Kman
Well-Known Member
I hear your frustration. Unfortunately about 50% of the population does not care about the great good
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Coronavirus and Walt Disney World general discussion
- Thread starter Parker in NYC
- Start date
-
- Tags
- coronavirus covid covid-19
- Status
I hear your frustration. Unfortunately about 50% of the population does not care about the great good
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
I’m asking about legal authority. My assumption is this particular power resides with the states. I could be wrong though.
Roy G. Dis
Well-Known Member
Is someone here an expert in federal vaccine mandate law and a Walt Disney World fanatic? LMAO
I'm still ticked that some I know are working in covid wards as RNs , refusing to take the vaccine and are claiming an exemption since the hospital they work for are requiring for all staff to get vaccinated or claim an exemption.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
New study out of Singapore (which has good testing and controls over visitors so makes a good study site) three days ago. https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.28.21261295v1 (medrxiv is a medical preprint server, publicizing studies before peer review). First one to look at the Delta variant loads vaxxed/unvaxxed, and run by Dr. Barnaby Edward Young, one of the best. Not only does vaxxing cut severity, but if a breakthrough occurs, viral load falls very fast. Thus, even though the initial viral load in the nasopharynx is the same vaxxed/unvaxxed (as reported in Cape Cod), the vaxxed lose that viral load very fast, since the virus isn't multiplying in the host, while the unvaxxed keep reinforcing the load. So less shedding overall, by a very wide margin. So you would expect that rises/falls would be different. More studies to come, of course, but the info on the vaxxed is very encouraging.
Casper Gutman
Well-Known Member
The fed could certainly do it for interstate travel, the military, and other areas - and they eventually will. They can probably do so more broadly as well, though it would be challenged.
They aren’t doing it because the federal government tends to be slow on such matters. There is bureaucratic inertia, and politicians of both parties are afraid to act too dramatically lest they upset voters.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It is less than 50% who don’t care. 70% of adults have at least 1 shot. We can‘t say kids who aren’t even eligible don’t care about the greater good. I think one of the reasons we are seeing more movement towards requiring vaccines in various places is because the number of people unvaccinated is shrinking. A portion of the remaining 30% probably doesn’t care but we have to hope that enough do and get the shot. That’s our best (only?) way out of this.
One of the commentators on CNN said the Supreme Court ruling allowing state mandate of vaccines also applies to the Federal Government.
Given the political climate I don't think an absolute requirement isn't likely.
Disney Experience
Well-Known Member
Looks like the profile of a wooden roller coaster.
Disney Experience
Well-Known Member
Guess I am one of the lucky ones. Both shots and recent moderate covid+[likely delta].
Actually given the situation it is nice to feel extra protected.
Though I would not recommend anyone doing a covid party to get that extra protection ( wait for a booster ). Why gamble on long covid or serious covid ( less likely though if vaccinated )
"Tyson Foods, one of the nation’s largest meat processors, said on Tuesday that it would require vaccines for its U.S. workers — about half of whom remain unvaccinated.
The mandate will extend to employees in its offices and in the field. The poultry supplier is requiring its leadership team to be vaccinated by Sept. 24 and the rest of its office workers by Oct. 1. Frontline employees have until Nov. 1 to be fully inoculated, extra time the company is providing because there are “significantly more frontline team members than office workers who still need to be vaccinated,” a Tyson spokesman said.
Tyson is offering $200 to frontline workers who verify that they are fully vaccinated. The company already offered employees up to four hours of pay if they are vaccinated outside of their normal shift.
Vaccinations will be a condition of employment for all U.S. workers, and any new employees must be vaccinated before they start work, the company said."
www.nytimes.com
The mandate will extend to employees in its offices and in the field. The poultry supplier is requiring its leadership team to be vaccinated by Sept. 24 and the rest of its office workers by Oct. 1. Frontline employees have until Nov. 1 to be fully inoculated, extra time the company is providing because there are “significantly more frontline team members than office workers who still need to be vaccinated,” a Tyson spokesman said.
Tyson is offering $200 to frontline workers who verify that they are fully vaccinated. The company already offered employees up to four hours of pay if they are vaccinated outside of their normal shift.
Vaccinations will be a condition of employment for all U.S. workers, and any new employees must be vaccinated before they start work, the company said."
Tyson Foods mandates vaccines for its U.S. work force. (Published 2021)
More than 56,000 of Tyson’s 120,000 employees have been vaccinated. Frontline workers have until Nov. 1 to be fully inoculated.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
If this trend continues there will be no need for any government imposed mandates. I also think once the FDA issues full approval of the vaccines we will see the majority of corporations following this plan. Some may be hesitant right now but once this snowballs most won’t want to be caught on the wrong side."Tyson Foods, one of the nation’s largest meat processors, said on Tuesday that it would require vaccines for its U.S. workers — about half of whom remain unvaccinated.
