Biden to require COVID-19 vaccines, tests for millions of private workers

Biden to require COVID-19 vaccines, tests for millions of private workers


Slightly misleading headline implies it is both, when the article states it is "vaccines or tests".


This has happened very frequently. Company, government entity, or public venue will say “vax or test” and the headline will read “vax mandated.”


It's not misleading it's wrong


Probably yeah, though using a comma rather than the word "and" probably leaves them juuuuust about enough plausible deniability, though obviously it is in bad faith.


But why do those who get vaccinated not have to test, if they can still transmit?


Resources, presumably. Breakout cases are considerably rarer, and even in those rare cases they are less transmissible. Testing wouldn't _hurt_ but it would be largely wasteful for vaccinated individuals.


Also, since vaccines prevent more spread than testing does and not having to get tested is an incentive to get vaccinated, you probably stop more spread by not requiring the vaccinated to get tested than you would if you required everyone to get tested.


Pretty much this, same reason that here in Ireland vaccinated close contacts do not have to restrict unless they begin showing symptoms.


I was talking about this with my wife last night. She was quoting an article she was looking at and I can't remember the exact numbers she quoted. Essentially, [breakthrough cases](https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/covid-19/health-departments/breakthrough-cases.html) is that you're referring to, where a person who *is* vaccinated can get covid and transmit it, or be asymptomatic. The gist of it is that breakthrough cases are very low, and there don't appear to be that many instances of people who are vaccinated both contracting covid after vaccination and also spreading it to others. So through this reasoning, it makes sense to not use resources to test people who are vaccinated on anything considered to be a *regular basis.*


Fully vaccinated people in MA make up 40% of covid cases and 26% of hospitalizations. https://www.masslive.com/coronavirus/2021/09/breakthrough-covid-cases-in-massachusetts-up-to-about-40-while-unvaccinated-people-dominate-hospitalizations.html


Because the chances of transmitting the virus is greatly reduced. In fact it reduces the chances of transmitting the virus enough that if everybody was vaccinated the pandemic would effectively be over. No vaccine is 100% effective so saying people vaccinated for any virus can still transmit is technically true. There's also another incentive built into this rule. Biden can't force vaccinations. But if a company can avoid weekly test merely by requiring their employees get vaccinated they are highly incentivized to require those vaccinations.


Catching COVID also builds immunity. If they were being consistent, vax, test, or prior infection would all be accepted options.


that much nuance right now would blow too much if the public's mind, lol. They're so used to selecting a narrative they like and damn facts and science, we're lucky we're here. The early vaccination progress and goals were optimistic... But then the disinformation, outrage, react behavior really kicked in again. I'm glad facts are winning. " But I don't wannnnna vaccinate cuz Biden is president now and he's not calling it Trump's vaccine" and nonsense like that we've all seen (and it's hardly just Temp supporters ofc). Principled anti vaxxers who don't act on false pretenses? Fine. But not vaxxing out of political grievance? Get over it already. We coulda been past this shit.


Because transmitting as a vaccinated person is extremely unlikely.


Agree, it should say vaccines or test. More clicks the more outrageous the title though.


Alot of feeling about this one. But I'll say this. There are alot of employers breathing a huge sigh of relief right now. Not only does the big bad government get to take the blame on this, they also dont have to worry about people quitting in favor of going somewhere they dont have to get the shot. Edit: I should say I'm very pro vaccine, and very strongly encourage you to get vaccinated as soon as possible. I lost my sense of smell in December and it feels like a tragic greek curse, and it really could be worse.


I think this is actually the biggest significance. Even if a court ends up putting a temporary halt on this program, a lot of large companies will likely use it as cover to implement requirements that they wanted to have but which would have been contentious otherwise. Just because the government order is stayed doesn't mean that the companies will take back their internal requirements once they're in place.


Fortunately we've got hundred + years of case law backing this, and the clear record that they had spent months trying to get ppl to get on board and encourage each OTHER... This was not what they wanted or mandates for vaccines woulda been here months ago.


Out of curiosity is your sense of smell still completely gone? My buddy lost his temporarily but it came back gradually over the next couple of months after recovering from the virus.


First it was totally gone. Then it came back, then a few weeks later it vanished again. Then about 50% of things smell like rotten onions. 0/10 do not recommend


As someone who really likes to cook and eats food every day, the potential to lose sense of taste and smell was plenty of motivation to take precautions against COVID. It sounds awful.


What really sucks is that before this I really liked onions


A friend of mine is an avid wine taster. It's one of his hobbies. He couldn't drink red wine for over a year after COVID, noting all red wines tasted like pure alcohol and what he described as something akin to sweat. He has finally got his taste back, but it took him over a year. I know some people who still can't eat onions.


Terrible. Mine came back better. I can smell things 10 feet away, it’s also a curse sometimes. Depends on the person.


😳 Sorry this happened to you…I hope it gets better.


