"... indeed, the public health emergency has only become more acute in recent weeks.... For the employer mandate, OSHA issued an emergency standard which can be implemented rapidly. For the rule involving health-care workers, [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] waived the normal period for taking public comment into consideration before issuing final regulations.... Both had good reason for acting swiftly.... The Occupational Safety and Health Act empowers OSHA to mitigate 'grave' workplace dangers through emergency measures... Career agency professionals have the expertise — and can act more quickly with more flexibility — than the legislative process allows... especially... in a health emergency.... Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus. Vaccines offer the best, possibly the only, way to curtail the covid-19 pandemic."
From "The Supreme Court must uphold Biden’s vaccine mandates — and fast" by Lawrence O. Gostin, professor at Georgetown University and director of the World Health Organization Collaborating Center on National and Global Health Law; Jeffrey E. Harris, emeritus professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and practicing physician at Eisner Health; and Dorit Rubinstein, law professor at University of California, Hastings College of the Law. (WaPo).
December 29, 2021
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
59 comments:
...director of the World Health Organization
and That's really, All we need to know about them
i wonder what AMERICANS think? (particularly the nine on the SCOTUS)
Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus.
None of whom ever looked at the scientific articles Scott Atlas brought to every meeting of the "Task Force." The "consensus" is of career bureaucrats who have not treated a case in the last 40 years,
I thought Hastings had been banned because of slavery or something.
I really thought the COVID thing would go away after last November's election.
It seems they found it useful, and kept the ruse going. It's become a smoke-screen for FJB, and his incompetence.
For the employer mandate, OSHA issued an emergency standard which can be implemented rapidly. For the rule involving health-care workers, [Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services] waived the normal period for taking public comment into consideration before issuing final regulations.... Both had good reason for acting swiftly...
Both waited two months after Biden announced they were going to do it, before issuing the rules. Which means they don't thing they're "emergencies" that needed to be immediately dealt with.
So neither should we
Huh. Agency professionals can bypass rights and the rule of law. Let's hope they never get coopted or heaven forbid power hungry individual get attracted to those positions because of lawyers have assured us they are the only ones who can best determine when our rights can be limited.
Or maybe... if you have a right which is subject to arbitrary limitations it was never a right in the first place.
Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus.
Reality check: There is no proof of any sort that the "Covid vaccines" prevent or slow down the spread of Covid.
The only justification for a "vaccine mandate" is that it stops the spread of a disease to other people
Since the current shots don't do that, there can be no legitimate justification for the mandates
SCOTUS must strike down the Federal Mandates, and any and all State mandates
"Lower-court rulings... disregarded the broad scientific consensus that covid-19 poses a major public health threat requiring a strong emergency response..."
"... indeed, the public health emergency has only become more acute in recent weeks.... "
What, exactly, is a "strong" emergency response?
I note that he doesn't say it requires an "effective" emergency response, or a "good" emergency response, just a "strong" one.
The "public health emergency has only become more acute in recent weeks", particularly in places like NY, where all the things they want to force on the rest of us have already been forced on the people there.
What was that Babylon Bee headline: Experts insist that response to Defat shoudl be everything that's failed before"?
Vaccines offer the best, possibly the only, way to curtail the covid-19 pandemic."
This is blatantly dishonest bordering on blood libel.
“The unquestioned scientific consensus.” If the scientific consensus is never questioned, it is not science. It is the contradiction of science. Although I would never expect “agency professionals” to be the ones doing the questioning.
I think the authors are saying that Public Health is so fragile that it must be protected by a Bodyguard of Authoritarianism.
"Career agency professionals have the expertise — and can act more quickly with more flexibility — than the legislative process allows... especially... in a health emergency"
Covid has been around for over 20 months. Congress has passed multiple laws dealing with the Covid "emergency".
The legislative process has had plenty of time to produce such rules, and hasn't done so, including during the 11 months of the Biden* Presidency, with a Democrat controlled House and Senate.
