4 ms·

When making these kinds of rulings, it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployme

When making these kinds of rulings, it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployment for the individual. Since the primary rationale of a workplace vaccine mandate would be to prevent workplace viral transmission, a vaccine having only a moderate effect on transmission would weaken the benefits. This makes it more likely that the harms of non-employment would outweigh the health benefits.

LatteLazy 4y ago
I feel like this is still a weird decision: The maximum harm from the mandate is a person losing their job, and in most states (inc NY) that's a harm any employer can inflict for almost any reason or no reason at all. The maximum harm from no mandate is that many people get infected by that individual who otherwise would not have, they infect others on an exponential basis, and people die. To me, that's a pretty easy harm vs harm decision. I wonder what the same court would do with a surgeon who likes a drink before operating and refused to do stop. Presumably his right to a job would outweigh his patient's right to an X% lower chance of dying?! I know it can't be that crazy. I must be missing some killer legal principle here (other than "fuck society"). And it's not the court's job but it would be very very helpful if they'd explain their reasoning a bit better. The ruling mostly reads like a mix of the argument from the winning side repeated and snippets from the losing side proceeded by "the court does not agree that" etc. C'est la vie I guess. Thanks for your comment :)
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  If the covid vaccines had strong efficacy you'd be right. What we know now - and many have known for a while but were censored - is the vaccines do not inoculate.
  - LatteLazy 4y ago
    My point is that the 24% from the link above is a BIG effect when applied to infectious diseases.
idiotsecant 4y ago
>it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployment for the individual. I'm not sure the harm to the employee due to being unemployed has ever been an issue when considering labor law in the past, why should this be different?
- typeofhuman 4y ago
  An employee can be justly fired for violating safety policies. In this context, it can be argued that the harm of being injured/killed outweighs the harm of being unemployed.
  - janef0421 4y ago
    Yes, it is a valid argument in this case. However, the court has to consider the strength of that argument in relation to other arguments.
- janef0421 4y ago
  There are numerous aspects of American employment law wherein the harm of unemployment may be considered. For instance, it is relevant in cases of employment discrimination, and many states also have laws surrounding acceptable reasons for termination of employment. It is clearly not a priority of the legal system, but it is sometimes a relevant consideration.

LatteLazy 4y ago

I feel like this is still a weird decision: The maximum harm from the mandate is a person losing their job, and in most states (inc NY) that's a harm any employer can inflict for almost any reason or no reason at all. The maximum harm from no mandate is that many people get infected by that individual who otherwise would not have, they infect others on an exponential basis, and people die. To me, that's a pretty easy harm vs harm decision. I wonder what the same court would do with a surgeon who likes a drink before operating and refused to do stop. Presumably his right to a job would outweigh his patient's right to an X% lower chance of dying?! I know it can't be that crazy. I must be missing some killer legal principle here (other than "fuck society"). And it's not the court's job but it would be very very helpful if they'd explain their reasoning a bit better. The ruling mostly reads like a mix of the argument from the winning side repeated and snippets from the losing side proceeded by "the court does not agree that" etc. C'est la vie I guess. Thanks for your comment :)

typeofhuman 4y ago
If the covid vaccines had strong efficacy you'd be right. What we know now - and many have known for a while but were censored - is the vaccines do not inoculate.
- LatteLazy 4y ago
  My point is that the 24% from the link above is a BIG effect when applied to infectious diseases.

idiotsecant 4y ago

>it is necessary to balance two competing interests; The benefits to public health of vaccination, and the harm of unemployment for the individual. I'm not sure the harm to the employee due to being unemployed has ever been an issue when considering labor law in the past, why should this be different?

typeofhuman 4y ago
An employee can be justly fired for violating safety policies. In this context, it can be argued that the harm of being injured/killed outweighs the harm of being unemployed.
- janef0421 4y ago
  Yes, it is a valid argument in this case. However, the court has to consider the strength of that argument in relation to other arguments.
janef0421 4y ago
There are numerous aspects of American employment law wherein the harm of unemployment may be considered. For instance, it is relevant in cases of employment discrimination, and many states also have laws surrounding acceptable reasons for termination of employment. It is clearly not a priority of the legal system, but it is sometimes a relevant consideration.