Also lost my smell due to Covid. When it came back everything smelled like shit. Still hasn’t improved. So if anyone is reading this and is on the fence about the vaccine and doesn’t wanna smell shit all day, I’d highly recommend you get it. If you don’t care about smelling shit all day, I would still highly recommend you get it anyway.


My conservative FIL was basically pleading for the government to mandate vaccines. He manages assisted living facilities, and felt he couldn’t compete if he required vaccinations but other employers didn’t.


I was just thinking something along these lines. Biden doing this is a bold move motivated by capitalism and hints of authoritarianism. Unemployment is ending, people can’t blame things on the pandemic anymore and I think it’s more than clear that we need the economy to get back on track, and although the vaccine isn’t perfect it’s pretty damn good at keeping you from dying. I don’t particularly like or dislike Biden or anything, I do want the best for him and his administration, but I think he seriously felt desperate to make this call. Aside from a few of those authoritarian hard leftist types I don’t think this makes Biden popular with most of America, at least it makes most of us uncomfortable. There’s a few qualities we Americans share and our disdain for being told what to do is one of them. So maybe we can look at this mandate in a different light?


Yeah, but what if an employee doesn't comply? I can't imagine a lot of companies would stomach the 14K fine per employee. Is an employee going to have grounds to file suit against a company for trying to mandate health exams/testing/inoculations? I suspect so.


Thanks to Mitch McConnell, no business can be sued over covid related issues. That was his price for the rescue bill.


Gonna go out on limb and say this might increase anti-vax opinions...


What's for certain is that Biden clearly has no interest in wooing Republicans over to his re-election campaign. Looks like two 1-term presidents in a row (although Biden has already admitted his just a bridge-candidate for the next generation).


quantity, or fervor?


Maybe both. It is young adults who aren't getting vaccinated, and I remember from back when I was a young adult that the quickest thing you could do to make me not want to do something was to tell me I didn't have a choice.




We need to create a fully vaccinated anti-vaxxer coalition. On a serious note, the manipulation of language for political ends like this makes me irrationally angry.


Idk seems like a very rational reason to be angry


I'm missing the part where you're being irrational.


I'll help lead the fully vaccinated anti-vaxxer coalition. I understand that there's a pandemic. I understand that the vaccine will, uh, keep you from getting as sick as you could without the vaccine? (I'm not sure what the official word is on that this week tbh) I got the vaccine because I felt it was the right thing for me to do. But I'm also at a point where I'm nervous about how far the government has been able to go with, not just vaccine mandates, but all sorts of other stuff, in the past 18 months, just on the basis of "there's a pandemic" when it's up to the government to determine what constitutes a "pandemic".


I'm also vaccinated, but disagree with shaming unvaccinated people and people against government overreach


Don’t worry, the goal posts are going to be moved again soon. Just watch for the most extreme straw man arguments to come out and it’s a pretty good indicator of where the authoritarians are going to go next.


Without addressing whether or now this mandate is a good idea or legal, do you remember when vaccine mandates were conspiracy theories? Do you remember when Biden said in December that he did not favor them?


We all remember the constant promises and swearing that "vaccines mandates wouldnt happen, weren't part of the plan, were nonsense, were conspiracy theories.." Of course, they lied and that was all a big load.


In a new sweeping executive order, Biden had banned anti-vax opinions for all Americans.


this will trigger a supreme court case instantly. grab your popcorn.


“Vaccine **or** weekly tests.” This is an important option that makes it *not* a true vaccine mandate.


I would argue the $14k fine makes it a tax, and similar to the aca it must be passed by Congress.


Congress already passed a law authorizing OSHA to issue fines.


On what grounds would one challenge this? IIRC there's already broad precedent for federal vaccine mandates for private entities.


What precedent exists for federal vaccine mandates?


Jacobson vs Mass is what would probably be used as that was about mandatory smallpox vaccine from public health officials in Mass: “the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.”


This case had more to do with state powers not federal. Additionally, the case was more about Jacobson feeling like he shouldn’t be fined for not getting the vaccine. The court ruled he could actually be fined or he could get the vaccine, not that he had to get the vaccine. Politico wrote a very interesting piece about this case and I have some doubt that if brought before the court today the covid crisis would play out the same way jacobson did.


When the Supreme Court sided with the state they also said the state can only mandate vaccines when it is deemed necessary. The small pox vaccine actually stopped you from getting smallpox and on Top of that smallpox is more lethal and just as contagious as covid. I'm not sure that covid falls under the same category as smallpox


At least traditionally, courts tend not to want to get into line drawing like "this kills 30% so it's OK" vs "this kills 3% so not OK." Normally they defer to the elected branches of government to draw those types of policy lines. It's not like judges (or lawyers generally) have any particular sort of training which permits them to second guess health departments. So my guess is that if a challenge is successful it won't be on those grounds.


If it's enacted by executive action I expect a challenge.


Of course, COVID is probably far less deadly thanks to advances in medicine. We didn't have advanced ventilator systems during the smallpox outbreaks of the early 20th century. "How many have died" might not be the best metric for determining the powers of the federal government...could lead to some bad scenarios.


