Coronavirus: Already In a Neighborhood Near You

[gehringer_2]

38 minutes ago, buddha said:

you are correct on the osha rule.

i agree.  i am not opposed to it in theory but the implementation will be cumbersome and im not sure it will do anything to solve a problem that, by the time its implemented, may not be that much of a problem anymore.

Of course a lot, maybe even most, OSHA regs are cumbersome. Generally the way around that is partial exemptions for smaller orgs without the resources. But really, getting an employee tested once a week and recording said result is a lot easier than even the most basic requirement for say air monitoring or toxics exposure. My sympathies are pretty limited here.

[buddha]

1 minute ago, gehringer_2 said:

Of course a lot, maybe even most, OSHA regs are cumbersome. Generally the way around that is partial exemptions for smaller orgs without the resources. But really, getting an employee tested once a week and recording said result is a lot easier than even the most basic requirement for say air monitoring or toxics exposure. My sympathies are pretty limited here.

people are waiting outside for hours on end to get tested at medical facilities.  there is an extreme shortage of testing kits right now.  it could be very cumbersome at the moment.

i think this will all wind up moot because the supreme court seems poised to shoot down the mandate as being outside osha's mandate from congress and/or beyond their emergency powers.

[buddha]

8 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

I suppose it depends on how you define "stupid." 

🤔

i suppose if your definition of "stupid" is "disagrees with g2," then maybe.

[oblong]

13 minutes ago, buddha said:

i wouldnt go that far, but if you dont want it they offer a testing option.

in a way that undercuts the mandate (as does the 100 employee limit and the religious exemption) but it offers people a legitimate "out" other than quitting.

if you only have 50 people in a room then the virus doesn't spread.

I see it as push it until you are told you can't.  Ask forgiveness rather than permission.  That's what they are doing.  It doesn't bother me.  

[oblong]

also on the mandates... not everyone who is yet to be vaxxed are anti vax.... many are just lazy.  They haven't gotten around to it yet.  Maybe the mandates pushed them to do it.  That's pasitive.

 

[gehringer_2]

9 minutes ago, buddha said:

people are waiting outside for hours on end to get tested at medical facilities.  there is an extreme shortage of testing kits right now.  it could be very cumbersome at the moment.

i think this will all wind up moot because the supreme court seems poised to shoot down the mandate as being outside osha's mandate from congress and/or beyond their emergency powers.

kits are available again now, the shortage was largely a transient issue with the explosion of Omicron. The industry is/will catching up. Demand per se is not the problem, the capacity is there, it as much inconsistent demand defeating sales forecasts.

But there is a valid point that if vaccination is not effective for containing contagion, then the rational for the OSHA rule is undercut and does appear vaccination is not particularly effective at stopping Omicron contagion. The problem is that Omicron may not be the last variant and vaccination may be very effective at stopping transmission of the next variant or next epidemic.  Law needs to be generalizable to be of any value so one would hope that the court doesn't make a ruling tied to a particular case that may or not be a good representative of the general situation. The case needs to be decided on some general principle beyond the technical question of how good these vaccines work against this variant of one virus. Doubt it will be though.

Edited January 13, 2022 by gehringer_2

[gehringer_2]

7 minutes ago, buddha said:

i suppose if your definition of "stupid" is "disagrees with g2," then maybe.

works for me!

[Tiger337]

33 minutes ago, buddha said:

i suppose if your definition of "stupid" is "disagrees with g2," then maybe.

That definition works more often than not in this forum.  Less so when he is talking about the future stardom of Victor Reyes!

[gehringer_2]

1 minute ago, Tiger337 said:

That definition works more often than not in this forum.  Less so when he is talking about the future stardom of Victor Reyes!

he's having a big season in winter ball - you just wait!

[buddha]

supreme court tosses out the osha mandate.  keeps the mandate for federally funded health care facilities.

[mtutiger]

Just now, buddha said:

supreme court tosses out the osha mandate.  keeps the mandate for federally funded health care facilities.

Not surprised in the least.

[Tigerbomb13]

I literally JUST got off the phone with one of my employees before news of the SCOTUS ruling came down. Had to call him right back and give him the updated information. 

[buddha]

correction: they didnt "toss it out", they refused to lift the stay.  the case goes back to the 6th circuit but the mandate itself is stayed until the 6th circuit can rule on its constitutionality/legality, etc.

[buddha]

the court also lifted the stay as to health care facilities that are federally funded.  so that mandate can move forward.

[gehringer_2]

12 minutes ago, buddha said:

correction: they didnt "toss it out", they refused to lift the stay.  the case goes back to the 6th circuit but the mandate itself is stayed until the 6th circuit can rule on its constitutionality/legality, etc.

I don't have an issue so much if the mandate eventually falls because it was bad rule-making, but I still can't buy the argument that that Osha's enabling legislation does not provide sufficient mandate. Arguments like "the rule only protects unvaccinated workers from their own choices" seem to fundamentally misunderstand what OSHA does. A mandate to put a two handed interlock on a punch press is exactly a rule that does nothing more than protect a worker from his own choices. Are the mandate opponents ready to throw out all those?

Edited January 13, 2022 by gehringer_2

[pfife]

I think the goal is to throw out the administrative state altogether.

