened.
"And Trump did shut down travel with China."
And let back 40,000 S citizens and green card holders while refusing to quarantine them or do contact tracing.
Sure, but what happens when DeSantis and/or Abbott and others start banning vaccine mandates?
I think both states have bans on vaccine passports, masking mandates, and a variety of different public health measures. There’s evidently increasing resistance to both governors (and significant finger pointing) at the local level. It’s an interesting situation and even in Texas it illustrates David Frum’s point about the problem of tyranny by rural minorities.
I think it's more of a tyranny of the stupid, but yeah.
In the case of de Santis, definitely internment camps for liberal jagaloons who are trying to force the good people of Florida to submit to an unapproved medical treatment. Will prolly call them Castrista agents from La Habana intelligence ministry for good measure.
Abbott will likely just start pulling pro-vaxxxers off the streets & killing them, like Duterte does to drugdealers in the Philippines.
Ed Yong has another piece in the Atlantic about Covid...
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2021/08/delta-has-changed-pandemic-endgame/
FL reported deaths have been remarkably low the past few days.....that would be great if it were true. Considering the governor's attitude, and the fact that ICU usage is basically maxed out, I'm skeptical. FL is setting up monoclonal antibody treatment centers, but as far as I know, that treatment doesn't help people in the ICU. If it really is a new treatment, I hope it is announced soon.
Delta is overhyped in general. Florida's vaccination rate is higher than anybody else in the south, but didn't have the outbreak that occurred last fall/winter in the north, creating more dry timber.
Huh? Shootie, you've got to drunk posting if you want people to understand what you're trying to say.
I'm not kidding.
FL reported deaths have been remarkably low the past few days.....that would be great if it were true
I could be wrong, but I think I remember reading that Florida has officially changed its covid reporting protocol, and now does so only once a week.
Not anymore. Not sure what the policy is now. But it seems they report most days but not all and never on weekends. Not sure if there is a clear pattern. Although now reporting much more often than once a week, the inconsistency is maddening..
And it is not just Florida or " red states". A lot of blue states and counties are inconsistent in reporting and much more than six months ago.
Here in ca, I watch la county and alameda county ( Oakland and high income areas to the east - super blue) closely . La county has stayed very consistent every day. Dropoff in numbers on weekend but less than most. Alameda goes way and and way down day by day skipping some days and even having negative numbers occasionally. For la county, each day reports mean something to analyze. Cannot conclude anything daily for Alameda. And same for fla.
“ Florida reported 20,656 more COVID-19 cases to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. The state also reported 357 new deaths over the pandemic. The jump in cases and deaths are a sum of many changes to previous daily totals the CDC made Thursday. It now publishes cases and deaths based on the date of occurrence — instead of the date that it was reported to the agency.”
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article253466089.html
So, if you look at the number reported today it could be low, but “revised” days later. Thus, the daily number you see is low but if you look later on it will have risen.Even 7 day averages can be screwed up this way.
So...we're turning into Sweden?
Thanks. I see the jump in cases today in CovidActNow reporting, but it wasn't in WorldoMeter.
Why are we acting surprised at this?
Republicans have always been loathe to impose restrictions of any kind on businesses
UNTIL COVID
Then the governors got political but even for businesses they took a hands off approach but Florida is different. They survive on tourism, on crowds and on serving them which all involves close contact
You don't want to mandate masks - that discourages tourism
You don't want to require vaccination records that discourages tourism
You don't want kinds in schools to have masks because the photo op would show kids and government agencies showing fear
"Damn the illnesses, masks and needles - full speed ahead"
Meanwhile those companies are saying - well vaccines lower the risk of dying and going to the hospital but damn it a person who's out sick for a week is just as bad for my business
So, yeah - go ahead Mr Employer mandate all you want. You do background checks, you do drug screens - heck you can even do random drug screens with nary a peep out of your governors.
So "F" DeSantis and Abbott - make your work places more productive !!!!!
This is a perfect example of the concept of enlightened self interest.
Employers, particularly but not only the self-insured larger employers, don't want their premiums and costs rising astronomically for the major medical bills of Covid patients. Nor do they want the productivity losses of employees out sick or dying on the job. So making employees protect themselves through easily accessible free jabs is a no-brainer.
Hence, employers come out ahead if they impose vaccination and masking rules on their employees. And employees avoid a serious illness (or possible death). Everybody wins, plus the businesses also get a reputation boost for doing the right thing.
Trump said all covid treatment for free so that cant be it!