The mandate will extend to employees in its offices and in the field. The poultry supplier is requiring its leadership team to be vaccinated by Sept. 24 and the rest of its office workers by Oct. 1. Frontline employees have until Nov. 1 to be fully inoculated, extra time the company is providing because there are “significantly more frontline team members than office workers who still need to be vaccinated,” a Tyson spokesman said.
Tyson is offering $200 to frontline workers who verify that they are fully vaccinated. The company already offered employees up to four hours of pay if they are vaccinated outside of their normal shift.
Vaccinations will be a condition of employment for all U.S. workers, and any new employees must be vaccinated before they start work, the company said."
Tyson Foods mandates vaccines for its U.S. work force. (Published 2021)
More than 56,000 of Tyson’s 120,000 employees have been vaccinated. Frontline workers have until Nov. 1 to be fully inoculated.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
Of course there are actual constitutional lawyers who also read these boards. 
Sorry for the length, but it's shorter than some trip reports. Just consider it a trip report to the U.S. Supreme Court.
But first: I'm not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I'm just giving you some general information about legal principles. If you have a question or a problem, get your own lawyer right away (who won't be me; I'm not taking new cases).
If you really want legal authority for governments' authority in a pandemic, it's pretty straightforward, but long. There are a couple of quick, layperson-friendly explanations of the law (I can't actually link these without getting moderated, so I'll explain how to find them on Google):
the American Bar Association has a page titled "Two centuries of law guide legal approach to modern pandemic" from April 2020;
on the other side of the ideological spectrum, the Pacific Legal Foundation has a page from April 2020 entitled "Are quarantine orders constitutional?"
I will try to explain the thinking behind these ideas. I am a U.S. Supreme Court practitioner (the 48th Supreme Court case I've been involved in was decided on July 1 this year, and I have been involved in drafting, defending and challenging sections of the Florida Constitution). Though this is not my area of expertise, my sense, based on a line of cases I've been watching since last year, is that the Supreme Court was very deferential to health authorities early on. But now, as the pandemic moves on, remedies and vaccines have appeared, and science begins to understand more and more, the Court is much more likely to impose the usual rules for reviewing urgent questions. It is no longer enough for a government official to say: "we fear this will happen." Now the burden of proof is going to require much more admissible evidence in a government showing that will support some restrictions on recognized rights. In other words, to impose a rule, the government will have to meet a standard of review that reflects the dangers at the time by presenting actual evidence rather than unsupported speculation. And isn't that what you think is the right way to go?
The best example of this trend may be last November's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, where the Supreme Court blocked New York's rules on attendance at churches and synagogues. The majority said:
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” And Justice Kavanaugh pointed out: “judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication, especially when important questions of religious discrimination, racial discrimination, free speech, or the like are raised.” Note: not just blah, blah, blah "I have rights," but specific assertions of traditionally-recognized, legally-enforceable rights. Courts, especially federal courts, don't issue "advisory opinions," only decisions about concrete, specific challenges to recognized rules and rights based on an evidentiary record.
To see how this works, look at three different cases, all involving Free Exercise challenges to pandemic rules: in May, 2020, in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, the Court refused to block California’s rules that prohibited church attendance of more than 100 people. Last November, in Diocese of Brooklyn, the Court blocked similar rules. Three days later, in Spell v. Edwards, Justice Alito, a member of the majority in Diocese of Brooklyn, denied a church’s request to block similar Louisiana rules, without even asking for opposing briefs. Why the difference? Timing and precision in the rules and the challenges.
The basic rule at play in Diocese of Brooklyn is when “the challenged restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability,’ they must satisfy ‘strict scrutiny,’ and this means that they must be ‘narrowly tailored’ to serve a ‘compelling’ state interest.” These complex analyses apply differently at different times: early in a crisis, when information is scarce and the need for some action is urgent, the government gets more leeway than later in a crisis when much more is known and interim steps can provide some relief even if a final remedy is not yet available.
That is the difference between Diocese of Brooklyn and other decisions that permitted governments to impose more sweeping restrictions. By now, the religious institutions challenging the rules have had months to comply with changing scientific and medical recommendations, and, according to the trial judge in that case (whose judgements are not easily deflected at that preliminary stage), have done an exemplary job. The Court simply told government officials that expectations of more careful and precise drafting and enforcement are growing ever stronger. The same evolution has occurred in recent cases involving protests and riots in American cities over the summer of 2020; earlier decisions gave more deference to law enforcement, while later decisions have been more nuanced in applying the First Amendment’s right of peaceable assembly.
