Texas governor bans all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, including by private business(cbc.ca)
cbc.ca
Texas governor bans all Covid-19 vaccine mandates, including by private business
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/texas-governor-covid-vaccine-mandate-banned-1.6207561
37 comments
> Abbott, who was previously vaccinated and also later tested positive for COVID-19, noted in his order that "vaccines are strongly encouraged for those eligible to receive one, but must always be voluntary for Texans."
FWIW, vaccine mandates don't make sense to me. The vaccine benefits should speak for themselves.
FWIW, vaccine mandates don't make sense to me. The vaccine benefits should speak for themselves.
Vaccine mandates don't make sense since they don't allow for the concept of natural immunity. The CDC allows you to show proof of previous infection for measles instead of getting vaccinated.
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/index.html#immunity
https://www.cdc.gov/measles/hcp/index.html#immunity
Proofs of previous infection to be required to shown don't make much sense either. Antibodies to be found in the blood do.
FWIW, drunk driving laws don't make sense to me. The benefits of sober driving should speak for themselves.
Drunk driving laws are not the Prohibition. They merely say don't drive if you drank too much alcohol. If only there were something that someone could do if getting sick... hmmm... like stay at home?
Nothing will be enough to make people comfortable again. A year of shut down economy and non-stop 24/7 fear porn in MSM have traumatized people for at least a decade
How is it fear porn when literally hundreds of thousands of Americans have died from it.
Perhaps it's something related to aging. After a certain point in life you make peace with the idea that sooner or later everybody dies. To put covid in perspective, we can calculate the relative risk of covid death compared to risk of death from all other causes, by age group. The relative risk is under 15% for adults and under 3% for children. While this is nothing to sneeze at, it is not as apocalyptic as the click-hungry (social) media makes it to be. Yet another looming health risk, among high blood pressure, cholesterol, cancer, diabetes, Alzheimer, etc.
raw data: https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv
raw data: https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv
You could make peace with the possibility of dying of Covid, or you know, just get the vaccine.
Aaand voted down to oblivion. Pretty embarrassing the anti-vax crowd is so prominent on HN.
I've got the vaccine, thanks for your interest in my personal health choices. I haven't seen evidence that it will hold up on a 5 year horizon, perhaps you have a time machine?
It's not your personal health choice when those refusing the vaccine are filling hospitals and pushing others out. And sorry no time machine, but I choose to trust doctors anyway.
Doctors don't have a time machine either. We are all engaging in the age old process that goes under the name of "faith". And there is nothing wrong with it!
What is the definition or relative risk?
15% of people that contract covid will die from it? Where are you getting this from.
15% of people that contract covid will die from it? Where are you getting this from.
https://data.cdc.gov/resource/3apk-4u4f.csv
https://usafacts.org/articles/americans-causes-of-death-by-a...
I am not comparing covid deaths with the entire population, only with the number of people that die from some cause. In a given year, most people do not die, other than for really old age groups.
For example, 13463 50yo females died from some cause since Jan 2020. Out of those deaths, 1605 were deaths with covid, for a 11.9% fraction. For comparison, cancer is 22% of deaths in 45-55 age group and heart disease 19.5%, making covid third cause of death for this age group, with accidents the fourth at 8.3%
https://usafacts.org/articles/americans-causes-of-death-by-a...
I am not comparing covid deaths with the entire population, only with the number of people that die from some cause. In a given year, most people do not die, other than for really old age groups.
For example, 13463 50yo females died from some cause since Jan 2020. Out of those deaths, 1605 were deaths with covid, for a 11.9% fraction. For comparison, cancer is 22% of deaths in 45-55 age group and heart disease 19.5%, making covid third cause of death for this age group, with accidents the fourth at 8.3%
data_as_of start_date end_date sex age_years total_deaths covid19_deaths
2021-10-06 2020-01-01 2021-10-02 Female 50 Years 13463 1605That's a misleading way of looking at it. Do you realize by curing heart disease, you'll increase the number of people that die from cancer?
Depending on the age of the patient, its very likely that covid may have been the final nail on the coffin, but by no means the only nail in the grim reapers hand.
The average life expectancy is 78 in the US. What is the average age of someone that dies of covid? Last time I checked this, it was 84.
United States - Historical Death Rate Data
Year Death Rate Growth Rate
2021 8.977 1.090%
2020 8.880 1.120%
2019 8.782 1.120%
2018 8.685 1.220%
2017 8.580 1.240%
Source https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/deat...