Looks like there will be a big market in counterfeit vaccine cards:
https://apnews.com/article/coronavirus-education-fake-vaccination-cards-8c4ca2b4d54434c2fc022b34087df8cb
Looks like there will be a big market in counterfeit vaccine cards:
Gee, wouldn't it be nice if there were an easy-to-use, digital, hard-to-hack technology we might use to solve this issue that utilized a US strength like, erm, software.
A vaccine passport would be nice but the crazies would get violent.
Can you do a post on how Newsom is losing the recall?
I want to ask Californians if there's any consideration to changing the Senate vacancy law (can it be done by the legislature?) to guard against possibility that A) GOP takes the governorship and B) Feinstein can't serve her full term.
Might not be a bad idea, as insurance...
From what I can see that's the main danger of a Newsom loss. It's not as if a MAGA governor will be able to ride roughshod over the state legislature (veto proof Dem majority).
I think a bit too much angst is being generated about the recall.
A Republican victory on the State level in California is currently as likely as a Democrat being elected to Congress from Wyoming.
However, if there was any serious question about filling a vacant Senate seat, the election code can be amended to provide for a special election to fill the open seat.
There are five states currently with this proviso: North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, and Wisconsin.
Honestly, I think it should be standard for all of the states - as long as we are serious about preserving the illusions of democracy.
A Republican victory on the State level in California is currently as likely as a Democrat being elected to Congress from Wyoming.
I'm not sure what you're talking about. I haven't followed the minutiae of what's going on in California with respect to the recall, but the polling seems to indicate there's a very strong chance indeed Newsom is going to be replaced by a Republican. Sure, Dems probably take that governorship back next year (term is up in 2022, right?). But still...
I'd guess in the end Newsom manages to hang on, but it looks far from a sure thing, and his odds of losing have to be far greater than the odds of Wyoming sending a Democrat to Congress.
Our recall rules need replacement. As it is, if Newsom gets 49.9% of the vote he is recalled. His replacement might get less than 20% of the vote. It is an insane system.
Not anymore. Not sure what the policy is now. But it seems they report most days but not all and never on weekends. Not sure if there is a clear pattern. Although now reporting much more often than once a week, the inconsistency is maddening..
And it is not just Florida or " red states". A lot of blue states and counties are inconsistent in reporting and much more than six months ago.
Here in ca, I watch la county and alameda county ( Oakland and high income areas to the east - super blue) closely . La county has stayed very consistent every day. Dropoff in numbers on weekend but less than most. Alameda goes way and and way down day by day skipping some days and even having negative numbers occasionally. For la county, each day reports mean something to analyze. Cannot conclude anything daily for Alameda. And same for fla.
I agree with jasper here.
First California is pretty democratic but not quite as much as Wyoming is Republican.
Second, recall elections or any sort of special elections just are not that predictable compared to general elections.
Third, Newsom has some serious weaknesses among some generally democratic groups. For example Hispanics are definitely more opposed to covid restrictions than whites in ca ( probably not more than subset of Republican whites but not that far off). And Newsom has really screwed up some things both politically and administratively. The French laundry incident and private camp for kids hypocrisy really has hurt and he was just so politically deaf. Many nationally perceive this to be a recall about covid issues but locally I think the homeless problem being out of control is a bigger Newsom problem.
Initially I did think Newsom was a strong favorite but nowhere near a Republican in general election in Wyoming. Maybe 80 -90 % favorite.
I am quite surprised at how close it is and now think it is close to a toss up although Newsom still favored.
If a prominent Democrat had gotten in, I expect newsom would now be toast but Democrat chances of holding the governor would be 90%.
If Democrats had not played the political game of changing the rules and making the recall a special date and not a general in November I think Newsom would be in much better shape. Own goal and serves them right..
I would note that changing the law now to take senate appointment power from governor would smell bad and cost Newsom votes so he would never agree.
I expect Newsom hangs on because ca is still making ballots to every registered voter. As long as no big crisis like a power shutdown..
You do realize Newsom is running for reelection in 2022??? It's the real reason a recall is going nowhere. Davis had just been reelected, unhappily I may add. The recall is forced and not as popular as you may think.
I agree it should be standard or at least a state should have to be consistent.
And really it is not right to propose from a democratic perspective that the rule should be changed just because you now fear a Republican governor.
Are you then going to act like Massachusetts did and keep switching the rule back and forth to always advantage your side. That is the sort of game that is not consistent with a true democratic republic.
I can accept the dominant political party wanting a rule that is most beneficial to them in the long run as long as they stick with it and not change it back and forth.
If you were just saying that ca should have a special election because that is democratic ( small d) , ok. Or even if you say that you want it that way as would normally be better for your side, not that bad.
