Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion

[mkt]

The reason they were able to do that is because the powers that be didn't want to discourage vaccination by requiring ID or utility bills after the initial phase when there was very limited supply.

Yep - but at the very beginning, Florida residency was mandatory.

 

[correcaminos]

Yep - but at the very beginning, Florida residency was mandatory.

Not actually. Initially it seemed anyone could get vaccinated. They tightened towards the end of Jan but as supplies were more available it was relaxed again. In laws never had to prove residency though they were early. Friends often only had to for one shot but not the other. It wasn't universally enforced either. I know more than one who traveled to FL for a shot

 

[DisneyCane]

Not actually. Initially it seemed anyone could get vaccinated. They tightened towards the end of Jan but as supplies were more available it was relaxed again. In laws never had to prove residency though they were early. Friends often only had to for one shot but not the other. It wasn't universally enforced either. I know more than one who traveled to FL for a shot

It was more of a deterrent because early on FL allowed 65+ while most other states were higher (70+ I think).

 

[mmascari]

Miami-Dade County, which has the highest vaccination rate in FL (91% eligible and 85% of the population with at least one shot) had the highest case rate in the last week (400+ per 100k) by a substantial margin. As pointed out earlier in the thread a lot of people mask up in Miami-Dade as well. The next door neighbor in Broward has the 2nd highest vaccination rate (80% eligible), has a lot of maskers and had the 2nd highest case rate (262 per 100k by memory).

How are the other surrounding areas? Wherever they’re getting lots of cross interaction from? That’s always the problem with county metrics, there’s lots of cross county interaction. Same problem with really small countries.

Hopefully 85% is enough. It may have been enough for Delta but not anymore. It’s going to be tough if the new inflection point is 90%+

The reason they were able to do that is because the powers that be didn't want to discourage vaccination by requiring ID or utility bills after the initial phase when there was very limited supply.

It’s not like supply has been limited for months. Might as well vaccinate anyone who shows up.

 

[correcaminos]

It was more of a deterrent because early on FL allowed 65+ while most other states were higher (70+ I think).

They were first out the gate. I remember helping my MIL early Jan and had to wait weeks to do my dad (my dad is older than my MIL too). I know not all places were as strict but some very much so if they had low supplies. It was an utter mess to get vaccines in Jan and Feb for sure.

 

[DisneyCane]

How are the other surrounding areas? Wherever they’re getting lots of cross interaction from? That’s always the problem with county metrics, there’s lots of cross county interaction. Same problem with really small countries.

Hopefully 85% is enough. It may have been enough for Delta but not anymore. It’s going to be tough if the new inflection point is 90%+






It’s not like supply has been limited for months. Might as well vaccinate anyone who shows up.

Broward to the north is 2nd highest in vaccination. The everglades is to the west. West and south is Monroe (the keys) which is lower on the list (I think mid range) but is low population and not the kind of daily interaction you are talking about. Most of the people who go to Monroe County on a typical day from Miami-Dade are going fishing.

 

[ArmoredRodent]

Please don't take this as the final word; it's just one Court of Appeals decision, no matter how vehemently it asserts jurisdiction.

As I explained above in Post 91,553, the special statute covering OSHA Emergency rules anticipated that there would be a contest over where the cases were brought, and required a lottery among the circuits with filed cases to decide which Circuit will decide the case. All twelve Circuit Courts have had cases filed, with those saying the mandate was too broad filing in some and those saying the mandate was too lax filing in others, and the lottery was held yesterday. The Fifth Circuit did not win; the Sixth Circuit (covering Ohio, Kentucky, Michigan, Tennessee) won. The Sixth Circuit, by statute, can modify, affirm or reject the Fifth Circuit's injunction against the vaccine mandate (and likely will, though the Fifth Circuit's opinion did have several good points).

