7 ms·

I'm one shot in but think this is a huge government overreach to require this from businesses.

by xupybd 5y ago

Filligree 5y ago
Not at all. Vaccine mandates date back to George Washington, if you look at it the right way.
- vips7L 5y ago
  Just because there is precedent doesn’t mean it’s not overreach.
  - owlbynight 5y ago
    It would be overreach were our country's stability not being undermined by large pockets of selfish lemmings that clearly cannot apply logic and critical thinking to their decision making. I don't want to pay even more for everything in my life due to inflation caused by social parachutes because some toothless hillbillies in the South my taxes are ALREADY propping up don't understand their insecurity is being monetized by grifters. If you don't want mandates, perhaps evaluate the consequences of applying the same level vitriol to every single request made of you by the collective regardless of its reasonability.
    - Indomit 5y ago
      How'd you arrive at that being the key demographic for the unvaccinated?
- kiba 5y ago
  George Washington carried out an inoculation campaign against the wishes of the continental congress.
- whatthesmack 5y ago
  Isn't this very different, though? Historically, mandated vaccines weren't mandated before we knew they were safe longer-term. We're still awaiting FDA approval for a majority of the available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the US, yet many folks would be mandated to receive one. Many folks will see this as being mandated to be a test subject, which is why there has been substantial legal pushback against the mandate less than 24 hours after Biden announced it.
  - TheJoeMan 5y ago
    Always interesting to ask “who would benefit from this most” and that would be………… Pfizer! Their competitors can’t sell vaccines if they’re too late!
  - deleted 5y ago
    [deleted]
- ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
  I grew up overseas, and got poked on a regular. Every time I traveled, we had to have "our shots." These were 100% mandated by the country we were coming to. Since my "home base" was in Africa, we had some fun bugs, and I had to get a whole battery of shots. I have several vaccination scars on my body, and I developed a lifelong fear of needles, as a result of the giant horse needles they used for the thick sludge they'd jab me with (which left me feeling like I'd lost a fistfight with a gorilla). When I got my COVID vaccination shots, I didn't even feel it, as the needle was so tiny.
op00to 5y ago
How is this different from requiring hard hats? A hard hat won’t save you from getting a cut on your head from a dropped hammer but it will save you from having it break your head in two. Should OSHA stop requiring PPE?
- BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago
  Does a hat produce irreversible changes in your body whose long-term effects are unknown?
- mysterydip 5y ago
  From what others are saying, it's the unknown long term effects that are the difference. What if, knowing what we do now about it, OSHA required asbestos-lined jackets?
  - tialaramex 5y ago
    Asbestos fire-proofing made a substantial difference. We did not - in fact - go from "Let's make things fire-proof with asbestos" to "Eh, asbestos is bad, guess everything will burn down instead" but instead moved to fire-proofing with new materials in countries that could afford to do that. Lots of older buildings have asbestos that's preventing fires and won't cause noticeable harm so long as it's undisturbed. The fibres are a problem, but a sheet of material under a layer of plaster isn't breaking off fibres that can get into your lungs. If your job is to rip out plaster and re-model buildings then that's a huge problem, but if you just live in a building you're getting much more benefit from it not catching fire than you'd get from very minutely reducing your risk of lung damage from asbestos. In fact even for a brand new building, although it's banned in some places, "Let's use asbestos" makes more sense than "Eh, so what if it burns down and a few dozen people die", so if those are the available choices you should go with asbestos. So it is with the available COVID-19 vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 is very dangerous and, outside of New Zealand and a handful of Pacific islands, widespread, so you're just way more likely to get very sick or die as a result of not being vaccinated than suffer a serious side effect, known or hypothetical.
  - landemva 5y ago
softwaredoug 5y ago
Even if it’s overreach and struck down, it still will be yet another nudge for employers to have a mandate on their own.
thehappypm 5y ago
I’m not so inclined to agree at this stage, and I’m a hawk when it comes to this kind of thing. (A few days ago I was downvoted for criticizing the Colorado pay transparency law as an overreach). This is certainly the best way to keep workers safe during a pandemic and given the information we have on the Pfizer vaccine — billions of doses given, 1.5 years of watching for adverse long term effects, full FDA approval — this move strikes me as appropriate for OSHA. OSHA requirements are supposed to be aggressively protective of the worker.
ljm 5y ago
I'm not in the US so I can't speak for y'all, but the regulation isn't a bad thing. While you might not be affected personally, because you've been successful, it's better for the government to have your back than it is to entrust it to the free market. There's a hell of a lot of misery because the gov. doesn't step in enough, doesn't take care of its citizens. This was learned the hard way in 1929 and, for whatever reason, was quickly forgotten. That said, I can see why it's undesirable to some.
- wikidani 5y ago
  I don't see how the gov't respond to an economical crisis has anything to do with modern authoritarianism. Regulation without oversight and checks and balances does lead to tiranny, more often than it doesn't
  - ljm 5y ago
    Of course, but I'd contend that regulation without oversight/checks and balances is tautological. Regulation in and of itself is the oversight, or the check and balance, and that responsibility is delegated to a specialised agency or department (that has a longer term scope than a single election cycle) rather than being directly managed by the administration in office at the time. An authoritarian regime isn't going to spin up a bureaucracy like that to do regulation-without-oversight, it's just going to lower its boot onto the population's collective face. You can hardly call that regulation. Perhaps we're just debating semantics here, but I think there's a distinction between regulating corporate behaviour (you must do X Y Z if you want to run a business in this country, for reasons A B C) and introducing a totalitarian regime (you must do X Y Z because I said so).
kaydub 5y ago
Absolutely not. The US legislature has the right to regulate commerce in the US according to the US Constitution. Healthcare of workers and the overall impact of covid are two things directly affecting the economy. The legislature already has the former of these covered by the creation of OSHA in the 1970s. OSHA is a regulatory agency under the Department of Labor, which is part of the executive cabinet. The executive is now using these powers granted by the legislature to ensure workers are protected in their work environments.