Yup this is correct. The politico article talks about this exact situation. In fact during the trial Jacobson was trying to get medical testimony to the necessary part of the vaccine but it didn’t pull though. With covid the necessary clause is a lot more gray since case fatality is much much lower


> This case had more to do with state powers not federal. Additionally, the case was more about Jacobson feeling like he shouldn’t be fined for not getting the vaccine. The court ruled he could actually be fined or he could get the vaccine, not that he had to get the vaccine. I really, really, dislike when people try to cite Jacobson as a reason for why this mandate is fine. 1) It's regarding a state-level law, passed by lawmakers. 2) "The state" doesn't mean "any level of government" - It's referring specifically to the state of MA 3) This is the federal government taking executive action. And the last thing, for me, is that I don't see any SCOTUS, even one that was generally considered "favorable" for democrats, wanting to set this sort of precedent. Because no matter how narrowly they ruled on it, it would set the precedent of "as long as the government does x, y, and z, they can use private businesses as a proxy for mandating individual healthcare choices" Because even if they went to the point of "this is an exceptional event and a pandemic and...." then all the government has to do is declare something a pandemic, and make it an exceptional event.


IIRC, Jacobson v Mass relied on the policing powers of the States, and upheld the States right to compel vaccination. So that doesn't apply to the Feds.


True, I don't know if they would also apply that to the Fed level. If not, it will probably then have to be argued that OSHA requires a "Safe working environment" and prove that vaccination individuals aren't as contagious. Or try to argue that "a safe working environment" includes access to hospital care which the unvaccinated fill up. I know at least at my friends company they aren't letting them do certain construction jobs if the hospitals start hitting close to capacity.


This sounds like the requirement is weekly testing unless vaccinated.


Just like HHS and CDC, there is an enabling statute for OSHA. The admin lost their case in court for the eviction moratorium because those agencies didn't have the authority to implement one based on their enabling statute. So the real question here is does OSHA actually have that authority under their enabling statute. I can't find one instance of OSHA requiring vaccination, or any medical treatment for that matter. Sure, they can require PPE, and measures like that, but requiring an actual medical treatment may be beyond their authority.


> So the real question here is does OSHA actually have that authority under their enabling statute. I can't find one instance of OSHA requiring vaccination, or any medical treatment for that matter. Sure, they can require PPE, and measures like that, but requiring an actual medical treatment may be beyond their authority. The rules on Hepatitis B seem really close, but rules on flu vaccination in healthcare workers is not at this level. (I think it should be but that is beside the point.) This is one step farther than that obviously but since the mechanics of spread are different it doesn’t seem like it would be out of their wheel house to do this. https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/seasonal-flu-factsheet.pdf https://www.osha.gov/sites/default/files/publications/bbfact05.pdf


Yes, OSHA has rules for blood borne pathogens, etc., but none of those rules cover requiring vaccination. They are generally rules placed on employers to make PPE available, or in the case of Hep B, make the Hep B vaccine available. Employees are still allowed to turn it down.


We absolutely do know if that applies since the ruling was heard by the supreme court and it concerned 14th amendment protections to government action with regard to vaccine and health requirements?


As you probably know, based on our Constitution, the federal government and state government have completely different powers assigned to them. States effectively get any power not explicitly mentioned in the Constitution, typically down to the local level. AFAIK, it would be unprecedented for the federal government to mandate such healthcare directives, especially at the cost of one's employment.


I am extremely pro vaccine. That being said, this seems like governmental overreach to me.


Agree. I’m curious how many lawsuits are being drafted right now.


It looks like politicians from most of the red states have spoken out against this, many have mentioned legal challenges. I think this issue is going to cause even more division than before. Personally I think Biden has made a big mistake here.


Organized labor is going to be leading the charge on this. This sort of shit is very explicitly something that they negotiate privately with companies as part of their CBA.


I feel the same. I got the vaccine. I work at a hospital and I do feel that it is the right choice to mandate it in hospital settings. But just every company that’s 100 people or more? It’s really making it worse and the people that believe the government has ulterior motives this makes them believe it even more. So they will double down and not get it, ever. But at the same time people have to work to provide for themselves. I’m really afraid for what this will do, a lot of people being really pissed off at once who knows what could happen.


Same. I'm very pro-vaccine, including the covid vaccine (which I received months ago). I am deeply uncomfortable with what seems to be government overreach.


Massachusetts had an outright requirement that people be vaccinated for smallpox from 1809 until the disease was eradicated in the late 1970's. George Washington forced all the soldiers in the continental army to get vaccinated. It wasn't some sort of "vax or test" thing, nor was it connected to a job (at least in the MA case). Governments have always played a role in limiting the spread of infectious diseases since people understood enough about disease to be able to do so. So a policy that mandated vaccines for everyone wouldn't be overreach, and one that gives you the option of being tested is even less so.


The George Washington example is a stretch. Being a soldier essentially signs many of your rights away. It’s not the same as being a private citizen.


A. State governments and the federal government are very different, and have different laws regarding what they can do. B. There is no legal authority under the Constitution for the federal government to force someone to undergo a medical procedure.


