Wuhan Coronavirus: Megathread - Got too big

[BrokLesnerd]

a fuck load easier to say than do, basically anyone married or fucking someone that isn't a vaxxer is fucked, which is a surprisingly high chunk of the people ITT. then you obviously have people hanging out at bars, parties or sporting events or anywhere else. if an anti-vaxxer had the mindset of avoiding people they probably wouldn't have disagreed with the government in the first place. Beyond that is work even though we are far enough away from each other for the most part; punching in and out puts us close enough to end up sick too.

As for the supreme court decision. use your head, the riots completely stopped once Biden won, DC was shut down once Jan 6th hit basically. the troops are all back again, you really think its because their side will lose?

I just talked to me girlfriend in Gisborne, North Island New Zealand (AKA the future) and she said that this was the decision. so be prepared when its announced in less than 16 hours View attachment 2883594

look at that smilin face. So much for that 6-3 conservative majority goyim.

Victory Position it is, then.

For those who don't know what I'm talking about:

Coworker tells me today she has a nurse friend in a neighboring state that is seeing people with "severe upper respiratory infections" that are testing negative for covid and their infections are so severe they are on ventilators.... I-Is it starting?

Happening, my friend.

 

[Derka Derka]

Politician decided to be petty and cancel Djokovic's visa.

He can't go back to Australia (and play in the open) for 3 years.

 

[BrokLesnerd]

doctors swear an oath

So do cops. Didn't stop "papers, mein herr".

So do soldiers. Didn't stop Abu Ghraib.

So do Presidents. Didn't stop PRISM.

Now the Oathkeepers are seditious domestic terrorists.

Also, Hippocratic Oath is optional now btw. Most MDs just say "cheque please" with one hand out and the other on their wallet. They swear a different oath to a god called Mammon.

 

[Mrs. Addams]

WTF

https://thehill.com/homenews/administration/589657-biden-calls-on-employers-to-do-the-right-thing-after-supreme-court

But now... if my company mandates the vaccine, and I have side effects, I get to sue them, right? Prior to the government mandate that kept most of the companies with half-way-decent legal departments from mandating.

So going back to Fauci's comments that "Just about everybody" is going to contract the Omicron variant of COVID.

Now, lets put Vaccines on the shelf for now, because that can be its own separate discussion.

BUT, if we are all going to get it, as Fauci said, then why wear masks? Why socially distance? Why shutdown? Why do anything?!?! These measures, by Fauci's own logic, are only prolonging the inevitable and dragging this out.

If we're all going to get COVID anyway, then there is absolutely no reason to do any of those preventative measures.

The pro-mask people would tell you that we need to not all get it at once or we'll collapse the hospitals.

 

[Dude Snakes]

But now... if my company mandates the vaccine, and I have side effects, I get to sue them, right? Prior to the government mandate that kept most of the companies with half-way-decent legal departments from mandating.


The pro-mask people would tell you that we need to not all get it at once or we'll collapse the hospitals.

Don't ever take it, even if you don't die chances are you will be infertile. You held out this long don't give in, esspecially after the Mandate just got struck down. These shots are the most harmfull "vaccines" that have ever been released, its playing russian roulette everytime you take a shot. Last but not least it will be endless shots, just don't start please!

 

[SCSI]

Timely reminder that survival rates for myocarditis after five years is 20%.

Question that's been rattling around in my mind the last couple of days as the myocarditis issue has been a hot topic lately -- do we know if these expected lifespans after a diagnosis are across the board for all cases of myocarditis? That would presumably include lots of extremely unhealthy olds, fats, etc with loads of comborbidities if so. Or are those figures discussing a narrower subset of patients that have myo and that's pretty much it? I don't doubt that this is a nasty condition that no sane person should willingly inflict on themselves, but I also don't want to accidentally end up making the "died WITH covid gets logged as dying OF covid" mistake, but with fucked-up hearts. If anyone could figure out these numbers for "myo but otherwise perfectly healthy" and see if they're still this ugly it would be an excellent point of argument.

But now... if my company mandates the vaccine, and I have side effects, I get to sue them, right? Prior to the government mandate that kept most of the companies with half-way-decent legal departments from mandating.

You ask a very, very interesting question. I don't have an answer right now, but assuming its "yes, you can sue the shit out of them", that would be a serious deterrent to companies virtue signalling by implementing their own vax mandates. Smells like payday. Mmm.

 

[LowLowHighLow]

Dude what the fuck is up with the ventilators.

Ventilators are for when your lungs are not mechanically able to function. That's it.

Doctors know this.