But to change just because you see a short term disadvantage now is somewhat odious
Note I think the consensus in a heavily partisan state like ca for Democrats or ohio for Republicans ( not a real good comparison as not as repiblocan but no large state is that Republican), is that it is better to have appointed senators than special elections as it is more likeky to lose a fluke special election than to have an opposite party governor ( especially for large states). Plus, a senator appointed by an opposite party governor is likely a dead duck in the following general election. An opposite party senator winning even a fluke special election might win the general election too..
The way it works is that the first part of the election is a recall. It’s either yes or no. If “yes” gets more than 50% the governor is out. The second part of the ballot is who should replace the governor should the recall be successful. There are over 50 people named. If the governor is recalled the person with the most votes wins, even if that persons popularity is minuscule compared to the recalled governor.
This is horribly undemocratic. A horrendously unpopular person could be “elected” this way. The only way for this to be fair is for the recalled governor to allowed on the ballot for election. If Republicans get their way on this Democrats should immediately move to recall the person who “won”.
That could but that would be partisan. The Democratic Party is resolutely nonpartisan.
DiFi is way past her sell-by date. She should resign now just to be sure.
Which of the other 41 candidates are you voting for?
I don't live in California so the answer is I won't be voting.
What he should have done was let other dems run so if he lost it wouldn't automatically go to the GOP.
Democrats should have put 1 person on the ballot other than Newsom. Barbara Lee. If Republicans recalled Newsom and got Lee it would have served them right.
Right now it would be either Faloconer or Paffrath.
Only two other then Elder which I think have a chance.
With a chaotic field and an unpredictable electorate, your vote has to be more strategic rather than just who you might really want. I have not spent much time considering the other serious Republican candidates so I am unsure whether i would prefer any of them instead as " best choice " as they seem to have zero chance.
And I would tend to vote based less on who I think might be the best governor, and instead which might help the state change direction long term.
This person is only going to get a term of a year before they need to run for reelection. And California is a solid democratic state. So I would prefer a more moderate Republican like Hogan in md or Baker in ma who can either get reelected or present a serious enough threat to force the democratic electorate in the primary to not go as left wing and nominate a more moderate democrat. The median of ca is a moderate democrat and should be the most democratic result but has no chance with current political structure.
I encourage anything that moves us to a more rational political system not dominated by national partisanship . In Canada you have a delink between provincial and national parties that allows a natural exchange of power and the electorate to vote out a bad governor without having to vote for a party that is a distinct minority.
It is not good that democrats so dominate California and Republicans do the same in say Alabama that it is a one party state. This is because the divide is locked into the national partisan divide.
A few places there is a breakdown such as Alaska and Kansas where some moderate Republicans are allied with state Democrats. In ca, it would be better to have a two party system of the maybe 80% most left wing Democrats balanced by Republicans and the 20% most moderate Democrats. Just for the state elections.
This is slow as hell, but eventually it will work.
I gotta say I'm somewhat encouraged, and I don't really think it's all that slow: it seems like various mandates have mushroomed rapidly in the last week or so. Momentum is on the side of common sense. Also, pace Kevin, state governments arguably have issued mandates, in that public universities are appendages of state governments.
I'm curious about the endgame. What happens when over 90% of all restaurants, nightclubs, movie theaters, etc. require either masks, proof of vaccination, or both? Will local/state officials start meddling in the affairs of private business in the name of 'freedom'? Or will right-wing officialdom finally throw in the towel on that front and start making noises about a left-wing conspiracy to intimidate patriotic freedom-loving business owners? Or something else entirely?
90%? You really think there's a chance the number reaches that high nationally? I could see it getting like that in the Bay Area or NY or Seattle. But I see zero prospect, given the wide swaths of the country that are in open rebellion against science, that we attain a serious national "proof of vaccine" standard for private sector public accommodations as looks likely in the rest of the high income world.
It's going to be like the post-Civil War era. It took a long time for the Old Confederacy to fully recover from that war. And I fear the same thing is going to happen this time: large portions of the country are going to suffer significant economic and social problems over an extended time period because of their status as long term covid hotspots.
My apologies; I should have explicitly specified 90% on a state-by-state basis. I agree with you that there is no way we'll breach the 90% threshold at the national level.
I believe the 90% figure which we're seeing quoted by various experts is a combination of (ideally) people who are vaccinated, people who've gotten Covid-19 but recovered. And, obviously, you would subtract from the total population susceptible to becoming infected or reinfected the people who have died. But, evidently, because of the Delta variant's characteristics the percentage of the population vaccinated or recovered needs to be around 90% to achieve herd immunity.
Cottage industry selling fake vaccine cards.