I'm one shot in but think this is a huge government overreach to require this from businesses.

by xupybd 5y ago

I'm one shot in but think this is a huge government overreach to require this from businesses.

Filligree 5y ago

Not at all. Vaccine mandates date back to George Washington, if you look at it the right way.

vips7L 5y ago
Just because there is precedent doesn’t mean it’s not overreach.
- owlbynight 5y ago
  It would be overreach were our country's stability not being undermined by large pockets of selfish lemmings that clearly cannot apply logic and critical thinking to their decision making. I don't want to pay even more for everything in my life due to inflation caused by social parachutes because some toothless hillbillies in the South my taxes are ALREADY propping up don't understand their insecurity is being monetized by grifters. If you don't want mandates, perhaps evaluate the consequences of applying the same level vitriol to every single request made of you by the collective regardless of its reasonability.
  - Indomit 5y ago
    How'd you arrive at that being the key demographic for the unvaccinated?
kiba 5y ago
George Washington carried out an inoculation campaign against the wishes of the continental congress.
whatthesmack 5y ago
Isn't this very different, though? Historically, mandated vaccines weren't mandated before we knew they were safe longer-term. We're still awaiting FDA approval for a majority of the available SARS-CoV-2 vaccines in the US, yet many folks would be mandated to receive one. Many folks will see this as being mandated to be a test subject, which is why there has been substantial legal pushback against the mandate less than 24 hours after Biden announced it.
- TheJoeMan 5y ago
  Always interesting to ask “who would benefit from this most” and that would be………… Pfizer! Their competitors can’t sell vaccines if they’re too late!
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
ChrisMarshallNY 5y ago
I grew up overseas, and got poked on a regular. Every time I traveled, we had to have "our shots." These were 100% mandated by the country we were coming to. Since my "home base" was in Africa, we had some fun bugs, and I had to get a whole battery of shots. I have several vaccination scars on my body, and I developed a lifelong fear of needles, as a result of the giant horse needles they used for the thick sludge they'd jab me with (which left me feeling like I'd lost a fistfight with a gorilla). When I got my COVID vaccination shots, I didn't even feel it, as the needle was so tiny.

op00to 5y ago

How is this different from requiring hard hats? A hard hat won’t save you from getting a cut on your head from a dropped hammer but it will save you from having it break your head in two. Should OSHA stop requiring PPE?