The executive branch does not have the right or power to create new laws, just because Congress refuses to give the President what he* wants.
"Vaccines offer the best, possibly the only, way to curtail the covid-19 pandemic."
I don't get it. While vaccines seem to help the individual who gets one, the evidence is approaching overwhelming that they do not stop transmission.
Why does the "follow the science" crowd keep repeating this?
I'm pretty sure the President and head of the Executive Branch just stated there is no federal solution for covid and told the states to manage the emergency. Forget the scientific consensus, can we have an Executive Branch consensus as to whether this is a federal or state issue? You don't get to make failed Executive Orders and publish regulations and then claim it is the responsibility of the States to solve the problem.
And since when are we not allowed to question science? Are we back to the Sun revolves around the Earth and if you question it, then that's tantamount to insurrection against the government?
Doc Gostin getting a lot of money from a lot of organizations but not apparently from any sick people.
Original Mike said...
"Vaccines offer the best, possibly the only, way to curtail the covid-19 pandemic."
I don't get it. While vaccines seem to help the individual who gets one, the evidence is approaching overwhelming that they do not stop transmission.
Why does the "follow the science" crowd keep repeating this?
Because you can't justify a mandate as a "public health measure" when it doesn't in fact protect the public.
And something that doesn't lower the infection rate doesn't protect the public, it just protects the individual who gets the shot.
Essentially, they must tell that lie because otherwise SCOTUS will shoot them down
"Because you can't justify a mandate as a "public health measure" when it doesn't in fact protect the public."
Sure. But it boggles my mind that scientists, as I assume the authors of this piece are, are willing to stand up and declare "the sky is orange". I was/am a scientist and I would be, quite literally, incapable of doing that. It's dishonest of course, but putting that aside, as a matter of professional pride I just couldn't do it.
Since when is science done by consensus?
Anyway...this just came into my inbox about an hour ago. No- it's not the final word, but it does include actual science.
Substack.AlexBerenson
Career agency professionals have the expertise — and can act more quickly with more flexibility — than the legislative process allows...
Yeah, but a military dictator can act even faster. Bring on the coup!
"Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus."
Unquestioned by Lawrence O. Gostin, anyway.
Who the fuck are these people? Dorit Rubenstein, a law professor, should know better.
The President and federal government have no police powers. Biden's EOs are unlawful and unconstitutional. Did these people read the Fifth Circuit opinion?
If it was legal, I'd bet big money that Biden loses the cases set for January 2022 before SCOTUS.
To be a more legal, Chevron deference is not applicable because the Executive Branch doesn't have the authority to order vaxs in the first place.
Wars pose a significant threat to human health but apparently a free country is more important sometimes.
I was very angry that Kelly Dineen, a health law professor at the now low-rated Creighton University Law School, was quoted in the Omaha newspaper that the Biden's OSHA EO was perfectly legal. Professor Dineen is a liberal and that has clouded her legal judgment. She is not cruelly neutral. I learned in my first year at Creighton Law that the federal government has no general police powers.
All these libs who thought the federal government could order vax mandates need to recognize that they were completely wrong. SCOTUS will rule 6-3 against Biden. It should be 9-0.
Dave Begley said...
If it was legal, I'd bet big money that Biden loses the cases set for January 2022 before SCOTUS.
https://www.predictit.org/markets/3/Biden-Administration
I don't see one for the Vax Mandates, perhaps you should suggest it to them
>>The Occupational Safety and Health Act empowers OSHA to mitigate 'grave' workplace dangers through emergency measures...
If your company has 104 people, it is a 'grave danger'.
If your company has 97 people.... no need to do anything.
Sounds like "science" to me!
When SCOTUS strikes down the federal vax mandates, I'm going to send a strongly worded letter to the Dean of Creighton Law demanding (!) that the entire law faculty implement cruel neutrality in teaching. Make it a policy!