What kind of a moron would buy a fake vaccine card when a face, effective vaccine is available for free? Particularly since you can go to jail for using it.
What’s more, since the digital vaccine passports are either reading very hard to forge QR code’s or actually downloading information directly from vaccine provider or government websites or communicating with those databases to verify the paperwork, the fake CDC cards don’t seem to be a viable system in the way that phony DL or Social Security cards can be.
You have to ask?
Either Kevin gives us editing or I need to stop writing comments on my iPhone.
And on that I agree. In spades.
At last, the MAGAhats will have the freedom to be unemployed! One expects that they'll find it as rewarding as the "freedom" to be homeless and living in the street.
The classic line from Anatole France is:
"It is the majesty of the law that it allows both the rich and poor to sleep under bridges"
Wild deer have coronavirus antibodies,
https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2021/08/wild-deer-have-coronavirus-antibodies
The Milwaukee Bucks were in cahoots with the Intentional Wuhan Lab Leak to run roughshod over the NBA for two seasons & create an environment where their flawed team could sneak away with a title: confirmed.
It has been known since pretty early in the epidemic that a number of animal species can be infected by, and transmit this virus. Cats (both domestic and tigers), dogs, and minks, to name a few. Not to mention bats. That being known, it has been clear for quite a while that eradication of SARS-CoV2 is pretty much impossible. Even after everybody has finally been vaccinated or infected, as new susceptibles emerge either from waning immunity, or just by being born, there will be outbreaks here and there, from time to time as the virus will persist in animal reservoirs.
I've just been wondering how they managed to get it.
Hanging around outside somebody's open bedroom window in the dead of night? Sniffing an infected dog? Attending biker rallies?
I think kevin is wrong re the order here - i.e that govt ees will be earlier. There are political and legal constraints that make that more difficult.
Fitst of course are the private businesses that want to impose vaccine requirements in places where the govt is not stopping them. No barrier at all there imo. There will be some lawsuits by private individuals but they will go nowhere. Already talk of suing for racial discrimination as minorities less vaccinated but no chance that wins imo.
Then you have private businesses that want to have a vaccine mandate where the govt is trying to ban any vaccine requirement. Legally, that will be hard for the govt to defend. In order to win the govt has to justify that no decent reason for a vaccine requirement. Burden of proof there on the govt trying to restrict private businesses. Where it also restricts interstate or intl, like Florida and cruise lines, I doubt Florida can win. If it is just is in local in state, better chance but still not good. And govt has a better case if actual law passes by legislation rather than executive order.
For govt ees, that is a govt action requiring something on ees. That is a tougher legal standard for the vaccine mandate than where it is govt trying to prevent private business doing something.
There it is going to get much more questionable and exactly how certain a vaccine mandate is really crucial is going to be important. Basically the burden of proof is going to be more on the govt to show it is clearly needed ( not just probably a good thing)..
And major difference as to what ee. If the vaccine mandate is linked to specific requirements of that job, like on health care, easier to pass legal ( and political) scrutiny. If just for all ees for general good of community, I doubt it will pass court review.
And easier legally for a state govt maybe based on its state constitution than federal govt.
And hardest category is a general vaccine mandate for private business. Outside of specific fields where the reason is obvious and compelling , I really cannot see it. Say mandating for all nursing home staff.
Republicans most of the time: Business rulz, they know what's best don't regulate them in any way.
Business: Hey you snake handling mouth breathers, keep us out of your culture war on the modern world - we think LGBTQ people are human beings, Racism is bad for business and science is real, we don't want to die or have our customers die because you need to cater to idiots about vaccines. (PSST: on that science thing, keep up the good fight on climate change though cuz we really don't want to spend any money, but don't tell any of our employees or customers we said that, keep it between us, and thanks for the tax cuts, here is some money on the DL)
Republicans: Business are a bunch of woke commies and we need to tell them how to run their businesses (PSST guys, pay no attention to all that, you know we just need to say that to avoid a primary right? and keep up the vaccine mandates we don't want to die either and thanks for the $$$)
Hawley-Gabbard 2024.
Internment camps for the wokes, miniature electrified cattleprods for the RILMURICANS with which to shock the internees.
Today we're hearing that vaccinated people who have breakthrough infections can go on to have long covid.
My question is,
if I have a breakthrough infection that is asymptomatic and then I get long covid, how can I tell that's what it is?
I'm wondering that myself, as I'm trying to get back to my pre-2020 running distances and times, and I'm finding it amazingly hard to do. I should add that me and my partner suspect that we've already had Covid back in February of 2020 but weren't aware that's what is was.