Asked the same question and got an answer, which makes sense to me:
Covid patients that are in the hospital/ICU usually have shortness of breath (due to the damage done to the lungs). Problem is, that this "breathing style" is very tiring for your respiration muscles and at some point they are simply fully exhausted, which in result leads to suffocation.
That‘s where the ventilators come into play.

 

[Mr Bunny]

But now... if my company mandates the vaccine, and I have side effects, I get to sue them, right? Prior to the government mandate that kept most of the companies with half-way-decent legal departments from mandating.

You ask a very, very interesting question. I don't have an answer right now, but assuming its "yes, you can sue the shit out of them", that would be a serious deterrent to companies virtue signalling by implementing their own vax mandates. Smells like payday. Mmm.

Yes, you should be able to sue your employer or at the very least they have to cover the cost of any damages the vaccine would do to you.

It's no different than the employer having to provide you safety equipment on hand and if it's not up to standard and you where harmed due to that then they're held liable.

 

[The Wicked Mitch]

Absolutely agree, can't quote your post @The Worm Ouroboros

I believe the system of our enslavement is much older than even most far right mentally ill conspiracy theorists do, what we see today is merely a culmination of a very long term plan to fully imprison the human population within what one might call a species-level Kardashev type-1 system - the ability to fully control and milk the species for their energy ( wealth ). They've wanted to do this for centuries but until now lacked the ability to do so, both technologically and culturally/socially.

Vast aspects of particularly recent history have been fully controlled and managed, North Korea is not a real country - it is the Supermax CIA blacksite within the wider prison system of the general slave class where they are free to test and experiment without limit or oversight. Western countries aren't at war with Osama/Saddam/IS, they're at war with their populations.

Both world wars essentially occurred to make way for the current system of managerial, globalist elites by purging any form of dissent in the form of potentially problematic European nobility and through the systematic dismantling and debasement of European nations and their populations. Cold war was fake ( much like all muh crisis ), 9/11 was the 2001 version of le Coof - a problem created to enable the implementation of the desired solution. Mass migration from sandnigger countries serves to ultimately create a demand for strong, authoritarian leaders through the general Brazilification of once peaceful, high-trust and generally wealthy countries etc etc etc etc etc it's all bullshit.

Human behavior has fully been studied and quantified, whole populations and nations played like a fiddle. Which is not to say that every single iota of existence is controlled and predetermined - if an organic movement occurs a synthetic simulation is created in order to steal its momentum and bring it into the fold ( see: the trannification of Occupy - now all Nestle has to do to draw ire away from trying to steal all of the fresh water is put a rainbow flag on their shit and watch the niggercattle clap in approval ).

You're spot on when it comes to their core strength though, tradition, unbroken lineages, plans, bonds and alliances forged in time, iron and blood. One generation of the dynasty passes, content that they've played their part in the Great Game - the fruits of which might not be enjoyed fully by even their grandchildren. Perhaps most importantly a wholly predatory view of reality, essentially generational psychopathy.

A normal person, synthetic and dumbed down niggercattle as they might be, is incapable and unwilling to accept the reality of this kind of mindset. It's completely mindblowing how people will happily accept the notion of myself and 20 other Farmers starting a crypto pump and dump scheme but mention that families of truly incredible wealth and influence might want to take measures to retain that wealth and influences while preventing the 7 billion people they're robbing through the fiat/central banking/inflationary currency system from showing up at their Gigamansion and burning that shit down and you're a conspiracy theorist nutjob.

I could sperg about this for 20 more hours but it's time for my medication and it's all so very tiresome. And before anyone accuses me of being defeatist, im not - but they're playing 20 dimensional chess with a general population that can barely muster the attention span to finish a TikTok video is all im saying.

One last thing, protesting or engaging in any form of politics higher than regional shit is completely useless unless your movement is going to truly burn shit down - Trudeau doesn't give a flying fuck what you call him once he's back with his buddies getting his toes sucked by a toddler sex slave. If you're really pissed off you Mission Impossible into Davos and behead the most reptilian looking fuck you can find - that would at least get you a modicum of respect even if it ultimately doesn't get you anywhere ( see the above predatory view of reality ).

 

[Smug Chuckler]

lolaustria ur lockdown didn't do crap and gee how is that mandatory vaccination program doing?

 

[Sincere Sinner]

Asked the same question and got an answer, which makes sense to me:
Covid patients that are in the hospital/ICU usually have shortness of breath (due to the damage done to the lungs). Problem is, that this "breathing style" is very tiring for your respiration muscles and at some point they are simply fully exhausted, which in result leads to suffocation.
That‘s where the ventilators come into play.