It likely will, because there's a conflict among the Circuits in the vaccine mandate cases. That's the #1 reason the Supremes grant certiorari in the first place (review of most cases is discretionary, so at least four Justices have to vote in favor of hearing a Petition for Cert) because the top priority for the Court is uniformity of the law across the country. Otherwise, there would be races to the courthouse in favorable jurisdictions. I just finished a brief in a case last night, telling the Court about the wide variation among and within Circuits in a pretty fundamental First Amendment question.

I usually wait until someone asks, but given the prior interest in the employer vaccine cases and the lack of media coverage of an opinion delivering an important change in the tenor of judicial review of vaccine mandates in favor of vaccination, I'll post a little on the latest in the consolidated cases reviewing the OSHA Emergency rule on mandatory vaccinations. You may recall that, as I noted in one of the quotes above, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals jumped in early with an injunction against the vaccine mandate, but under the statute guiding this sort of nationwide emergency case review, there was a lottery to decide which appeals court would get the case, and the Fifth Circuit lost.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit won the lottery, and, as expected, has now vacated the Fifth Circuit's injunction against the OSHA vaccine rule. The decision, issued yesterday, is very lengthy and sophisticated, although, because challenges were filed in every Circuit, the explanatory opinions include 3 pages (single-spaced) of lawyers' and their clients' names and 20 pages of lawyers' service addresses. Judge Jane B. Stranch, of Nashville, Tennessee, is an appropriate judge to write this opinion and manage this case. Appointed by President Obama and confirmed in 2010, in private practice she was a labor law and ERISA specialist. She was in the second class of women admitted to the University of Virginia (founded by President Thomas Jefferson and still a top school), is a summa laude graduate of Vanderbilt University, received her J.D. from Vanderbilt School of Law in 1978, and was a member of the prestigious legal honor society known as the Order of the Coif.

The three judges on the panel issuing yesterday's Order each issued an opinion. Their initial paragraphs summarize their positions. Judge Stranch's controlling opinion for the Sixth Circuit begins:
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy. Throughout, American employees have been trying to survive financially and hoping to find a way to return to their jobs. Despite access to vaccines and better testing, however, the virus rages on, mutating into different variants, and posing new risks. Recognizing that the "old normal" is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there. In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace. On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS or the standard) to protect the health of employees by mitigating spread of this historically unprecedented virus in the workplace. The ETS requires that employees be vaccinated or wear a protective face covering and take weekly tests but allows employers to choose the policy implementing those requirements that is best suited to their workplace. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS pending judicial review, and it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3) [AR: and the judicial lottery statute], petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit for the following reasons. ...

Judge Gibbons wrote a short concurring opinion, with an ode to Chevron (judicial deference to regulatory agencies' decisions, which, as an aside, is currently extremely controversial in the Supreme Court):
I agree that the government’s motion to dissolve the stay should be granted and concur fully in Judge Stranch’s opinion. I write separately to note the limited role of the judiciary in this dispute about pandemic policy. Petitioners and various opinions discuss at length how OSHA could have handled the pandemic’s impact on places of employment differently. Some of the writings include sweeping pronouncements about constitutional law and the scope of OSHA’s statutory authority. Much of this writing is untethered from the specific facts and issues presented here and overlooks the limited nature of our role.
Reasonable minds may disagree on OSHA's approach to the pandemic, but we do not substitute our judgment for that of OSHA, which has been tasked by Congress with policy-making responsibilities. See Charles D. Bonnano Linen Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 418 (1982). This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. "[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984). Beyond constitutional limitations, the work of an agency, often scientific and technical in nature, is outside our expertise. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2413 (2019).
Our only responsibility is to determine whether OSHA has likely acted within the bounds of its statutory authority and the Constitution. As it likely has done so, I concur.