I hope lawyers find this as funny as I do. God what weak appeals to authority!
I hope it's Thomas who opens a can of whop-ass.
Leland you and I both know we are about to hear Biden’s solicitor general argue quite passionately that the court must uphold Joe’s orders because only a vigorous Federal Response can save us all from certain death. Raggedy Psaki already tweeted that Joe’s clearly worded statement akshully means Feds and States working together. They have no shame.
“Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus.”
What a load of technocrat-worshipping bullshit.
Here’s a more honest version: let’s put unelected and unaccountable bureaucrats in charge and toss the rule of law and consent of the governed into the trash.
Whatever happened to our democracy? ...
Silly me, the possessive pronoun only belongs to owners, doesn't it?
Translation: "Following the law would damage Democratic Party priorities! We can't have that!"
They are not vaccines. They are non-sterilizing therapeutic treatments with a dismal and unknown forward-looking safety profile (e.g. spikes are pathogenic) and waning efficacy in time and variants. In fact, the data from Britain, Denmark, and Israel is that while they offer limited personal protection, increased risk with variants, they do not in a significant number of cases prevent disease progression and transmission (e.g. silent spread), and as such only marginally, at best, contribute to community immunity. They may offer personal protection, assess risk individually and proceed accordingly, and not a public good. Natural immunity is both more durable and robust, and with early treatment, the survival rate is over 99% and without persistent effects (so-called "long Covid-19, 20, 21").
Whatever happened to our democracy? ...
The democratic/dictatorial duality is a clear and progressive risk.
Blogger Achilles said...
Vaccines offer the best, possibly the only, way to curtail the covid-19 pandemic."
This is blatantly dishonest bordering on blood libel.
This video interview with Joe Rogan answers a lot of questions. I highly recommend it.
https://rumble.com/vqt3p6-jre-1747-dr.-peter-mccullough.html
Please, Baby Jesus, let this left-wing overreach gut Chevron deference like a Tijuana hooker.
You are right, Mike. I even looked through the Whitehouse.gov press releases for an exact quote. They have something called a readout from the meeting with the National Governors Association. Readout is a new term to me, but apparently it means useless synopsis of events. A transcript of the call created two days later doesn't match any press coverage or the readout. The transcript has Biden talking about federal aid being provided to all states via FEMA, and for evidence, Biden notes 5 of 6 FEMA facilities being stood up for NYC. Not New York State. Not 5 facilities in multiple states. Just FEMA facilities for NYC, but FEMA is there for all states...
Anyway, imagine being a Supreme Court Justice trying to decide on this case and you are told by some professor that they shouldn't make a decision that goes against a scientific consensus that is unquestioned. It is like a warning, "not even you may question them". I get that's plenty of cover for John Roberts, but you'd think the other Justices would take offense to it.
Plainly, Gostin is in love with autocracy. That's ok, Larry. Democracy is only good for the small stuff, like dog parks and civic beautification, right? ...Just be sure your autocrat isn't an automaton.😉
Joking aside, if vaccine mandates are vital, then put the question to the People. In spite of the prominence of lunatics like Jussie Smollett, Joy Reid, and Alec Baldwin, the vast majority of Us are reasonable and open to persuasion. The Supremes must reject Gostin's demand for legislation from the bench. That's not their constitutional role. Nor is lawmaking by bureaucracy. Bureaucrats execute legislation, they don't impose it, not in America, at any rate. Maybe in North Korea...
What's stopping Nancy Pelosi or Chuck Schumer from bringing a national vax mandate before Congress? It would pass easily... Silly me, they're too busy trying to spend several trillion dollars we don't have.
Dear Commenters: this ongoing discussion is why I come here. I can hear more viewpoints, better argued, in less time and with less BS, than anywhere else I know. In this case, I can kick back, having pocketed 3-4 damn good reasons why the Supremes should toss this sad excuse for a public health mandate.