Sounds sensible at face value, but that's not what is actually happening. Covid is not a disease of viral pneumonia that damages lungs until they can't work without mechanical assistance, its a disease of endothelial dysfunction and oxidative stress. People die not because of a lack of oxygen saturation in their lungs (which is what the ventilator can actually solve) they die because oxidative stress has rendered their blood vessels incapable of properly binding to that oxygen no matter what your saturation levels are. Invasive ventilation is actually exacerbating the situation by artificially pumping the patients ass full of more fuel for a series of chemical reactions that will...produce more oxidative stress and further reduce the blood vessels ability to do what they're supposed to.

You can thank old mate Drain Todger for this information; Further details found in The Spartacus Letter by him here: https://www.fastrope.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/COVID-19-The-Spartacus-Letter-1.pdf

 

[SCSI]

As promised, @Kujo Jotaro , here's my rundown of the Supreme Court decision for Becerra, aka the CMS healthcare workers vaccine mandate, along with a PDF of the opinions reposted for convenience. Fair warning, this is going to be pretty long -- the totality of the main opinion and the two dissenting opinions is only 23 pages, but this is a critical case so I thought it deserved a thorough walkthrough. If you want something shorter, you can stop by Volokh to read their concise discussion of both CMS and OSHA (Archive), and combine it with Littler's ultra-short "what they said -- now what's going to happen" writeup (Archive). Everyone else, pour yourself a drink of your preferred alcoholic beverage, park your ass somewhere comfy, and enjoy.

Legal Sperganalysis eXtreme -- Biden v. Missouri/Becerra v. Louisiana (CMS CoVax Mandate) -- Will You Stay Or Will You Go? Edition

Just to recap, this was decided 5-4 in favor of lifting the injunctions blocking enforcement of the CMS healthcare workers mandate (Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan, Roberts, and Kavanaugh vs Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch). This is not a final decision on the permissibility of the mandate itself -- it just allows CMS to actually enforce it on the roughly 10M employees in the healthcare sector that have some nexus with federal Medicare/Medicaid funding (ie everyone) while the final round of appeals in the 5th and 8th Circuits proceed, and the petitions for certiorari to send this case back to the USSC for final disposition that will almost certainly follow. Yes, this shit takes forever and goes in circles.

The Majority Opinion -- Injunctions BTFO, CMS Employees Prepare Your Anus Roll Up Your Sleeves

Interestingly, this was written per curiam, meaning no one in the majority specifically stepped up to say "This is mine! I wrote all/most of this!" You usually see this on extremely controversial cases. I would love to know who actually did the bulk of the writing here. My hunch is Roberts, or possibly Kavanaugh, for reasons I get to in my closing comments. Anyway...

Reminder that this rule does allow for medical and religious exemptions, and it also doesn't cover employees who are fully remote. It's massively broad, but it still draws the line at only covering employees who could theoretically, directly or indirectly, have some ability to transmit disease to a patient. Do note that this mandate does not allow employees to avoid vaccination by doing daily or weekly testing instead.

On November 5, 2021, the Secretary issued an interim final rule (WTF does that mean?) amending the existing conditions of participation in Medicare and Medicaid to add a new requirement—that facilities ensure that their covered staff are vaccinated against COVID–19. 86 Fed. Reg. 61561, 61616–61627. The rule requires providers to offer medical and religious ex-emptions, and does not cover staff who telework full-time. Id., at 61571–61572. A facility’s failure to comply may lead to monetary penalties, denial of payment for new admis-sions, and ultimately termination of participation in the programs. Id., at 61574.

A brief restatement of the three main problems this rule is intended to solve. You'll note nowhere in here is an acknowledgement of the certainty that some nonzero portion of the employees affected will quit rather than comply, which will also create staffing shortages, and that there's no guarantee that these walkouts will be evenly distributed across the pool to minimize disruption. The emphasis on "particularly dangerous" to this specific group of patients is important, though -- as broad as this is, it does hint at some potential limit should the feds ever try this again, and that pointing at this to mandate any and every vaccine or medical treatment as a condition of employment might not fly.

He also explained that, because Medicare and Medicaid patients are often elderly, disabled, or otherwise in poor health, transmission of COVID–19 to such patients is particularly dangerous. Id., at 61566, 61609. In addition to the threat posed by in-facility transmission itself, the Secretary also found that “fear of exposure” to the virus “from unvaccinated health care staff can lead patients to themselves forgo seeking medically necessary care,” creating a further “ris[k] to pa-tient health and safety.” Id., at 61588. He further noted that staffing shortages caused by COVID–19-related expo-sures or illness has disrupted patient care. Id., at 61559.