Judge Larsen wrote a 20-page dissent. It begins:
As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded us, "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." Ala. 'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021). The majority's theme is that questions of health science and policy lie beyond the judicial ken. I agree. But this case asks a legal question: whether Congress authorized the action the agency took. That question is the bread and butter of federal courts. And this case can be resolved using ordinary tools of statutory interpretation and bedrock principles of administrative law. These tell us that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits, so I would stay OSHA's emergency rule pending final review.
==============

Again, not my area of legal expertise, but Judge Stranch's opinion refutes the usual opposition to the OSHA emergency rule: that it is beyond the scope of OSHA's regulatory authority to reach into private businesses' dealing with the virus. As with many recent cases, this question brings up an obscure legal doctrine known as the "major questions" doctrine, which, distilled, says that although courts will often defer to regulatory agencies' expertise in complicated areas, it will not do so if the agency is claiming a big increase in its own power. The Fifth Circuit said that the major questions doctrine pre-empted the OSHA rule because "Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance”, quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). Judges Stranch and Gibbons said that Congress did so in OSHA's authorizing legislation and Chevron deference to the agency's expertise is sufficiently justified; Judge Larsen disagreed.

So, as this case proceeds before the Sixth Circuit panel, the likely outcome is that the OSHA mandate will be upheld unless there are procedural or other obstacles that arise. That does NOT govern other vaccine mandates currently in litigation, since this was a decision based on the specific terms of OSHA's authorizing legislation, and other laws are likely different. How the rest of the case will play out is yet unclear. But for now, the OSHA workplace vaccination mandate is back in full force.

 

[DisneyCane]

I usually wait until someone asks, but given the prior interest in the employer vaccine cases and the lack of media coverage of an opinion delivering an important change in the tenor of judicial review of vaccine mandates in favor of vaccination, I'll post a little on the latest in the consolidated cases reviewing the OSHA Emergency rule on mandatory vaccinations. You may recall that, as I noted in one of the quotes above, the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals jumped in early with an injunction against the vaccine mandate, but under the statute guiding this sort of nationwide emergency case review, there was a lottery to decide which appeals court would get the case, and the Fifth Circuit lost.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit won the lottery, and, as expected, has now vacated the Fifth Circuit's injunction against the OSHA vaccine rule. The decision, issued yesterday, is very lengthy and sophisticated, although, because challenges were filed in every Circuit, the explanatory opinions include 3 pages (single-spaced) of lawyers' and their clients' names and 20 pages of lawyers' service addresses. Judge Jane B. Stranch, of Nashville, Tennessee, is an appropriate judge to write this opinion and manage this case. Appointed by President Obama and confirmed in 2010, in private practice she was a labor law and ERISA specialist. She was in the second class of women admitted to the University of Virginia (founded by President Thomas Jefferson and still a top school), is a summa *** laude graduate of Vanderbilt University, received her J.D. from Vanderbilt School of Law in 1978, and was a member of the prestigious legal honor society known as the Order of the Coif.

The three judges on the panel issuing yesterday's Order each issued an opinion. Their initial paragraphs summarize their positions. Judge Stranch's controlling opinion for the Sixth Circuit begins:
The COVID-19 pandemic has wreaked havoc across America, leading to the loss of over 800,000 lives, shutting down workplaces and jobs across the country, and threatening our economy. Throughout, American employees have been trying to survive financially and hoping to find a way to return to their jobs. Despite access to vaccines and better testing, however, the virus rages on, mutating into different variants, and posing new risks. Recognizing that the "old normal" is not going to return, employers and employees have sought new models for a workplace that will protect the safety and health of employees who earn their living there. In need of guidance on how to protect their employees from COVID-19 transmission while reopening business, employers turned to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA or the Agency), the federal agency tasked with assuring a safe and healthful workplace. On November 5, 2021, OSHA issued an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS or the standard) to protect the health of employees by mitigating spread of this historically unprecedented virus in the workplace. The ETS requires that employees be vaccinated or wear a protective face covering and take weekly tests but allows employers to choose the policy implementing those requirements that is best suited to their workplace. The next day, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit stayed the ETS pending judicial review, and it renewed that decision in an opinion issued on November 12. Under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(3) [AR: and the judicial lottery statute], petitions challenging the ETS—filed in Circuits across the nation—were consolidated into this court. Pursuant to our authority under 28 U.S.C. § 2112(a)(4), we DISSOLVE the stay issued by the Fifth Circuit for the following reasons. ...