I think you should be careful here. Just because it happened once does not mean it isn't overreach. It was still a breach of personal freedom then.


I just don't think there's a personal freedom to spread infectious disease. It's like driving drunk, dumping toxic waste in a stream, or shooting a gun into the air inside a city -- it endangers other people for no good reason. Requiring vaccination is an extremely minimal imposition on liberty and one with a long historical precedent. And at the same time, part of what's necessary for a free society is to be able to live without others around you endangering you. For example, you're less free if your neighbor has a right to send asbestos dust wafting over your home.


> I just don't think there's a personal freedom to spread infectious disease Again, this type of argument that is stated ad nauseam sounds good at first glance but is meaningless and overly broad in reality. Almost everything we do can spread infectious disease. The *chance* to spread a disease is not a reasonable standard for any argument. It's not like drunk driving. Drunk driving isn't a result of life itself. The chance to spread disease is. It's unavoidable. Drunk driving is avoidable. Provide real standards, otherwise you're just saying the government should have the power to do essentially anything.


Everyone who's been alive for more than a year or so has spread infectious disease to others, including potentially-serious or fatal illnesses. Covid just made us hyper-focused on one specific virus - often with an added layer of people passing moral judgment on those who find themselves in a transmission chain.


I do understand what you are saying. This clearly is not a black and white issue. My distinction is that you *can't* have asbestos wafting onto your neighbor. That is completely fine. That law tells you what you can't do. Mandatory vaccination is different to me because it's a law compelling you to do something. To be clear, I think you *should* take reasonable and prudent measures to stop the spread of corona. My problem is with laws compelling me to put things in my body. Are you seriously telling me that losing your livelihood is a appropriate and reasonable punishment for choosing not to take medicine? Especially since private companies like Pfizer (who donate to our legislators) are profiting from the vaccine and boosters? Again, I am not against the vaccine, and I actually commend the folks who are worried about losing more lives to this disease. It's important to have those people. It's just also important that some people are advocating against giving the government the power to remove your livelihood if you don't comply with what they tell you to do.


>Are you seriously telling me that losing your livelihood is a appropriate and reasonable punishment for choosing not to take medicine? The policy gives employees the option to take a weekly test, and is making it free at pharmacies and expanding cheaper at-home tests. No one should lose their livelihoods over this.


We'll see what the actual wording is. I suspect the actual wording will likely be less draconian than this appears to be. Remote workers for one seem unnecessarily affected by this


Naturally immune as well.


This gives the option for weekly tests instead of getting the vaccine. If it weren’t a choice, and you *had* to get the vaccine, I would agree. But you can opt for weekly tests instead. That choice, in my view, makes it not an overreach.


My wife is in a leadership position for a large corporation. Their legal department just sent out a clarification memo and stated tests are expensive, they don’t want to deal with that hassle, and that they should expect to lose every employee that refuses to get vaccinated. It’s going to be mandatory vaccines for a lot of employees or they will be shown the door. Disclaimer: I am pro vaccine and think this is government overreach but probably necessary given the large portion of the population who won’t get vaccinated.


Is free testing at CVS and wherever else, not a thing anymore? I was just about to go get tested again in a few days.


It currently is because it is funded by the government. It won’t be forever.


If a business decides to not give the option of testing, and lays off every unvaccinated employee, then that is the business making that mandate and taking the choice away, and not the government. At least, that’s my view.


I agree with you 100%. I’m just saying testing probably won’t be an option for many.


Curious, what's different about this compared to all the other many existing laws OSHA already enforces to keep workplaces safe?


Same. He can mandate government employees all he wants, this is definitely overreach.


Does OSHA have the power to mandate hardhats in certain work environments? What about a lock out/tag out program?


A hard hat is very different than a vaccine


Is it? Sounds like a question for the courts to decide. I’d be very curious.


I think it's pretty obvious that an article of clothing is different than a medical procedure


So masks can be mandated federally?


In the workplace, sure.


I personally wouldn't have an issue with OSHA mandating masks in the workplace, that is pretty in line with what they do already


That sure seems much more like legislating than executing.


Yes. OSHA could certainly require all employers to provide masks and require employees to wear said masks. It would only apply to employers that are covered by OSHA.


I guarantee you it's not, anymore than the courts have found ADA compliance or Title VII overreach. There is a long, very storied history of the federal government achieving national goals via the regulation of commerce. Anyone who challenges this ban will have to slog through 3/4 of a century of rulings in the opposite direction. I don't much like their chances.


> I guarantee you it's not, anymore than the courts have found ADA compliance or Title VII overreach ADA and Title VII (Civil Rights Act) were acts of Congress. *This* is effectively legislation by the executive, performing mental gymnastics to find the agency with the least non-credible justification. If Congress were to pass such a bill, I still wouldn't like it but it would be on much less shaky ground and the public would at least have a say in the midterms.