Spoiler: The Sperging Continues

The majority says the government has the authority from Congress to issue a mandate like this, and that the proposed solution (mandate vaccine) is a good fit to the problem it's intended to solve.

Spoiler: Snippet

First, we agree with the Government that the Secretary’s rule falls within the authorities that Congress has con-ferred upon him.

Congress has authorized the Secretary to impose condi-tions on the receipt of Medicaid and Medicare funds that“the Secretary finds necessary in the interest of the health and safety of individuals who are furnished services.” 42 U. S. C. §1395x(e)(9).* COVID–19 is a highly contagious,dangerous, and—especially for Medicare and Medicaid pa-tients—deadly disease. The Secretary of Health and Hu-man Services determined that a COVID–19 vaccine man-date will substantially reduce the likelihood that healthcare workers will contract the virus and transmit it to their patients. 86 Fed. Reg. 61557–61558. He accord-ingly concluded that a vaccine mandate is “necessary to pro-mote and protect patient health and safety” in the face of the ongoing pandemic. Id., at 61613. The rule thus fits neatly within the language of the stat-
ute. After all, ensuring that providers take steps to avoid transmitting a dangerous virus to their patients is con-sistent with the fundamental principle of the medical pro-
fession: first, do no harm. It would be the “very opposite of efficient and effective administration for a facility that is supposed to make people well to make them sick with COVID–19.” Florida v. Department of Health and Human Servs., 19 F. 4th 1271, 1288 (CA11 2021).

Taking the King's shilling means following the King's rules, and this has been known by everyone in the healthcare industry since forever. And the Feds get the ability through this to regulate more than just non-medical bookkeeping type stuff. They can make rules regarding medical practices and staff qualifications. Essentially, they're arguing that a certain vaccination status isn't too different from training requirements, and these requirements can be non-trivial and still be valid.

Spoiler: Snippet

But the longstanding practice of Health and Human Ser-vices in implementing the relevant statutory authorities tells a different story. As noted above, healthcare facilities that wish to participate in Medicare and Medicaid have al-ways been obligated to satisfy a host of conditions that ad-dress the safe and effective provision of healthcare, not simply sound accounting. Such requirements govern in de-tail, for instance, the amount of time after admission or sur-gery within which a hospital patient must be examined and by whom, 42 CFR §482.22(c)(5), the procurement, transpor-tation, and transplantation of human kidneys, livers, hearts, lungs, and pancreases, §482.45, the tasks that may be delegated by a physician to a physician assistant or nurse practitioner, §483.30(e), and, most pertinent here,the programs that hospitals must implement to govern the “surveillance, prevention, and control of . . . infectious dis-eases,” §482.42.

Moreover, the Secretary routinely imposes conditions of participation that relate to the qualifications and duties of healthcare workers themselves. See, e.g., §§482.42(c)
(2)(iv) (requiring training of “hospital personnel and staff ” on “infection prevention and control guidelines”),483.60(a)(1)(ii) (qualified dieticians must have completed at
least 900 hours of supervised practice), 482.26(b)–(c) (spec-ifying personnel authorized to use radiologic equipment).And the Secretary has always justified these sorts of re-quirements by citing his authorities to protect patient health and safety. See, e.g., §§482.1(a)(1)(ii), 483.1(a)(1)(ii),416.1(a)(1). As these examples illustrate, the Secretary’s role in administering Medicare and Medicaid goes far be-yond that of a mere bookkeeper.

But if CMS can order vaccines, why haven't they done it before? Because Bat AIDS is "unPReCeDenTeD" and also the states had previously been happily requiring vaccines for different things, so the Feds didn't feel there was a deficiency in their practices that warranted them stepping in to fix.

Spoiler: Snippet

Of course the vaccine mandate goes further than what the Secretary has done in the past to implement in-fection control. But he has never had to address an infec-
tion problem of this scale and scope before. In any event, there can be no doubt that addressing infection problems in Medicare and Medicaid facilities is what he does.

And his response is not a surprising one. Vaccination re-quirements are a common feature of the provision of healthcare in America: Healthcare workers around the
country are ordinarily required to be vaccinated for dis-eases such as hepatitis B, influenza, and measles, mumps, and rubella. CDC, State Healthcare Worker and Patient Vaccination Laws (Feb. 28, 201, https://www.cdc.gov/phlp/publications/topic/vaccinationlaws.html. As the Sec-retary explained, these pre-existing state requirements are a major reason the agency has not previously adopted vac-cine mandates as a condition of participation. 86 Fed. Reg.61567–61568.