How should that work here and today with masks and vaccines? The same way it would have last November. If the government wants to impose a particular rule that affects a known, strong constitutional right in how people get together (peaceably assemble), it has to meet "strict scrutiny" -- the highest and toughest legal standard of constitutional review. Not easy. The government must show, through specific evidence, that it has a "compelling" interest, which life and death usually are. But that's still a test that requires a showing. And after that, the government has to say that its remedy is narrowly-tailored to the compelling need. Again, difficult, and requires specific proof. Key question: will a court require the "least-restrictive alternative" remedy or just one that is "narrowly-tailored" to the circumstances? Up to the reviewing court, in light of the circumstances before it.
So will the government be able to impose new mask and vaccine requirements under this tough burden? Last November, we didn't have vaccines. Now we have many months and 164 million Americans' worth of vaccination history. That's a heavy evidentiary thumb on the scales. So the governments have a bit more work to do. But they're rapidly building the evidentiary record for it. And so far, the careful, measured responses reflect that governments learned their legal lessons last year, and know how to prepare their proof of why they need the measures they propose.
Will some governments mess this up? Of course. They're led by very fallible humans. But the legal rules are pretty straightforward, so both sides know what to do if they care to look.
But just saying "I have rights" doesn't cut it, even under strict scrutiny. Once governments meet their burden, those challenging the policy have a really tough time pushing a court into reversing a solid governmental plan.
You asked specifically about a vaccine mandate. Once there's an actual approval for use of vaccines (meaning they'll have at least 71,000 pages of documentation on effectiveness and safety, reviewed and approved by government experts), it'll be pretty hard to block a vaccine mandate if a government wants to impose it. That's why the Biden Administration is pushing to get full approval.
Sorry for the length, but it's shorter than some trip reports. Just consider it a trip report to the U.S. Supreme Court.But first: I'm not your lawyer, and this is not legal advice. I'm just giving you some general information about legal principles. If you have a question or a problem, get your own lawyer right away (who won't be me; I'm not taking new cases).
If you really want legal authority for governments' authority in a pandemic, it's pretty straightforward, but long. There are a couple of quick, layperson-friendly explanations of the law (I can't actually link these without getting moderated, so I'll explain how to find them on Google):
the American Bar Association has a page titled "Two centuries of law guide legal approach to modern pandemic" from April 2020;
on the other side of the ideological spectrum, the Pacific Legal Foundation has a page from April 2020 entitled "Are quarantine orders constitutional?"
I will try to explain the thinking behind these ideas. I am a U.S. Supreme Court practitioner (the 48th Supreme Court case I've been involved in was decided on July 1 this year, and I have been involved in drafting, defending and challenging sections of the Florida Constitution). Though this is not my area of expertise, my sense, based on a line of cases I've been watching since last year, is that the Supreme Court was very deferential to health authorities early on. But now, as the pandemic moves on, remedies and vaccines have appeared, and science begins to understand more and more, the Court is much more likely to impose the usual rules for reviewing urgent questions. It is no longer enough for a government official to say: "we fear this will happen." Now the burden of proof is going to require much more admissible evidence in a government showing that will support some restrictions on recognized rights. In other words, to impose a rule, the government will have to meet a standard of review that reflects the dangers at the time by presenting actual evidence rather than unsupported speculation. And isn't that what you think is the right way to go?
The best example of this trend may be last November's decision in Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, where the Supreme Court blocked New York's rules on attendance at churches and synagogues. The majority said:
“Members of this Court are not public health experts, and we should respect the judgment of those with special expertise and responsibility in this area. But even in a pandemic, the Constitution cannot be put away and forgotten.” And Justice Kavanaugh pointed out: “judicial deference in an emergency or a crisis does not mean wholesale judicial abdication, especially when important questions of religious discrimination, racial discrimination, free speech, or the like are raised.” Note: not just blah, blah, blah "I have rights," but specific assertions of traditionally-recognized, legally-enforceable rights. Courts, especially federal courts, don't issue "advisory opinions," only decisions about concrete, specific challenges to recognized rules and rights based on an evidentiary record.
To see how this works, look at three different cases, all involving Free Exercise challenges to pandemic rules: in May, 2020, in South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, the Court refused to block California’s rules that prohibited church attendance of more than 100 people. Last November, in Diocese of Brooklyn, the Court blocked similar rules. Three days later, in Spell v. Edwards, Justice Alito, a member of the majority in Diocese of Brooklyn, denied a church’s request to block similar Louisiana rules, without even asking for opposing briefs. Why the difference? Timing and precision in the rules and the challenges.
The basic rule at play in Diocese of Brooklyn is when “the challenged restrictions are not ‘neutral’ and of ‘general applicability,’ they must satisfy ‘strict scrutiny,’ and this means that they must be ‘narrowly tailored’ to serve a ‘compelling’ state interest.” These complex analyses apply differently at different times: early in a crisis, when information is scarce and the need for some action is urgent, the government gets more leeway than later in a crisis when much more is known and interim steps can provide some relief even if a final remedy is not yet available.
