Andrew C
You know what's funny?
The split/dissent on the health care workers mandate is an interesting one. Roberts and Kavanaugh upholding it.
-
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
The split/dissent on the health care workers mandate is an interesting one. Roberts and Kavanaugh upholding it.
I'm saying the direct quote in the tweet reads like a rose colored hindsight on what to do based on future knowledge while say knowing that future knowledge is why it should have been done. It's self conflicting.
Nobody is saying they didn't see the need for better treatments. We're all saying they couldn't just fund them into being. That's not the same thing. I think we all agree they messed up on testing and PPE too. Nobody walks on water, they definitely have made mistakes. Failing to conjure better treatments into existence earlier by funding them out the wazo just wasn't one of them.
"Biden says more Pfizer pills are shipping this week as U.S. doubles order to fight omicron"/cloudfront-us-east-2.images.arcpublishing.com/reuters/2CUCCWIFABNDNEUGV4GYCLGIAY.jpg)
South Korea to deploy Pfizer COVID-19 pills as Omicron wave looms
South Korea will begin treating coronavirus patients with Pfizer's antiviral pills on Friday, the first Asian country to do so, as concern mounts over the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant.www.reuters.com
Biden says more Pfizer pills are shipping this week as U.S. doubles order to fight omicron
With the new order, the U.S. has committed to purchase 20 million courses total from Pfizer.www.cnbc.com
"President Joe Biden on Tuesday said another batch of Pfizer’s Covid-19 treatment pills is shipping this week as the U.S. government doubles its order of the medication amid an unprecedented wave of infections driven by the highly contagious omicron variant."
All those quotes read like we already placed and order and started delivery earlier and we're adding to it now. It would have been nice if we had a pill 3 months ago, but they didn't exist and nobody knew if what was being developed actually did anything. We could have funded sugar pills too, not that it would have done much.
The parents are waiting for their Kindergarteners to finish doing their own research.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
It appears to me that neither vaccine mandate case is really "done." They just granted the stay in both cases. Granting the stay in the OSHA case keeps the OSHA from implementing/enforcing the rule. Granting the stay in the CMS case allows implementation and enforcement to continue.
Granted, the votes on the stay probably indicate how they will vote when the cases are eventually ruled upon but technically this is only temporary.
I can't remember if it was @Heppenheimer or @sullyinMT who said it the other day but there is precedent for CMS mandating various standards upon providers. To me it is a stretch, but you can at least make an argument that having vaccinated health care providers lowers the risk to patients and therefore lowers the cost to the government for Medicare and Medicaid.
Trying to use OSHA to mandate that workers be vaccinated was a stretch so far that it broke the rubber band. It is clear to anyone with a somewhat open mind that OSHA was not intended to have that type of authority. "Workplace" safety encompasses rules to prevent physical injury or exposure to chemicals both of which can be controlled easily with the prescribed protocols. Trying to say that it was for the safety of other workers that all must be vaccinated (which apparently is only an issue if you have more than 100 employees) was preposterous and I don't think the administration really thought it would hold up in court. I think they just figured that by announcing the rules, some percentage of businesses would put the policy in place before the court challenges.
I'm sure they also feel that many will leave the policy in place as long as they aren't in a state that prohibits the policy by state law.
Granted, the votes on the stay probably indicate how they will vote when the cases are eventually ruled upon but technically this is only temporary.
I can't remember if it was @Heppenheimer or @sullyinMT who said it the other day but there is precedent for CMS mandating various standards upon providers. To me it is a stretch, but you can at least make an argument that having vaccinated health care providers lowers the risk to patients and therefore lowers the cost to the government for Medicare and Medicaid.
Trying to use OSHA to mandate that workers be vaccinated was a stretch so far that it broke the rubber band. It is clear to anyone with a somewhat open mind that OSHA was not intended to have that type of authority. "Workplace" safety encompasses rules to prevent physical injury or exposure to chemicals both of which can be controlled easily with the prescribed protocols. Trying to say that it was for the safety of other workers that all must be vaccinated (which apparently is only an issue if you have more than 100 employees) was preposterous and I don't think the administration really thought it would hold up in court. I think they just figured that by announcing the rules, some percentage of businesses would put the policy in place before the court challenges.
I'm sure they also feel that many will leave the policy in place as long as they aren't in a state that prohibits the policy by state law.
Andrew C
You know what's funny?
Yes, they did. We could have placed orders in advance before we knew whether the drug(s) would fully pan out. But we hesitated instead. We have had no problem spending money on all sorts of things during the pandemic, shutting down this and that, ordering vaccines ahead of time. But with treatments, we became hesitant. The experts and leaders saw no need to take pre-emptive action in the middle of a pandemic? Put everything on the table? All of a sudden we care about waste? Okay....
Gringrinngghost
Well-Known Member
Kudos to SCOTUS in the health care workers item. For the health care unvax, they need to get tested weekly/wear masks which the judges supported to make it happen.I guessed one right...split decision.
Supreme Court blocks Biden OSHA vaccine mandate, allows rule for health care workers
The Supreme Court on Thursday issued mixed rulings in a pair of cases challenging the Biden administration's COVID-19 vaccine mandates.www.foxbusiness.com
DisneyDebRob
Well-Known Member
I’m guessing in a lot of cases it might be the best way to go. Maybe a few kindergartners can come home and talk the parents into it.
The Supreme Court made the correct decissions on the Covid19 cases. That said, I still support people being vaccinated. The Federal Constitution does not allow the President on his own to order a specific health care procedure, States are given that power. One can support and encourge the vaccines and support these rulings. Remember, the vaccine protects you against hospitalization and death, not from getting Covid19.