But this isn't an unlimited grant of authority, the court hints. This vaccine mandate is rooted in an unusual situation. Would they uphold a mandate to vaccinate against, say, bubonic plague, when there's only a few cases a year in the USA? Seems to imply that the court wouldn't let that slide.

Spoiler: Snippet

Indeed, their support suggests that a vac-cination requirement under these circumstances is a straightforward and predictable example of the “health and safety” regulations that Congress has authorized the Secre-tary to impose.

Authority: not exceeded.

Spoiler: Snippet

We accordingly conclude that the Secretary did not ex-ceed his statutory authority in requiring that, in order to remain eligible for Medicare and Medicaid dollars, the fa-cilities covered by the interim rule must ensure that their employees be vaccinated against COVID–19.

The court moves on to the rest of the arguments, starting with the question of whether this mandate is "arbitrary and capricious". They say no, it's not. They say there's enough of a paper trail to show that the Feds didn't pull this rule and its requirements out of their hinderparts, and that the Court isn't going to get into digging into how accurate the facts that they relied on are. They're comfortable saying that there was enough effort on CMS's part that their process looked "reasonable", which is good enough. They also finally mention the potential hit to rural hospital staffing.

Spoiler: Snippet

First, the interim rule is not arbitrary and capricious. Given the rule-making record, it cannot be maintained that the Secretary failed to “examine the relevant data and articulate a satis-factory explanation for” his decisions to (1) impose the vac-cine mandate instead of a testing mandate; (2) require vac-cination of employees with “natural immunity” from prior COVID–19 illness; and (3) depart from the agency’s prior approach of merely encouraging vaccination. Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Auto-mobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 43 (1983); see 86 Fed. Reg.61583, 61559–61561, 61614. Nor is it the case that the Sec-retary “entirely failed to consider” that the rule might cause staffing shortages, including in rural areas. State Farm, 463 U. S., at 43; see 86 Fed. Reg. 61566, 61569, 61607–61609. As to the additional flaws the District Courts found in the Secretary’s analysis, particularly concerning the na-ture of the data relied upon, the role of courts in reviewing arbitrary and capricious challenges is to “simply ensur[e] that the agency has acted within a zone of reasonableness.” FCC v. Prometheus Radio Project, 592 U. S. ___, ___ (2021) (slip op., at 12).

"But wait, what about the notice and comment period? Shouldn't that have to happen before a rule goes into effect?" The court says, "Nah." That can be done afterwards, if circumstances warrant -- i.e., if they have "good cause." One of these special circumstances was the fact that there was something of a natural, immobile deadline coming up -- the winter flu season. The Feds couldn't do anything to move that, so they had to rush their rule out ahead of it. The 2 months delay to actually prepare a rule wasn't unacceptable, given the complexity of it, and didn't amount to an undue delay.

Spoiler: Snippet

First, JUSTICE ALITO takes issue with the Secretary’s find-ing of good cause to delay notice and comment. But the Sec-retary’s finding that accelerated promulgation of the rule in advance of the winter flu season would significantly reduce COVID–19 infections, hospitalizations, and deaths, 86 Fed. Reg. 61584–61586, constitutes the “something specific,” post, at 3 (dissenting opinion), required to forgo notice and comment. And we cannot say that in this instance the two months the agency took to prepare a 73-page rule consti-tutes “delay” inconsistent with the Secretary’s finding of good cause.

Related, this is technically not a final rule -- it's an "interim rule", which has slightly relaxed requirements on some things. Namely, they could skip doing a regulatory impact survey in advance on how this could fuck up rural hospitals. Very nitpicky technical point that I'm sure will totally make all the rural poor feel good when their only hospital for 200 miles shuts down.

Spoiler: Snippet

We similarly concur with the Secretary that he need not pre-pare a regulatory impact analysis discussing a rule’s effect on small rural hospitals when he acts through an interimfinal rule; that requirement applies only where the Secre-tary proceeds on the basis of a “notice of proposed rulemak-ing,” §1302(b)(1), followed by a “final version of [the] rule,” §1302(b)(2).

Somehow, this mandate doesn't rise to the level of control over hiring/firing of staff, which is explicitly forbidden - the Feds can't completely hijack control of state and local health systems by throwing some money around. On paper, anyway. This section is incredibly weakly reasoned (it's basically not reasoned at all, and is just a handwaved assertion), and is blink and you'll miss it short -- the snippet I quote below is the entirety of it. Seems the majority didn't want the readers to look at this point too long.