OSHA already mandates different vaccines for professions be offered by employers. Examples include any profession that may expose you to blood, dentists, even laundry workers requires Hep A & B vaccination. The employee can reject it, yes, with written rejection, after being given all the information on the vaccines. I think we have pretty much the exact same thing here, you can reject it and then must have weekly tests for the rest of your life, probably soon out of your own pocket but that's your choice. The major difference here of course is that blood borne pathogens are not easily spread to coworkers and customers, unlike airborne pathogens. It seems to me it fits under workplace safety. Plus of course the courts have upheld vaccinations repeatedly.


>Examples include any profession that may expose you to blood, dentists, even laundry workers requires Hep A & B vaccination This is the key difference - every prior mandate is situational and contextually informed. It makes a lot more sense to say that doctors need to be vaccinated than that remote workers who haven't actually been in an office in years need to be. I have thousands of WFH employees in my org who have never stepped foot into an office of ours - why should I have to make them send in weekly covid tests or proof of vax when they literally cannot spread it at work?


That's a good point, it doesn't take into about people working from home forever and never meeting any coworkers or customers in person.


It really isn't. The reason government exists its to protect its citizens by providing help with things that an individual cannot do. An infectious disease is something that's never personal if you live in a society. As long as people who refuse to vaccinate, wear mask, tested don't have a better solution to covid we need to use what we have. Not doing anything is essentially being pro-covid. No disease was eradicated that way. We've been spoiled with no diseases for over 40 years so we don't remember times when people were dying or were crippled by a disease.


That's overstating things just a tad. I'd at least include AIDS from the early 80's til about the early 2000's when drug treatments made it highly survivable. Although AIDS could be discounted as the fault of the people that got it, save for the really early cases caused by blood transfusions.


For anyone interested, here is a link to the establishing statute for OSHA. Whether this mandate survives the courts or not will likely be determined by the text of this act. https://www.osha.gov/laws-regs/oshact/toc


Maybe I don't quite understand, but the legality might be on less shaky ground if it just requires the tests, which in turn will annoy businesses into self-mandating the vaccine.


I’m about as aggressively pro-vaccine as you can get, and even I’m grappling with this one. I’m imagining what I would do if Trump had done something similar during his presidency. I really think we’re about to see some massive protests in the streets.


Everyone except the usps😷🤔


I was hoping someone else had read that. Hoping we will have more information about that. If it’s true, Biden stepped in it big.


He already stepped in it with the government workers' union. If you already work directly for the government (i.e. not a contractor), most of the time you're part of the government union. This sort of mandate for government workers is very, VERY explicitly something that is covered under the CBA between the union and the government.


Afaik he can't mandate that.


Thats because the post office isn't technically a federal agency since the 70's, its an independent agency empowered by the US Government so Biden wouldn't have direct authority over postal workers since they are not federal employees. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal\_Reorganization\_Act](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postal_Reorganization_Act)


They're still most definitely an employer of more than one hundred people, though...


But not a **private** employer


I think most people should probably be vaccinated. I'm absolutely against mandating or coercing them to, and this especially is, in my opinion, a gross overreach. Especially as someone with natural immunity (confirmed infected and antibodies before vaccines were available), who has been following the studies on natural immunity closely, that this *at the bare minimum* doesn't even acknowledge let alone give separate requirements for those who can prove they have natural immunity, is thoroughly maddening. We've truly lost the "ends" (reduced COVID cases, hospitalizations, and deaths) for being caught up in the "means" (vaccines). Protection from natural immunity is on par with, or exceeds, that from vaccines, as dozens of peer-reviewed and published-in-respected-medical-journal studies have found (some linked below), and as recent pre-prints have further highlighted. I'm lost for words. How can this administration and the CDC/FDA credibly ignore, or at best, casually dismiss, natural immunity from any consideration? [Comparing SARS-CoV-2 natural immunity to vaccine-induced immunity: reinfections versus breakthrough infections (medrxiv.org)](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v1.full.pdf): preprint, protection from natural immunity exceeds that from Pfizer against Delta [Necessity of COVID-19 vaccination in previously infected individuals | medRxiv](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.06.01.21258176v3): preprint. *"Conclusions Individuals who have had SARS-CoV-2 infection are unlikely to benefit from COVID-19 vaccination, and vaccines can be safely prioritized to those who have not been infected before."* [Assessment of SARS-CoV-2 Reinfection 1 Year After Primary Infection in a Population in Lombardy, Italy | Infectious Diseases | JAMA Internal Medicine | JAMA Network](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2780557): 94% protection 1 year on [SARS-CoV-2 antibody-positivity protects against reinfection for at least seven months with 95% efficacy - EClinicalMedicine (thelancet.com)](https://www.thelancet.com/journals/eclinm/article/PIIS2589-5370(21)00141-3/fulltext): 95% protection 7 months on Meanwhile for the vaccines, clinical trials showed 95% for Pfizer & Moderna and 66% for J&J (from the CDC). Yet there are signs they are losing effectiveness with time, hence boosters: [Comparison of two highly-effective mRNA vaccines for COVID-19 during periods of Alpha and Delta variant prevalence | medRxiv](https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.06.21261707v1): preprint, but shows reduced effectiveness: 76% and 42% against infection for Moderna & Pfizer respectively.