BoHerfIIIJrEsq 5y ago
Does a hat produce irreversible changes in your body whose long-term effects are unknown?
mysterydip 5y ago
From what others are saying, it's the unknown long term effects that are the difference. What if, knowing what we do now about it, OSHA required asbestos-lined jackets?
- tialaramex 5y ago
  Asbestos fire-proofing made a substantial difference. We did not - in fact - go from "Let's make things fire-proof with asbestos" to "Eh, asbestos is bad, guess everything will burn down instead" but instead moved to fire-proofing with new materials in countries that could afford to do that. Lots of older buildings have asbestos that's preventing fires and won't cause noticeable harm so long as it's undisturbed. The fibres are a problem, but a sheet of material under a layer of plaster isn't breaking off fibres that can get into your lungs. If your job is to rip out plaster and re-model buildings then that's a huge problem, but if you just live in a building you're getting much more benefit from it not catching fire than you'd get from very minutely reducing your risk of lung damage from asbestos. In fact even for a brand new building, although it's banned in some places, "Let's use asbestos" makes more sense than "Eh, so what if it burns down and a few dozen people die", so if those are the available choices you should go with asbestos. So it is with the available COVID-19 vaccines. SARS-CoV-2 is very dangerous and, outside of New Zealand and a handful of Pacific islands, widespread, so you're just way more likely to get very sick or die as a result of not being vaccinated than suffer a serious side effect, known or hypothetical.
- landemva 5y ago

softwaredoug 5y ago

Even if it’s overreach and struck down, it still will be yet another nudge for employers to have a mandate on their own.

thehappypm 5y ago

I’m not so inclined to agree at this stage, and I’m a hawk when it comes to this kind of thing. (A few days ago I was downvoted for criticizing the Colorado pay transparency law as an overreach). This is certainly the best way to keep workers safe during a pandemic and given the information we have on the Pfizer vaccine — billions of doses given, 1.5 years of watching for adverse long term effects, full FDA approval — this move strikes me as appropriate for OSHA. OSHA requirements are supposed to be aggressively protective of the worker.

ljm 5y ago

I'm not in the US so I can't speak for y'all, but the regulation isn't a bad thing. While you might not be affected personally, because you've been successful, it's better for the government to have your back than it is to entrust it to the free market. There's a hell of a lot of misery because the gov. doesn't step in enough, doesn't take care of its citizens. This was learned the hard way in 1929 and, for whatever reason, was quickly forgotten. That said, I can see why it's undesirable to some.

wikidani 5y ago
I don't see how the gov't respond to an economical crisis has anything to do with modern authoritarianism. Regulation without oversight and checks and balances does lead to tiranny, more often than it doesn't
- ljm 5y ago
  Of course, but I'd contend that regulation without oversight/checks and balances is tautological. Regulation in and of itself is the oversight, or the check and balance, and that responsibility is delegated to a specialised agency or department (that has a longer term scope than a single election cycle) rather than being directly managed by the administration in office at the time. An authoritarian regime isn't going to spin up a bureaucracy like that to do regulation-without-oversight, it's just going to lower its boot onto the population's collective face. You can hardly call that regulation. Perhaps we're just debating semantics here, but I think there's a distinction between regulating corporate behaviour (you must do X Y Z if you want to run a business in this country, for reasons A B C) and introducing a totalitarian regime (you must do X Y Z because I said so).

kaydub 5y ago

Absolutely not. The US legislature has the right to regulate commerce in the US according to the US Constitution. Healthcare of workers and the overall impact of covid are two things directly affecting the economy. The legislature already has the former of these covered by the creation of OSHA in the 1970s. OSHA is a regulatory agency under the Department of Labor, which is part of the executive cabinet. The executive is now using these powers granted by the legislature to ensure workers are protected in their work environments.