Spoiler: Snippet

Lastly, the rule does not run afoul of the di-rective in §1395 that federal officials may not “exercise any supervision or control over the . . . manner in which medical
services are provided, or over the selection [or] tenure . . . of any officer or employee of ” any facility. That reading of sec-tion 1395 would mean that nearly every condition of partic-ipation the Secretary has long insisted upon is unlawful.

In their closing paragraphs where they state that all this order does is lift the injunctions blocking enforcement, they make a couple of interesting comments that once again warn that, as friendly to the govt as this opinion is, it's not a blank check. This warning note is another reason I think the primary author behind this was probably Roberts, or perhaps Kavanaugh. The note of caution about overreach if this gets extended past these "unPrEcEDeNTeD" circumstances doesn't match up with the emotional tone the Breyer/Sotomayor/Kagan faction displayed during oral arguments.

The challenges posed by a global pandemic do not allow a federal agency to exercise power that Congress has not con-ferred upon it. At the same time, such unprecedented cir-cumstances provide no grounds for limiting the exercise of authorities the agency has long been recognized to have.

The District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri’s November 29, 2021, order granting a preliminary injunc-tion is stayed pending disposition of the Government’s ap-peal in the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit and the disposition of the Government’s petition for a writ of certiorari, if such writ is timely sought.

(Same goes for the 5th Circuit appeal.)

My personal thoughts on the majority opinion? I would've preferred it have gone the other way due to the reasons Thomas and Gorsuch cover in their dissenting opinions below, but it's not entirely without merit in some regards, and it is bracketed with warnings to the govt that this is kind of a one-time only pass (). I wish they would've gone so far as to say this ruling is limited to the specific facts of this case (which renders it effectively useless as precedent, like Bush v. Gore (2000)), but it's at least something, on paper anyway. And the fighting on this one isn't completely over yet, not to mention this is technically still an interim rule from CMS, so the story of this particular mandate isn't over yet.

<checks clock> I've been at this for a good 3 hours now and am probably running out of character count for this post, so gonna hit these two dissents quicker and skip most of the quoting. Each one is only 5-6 pages long, so if you want the exact text, you should be able to open it up alongside my post and follow along pretty easily. Fast Forward ACTIVATE!

Dissenting Opinion -- Thomas -- Where's Your Authoritah?

Spoiler: Quicksperg

Thomas's arguments focus heavily on his view that CMS does not have the authority to issue a mandate of this character and this breadth without an extremely explicit statement from Congress. He points out that there is no single statute from Congress issuing anything that remotely looks like the power to do this. Instead, it's cobbled together from a crazy quilt of other, smaller laws that cover things that kinda-sorta are similar, and then are inferred to grant the authority to mandate a specific mandate on roughly 10 million workers.

Thomas:

Thomas thinks none of these scattered other regs are anywhere near close enough to the requirement for a vaccine -- none of them cover any sort of medical treatment that an employee must take or else get fired. Some of them cover regulating infection in the hospital workplace, but that's about sterilizing equipment and rooms, not immunizing people. Too far a stretch for him.

He's also seriously worried about the federalism implications of an expansion of administrative authority like this, especially without an incontrovertible, black-letter law from Congress spelling out the grant of power. He's also concerned about how this infringes on the police power, which has been exclusively that of the State, not the Federal, government, for a good 200+ years, although he sadly doesn't elaborate on this argument.

These cases are not about the efficacy or importance of COVID–19 vaccines. They are only about whether CMShas the statutory authority to force healthcare workers, bycoercing their employers, to undergo a medical procedurethey do not want and cannot undo. Because the Govern-ment has not made a strong showing that Congress gaveCMS that broad authority, I would deny the stays pending appeal. I respectfully dissent.

Dissenting Opinion -- Alito, Joined by Gorsuch and Barrett -- Actions Have Consequences

Spoiler: Quicksperg

Alito echoes Thomas's concerns about "where the hell is this power coming from??", but in much more aggressive language.

He's also incensed about the notice and comment period getting done out of order -- he points out that this period is one of the only ways that individuals and organizations can check the power of unelected administrative agencies, and that it's also a key way to get more data to said agency so that it can craft rules with full and accurate information. By effectively skipping that, CMS has shot itself in the foot in cutting through all the conflicting and chaotic information about the pandemic and how to deal with it. Basically, without all the facts, which the notice and comment period would allow gathering and evaluating of data, you can't actually really know if there was "good cause" to issue a rule like this. He wants a very high bar to deviating from the usual process for these rules -- here, basically bodies in the streets level of clarity on "yep, we know exactly what the problem is and this is the obvious solution". He also disagrees with the majority that the several month delay wasn't material.