Depending on the age of the patient, its very likely that covid may have been the final nail on the coffin, but by no means the only nail in the grim reapers hand.
The average life expectancy is 78 in the US. What is the average age of someone that dies of covid? Last time I checked this, it was 84.
United States - Historical Death Rate Data
Year Death Rate Growth Rate
2021 8.977 1.090%
2020 8.880 1.120%
2019 8.782 1.120%
2018 8.685 1.220%
2017 8.580 1.240%
Source https://www.macrotrends.net/countries/USA/united-states/deat...
The intent is to place an upper bound on covid relative risk: <15% of all deaths in every age group. Young adults have lower relative risk, children much lower. For me even 15%, while undesirable, is low enough relative risk to characterize media behavior as 'fear porn'.
How to explain this better? Entering 2020, there were 100 reasons for me to die. Then covid comes along and now there are 115. Not the best news ever, but I'd rather keep living life, especially after vaccines have become widely available.
As you correctly observe, the actual risk may be even lower, because the back-of-the-napkin upper bound estimation does not take in account the risk factors within an age group.
How to explain this better? Entering 2020, there were 100 reasons for me to die. Then covid comes along and now there are 115. Not the best news ever, but I'd rather keep living life, especially after vaccines have become widely available.
As you correctly observe, the actual risk may be even lower, because the back-of-the-napkin upper bound estimation does not take in account the risk factors within an age group.
Because no matter how many die, we should not fear, only reason. Fear is the mind killer. Fear leads to the dark side of the force.
> what possible reason could there be for preventing private businesses from mandating vaccination
Medical privacy.
Medical privacy.
Yes, seems to be counter to the ideology of keeping government out of the private sector
> Moves like this just make no sense to me
It's political theatre. Federal rules mandating vaccines among employers with more than 100 employees are going into effect [1]. And the Constitutionality of vaccine mandates was settled when Kaiser Wilhelm was King of Prussia [2]. That federal law supersedes this ban.
The Governor knows that. The Texas elite know that. Texan employers know that. A vocal minority of voters for whom this has become their single issue do not know that. If this keeps them happy, it's a win-win.
[1] https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/09/prepa...
[2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
It's political theatre. Federal rules mandating vaccines among employers with more than 100 employees are going into effect [1]. And the Constitutionality of vaccine mandates was settled when Kaiser Wilhelm was King of Prussia [2]. That federal law supersedes this ban.
The Governor knows that. The Texas elite know that. Texan employers know that. A vocal minority of voters for whom this has become their single issue do not know that. If this keeps them happy, it's a win-win.
[1] https://www.foley.com/en/insights/publications/2021/09/prepa...
[2] https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/197/11/
> A vocal minority of voters for whom this has become their single issue do not know that
I'm sure this won't foster distrust in the system, as people try to argue why they can't be fired for not being vaccinated as they are actively walked out.
Less sarcastically, undermining people's faith in the system and their ability to keep up with what's legal, what's not, and who's actually making the rules seems likely to dig America deeper into the divide that's been happening for many years now.
I'm sure this won't foster distrust in the system, as people try to argue why they can't be fired for not being vaccinated as they are actively walked out.
Less sarcastically, undermining people's faith in the system and their ability to keep up with what's legal, what's not, and who's actually making the rules seems likely to dig America deeper into the divide that's been happening for many years now.
[deleted]
[deleted]
1) The previous pandemics had far greater than 1% mortality rate
2) The previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing.
3) The previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects.
4) Previous vaccines have longer lasting immunity and do not require frequent booster shots
2) The previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing.
3) The previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects.
4) Previous vaccines have longer lasting immunity and do not require frequent booster shots
> previous pandemics had far greater 1% mortality rate
Read the opinion. It clearly defers the question of "whether vaccination is or is not the best mode" to legislatures and not to the courts. Based on that precedent, there is no "is this disease severe enough" test a court could apply.
(There are the open questions as to whether Jacobson applies to states, and not the U.S. government, and whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act confers these powers to the President. But the commentary on this is dry and one sided.)
> previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing
Jacobson was decided in 1905. The Food and Drug Administration was formed in 1906 [1].
> previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects
VAERS succeeds Jacobson by over 80 years [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reportin...
Read the opinion. It clearly defers the question of "whether vaccination is or is not the best mode" to legislatures and not to the courts. Based on that precedent, there is no "is this disease severe enough" test a court could apply.