Yeah, I feel like this mandate would have been more useful in June because it would require a lot of non-immunized people to get the vaccine and it would have made an effect on our current Delta wave. But now the Delta wave is slowing down and a lot of the vaccine refusers have gotten infected by now, all the ones who survived now have natural immunity which has been proven to be very effective in preventing reinfection and transmission. I'm very pro-vaccine but I really dislike the way some public health officials in the US have completely ignored natural immunity and make it seem like we'll never get out of this without vaccinating 99% of the population, which just isn't true. We will get out of this wave one way or another, some people chose to take the infection route which is NOT the preferred route but it is still there and it will eventually end even if these people never get vaccinated. Some on the left love to point to other developed nations in Europe and their policies, well if we look over there their green pass systems include covid recovery as equal to being vaccinated for accessing bars/restaurants/indoor leisure areas. Also France which only gives one dose to people with proven past covid infection, and that counts as fully vaccinated (idk what other countries have this policy).


[This article](https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-021-01609-4) says France, Germany, and Italy, were only requiring one additional shot, and links many studies showing there's not even a perceived benefit to two shots. This only further erodes public trust in the CDC mandates, because they make no effort to address why they aren't accounting for these. I agree pursuing natural immunity is likely more risky than vaccination for the vast majority of people, but there are tens of millions, potentially a hundred million, people in the US that already have natural immunity.


Thank you for making this comment and supporting it with evidence. I feel like I’m going crazy with how this topic is completely ignored or overlooked. Out of the 80 million people that Biden referenced as unvaccinated, what percent has natural immunity and why are we not talking about that??


Exactly. I feel like I'm going crazy too. I'm not a scientist or epidemiologist expert, but logic and reason are not exclusive to scientists and experts. It doesn't take a genius to read these studies and see that natural immunity is robust and long lasting. "[Here](https://www.cell.com/cell-reports-medicine/fulltext/S2666-3791(21)00203-2) are some more [studies](https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-03647-4) stating that '*Taken together, these results suggest that broad and effective immunity may persist long-term in recovered COVID-19 patients.'* and '*Overall, our results indicate that mild infection with SARS-CoV-2 induces robust antigen-specific, long-lived humoral immune memory in humans.'"* The CDC's only stance on this I can find is their [FAQ](https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/vaccines/faq.html) page, where they say research has not yet showed how long natural immunity lasts (disingenuous, especially with studies like the above), and citing only [one small study](https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm?s_cid=mm7032e1_w) that shows vaccination *may* help give further protection after infection. That study did not match testing frequency, says it cannot be used to infer causation because it was small and over a short period of time, and doesn't share age breakdowns and severity of the disease. While I do believe vaccinating post-infection would likely boost immunity, at least in the short term, (it makes sense that it would) the absolute numbers are extremely small, as shown in the Israeli study linked above. We're well into diminishing returns; well beyond immunity provided by vaccines alone, likely even with boosters; and a cost/benefit analysis on the vaccines themselves likely isn't in favor of them anymore for young and naturally immune people. Yet this is all casually dismissed. Is this gaslighting?




I'd like more details as I'm not sure under what power the Feds are mandating this. My assumption is they are making it a requirement for companies that do business with the Federal government to vaccinate employees?


>The requirement for large companies to mandate vaccinations or weekly testing for employees will be enacted through a forthcoming rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration From an earlier AP article. They haven't given a date on when the rule would be implemented, but said that companies will have ample time to get employees vaccinated.


Thanks, that's helpful and makes more sense


>President Biden will announce a new rule Thursday to require all private employers with 100 or more employees to mandate vaccines or weekly testing. That is from the article. It isn't clear that he has the authority to do this, and it will almost certainly not be implemented in the timeframe they want it to be. Plaintiffs will forum shop and get an injunction.


Yes I read that, but didn't make sense from a legal POV from what had been previously reported


This really seems like a reach to me. Sure, OSHA has the authority to enact workplace safety rules, but there are limits to that. And I'm sure there is some sort of reasonableness standard that is applied. So when reasonable alternatives exist, will this actually stand? Unless the Biden admin is prepared to argue in court that masking and social distancing aren't effective, which would be hilarious.


It seems like less of a reach to me vs other OSHA requirements. OSHA heavily restricts what is allowed to be done in many locations and specific task types to protect the individual worker. OSHA can shut my entire job site down and fine me if I refuse to use the proper ladder for the specific task, which if I'm working alone only affects my safety. If there is a safety concern related to many workers, that would fall even more under their purview. OSHA's mission statement references workers (plural). Why would Biden have to argue that masking and social distancing are ineffective? They are not as effective, but that does not make them ineffective. If I crash my car I know that a wearing seatbelt is more effective than covering my face, but if I don't have a seat belt I will still cover my face.


> So when reasonable alternatives exist, will this actually stand? Isn't the "reasonable alternative" to vaccination the option to do weekly testing instead?