Unlike the majority, Alito has no optimism that this departure from the usual processes won't have serious consequences for federalism. I can't say that I disagree with him.

Today’s decision will ripple through administrative agen-cies’ future decisionmaking. The Executive Branch already touches nearly every aspect of Americans’ lives. In conclud-ing that CMS had good cause to avoid notice-and-comment rulemaking, the Court shifts the presumption against com-pliance with procedural strictures from the unelected agency to the people they regulate. Neither CMS nor the Court articulates a limiting principle for why, after an un-explained and unjustified delay, an agency can regulate first and listen later, and then put more than 10 million healthcare workers to the choice of their jobs or an irre-versible medical treatment.

 

[LowLowHighLow]

Sounds sensible at face value, but that's not what is actually happening. Covid is not a disease of viral pneumonia that damages lungs until they can't work without mechanical assistance, its a disease of endothelial dysfunction and oxidative stress. People die not because of a lack of oxygen saturation in their lungs (which is what the ventilator can actually solve) they die because oxidative stress has rendered their blood vessels incapable of properly binding to that oxygen no matter what your saturation levels are. Invasive ventilation is actually exacerbating the situation by artificially pumping the patients ass full of more fuel for a series of chemical reactions that will...produce more oxidative stress and further reduce the blood vessels ability to do what they're supposed to.

You can thank old mate Drain Todger for this information; Further details found in The Spartacus Letter by him here: https://www.fastrope.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/COVID-19-The-Spartacus-Letter-1.pdf

Thanks! I can‘t confirm or deny your arguments as I don‘t know much about that topic, but is there anything you can do about that oxidative stress? Because in the end for the brain it doesn‘t matter much why there isn‘t enough oxygen available, it will react with shortness of breath to it anyway - which again will result at some point in exhaustion of your respiratory muscles.
So if you can‘t do anything about the oxidative stress, then the patient is suffocating anyway - probably earlier without ventilation.

 

[Kujo Jotaro]

@SCSI Thank you for your very informative post, I will start looking for another job right now!

 

[Sincere Sinner]

Thanks! I can‘t confirm or deny your arguments as I don‘t know much about that topic, but is there anything you can do about that oxidative stress? Because in the end for the brain it doesn‘t matter much why there isn‘t enough oxygen available, it will react with shortness of breath to it anyway - which again will result at some point in exhaustion of your respiratory muscles.
So if you can‘t do anything about the oxidative stress, then the patient is suffocating anyway - probably earlier without ventilation.

Yes you can. You can medicate a patient with things that have antioxidant properties. A number of medications that have just so happened to have proven effective against Covid 19 just happen to have antioxidant properties. Fluvoxamine, Melatonin, Budesonide to name a few. Read the PDF, its all there in detail I wont spam the thread with.

 

[SCSI]

@SCSI Thank you for your very informative post, I will start looking for another job right now!

You're welcome! I'll cover OSHA sometime in the next couple of days. Best of luck on the career change if you end up having to take that road (I mean it, no sarcasm there). I imagine a lot of people in the healthcare industry read that opinion and had the same reaction as you -- this is going to do some serious damage to the medical networks in some areas. IIRC one of the lawyers in the oral arguments for this case referenced some regions where up to 35% of the workforce had so far refused to vaccinate -- I assume those are mostly little rural clinics with a handful of staff, so one or two people makes a large percentage. (As an aside, I bet a disproportionate number are going to be on geographically-remote Indian reservations. I want to say I vaguely remember some stats posted ages ago in the thread showed a lot of rezes having low vax rates.)

I kinda hate to write this as it comes off morbid as hell, but that could end up opening a slim chance for the CMS mandate to go away later -- the Court seemed to be taking a "wait and see" stance on the fallout for rural/underserved areas, and largely set it aside for the current decision. If that ends up putting healthcare access on its knees in enough places, especially if it ends up disproportionately affecting racial minorities like Indian tribes (disparate impact always draws closer scrutiny), it might change their minds when it comes back up to them for a final decision. I wouldn't stake my life on it, but it ain't over until the gavel bangs.

 

[Kujo Jotaro]

You're welcome! I'll cover OSHA sometime in the next couple of days. Best of luck on the career change if you end up having to take that road (I mean it, no sarcasm there). I imagine a lot of people in the healthcare industry read that opinion and had the same reaction as you -- this is going to do some serious damage to the medical networks in some areas. IIRC one of the lawyers in the oral arguments for this case referenced some regions where up to 35% of the workforce had so far refused to vaccinate -- I assume those are mostly little rural clinics with a handful of staff, so one or two people makes a large percentage. (As an aside, I bet a disproportionate number are going to be on geographically-remote Indian reservations. I want to say I vaguely remember some stats posted ages ago in the thread showed a lot of rezes having low vax rates.)