Judge Gibbons wrote a short concurring opinion, with an ode to Chevron (judicial deference to regulatory agencies' decisions, which, as an aside, is currently extremely controversial in the Supreme Court):
I agree that the government’s motion to dissolve the stay should be granted and concur fully in Judge Stranch’s opinion. I write separately to note the limited role of the judiciary in this dispute about pandemic policy. Petitioners and various opinions discuss at length how OSHA could have handled the pandemic’s impact on places of employment differently. Some of the writings include sweeping pronouncements about constitutional law and the scope of OSHA’s statutory authority. Much of this writing is untethered from the specific facts and issues presented here and overlooks the limited nature of our role.
Reasonable minds may disagree on OSHA's approach to the pandemic, but we do not substitute our judgment for that of OSHA, which has been tasked by Congress with policy-making responsibilities. See Charles D. Bonnano Linen Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 454 U.S. 404, 418 (1982). This limitation is constitutionally mandated, separating our branch from our political co-branches. "[F]ederal judges—who have no constituency—have a duty to respect legitimate policy choices made by those who do." Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. NRDC, Inc., 467 U.S. 837, 866 (1984). Beyond constitutional limitations, the work of an agency, often scientific and technical in nature, is outside our expertise. See Kisor v. Wilkie, 139 S. Ct. 2400, 2413 (2019).
Our only responsibility is to determine whether OSHA has likely acted within the bounds of its statutory authority and the Constitution. As it likely has done so, I concur.

Judge Larsen wrote a 20-page dissent. It begins:
As the Supreme Court has very recently reminded us, "our system does not permit agencies to act unlawfully even in pursuit of desirable ends." Ala. ***'n of Realtors v. Dep't of Health & Hum. Servs., 141 S. Ct. 2485, 2490 (2021). The majority's theme is that questions of health science and policy lie beyond the judicial ken. I agree. But this case asks a legal question: whether Congress authorized the action the agency took. That question is the bread and butter of federal courts. And this case can be resolved using ordinary tools of statutory interpretation and bedrock principles of administrative law. These tell us that petitioners are likely to succeed on the merits, so I would stay OSHA's emergency rule pending final review.
==============

Again, not my area of legal expertise, but Judge Stranch's opinion refutes the usual opposition to the OSHA emergency rule: that it is beyond the scope of OSHA's regulatory authority to reach into private businesses' dealing with the virus. As with many recent cases, this question brings up an obscure legal doctrine known as the "major questions" doctrine, which, distilled, says that although courts will often defer to regulatory agencies' expertise in complicated areas, it will not do so if the agency is claiming a big increase in its own power. The Fifth Circuit said that the major questions doctrine pre-empted the OSHA rule because "Congress must “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance”, quoting Util. Air Regul. Grp. v. EPA, 573 U.S. 302, 324 (2014). Judges Stranch and Gibbons said that Congress did so in OSHA's authorizing legislation and Chevron deference to the agency's expertise is sufficiently justified; Judge Larsen disagreed.

So, as this case proceeds before the Sixth Circuit panel, the likely outcome is that the OSHA mandate will be upheld unless there are procedural or other obstacles that arise. That does NOT govern other vaccine mandates currently in litigation, since this was a decision based on the specific terms of OSHA's authorizing legislation, and other laws are likely different. How the rest of the case will play out is yet unclear. But for now, the OSHA workplace vaccination mandate is back in full force.

Isn't it very likely to be quickly appealed to the supreme court? Isn't there also a possibility of a supreme court justice issuing a stay pending the decision?

 

[DisneyFan32]

When will the COVID-19 pandemic end?

