It is slowly dawning on all the different entities, including health care, that if they actually try to enforce jab mandates they're going to be screwed. Some of this is very visible already if you know where to look. Hospitals report "staffed and available" ICU (and regular) beds. For a bed to be usable legally-mandated staffing levels must be present. Beds don't "disappear" in a hospital; you don't make the building larger or smaller, do you?
Nope -- it's all about staff levels.
There has already been a contraction -- and the mandates aren't, for the most part, in effect yet. In a few places they've fired people. In others they're threatening to. The problem, beyond being sued and losing, is that they can't actually make good on the threats without immediately detonating any chance of being able to help the poor bastard who has a heart attack a week later -- and people are already leaving over these demands.
Witness what just happened in Chicago. Lightfoot mandated jabs for everyone in the schools; a large number of bus drivers quit. Now what? No school bus for your kids, that's what! The city is claiming Uber and Lyft will be provided; uh huh, good luck there because, guess what -- neither mandates their drivers be jabbed!
And don't kid yourself -- those arguing that Jacobson, a USSC decision centering on smallpox from 1905, a disease with a 30% fatality rate, are flat-out wrong on several levels.
First, in Jacobson the only penalty for refusal was a one time $5 fine. Today that's about $150. The scope of the penalty often informs the constitutionality of the action; that which mandates your execution is subject to a greater level of scrutiny than a traffic ticket, which is approximately what the level of the dispute involved in Jacobson was.
Second, in Jacobson the refuser was criminally prosecuted and convicted; in other words he did not get a summary judgement via extra-judicial or private process, he was first tried and convicted in a court of law where he could and did present all of his evidence and experts; he lost in a judicial proceeding. Exactly zero of the current mandates have included any such due-process protection on a collective -- say much less individualized -- basis.
But leaving aside the USSC's decision to refuse to hear cases thus far, or Jacobson at all, a take the jab or be fired mandate, if met with the middle finger by any material percentage of the workforce, instantly cripples or even bankrupts the firm in question. If that firm is in Health Care they are liable for this, as no part of the PREP Act or any other act of the legislature I can find provides any immunity for self-inflicted destruction of their ability to provide care.
Indeed, in many states "CON" laws forbid reducing or increasing medical capacity without review of an appointed board and as such a deliberate action by a health care provider to fire staff and, by doing so, reducing capacity is actually illegal.
Now I've argued for a long time that CON laws are stupid, they serve to reduce competition, they are arguably felonious to the extent any private party is involved in them (the government can collude and otherwise violate 15 USC on its own without breaking the law but no private party can without an explicit statutory exemption) but the fact remains that such laws exist in many states and are enforceable and they constrain both increases and reductions in medical system -- including hospital -- capacity.
Next up is the last 18 months of history when it comes to various so-called "essential" employees. A huge percentage have had Covid-19. They were essentially compelled to risk exposure on a daily basis, especially in the medical system, and an enormous percentage of them got infected -- and lived. Having done so they are presumptively immune. The data is that previous infection is thirteen times as effective in preventing a second infection as a vaccine is at preventing the first one. There is no reason for them to take any precaution at all; their risk of contracting or spreading the disease is a statistical zero. This is clearly not true for vaccinated people who, we have learned, are just as contagious as an unvaccinated person if they get infected and, as time goes on, the vaccine wears off or is evaded by the virus (both of which, I remind you, were utterly predictable from our experience attempting vaccination against other coronaviruses) but there is no evidence that prior infection wears off to any material degree over the time we have had to look at it since this virus first appeared.
I challenge those who think infected and recovered people should take a jab, wear a mask or otherwise take any protective step with regard to Covid-19: Produce your evidence that what you propose has any statistically valid benefit to others or even, for that matter, to the individual in question.
There is none.
As for those who have not been infected the data on personal risk allocation is less-clear. Certainly, Covid-19 can seriously injure or kill you. But, since we now know the vaccines neither prevent infection or passing the virus on to others, and have a wildly higher hazard rate than any of the other commonly-used vaccines the equation is now entirely personal. That is, there is no social or employment and customer-related benefit to be had and thus we are now talking about the same classification of personal choice as is packing on that extra 100lbs or choosing to engage in anal sex, both of which are personally dangerous but do not impact other, non-consenting people except, perhaps, by consuming medical system resources someone else might want or need.