That is the difference between Diocese of Brooklyn and other decisions that permitted governments to impose more sweeping restrictions. By now, the religious institutions challenging the rules have had months to comply with changing scientific and medical recommendations, and, according to the trial judge in that case (whose judgements are not easily deflected at that preliminary stage), have done an exemplary job. The Court simply told government officials that expectations of more careful and precise drafting and enforcement are growing ever stronger. The same evolution has occurred in recent cases involving protests and riots in American cities over the summer of 2020; earlier decisions gave more deference to law enforcement, while later decisions have been more nuanced in applying the First Amendment’s right of peaceable assembly.
How should that work here and today with masks and vaccines? The same way it would have last November. If the government wants to impose a particular rule that affects a known, strong constitutional right in how people get together (peaceably assemble), it has to meet "strict scrutiny" -- the highest and toughest legal standard of constitutional review. Not easy. The government must show, through specific evidence, that it has a "compelling" interest, which life and death usually are. But that's still a test that requires a showing. And after that, the government has to say that its remedy is narrowly-tailored to the compelling need. Again, difficult, and requires specific proof. Key question: will a court require the "least-restrictive alternative" remedy or just one that is "narrowly-tailored" to the circumstances? Up to the reviewing court, in light of the circumstances before it.
So will the government be able to impose new mask and vaccine requirements under this tough burden? Last November, we didn't have vaccines. Now we have many months and 164 million Americans' worth of vaccination history. That's a heavy evidentiary thumb on the scales. So the governments have a bit more work to do. But they're rapidly building the evidentiary record for it. And so far, the careful, measured responses reflect that governments learned their legal lessons last year, and know how to prepare their proof of why they need the measures they propose.
Will some governments mess this up? Of course. They're led by very fallible humans. But the legal rules are pretty straightforward, so both sides know what to do if they care to look.
But just saying "I have rights" doesn't cut it, even under strict scrutiny. Once governments meet their burden, those challenging the policy have a really tough time pushing a court into reversing a solid governmental plan.
You asked specifically about a vaccine mandate. Once there's an actual approval for use of vaccines (meaning they'll have at least 71,000 pages of documentation on effectiveness and safety, reviewed and approved by government experts), it'll be pretty hard to block a vaccine mandate if a government wants to impose it. That's why the Biden Administration is pushing to get full approval.
Flugell
Well-Known Member
@ArmoredRodent
Thanks for a clear explanation that is even understandable in the U.K.
Thanks for a clear explanation that is even understandable in the U.K.
@techgeek Hope your recovery is swift!! (or even more a False/Postive). Hope the wife dodges it too!! Mine had threatened to kill me if I bring it home. Sucks to be an Essential worker
Update that my wife (with Moderna) has also tested positive on a rapid test. So far she has had very minimal symptoms and no fever, she’s extra tired and has sinus congestion and a mild sore throat.
My symptoms haven’t let up since Saturday, but they haven’t gotten any worse either. Just popping Tylenol for the fever, sleeping a lot, and settling in to ride out the rest of a 10 day isolation timer reset to her onset of her symptoms. (My job was automatic two weeks off anyway, so will fall into that timeframe). Still awaiting PCR test results.
correcaminos
Well-Known Member
Hope you both recover quickly!
If those aren't what I think they have in them I'll look again. A lot of it is hard to know facts on for sure since many won't test if already been covid+ thinking they're safe too.Thanks a bunch, I'll take a look.
I was saying to my 13yo today that given when he was vaccinated and my likely 3rd shot, we're feeling pretty good. A friend of mine who works in the hospital gave the valid comment, even vaccinated alone gives excellent chances for a good outcome. A bad cold or a moderate flu is better than what they see.Guess I am one of the lucky ones. Both shots and recent moderate covid+[likely delta].
Actually given the situation it is nice to feel extra protected.
Though I would not recommend anyone doing a covid party to get that extra protection ( wait for a booster ). Why gamble on long covid or serious covid ( less likely though if vaccinated )
We'll see who might need boosters. I'm still intrigued by the distinction in age with our booster group so who knows what they're thinking.
One can always hope! Though sorry, not likely. Sucks to lose trips. I swear we were lucky in the timing of our trip in early June!
LittleBuford
Well-Known Member
This is such an odd and unhelpful retort, rooted in "Clash of Civilisations" thinking. Iran has been recognised as essentially polio-free since 2001; 99% of Iranians are immunised against the disease. Afghanistan has fared less well, but that's due more to years of conflict and political instability than to gung-ho vaccine hesitancy among the population.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
Well, Monday didn’t go up too much compared to the weekend and is down from Friday. Hard to feel optimistic about 17,001 cases, but…..maybe
DonniePeverley
Well-Known Member
No one knows the answer?
- Status