I think masking and social distancing is the reasonable alternative.


I think that if masking and social distancing were effective enough against the Delta variant, then we wouldn't be experiencing the current surge in cases and hospitalizations. You can't propose something as a reasonable alternative if it's not working.


For that to work, I think you have to show that A) people are actually masking and social distancing and B) that it isn't working. And this is assuming it is even mandated, which I don't think it is. Like I said above, it will be hilarious to watch the Biden admin argue in court that masking and social distancing don't work.


I don't think they'll need to show that. The alternative is already offered: Weekly testing. I don't know why they would need to prove anything about masks, as it's largely irrelevant to the current plans. I think the opposition would have to show that masking and social distancing is an effective and less intrusive means. That said, I have no clue. The legal stuff is way above my head.


If you can demonstate that there is no reasonable method to enforce social distancing and masking at all times you could argue it can not be considered an alternative because it can not be enforced.


Why is the current surge show that masking and social distancing aren't working? I'd actually wonder the opposite. We have 75% of adults vaccinated, and people aren't social distancing, and masking is varied by region right now, only if it's mandated do I see it, and yet we still have the surge.


> Why is the current surge show that masking and social distancing aren't working? Considering the [tiny proportion of hospitalizations from vaccinated individuals](https://www.healthline.com/health-news/covid-19-by-the-numbers-vaccinated-continue-to-be-protected#Vaccinations-and-breakthrough-infections), it seems like unvaccinated folks are still getting walloped. Either it's not working, or people aren't doing it. Either answer would indicate to me that this is not a "reasonable alternative."


I think there would be more outcry over requiring masking and distancing than the testing requirement. If you are working a job were you can't distance would the only option be vaccination?


For many employer restrictions there is an often built in “employer must offer alternatives unless the alternatives are unreasonable.” I think there are potential arguments that more permanent social distancing could be unreasonable as it could require the company to implement larger changes for a small number of employees.


Maybe, but I think that is probably going to be a weak argument. I think the ADA stuff may be reasonable comparison. Would that actually impose undue hardship on the employer? Can an employee work from home instead? Definitely going to be an interesting court case.


Under the same authority as the other occupational health and safety measures that OSHA already stipulates, probably. If OSHA says that my employer must have provide a safe working environment, they can also probably mandate a vaccine (or regular testing).


So they can mandate the flu shot?


I would bet the law says something like "anything that poses a significant risk to worker safety" and the executive branch has to interpret and execute that directive.


I'm not sure. They can mandate PPE for jobs that pose health and safety risks. As an example, I have to wear a hard hat at times due to the hazards in certain places at my facility, because OSHA mandates it.


Correction: It's not *all* private employers, it's employers who have more than 100 employees.




This feels like yet another barrier for small businesses to grow.


I'd argue that an ongoing pandemic is an even greater barrier for small business growth.


True. Don't get me wrong, I'm all for getting people vaccinated, but I'm also weary of anything which further divides us from the wealthy class.


As an aside, which sources are listed 75% one dose? Most sources I can find say that we are at about 63%. Edit: 75% is for ADULTS. Only the Pfizer is for 12+, and none are approved for under 12.


Dec 2020, Biden: “No, I don’t think it should be mandatory. I wouldn’t demand it be mandatory.” Jen Psaki, WH press sec, on 7/23: “That’s not the role of the federal government" Rochelle Walensky, Biden's @CDC director, a week later said: “There will be no nationwide mandate” While this is clearly not a nationwide mandate, it sure is a different tune than what was previously sang.


I tend to try to provide nuanced comments on this sub, but, as a vaccinated individual, I have just this to say: Claiming that vaccination is an occupational health and safety hazard while simultaneously only forcing large companies to comply will be the reason that this rule is rejected in court. Safety doesn't care about the size of your company.


> Safety doesn't care about the size of your company. This is true, but OSHA does. There are a number of standards that are different between large and small companies.


Not all companies are covered by OSHA. >OSHA exempt industries include businesses regulated by different federal statutes such as nuclear power and mining companies, domestic services employers, businesses that do not engage in interstate commerce, and farms that have only immediate family members as employees.


Everyone starting their post with saying "I am pro-vaccine" should clarify what that really means. I think 99.9% of people are "pro-vaccine" if pro-vaccine means that there is a vaccine readily available for everyone for free. If your pro-vaccine stance requires that other people get vaccinated or lose their job, livelihood, ability to travel, go to public places etc, then that is a little beyond pro-vaccine and more of an "authoritarian for the public good" type of stance. I'm glad the vaccine exists and was made as fast as it does and works as well as it does. But the vaccine has its limitations. There are breakthrough cases, etc. If the vaccine requires endless boosters, and forced compliance, then I become less pro-vaccine.


>If your pro-vaccine stance requires that other people get vaccinated or lose their job, livelihood, ability to travel, go to public places etc, then that is a little beyond pro-vaccine and more of an "authoritarian for the public good" type of stance. Well said. Interestingly enough, the [definition of anti-vaxxer](https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/anti-vaxxer) now seems to include people who are against mandates: >a person who opposes vaccination or laws that mandate vaccination I agree that this blending is worrisome.