What's even worse is that the so-called rare "breakthrough infections" are anything but rare and they're landing people in the hospital too. Oscar De La Hoya anyone? Can anyone argue that's not a man in excellent physical condition? He was vaccinated and yet... in the hospital with Covid. Or Jesse Jackson -- vaccinated, wound up in the hospital with Covid. The claim that this is now a "pandemic of the unvaccinated" is flat-out bull****; oh sure, maybe it was true in January, but it isn't now. Either the vaccines quickly lose their potency, the virus has evolved to evade them and made them near-worthless, or both.
How about Cornell? 95% vaccination rate with a mandate and they have taken five times the cases of last year. It took a literal three weeks for the pronouncements of the administration to blow up in their face. How could you possibly call that anything other than "worthless" and when does the administration that put said policy in place, and put every student at risk for no benefit get run out of town on a rail after being asset-stripped to their underwear and blackballed so they can't even get a job spinning pizzas -- ever.
What has remained constant is lifestyle decisions you personally made and continue to make each day.
Indeed, the data is that being morbidly obese puts 60% or more on your risk of hospitalization or death from Covid-19. Since every single person who is morbidly obese willingly put every item of food and beverage down their own throat should we not hold them accountable for the load they are now placing on the medical system, especially since we knew this in early 2020 and they willingly and intentionally remained obese rather than lose the weight in the intervening 18 months?
If I have a right to be fat (and not be discriminated against on the basis of being fat) then I have a right to be unvaccinated against this virus since neither being not-fat or vaccinated confers a health benefit to others; any benefit, such as may exist, is mine and mine alone.
Never mind the facts on the risk of hospitalization (or worse) if you get Covid-19. The media and government fear porn has led to stunning stupidity among the public in this regard. The majority of all persons, whether Democrat, Republican or Independent, believe your risk of winding up in the hospital is 20% or more, and a plurality of all groups believe it is 50% or higher. The true risk? 1-5%, depending on your personal medical status.
Our government and media has deliberately generated an aura of fear that has caused everyone to believe their risk is ten to fifty times what is true when it comes to this disease.
If you think this is some sort of esoteric argument, or it will not matter when this finds its way into court you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. As just one example you have every right to screw another man in the ass so long as you both are adults and consent, which is why the laws related to such sexual practices across the United States in any public accommodation, housing, employment and similar have been progressively, over the last decades, struck down as unconstitutional. Indeed just last year firing someone for being gay become formally illegal. In short the USSC has, on a consistent basis over the last hundred years, ruled that what you choose in terms of personal risk as a consenting adult is nobody else's damned business and absent hard, scientific proof that someone else is harmed you are on extremely thin ice legally with an attempt to discriminate on any such basis. The legal record is very clear in this regard; that which used to be able to be proscribed 100 years ago as "immoral" or "dangerous" for a particular person has been repeatedly and almost without exception greatly narrowed as the USSC has considered various cases before it.
I remind you that at the time of Jacobson the Court saw such things very differently and personal choice was much less-respected than it is today. Around the same time as Jacobson, for example, the state legislature of Oregon passed a law allowing forced sterilization of "sexual perverts" -- aimed straight at homosexuals and the feeble-minded. Oregon was not alone in passing and enforcing these laws. Do you really think jabbing people was a big deal to the Supremes while the State of Oregon was cutting off people's balls due to their sexual preference?
Do you think the Judge in Chicago did not take all of this into consideration when he reversed his former ruling that an unvaccinated mother by virtue of refusal lost her rights as a parent? I'd like to see the history on exactly why he originally thought that was a good idea, and if perhaps a little off-the-record urging was involved. Family courts are known for hair-raising rulings and such off-the-record games but this one got reversed awfully-quickly, didn't it? Perhaps the light went on in his head -- since the jabs do not produce sterilizing immunity to the virus and do not interrupt transmission his ruling was that one can be dispossessed of their civil rights for a personal medical, social or political decision with the boundary of impact encompassing nobody but herself. It was likely wise to walk away from that voluntarily before he got slapped in the face on appeal.
One cannot be socially liberal in terms of what two or more adults do in their own bedroom and stand for a vaccine mandate when the vaccine in question does not prevent harboring or transmitting the disease to others. If it did you might have a point, but it doesn't. None of the current jabs do. We were all lied to about that although I did point out that it was a lie at the time because the trials were never designed to prove that, and thus to claim they actually prevented disease and transmission was nothing more than speculative bull**** issued from a government mouthpiece -- and act that endangered the public because it led people to believe that for which there was no evidence and worse, caused people who could not be vaccinated (e.g. due to immune system compromise) to believe they were safe in the company of vaccinated individuals when in fact they gained no element of personal safety whatsoever. Some of them have found this out the hard way over the last six months, having relied on that lie, and now are dead.