McKinsey’s evolving perspectives on when will the COVID-19 pandemic end in the United States updated to examine how timing will vary around the world.

www.mckinsey.com

Fauci Says End of Pandemic Could Come Soon, But Warns About Current Surge

Cases have jumped in the Midwest and Northeast in the past week, but Fauci says the pandemic could get under control in 2022 if enough Americans get vaccinated.

www.newsweek.com

Oh what the pandemic will be ending soon because we'll have another dark winter coming up!

 

[DisneyFan32]

Also:

MSN

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal agency on Saturday said it could start issuing citations to companies as soon as Jan. 10 for failure to comply with a nationwide mandate that they either vaccinate or test regularly for COVID-19, as a U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the policy looms.

The announcement came one day after a U.S. appeals court reinstated the Biden administration policy that requires large businesses to verify employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing.

Another court in November had blocked the rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the legal battle is expected to continue to the Supreme Court.

On Saturday, OSHA said it would not cite companies for any kind of noncompliance with the rule before Jan. 10 "to provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance." OSHA also said citations around COVID-19 testing would not begin before Feb. 9.

The OSHA rule applies to businesses with at least 100 workers and covers 80 million American workers.

The rule has triggered a significant backlash, particularly in Republican-leaning states. Republicans hope to make popular frustration with COVID-19 safety measures a central theme in political campaigns ahead of the November 2022 congressional elections, when Republican hope to seize control of Congress.

President Joe Biden has argued the vaccine mandate is essential for fighting the pandemic, which has killed more than 750,000 Americans and weighed on the economy.

Biden will announce new steps for fighting the pandemic on Tuesday, a White House spokesperson said.

The debate coincides with public health officials bracing for a "tidal wave" https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ti...t-us-covid-19-surge-into-overdrive-2021-12-17 of coronavirus infections in the United States as the more transmissible Omicron variant spreads rapidly worldwide.

I think what President Biden will do fighting the pandemic on Tueday. Mask mandate returning or not?

 

[jlhwdw]

This Christmas break will pain in my butt for this COVID-19 pandemic madness in California.
I wonder this will ending by Spring 2022 as possible. I want masks go away soon. Is NJ is not bring back mask mandate?

"Follow the science". This one makes no scientific sense.

The days a vax card and/or negative test are required for entry are the same days a face mask is required to be worn all the time, including outdoors? Huh? I feel like you ask for the proof of vax/negative test so you can comfortably allow folks to not mask up as vigilantly. And outdoor masks are so summer 2020

 

[JoeCamel]

Also:

MSN

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - A U.S. federal agency on Saturday said it could start issuing citations to companies as soon as Jan. 10 for failure to comply with a nationwide mandate that they either vaccinate or test regularly for COVID-19, as a U.S. Supreme Court showdown over the policy looms.

The announcement came one day after a U.S. appeals court reinstated the Biden administration policy that requires large businesses to verify employees are vaccinated against COVID-19 or submit to weekly testing.

Another court in November had blocked the rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA), and the legal battle is expected to continue to the Supreme Court.

On Saturday, OSHA said it would not cite companies for any kind of noncompliance with the rule before Jan. 10 "to provide employers with sufficient time to come into compliance." OSHA also said citations around COVID-19 testing would not begin before Feb. 9.

The OSHA rule applies to businesses with at least 100 workers and covers 80 million American workers.

The rule has triggered a significant backlash, particularly in Republican-leaning states. Republicans hope to make popular frustration with COVID-19 safety measures a central theme in political campaigns ahead of the November 2022 congressional elections, when Republican hope to seize control of Congress.

President Joe Biden has argued the vaccine mandate is essential for fighting the pandemic, which has killed more than 750,000 Americans and weighed on the economy.

Biden will announce new steps for fighting the pandemic on Tuesday, a White House spokesperson said.

The debate coincides with public health officials bracing for a "tidal wave" https://www.reuters.com/world/us/ti...t-us-covid-19-surge-into-overdrive-2021-12-17 of coronavirus infections in the United States as the more transmissible Omicron variant spreads rapidly worldwide.

I think what President Biden will do fighting the pandemic on Tueday. Mask mandate returning or not?