[buddha]

1 hour ago, gehringer_2 said:

I don't have an issue so much if the mandate eventually falls because it was bad rule-making, but I still can't buy the argument that that Osha's enabling legislation does not provide sufficient mandate. Arguments like "the rule only protects unvaccinated workers from their own choices" seem to fundamentally misunderstand what OSHA does. A mandate to put a two handed interlock on a punch press is exactly a rule that does nothing more than protect a worker from his own choices. Are the mandate opponents ready to throw out all those?

the argument is that this particular law attempts to regulate more than just workplace activity you perform on the jobsite.  it attempts to regulate your body and activity outside the workplace because you carry the vaccine wherever you go, and is thus beyond the scope of osha's mandate.  you can also contract covid anywhere, not just at work, so its not an attempt to regulate purely work activity.

if there is to be a "mandate" for vaccines in the workplace, it must come from congress or the states and be constitutional, and it cannot come from osha.  this is a public health issue and not a workplace safety issue.

they dont want to eliminate the administrative state, they want to scale it back, and subject the federal agencies to proper judicial review rather than giving them deference on what they should be allowed to do.

[VegasTiger]

2 hours ago, Tiger337 said:

That definition works more often than not in this forum.  Less so when he is talking about the future stardom of Victor Reyes!

Or Beatles! 😁

[gehringer_2]

50 minutes ago, buddha said:

not just at work, so its not an attempt to regulate purely work activity.

well this part of your arg at least fails though - many things that OSHA regulates in the workplace are also done out side the workplace. Ever been exposed to dirty air at home? Ever climb a ladder? Do we exclude OSHA from regulating use of ladders in the workplace because you use them at home? I could give you at least a dozen other examples off the top of my head but not to bore you. But as I've said, this is my biggest complaint about many things coming out of courts today - which is the general ignorance of judges about the real world or even how the law works on the ground in real practice. They make arguments that are nonsensical to the larger public because they have such a narrow understanding of real life. This is not a conservative/liberal issue per se, just a complaint about high level law becoming so Ivory tower from both ideological ends that you end up with too many decisions that tilt at windmills but don't move in the direction of bringing equity or justice to society. Also why I hate this trend to nominate the youngest judges you can so you can push them though a confirmation process where they have no history. Once a judge goes to Scotus their existence becomes divorced from any normal human reality and any possibility of further real life experience is pretty effectively cut off - so the younger their elevation, the less likely they will ever be champions for ordinary people.

I think this is one of the things that I like in John Roberts even though I think he is too idealistic about conservative principles such as the belief that law in the US can/will ever be colorblind or esp money=speech. At least he has some humility about the social cost of constantly breaking the china.

Edited January 13, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

20 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

well this part of your arg at least fails though - many things that OSHA regulates in the workplace are also done out side the workplace. Ever been exposed to dirty air at home? Ever climb a ladder? Do we exclude OSHA from regulating use of ladders in the workplace because you use them at home? I could give you at least a dozen other examples off the top of my head but not to bore you. But as I've said, this is my biggest complaint about many things coming out of courts today - which is the general ignorance of judges about the real world or even how the law works on the ground in real practice. They make arguments that are nonsensical to the larger public because they have such a narrow understanding of real life. This is not a conservative/liberal issue per se, just a complaint about high level law becoming so Ivory tower from both ideological ends that you end up with too many decisions that tilt at windmills but don't move in the direction of bringing equity or justice to society. Also why I hate this trend to nominate the youngest judges you can so you can push them though a confirmation process where they have no history. Once a judge goes to Scotus their existence becomes divorced from any normal human reality and any possibility of further real life experience is pretty effectively cut off - so the younger their elevation, the less likely they will ever be champions for ordinary people.

I think this is one of the things that I like in John Roberts even though I think he is too idealistic about conservative principles such as the belief that law in the US can/will ever be colorblind or esp money=speech. At least he has some humility about the social cost of constantly breaking the china.

its not MY argument, it was the argument used by the court.  also, osha doesnt regulate how you use a ladder at home, state law does.

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

its not MY argument, it was the argument used by the court.  also, osha doesnt regulate how you use a ladder at home, state law does.

actually that's not quite a good formulation either. The state may have standards for the sale and manufacture of ladders, but there is no state law on the books (at least in MI) that tells me what I can and can't do with a ladder in my house. If I want to be absolutely damn-the-deep-state daring and stand on the top step, there is no authority to cite me for it - yet.

Edited January 14, 2022 by gehringer_2

[buddha]

11 minutes ago, gehringer_2 said:

actually that's not quite a good formulation either. The state may have standards for the sale and manufacture of ladders, but there is no state law on the books (at least in MI) that tells me what I can and can't do with a ladder in my house. If I want to be absolutely damn-the-deep-state daring and stand on the top step, there is no authority to cite me for it - yet.

the authority to regulate or police your activity at home is left to the state and is not granted to osha.

[ewsieg]

6 hours ago, chasfh said:

Imagine how much less of the world would have the vaccine if Trump were president instead of Biden.

I contend the vaccination rate is better if Trump is president.  His base is leading him now in terms of 'anti-vax' and they boo him when he says he's vaxxed and boosted, but I think if he won, he would have been saying it's the "Trump's vaccine" and at that time, his folks follow him.  While there would have been some dem hesitancy initially with the vax, I don't think they are as f'd up as the GOP, and come around and endorse it as well. 

[ewsieg]

5 hours ago, buddha said:

the court also lifted the stay as to health care facilities that are federally funded.  so that mandate can move forward.

For what it's worth, my brother (the health care administrator) has been told by the company lawyers that this mandate will be upheld.  

[gehringer_2]

1 hour ago, buddha said:

the authority to regulate or police your activity at home is left to the state and is not granted to osha.

well sure -  in the most global sense, but if we are talking about health and safety regulatory mandates, you aren't arguing they exist for private citizens in their homes are you?

Edited January 14, 2022 by gehringer_2