On the health care case, the court agreed that since the Federal Government pays so much for health care the rule can stand. That is a good decision since the patients need to be protected.
On the health care case, the court agreed that since the Federal Government pays so much for health care the rule can stand. That is a good decision since the patients need to be protected.
TrainsOfDisney
Well-Known Member
Shouldn’t the vaxed health care workers be doing the same thing anyways?
Doesn't seem like the black robes think that way.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
Masks they do but not weekly testing. My wife has never been tested for COVID (she is vaccinated and boosted) and she's done procedures on very sick COVID patients since pretty much day one (always using recommended PPE).
SCOTUS ruled certain health care workers that are unvax wear masks, subject to weekly testing.
DisneyCane
Well-Known Member
I don't believe they did. The CMS rule says that some workers can be exempt based on other Federal laws (for things like medical exemptions). Maybe that would apply to those but I didn't see anything in the rule about it. I read quickly so maybe I missed it.
All SCOTUS did was grant a stay on the order that prevented CMS from enforcing the rule.
AEfx
Well-Known Member
I know you guys are joking, but I have indeed read some parents I know (supposedly) leaving it up to their kids. I'm not kidding - "We are vaccinated, but my 9 year-old chose not to, and we are respecting that decision."
Never read anything so stupid in my life. On multiple levels.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
Or a pair of parents who are split on their vaccination status not vaccinating the kids and deferring to the unvaccinated spouse with whom you disagree.
I know of at least one couple we used to be friends with in that boat. Lost the friendship due to some of the trust issues regarding infection status and timing brought up earlier today in this thread.
hopemax
Well-Known Member
Would the opposite be? Parents are unvaccinated, but child wants to be vaccinated so parents allow it?
EDIT: I only ask in the "never read anything so stupid" discussion. I'm pretty sure I've read more stupid stuff regarding this pandemic. Parents deferring to the child over their own opinions, can have a beneficial outcome, depending on what is being decided.
ArmoredRodent
Well-Known Member
Generally, yes, but also, no. The grant of the stay in the OSHA case brought by business groups led by the NFIB probably dooms the rest of that case: "Applicants are likely to succeed on the merits of their claim that the Secretary lacked authority to impose the mandate." Slip op. at 5. Six votes. As predicted in posts above, if Congress had intended this particular agency to issue an order as sweeping as this one, it would have had to write the statute much more clearly (under the "major question" doctrine). Note also, (and to avoid claims that this is some kind of political victory or defeat), in jurisprudential terms, this is a 3-3-3 Court (three liberal statutory interpreters, three conservatives, and three others, sometimes described as libertarians, institutionalists, or incrementalists, but certainly all described as textualists, meaning that the meaning of the statute is best derived from the text of the statute). Here, the three conservative and three textualist justices made up the majority, with the conservatives arguing for a more specific rule, and the textualists simply going with Sixth Circuit Chief Judge Jeff Sutton's analysis of the "major question" doctrine requiring Congress to speak more precisely. The three liberal justices, following their "collectivist" jurisprudence, would have construed the text differently "in the public interest" to allow more flexibility in the governmental response.
Once again, the Court that deferred to governmental expertise on health issues earlier in the pandemic, when there were no remedies and no certainty, is no longer willing to defer on issues that require a constitutional determination that is reserved to the Court, not agencies.
Although COVID–19 is a risk that occurs in many workplaces, it is not an occupational hazard in most. COVID–19 can and does spread at home, in schools, during sporting events, and everywhere else that people gather. That kind of universal risk is no different from the day-to-day dangers that all face from crime, air pollution, or any number of communicable diseases. Permitting OSHA to regulate the hazards of daily life—simply because most Americans have jobs and face those same risks while on the clock—would significantly expand OSHA’s regulatory authority without clear congressional authorization.
Slip op. at 6-7 (emphasis added). It is interesting, but not surprising. Here textualism was not as clear an indicator, especially since this was a Spending Clause case, where the recipients of government funding must agree, in advance, to abide by rules issued by the funding agency. And, like all government funding recipients, health care funding recipients know that government can and will issue rules that would not be constitutionally permissible if applied to others who have not chosen to abide by such rules. In other words, if you take the government's coin, you also take the government's rules, meaning you also may be giving up some of your constitutional rights. There are many cases in which this principle is at the heart of a case's debate, but this is not one of them; the issue wasn't constitutional interpretation, but what the statute said.
And here the new vaccination rules were much closer to powers clearly delegated by Congress to the funding agency than in the NFIB case. See, e.g., Slip op. at 5, * ("We see no reason to let the infusion-clinic tail wag the hospital dog, especially because the rule has an express severability provision."). So, in short, the Congressional delegation language was much clearer, in favor of the agency. In terms of the Court's 5-4 lineup, Justice Barrett (ordinarily in the middle group) joined the jurisprudential conservatives' argument that the statutory language was not sufficiently precise, but the Chief Justice, Justice Kavanaugh and the liberal justices thought Congress had been clear enough. It's not a 6-3 Court, and 3+2 > 3+1.
"The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not conferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented circumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have. ... [T]he latter principle governs in these cases, ..." Slip op. at 9.
sullyinMT
Well-Known Member
Agree with the bolded. In this case, and I guess all parenting, the point is to guide them in their decision making. Why vaccination is important, and how they can be part of the solution.
My HS age kid has friends with parents that were not vaccinated prior to the kids. As the age dropped to 15, the kids all got vaccinated, because the friend group would exclude them otherwise, and frequently those parents got vaccinated then too.
Generally speaking, the vaccinated kids don't want to do anything with the unvaccinated ones. They don't ask for passports or photo proof, but they know. THEY KNOW.
- Status