We have never had a nationwide mask mandate, transportation yes but not a blanket mandate. It can't be done legally but it can be done at the state levels if their government decides it is needed.

 

[jlhwdw]

it's their body - they have the right to make their own risk assessments.

Can I assume you are pro choice?

 

[JoeCamel]

"Follow the science". This one makes no scientific sense.

The days a vax card and/or negative test are required for entry are the same days a face mask is required to be worn all the time, including outdoors? Huh? I feel like you ask for the proof of vax/negative test so you can comfortably allow folks to not mask up as vigilantly. And outdoor masks are so summer 2020

It is for peace of mind that everyone you are in the park with is vaccinated. Has nothing to do with masking
It's for vaccinated people that may not want to be in a mixed setting with thousands of others.

 

[Incomudro]

Can I assume you are pro choice?

I am but for a different reason.

 

[DisneyFan32]

We have never had a nationwide mask mandate, transportation yes but not a blanket mandate. It can't be done legally but it can be done at the state levels if their government decides it is needed.

When national mask mandate for trains, buses and planes will be gone soon if the pandemic is close to ending next year.

 

[JoeCamel]

When national mask mandate for trains, buses and planes will be gone soon if the pandemic is close to ending next year.

Don't know..... we wait....

 

[Lilofan]

I need to get into town next week near the major hospital. Instead of driving myself I’m thinking I could hurt myself and call an ambulance since it’ll take me to the same place.

Get your checkbook out to write that check for the transport services when they send you the bill.

 

[MisterPenguin]

The Rockettes have reportedly among the New York Theatre crowd of having very lax mask enforcement.

Additionally I’ve heard that the Rockettes production alone has 30 positive cases — currently. That’s why they have cancelled the remainder of the shows run.

There's video showing how it spread...

 

[ArmoredRodent]

Isn't it very likely to be quickly appealed to the supreme court? Isn't there also a possibility of a supreme court justice issuing a stay pending the decision?

Certainly, there's a possibility, this is a big case. But probably not a high likelihood. There's a statute in place that establishes the specific procedure to be followed in exactly this sort of situation. If you were a Justice, what would you need to see to over-ride that specific procedure? Pro tip: first and foremost, a handy rule for the irregular moves you are asking about, for a matter outside of the usual procedures, is that you need six votes, instead of the four you need to get the Court to review a case (grant cert), and the five to win. Given the recent splits in decisions, do you see six votes? (This kind of vote counting, by the way, is the FIRST question any SCotUS practitioner asks, because the Court won't waste its time if it can't come to a decision; after all, the Supremes are the only branch of the federal government that, year in, year out, finishes its work on time.)

So, a "gut feeling" that the panel is wrong, even a strongly-held belief, would be, in practitioner's lingo, "mere error," which almost never works. The Supreme Court is very used to letting things develop enough to get a substantial record upon which to judge the various balances involved. A decision this summer was in a case I worked on for seven years; the brief I sent in Thursday evening was the third one on that topic in five years. As I've noted before, by the time a case like this gets to the Court level, it's never easy, and certainly never as easy as media pundits make out. There are always many, many sides to a question like this, and the Court doesn't want to do that kind of balancing without knowing what it and others will put on the scales. Too many things in motion right now to make a snap judgment (pun intended).

Even more important, this is not a 6-3 Court, despite what various media claim. This is, as commentators right and left point out (though with differing titles and explanations of motives). Leaving aside that half of all cases are decided unanimously, and most of the others are not decided by easily-identified voting blocs, there are three liberal Justices who vote as a bloc, three conservative Justices who often vote together, and then there are Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Kavanaugh and Barrett, who pretty much go their own way. And any referral to the Circuit Justice for the Sixth Circuit goes to ... Justice Kavanaugh. Who tested positive for Covid on Oct. 1 even though he was fully vaxxed. In the workplace. So, is unlikely to think that the newest surge is something to ignore or act precipitously on.