Hmm.. Apparently Lawrence O. Gostin has all the wisdom of a precocious 12-year old. To think anyone or any group can have that level of certainty of knowledge of anything as novel as Corona is silly flabbergasting.
Well, except there is no "broad scientific consensus."
It's my opinion that the Democrats in the White House are praying the SCOTUS stays the mandates so they can let them die quietly. For all the thrashing, it has seemed apparent recently that governments are realizing that the days when they can Cry Pandemic, and lest loose the dogs of COVID, are coming to an end. And 10 days is a long time for Omicron. They just cut the isolation time in half because 10 days was going to kill the economy with so many workers idled. What about millions unemployed due to the vaccine mandate?
I noticed last night that in the TN syndromic monitoring that while ER visits for Coronavirus-like symptoms were shooting up, those for the traditional Influenza-like symptoms were also on the same trajectory. This latter is new with influenza being flat since January 2020.
Remember the stirring words of Abraham Lincoln:
"This nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom—and that government of the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus, by the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus, and for the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus, shall not perish from the earth."
COVID vaccination and age-stratified all-cause mortality risk
October 2021
DOI:10.13140/RG.2.2.28257.43366
Project: Risk benefit analyses of COVID vaccination stratified by age
Authors:
Spiro Pantazatos
Columbia University
Herve Seligmann
Abstract and Figures
Accurate estimates of COVID vaccine-induced severe adverse event and death rates are critical for risk-benefit ratio analyses of vaccination and boosters against SARS-CoV-2 coronavirus in different age groups. However, existing surveillance studies are not designed to reliably estimate life-threatening event or vaccine-induced fatality rates (VFR).
Here, regional variation in vaccination rates was used to predict all-cause mortality and non-COVID deaths in subsequent time periods using two independent, publicly available datasets from the US and Europe (month-and week-level resolutions, respectively). Vaccination correlated negatively with mortality 6-20 weeks post-injection, while vaccination predicted all-cause mortality 0-5 weeks post-injection in almost all age groups and with an age-related temporal pattern consistent with the US vaccine rollout.
Results from fitted regression slopes (p<0.05 FDR corrected) suggest a US national average VFR (Vaccine Fatality Rate) of 0.04% and higher VFR with age (VFR=0.004% in ages 0-17 increasing to 0.06% in ages >75 years), and 146K to 187K vaccine-associated US deaths between February and August, 2021.
Notably, adult vaccination increased ulterior mortality of unvaccinated young (<18, US; <15, Europe).
Comparing our estimate with the CDC-reported VFR (0.002%) suggests VAERS deaths are underreported by a factor of 20, consistent with known VAERS under-ascertainment bias. Comparing our age-stratified VFRs with published age-stratified coronavirus infection fatality rates (IFR) suggests the risks of COVID vaccines and boosters outweigh the benefits in children, young adults and older adults with low occupational risk or previous coronavirus exposure.
We discuss implications for public health policies related to boosters, school and workplace mandates, and the urgent need to identify, develop and disseminate diagnostics and treatments for life-altering vaccine injuries.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/355581860_COVID_vaccination_and_age-stratified_all-cause_mortality_risk
In 1976 the H1N1 vaccine was stopped after 25 to 32 deaths.
So how many lives have been saved by the vaccines? More than 146k?
According to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study, the researchers found that COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 139,000 deaths during the first 5 months they were available. That's essentially the same period covered by the above study.
I'm not sure what to conclude from the study I cited above, but I don't think we know enough about these vaccines yet to be mandating them.
My brother-in-law met his kids for Thanksgiving Day dinner. My sister did not go because she was afraid of getting the'rona. He brought the flu virus home to my sister. She had the nasty symptoms of diarrhea and vomiting. Not covid. Flu.
