The Coronavirus thread

Quote: terapined

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59245018

Australia has the answer. We should be doing this over here

Austria or Australia?

Quote: terapined

???
What country do you think I am talking about

Australia, but you post an article about Austria, so I wondered if Australia had a special treatment or if maybe you posted something entirely different from what you were thinking?

Are you talking about the continent with the kangaroos?

Quote: terapined

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-59245018

Australia has the answer. We should be doing this over here

ED... It's Austria, my Friend. Australia is a different continent.

Quote: OnceDear

ED... It's Austria, my Friend. Australia is a different continent.

Shh, he didn't know they were different countries. Why did you have to tell him

Quote: RonC

Austria or Australia?

There's a difference?
Wow
Color me surprised
Lol
I admit I barely looked at the headline and never read the article
Its still a good idea :-)

KABOOM, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just demolished dear leader poopy pants dementia joe bidumb’s OSHA vaccine mandate.

The ruling can be found here

The entire ruling is 22 pages long so I do not expect the bidumb supporters to actually read it.

Here are some quotes from their ruling:

-We first consider whether the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate are likely to succeed on the merits. For a multitude of reasons, they are. We begin by stating the obvious. The Occupational Safety and Health Act, which created OSHA, was enacted by Congress to assure Americans “safe and healthful working conditions and to preserve our human resources.” See 29 U.S.C. § 651 (statement of findings and declaration of purpose and policy). It was not—and likely could not be, under the Commerce Clause and nondelegation doctrine—intended to authorize a workplace safety administration in the deep recesses of the federal bureaucracy to make sweeping pronouncements on matters of public health affecting every member of society in the profoundest of ways.

-On the dubious assumption that the Mandate does pass constitutional muster—which we need not decide today—it is nonetheless fatally flawed on its own terms. Indeed, the Mandate’s strained prescriptions combine to make it the rare government pronouncement that is both overinclusive (applying to employers and employees in virtually all industries and workplaces in America, with little attempt to account for the obvious differences between the risks facing, say, a security guard on a lonely night shift, and a meatpacker working shoulder to shoulder in a cramped warehouse) and underinclusive (purporting to save employees with 99 or more coworkers from a “grave danger” in the workplace, while making no attempt to shield employees with 98 or fewer coworkers from the very same threat). The Mandate’s stated impetus—a purported “emergency” that the entire globe has now endured for nearly two years, and which OSHA itself spent nearly two months responding to—is unavailing as well. And its promulgation grossly exceeds OSHA’s statutory authority.

-Thus, courts have uniformly observed that OSHA’s authority to establish emergency temporary standards under 655(c) “is an ‘extraordinary power’ that is to be ‘delicately exercised’ in only certain ‘limited situations.’” Id. at 370 (quoting Pub. Citizen, 702 F.2d at 1155).14 But the Mandate at issue here is anything but a “delicate[] exercise[]” of this “extraordinary power.” Cf. Pub. Citizen, 702 F.2d at 1155. Quite the opposite, rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-sizefits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly “grave danger” the Mandate purports to address.

-The Administration’s prior statements in this regard further belie the notion that COVID-19 poses the kind of emergency that allows OSHA to take the extreme measure of an ETS.

-It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here.

-We next consider the necessity of the Mandate. The Mandate is staggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old
prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the virus. The list goes on, but one constant remains—the Mandate fails almost completely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and common sense

-Given that we learn more about COVID-19 every day, setting rules in stone through an ETS (and later a permanent rule) may undermine worker protection by permanently mandating precautions that later prove to be inefficacious. . . .

-At the same time, the Mandate is also underinclusive. The most vulnerable worker in America draws no protection from the Mandate if his company employs 99 workers or fewer. The reason why? Because, as even OSHA admits, companies of 100 or more employers will be better able to administer (and sustain) the Mandate. That may be true. But this kind of thinking belies the premise that any of this is truly an emergency. Indeed, underinclusiveness of this sort is often regarded as a telltale sign that the government’s interest in enacting a liberty-restraining pronouncement is not in fact “compelling.” The underinclusive nature of the Mandate implies that the Mandate’s true purpose is not to enhance workplace safety, but instead to ramp up vaccine uptake by any means necessary

-It lastly bears noting that the Mandate raises serious constitutional concerns that either make it more likely that the petitioners will succeed on the merits, or at least counsel against adopting OSHA’s broad reading of § 655(c) as a matter of statutory interpretation.

First, the Mandate likely exceeds the federal government’s authority under the Commerce Clause because it regulates noneconomic inactivity that falls squarely within the States’ police power. A person’s choice to remain unvaccinated and forgo regular testing is noneconomic inactivity.

Second, concerns over separation of powers principles cast doubt over the Mandate’s assertion of virtually unlimited power to control individual conduct under the guise of a workplace regulation.

-Accordingly, the petitioners’ challenges to the Mandate show a great likelihood of success on the merits, and this fact weighs critically in favor of a stay. It is clear that a denial of the petitioners’ proposed stay would do them irreparable harm. For one, the Mandate threatens to substantially burden the liberty interests of reluctant individual recipients put to a choice between their job(s) and their jab(s). For the individual petitioners, the loss of constitutional freedoms “for even minimal periods of time . . . unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.” Likewise, the companies seeking a stay in this case will also be irreparably harmed in the absence of a stay, whether by the business and financial effects of a lost or suspended employee, compliance and monitoring costs associated with the Mandate, the diversion of resources necessitated by the Mandate, or by OSHA’s plan to impose stiff financial penalties on companies that refuse to punish or test unwilling employees.


For these reasons, the petitioners’ motion for a stay pending review is GRANTED. Enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Administration’s “COVID-19 Vaccination and Testing; Emergency Temporary Standard” remains STAYED pending adequate judicial review of the petitioners’ underlying motions for a permanent injunction.

In addition, IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that OSHA take no steps to implement or enforce the Mandate until further court order.

emphasis above is mine


P.S. I am not against chinese flu vaccinations, I am just against the tyrannical mandates.

Let's go Brandon

Quote: fleaswatter

KABOOM, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit just demolished dear leader poopy pants dementia joe bidumb’s OSHA vaccine mandate.

How many times was Sergeant Poopypants asked on the campaign trail, the few times we actually saw him, if he would mandate vaccines if he were president. And his answer was always the same. He wouldn't do it because it's unconstitutional. And here he is trying to do it and here it is unconstitutional. Senile old clown.

Wow, you posted it before the internet news services did: well done (really).

Now OSHA must proceed to full hearing: it ain't over ... yet.

The Mandate is a one-size-fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address.'

Corporal Poopypants knew it was unconstitutional when he was on the campaign trail. Then he steals the presidency and takes stupid pills thinking he can do anything he wants. This stupid mandate never had a chance. You let stuff like this happen and you open the door for the government running every single aspect of your life just like they do in a communist country. But that's the liberal goal, isn't it. They always know what's best.

Perhaps we wouldn't be in the mess we are in today had the president and congress gotten together and hammered out a bi-partisan policy for covid when it first arrived.