Further, to refuse to recognize natural immunity when, on the science, it is superior to the vaccines and does produce sterilizing immunity tags your position as not only punitive and without scientific merit it tags you as a monster worthy of expulsion and extinction of your entire family line as the next group to be targeted with such a punitive, non-scientific measure is likely to be some other non-favored political or social group.
This is exactly what those who targeted gay people for decades did, and exactly what the Taliban and Iran have done in throwing said gay people off buildings because of who they choose to sleep with and love. And, I remind you, anything of that nature has explicitly been ruled unconstitutional in the context of employment, public accommodation or any other business endeavor.
If you support such mandates or act in any way to promote or enforce them then you are a member of the "God Hates Fags" group -- you're just picking on a different set of people. Your position is no more defensible than theirs; indeed it is less-so since their advocacy was limited to waving signs where you demand that others lose their civil rights and liberties, means of earning a living and access to everyday life.
America was founded on the principle of individual choice and liberty. There are indeed just boundaries on individual liberty when it comes to actions that, on actual science, put other people at unreasonable or unconscionable risk. We prohibit driving while intoxicated for this reason, and provided you can scientifically defend the state of intoxication that presents unreasonable risk, this is within the government's power to do. But it is perfectly legal to get ****-faced in the company of other adults within the confines of your own property, so long as you don't project anything beyond its boundaries while in an inebriated state, since nobody but the willing are in danger from those doing so.
When the science by the admission of the government, and thus not subject to dispute, is that the claimed "compelled action" has no benefit in reducing risk to others and, to the extent benefit exists it is entirely personal then there is simply no argument one can make that a mandate passes muster at any level.
Not ethical, not moral and not legal either. That CDC document is admissible evidence folks, and its conclusive. It is the official position of the US Federal Government's alleged "disease control" experts. They published it of their own free volition.
We had no right to stop gay men from deciding to have sex with each other even when there was no treatment or prophylaxis for HIV/AIDS. We had no duty to promote same, but we also had no right to banish such persons from ordinary commerce and daily life because they put themselves at risk of a deadly disease. Many of them decided to do so and died yet exactly nobody demanded that if you were gay and male you couldn't go watch a Broadway show, be a fireman or work in a school. Yes, there were people who argued that but they were bigots just as those arguing for mandates are now, and ultimately they lost in court and, in some cases, were found legally responsible for damages that resulted from their conduct.
That's not because HIV/AIDS wasn't serious -- for those who got it and died it sure as hell was, and for Mental Midget Fauci who argued against using Bactrim in those people he helped shoved 30,000 of them into the hole while waiting for his "controlled trials" which, incidentally, never came -- all while pushing his "favored" drug, AZT, which in fact failed to save the life of a single person who got infected with HIV.
The reason it's nobody else's damned business is because said gay person didn't infect anyone else, statistically-speaking, who didn't choose to accept the risk. Oh sure, they might cut their finger or suffer a nosebleed in a public bathroom and that blood could infect someone else, but statistically there was no change.
The same applies here; the vaccines do nothing to change the risk to others. Whether vaccinated or not the risk to others is the same. In fact by attenuating symptoms you might actually be more likely to spread the virus if vaccinated since if you do not feel ill, and thus have no reason to believe you're infected you are more-likely to socialize and spread the virus to others. The original claim that the vaccines prevented such risk has now been proved to be false by the government's own admission; there was never any scientific evidence that this was the case as the trials were not set up to show that, and as time has gone on we have discovered that in fact there is no protection for others; all the vaccines confer is a waning and uncertain degree of personal protection.
If your boss mandates jabs he is a bigot exactly as is someone who plays "God Hates Fags." He's also on the wrong side of science, facts and, ultimately I predict, the law. The Government's own experts have already admitted that there is no public benefit to these vaccines as they prevent neither infection or transmission and the moment they did that they voided all "benefit to the public" arguments by their own hand.
That should and indeed must be the end of all discussion of "mandates" and if it isn't then may every entity issuing such a mandate along with all of their directors, officers and managers be destroyed, both corporately and personally, for what is nothing more than attempt at punitive action for political purpose with no public benefit whatsoever and which violate the basic principle of bodily autonomy and personal self-determination upon which all civil rights rest.