Honestly, how gullible are you if you honestly still think we can vaccinate our way out of this? 🤦♂️
The threshold fucking issue is NOT whether some government agency can issue such decrees, it's whether the federal government has the power to FORCE all the states to knuckle under a decree by simply declaring a public emergency.
Since Biden himself said just the other day that there's no federal solution to covid, that it's essentially up to the states to handle it, he has pissed into his own Whiskey Sour.
According to a National Institutes of Health (NIH) study, the researchers found that COVID-19 vaccines prevented more than 139,000 deaths during the first 5 months they were available. That's essentially the same period covered by the above study.
****************
Wanna 'splain how the NIH could KNOW how many people didn't die from covid because of the vaccines?
Horseshit. They did estimates, based on assumptions. Using lookbacks, not before-the-fact predictions. That's not science.
Shorter article: From a nation of laws to a nation of unquestioned scientific consensus.
As a health care worker, I was among the first wave vaccinated a year ago. I was grateful for the protection, and I encourage people to get vaccinated. That said, I am ambivalent and uneasy about vaccine mandates. It's a lingering feeling that forcing people to have an injection in their bodies is beyond what government should do. One thing I have learned through Covid, though, is a lot of people don't think there are any limits to what government should do.
How do you mandate a so called vaccine for citizens when no where in the country can you find the one and only FDA approved pfizer “Comirnaty”. It’s not available. Period. But it appears that due to a law passed during the Reagan Admin drug manufacturers acquire more robust legal liability protections once they secure full approval for the children’s version of the shot.
So are we now forcing these jabs upon our children so that drug companies never have to face those who have been injured or killed by these products? That’s as sick as it gets.
IANAL. It could well be that the Supreme Court has no power to tell regulatory agencies how to do their jobs. But the agencies are still doing a terrible job.
"Justices should defer to the judgment of agency professionals, which represents the unquestioned scientific consensus."
Althouse certainly highlighted the most important sentence.
There's always a consensus among scientists who share a particular view. Those who question that view are outside of the consensus, heretics in fact who deserve to be burned at the stake or banned from Twitter.
So this sounds like a religious issue. Taking a vaccine, actually accepting any sort of medical treatment, is an act of faith that the treating doctors are doing the right thing. Some people come to find their faith was misplaced.
So, maybe this thing can be beaten on First Amendment grounds, that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof..."
"unquestioned scientific consensus..." What horseshit.
If it was an emergency, OSHA would not have waited months to implement the rule.
Not that COVID isn’t a problem, it’s just that it’s not an emergency under the laws Congress passed giving OSHA power to regulate it.
But why let a pesky thing like logic or the law stand in your way.
First, what Michael K said above.
Second, I just finished leading a group of 40 singers in a performance at a very prominent entertainment location in Southern CA. We were notified only 4 weeks before the performance that the requirement of the venue management had changed from "vaxxed or 48 hour negative" to "vaxxed only, no exceptions allowed". One of our singers had come through multiple myeloma AND Covid in 2020. His oncologist was from John Hopkins and had served in CDC administration during the Obama years. He told our singer "no way" was he going to recommend the vaccinations to him. His signature was meaningless to the venue.
I am not vindictive by nature, but I do agree an accounting of the states and federal government actions - as well as those of the so called "news" media - during 2020 through 2021 is not only justified but absolutely essential to American lives and psyches being restored and given realistic hope for a future brighter than the extreme selfishness and bitterness engendered by said actors today.
And, what reasonable human being of any stripe believes for a moment that Trump or the GOP - despite their multiple flaws and idiocys - are "authoritarian" when every minute of everyday the Biden admin and blue state govs seek to restrict multiple freedoms by state power?
To review the actual bidding, to my understanding (actually), Biden actually said “we will have vaccine mandates, now jump, OSHA”; and OSHA actually said: “How high, Big Guy?”
So, actually, neither scientific consensus, nor agency expertise had anything to do with the decision.
Convince me that I am wrong.
Post a Comment