(There are the open questions as to whether Jacobson applies to states, and not the U.S. government, and whether the Occupational Safety and Health Act confers these powers to the President. But the commentary on this is dry and one sided.)
> previous vaccines had much longer development, and years of safety testing
Jacobson was decided in 1905. The Food and Drug Administration was formed in 1906 [1].
> previous vaccines have far fewer VAERS reports for side effects
VAERS succeeds Jacobson by over 80 years [2].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Food_and_Drug_Administration
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_Adverse_Event_Reportin...
>Based on that precedent, there is no "is this disease severe > enough" test a court could apply.
Than its obviously a junk opinion, unless you want to live in a medical apartheid state. Are you seriously suggesting because of this opinion the government has the right to put anything in your body they want, for no matter how low the threshold risk. You want to live under such laws?
I'll ask you a second question. Hypothetically, do you think the government has a right to kill 1% of the people to save a another preferred 1% of the people? Would it matter if it was 2%?
Than its obviously a junk opinion, unless you want to live in a medical apartheid state. Are you seriously suggesting because of this opinion the government has the right to put anything in your body they want, for no matter how low the threshold risk. You want to live under such laws?
I'll ask you a second question. Hypothetically, do you think the government has a right to kill 1% of the people to save a another preferred 1% of the people? Would it matter if it was 2%?
> because of this opinion the government has the right to put anything in your body they want, for no matter how low the threshold risk
No, I don't, and neither is that what Jacobson or the Occupational Safety and Health Act say.
"There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person," just a monetary penalty [1]. It relied on "the opinion of the Board of Health" finding it was "necessary for the public health or the public safety" to mandate the vaccine. It evaluated how the Board of Health made that decision, and found it was "qualified to make that judgment" and "did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."
In short, a fact specific, scoped and expert-guided standard that "would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
No, I don't, and neither is that what Jacobson or the Occupational Safety and Health Act say.
"There was no provision for actually forcing vaccination on any person," just a monetary penalty [1]. It relied on "the opinion of the Board of Health" finding it was "necessary for the public health or the public safety" to mandate the vaccine. It evaluated how the Board of Health made that decision, and found it was "qualified to make that judgment" and "did not act in an unreasonable, arbitrary or oppressive manner."
In short, a fact specific, scoped and expert-guided standard that "would probably be upheld as long as (1) the disease still exists in the population where it can spread and cause serious injury to those infected, and (2) a safe and effective vaccine could prevent transmission to others."
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/
The monetary penalty was $5, which translates to $150 in adjusted 2020 dollars. Quite the jump from there to 'remove all ability for gainful employment in perpetuity'.
VivaFrei podcast has recently claimed that the Jacobson decision was the sole basis for the Buck v Bell decision, which instituted the eugenics program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuN9YhIhQ7Q&t=2070s
VivaFrei podcast has recently claimed that the Jacobson decision was the sole basis for the Buck v Bell decision, which instituted the eugenics program.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacobson_v._Massachusetts
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buck_v._Bell
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QuN9YhIhQ7Q&t=2070s
There is nothing "small" about government actions like this. Montana is taking/has taken similar steps and I do not like it at all. The worst is when they take actions that they know wont hold up long term, to cause frustration/delays in the short term. Current good example here in MT is passing a bill to allow guns on college campuses, when the state constitution pretty clearly puts the power for that in the hands of the Board of Regents.
Edit: just to be clear, I dont think government should be "small", Im just saying its clearly not that, despite what many voters claim they are voting for
Edit: just to be clear, I dont think government should be "small", Im just saying its clearly not that, despite what many voters claim they are voting for
There's a certain irony in seeing people who cheered vaccine mandates forced on people by the government now getting upset about the government banning mandates.
I don't see the irony. If you're pro-mandate, you'll support mandates and oppose bans on mandates. It seems perfectly consistent to me.
So flu vaccine mandates are still allowed?
So the Texas Gov is now in favor of Big Government and Government overreach?
Honestly this just seems like he's pandering to OAN/FB rage groups and being contry because that's what's cool amongst the "going nuclear" political style of the far right now.
Honestly this just seems like he's pandering to OAN/FB rage groups and being contry because that's what's cool amongst the "going nuclear" political style of the far right now.
Even if you don't believe the state should enact mandates, these are private businesses. If you want to support your state business, what better way to help than by getting everyone healthy, working and comfortable going out again?