I kinda hate to write this as it comes off morbid as hell, but that could end up opening a slim chance for the CMS mandate to go away later -- the Court seemed to be taking a "wait and see" stance on the fallout for rural/underserved areas, and largely set it aside for the current decision. If that ends up putting healthcare access on its knees in enough places, especially if it ends up disproportionately affecting racial minorities like Indian tribes (disparate impact always draws closer scrutiny), it might change their minds when it comes back up to them for a final decision. I wouldn't stake my life on it, but it ain't over until the gavel bangs.

Aside from indian reservations my money would be on midwestern and southern nursing homes. This mandate applies to uneducated, and unskilled labor's including CNA's many of who are very vaccine hesitant. IIRC someone posted an excel sheet that documented (at the time) the Vax status of both patients and employee's of every nursing home in the country. This was months ago now(like when the mandate first got announced) but some nursing home's in my state had less than 20% of their employee's vaccinated; I would not at all be shocked to hear about nursing home's shutting down because 50% of their staff had to be fired.

 

[borsabil]

Here's how Omicron Covid is being reported in Australia

29 dead! The worst day evah in the pandemic. Everyone panic

5 people over 60 died. Of those 5, 4 were unvaccinated

They have to cull the death stats to find a group where there were actually some unvaxxed people that died with Covid.

To translate 29 dead, 4 unvaxxed.

It's estimated, due to the non availability of testing and the incredibly mild disease from Omicron, that infection rates are 5 to 10 times higher than the reported cases. They are reporting around 60,000 positive cases per day so a minimum of 300,000 actual infections. So 4% of the entire population are catching Covid-19 every day at present. The virus stays in the body and shows positive in tests for around 7 days. So around 28% of the population are currently positive with Covid-19. But let's be super conservative and say 20% of the population currently have Covid.

There are 7.4 million people living in New South Wales 32% of Australia's population. On average 140 people a day die in New South Wales from all causes. 29 of them have died today with Omicron Covid which is (drum roll please) 20% of all deaths.

No one is dying from Omicron Covid, no one. If Omicron was even a moderately serious disease we would be seeing many hundreds of deaths a day given the infection rate.

God how much do I fucking hate the media?

 

[SCSI]

Aside from indian reservations my money would be on midwestern and southern nursing homes. This mandate applies to uneducated, and unskilled labor's including CNA's many of who are very vaccine hesitant. IIRC someone posted an excel sheet that documented (at the time) the Vax status of both patients and employee's of every nursing home in the country. This was months ago now(like when the mandate first got announced) but some nursing home's in my state had less than 20% of their employee's vaccinated; I would not at all be shocked to hear about nursing home's shutting down because 50% of their staff had to be fired.

That's a damn good point, and those two regions are also where you get a ton of seniors retiring to, often to rural/semirural areas. That is going to be brutal, those places were already overworked and understaffed.

 

[Sincere Sinner]

Here's how Omicron Covid is being reported in Australia

29 dead! The worst day evah in the pandemic. Everyone panic



They have to cull the death stats to find a group where there were actually some unvaxxed people that died with Covid.

To translate 29 dead, 4 unvaxxed.

It's estimated, due to the non availability of testing and the incredibly mild disease from Omicron, that infection rates are 5 to 10 times higher than the reported cases. They are reporting around 60,000 positive cases per day so a minimum of 300,000 actual infections. So 4% of the entire population are catching Covid-19 every day at present. The virus stays in the body and shows positive in tests for around 7 days. So around 28% of the population are currently positive with Covid-19. But let's be super conservative and say 20% of the population currently have Covid.

There are 7.4 million people living in New South Wales 32% of Australia's population. On average 140 people a day die in New South Wales from all causes. 29 of them have died today with Omicron Covid which is (drum roll please) 20% of all deaths.

No one is dying from Omicron Covid, no one. If Omicron was even a moderately serious disease we would be seeing many hundreds of deaths a day given the infection rate.

God how much do I fucking hate the media?

The best part is that this is pretty much as bad as it gets. This snapshot of today alone? This is hot off the trails of immune evasion into this new strain, and pretty much the peak of the exponential infection spread before natural immunity begins to clamp down on the number of potential susceptible hosts. In other words, roughly this period of time is the perfect cherry-picked best opportunity for Omicron to kill a large number of people in a short period of time in NSW and we got a grand total of twenty-nine. Nice fucking meme.