They keep changing the definitions of words to keep up with the wokeness and it’s really worrisome.


Apparently that was done in 2018, but I agree, it still is worrisome.


Oh...the libertarian subreddits are going to have a field day with this government overreach. I've never heard of adults being forced into health screenings or vaccinations by the government. Unprecedented in modern memory for the US.


I mean, kids are all already forced into vaccinations by the government, why is it different because its adults?


Because you can choose not to go to a government funded school. Private businesses are not public schools.


I’m glad to see this sub are not authoritarian lovers in support of this power grab


Regardless of whether this policy has any merit or not, (I’ll tell you to get the vaccine if you ask me, but my thoughts on this law are less-than-civil) I don’t think the President alone has the power to do this to the private sector, even with OSHA. Federal employees and contractors, yes. But immediately creating new rules for tons of private companies to require their own mandates or test their employees at their own expense, and fire their employees that refuse? Punishable by fines for every individual instance for companies that fail or refuse? Without an Act of Congress, I have a tough time seeing how this doesn’t get dropped the way the rent moratorium did.


OSHA already creates rules for private bsuinesses. Why is this different?


I’d have to say the scope of application, compared to the scale of punishments. What I’m ultimately getting at with the former is OSHA is going to have to justify what looks from the outside to be a pretty arbitrary number of employees (why is 100? Why not 50, 25 or 69?). I’m assuming they’re also going to have to justify why the penalties are as harsh as they are, which could be a complete can of worms in and of itself, but I’m less sure there.


Doesn't OSHA already only apply to 100 people or.more?


Even as someone who really thinks getting the vaccine is essential, can’t say I’m a bit disturbed by this. Government shouldn’t have that much control over private businesses.


This is ridiculous. How does the government have the power to do this? Why cut it off at companies with 100+ employees? What’s the point of a legislative branch anymore? I’m fully vaccinated but this is too far. Also, remember this - https://www.nytimes.com/video/us/politics/100000007884901/vaccine-mandate-not-federal-role-psaki.html


Is anybody ever really fully vaccinated? I heard a lot of booster talk in that speech.


Soon enough, we'll be seeing triple vaxxers attacking the double vaxxers.


>How does the government have the power to do this? OSHA AFAIK this is legal


It's unlikely. Argument 1: the required fine ($14k) makes it a tax and thus requires Congressional approval Argument 2: OSHA is not able to mandate medical procedures as it is an individual decision. Argument 3: OSHA would have to prove other active and passive mitigation measures are ineffective. The third one will be the most problematic as it would invalidate many of the existing government mandates (i.e. masks are ineffective, six feet doesn't work, etc).


It is too early to say this is legal. It isn't clear if this will stand up to judicial scrutiny. I'm actually a little surprised the Biden admin is willing to give this court a chance to address the current reach of the interstate commerce clause.


So the Biden admin went from bragging about how successful their vaccine rollout was in April and saying that Biden was going to "shut down the virus" to this. "Adults are back in charge". This admin's obsession with placating their upper class white women college educated base is going to cost them big time. Biden has literally scolded Americans harsher than he has the Taliban.


The US rollout was extremely successful in that it managed to have a lot of vaccine doses available very early on, so people who wanted to get vaccinated could do so a few months earlier than in many other developed countries. It was not successful in that the vaccination rate dropped significantly quicker in the US than in other countries. Mind you, most other developed countries have similar issues, but at a higher vaccination rate.


So TIL 'unity' means 'I'll pass executive orders that my side likes at the expense of everyone they don't like'. I'm just about the most pro-vaccine person you'll find. I want anyone who reads this who is not vaccinated to get vaccinated, not because of this rule, but because the positives outweigh the negatives even without it. That said: This order puts me in an incredibly wrathful mood. I'm angrier at this decision then I've been at any other political decision that has happened during my lifetime. I think it's not the President's job to make laws or to interpret the law in the most expansive way possible to get what he wants. I think that this is a failure to uphold the law as we generally require the president to do. I've heard people justify this with 'Jacobson 1905'. Many of these people were willing to completely disregard standing precedent last week in the Texas case are happy to cite this ruling. Does that precedent apply? A lot of legal scholars seem to be unsure at best, given that the ruling allows the state to impose a vaccination mandate that was passed into law prior to the decision. On the surface it doesn't seem like it would apply to a Federal ruling stretching the meaning of a law that was passed in 1970 with a focus on toxic chemicals, mechanical dangers and excessive noise levels. You could make a case for it. Doubtless those who are in favor of interpreting the spirit of the law (I'm looking at you Sotomayor/Kagan/Breyer) will do so. That said. May this be overturned. May those who support this under these circumstances be disposed to understand why it's a horrible precedent. May the Supreme Court justices have the wisdom to understand that stretching this law in this manor opens the door to stretching other laws to mean many unintentional things. May I be protected by federal institutions that serve the interests of all the people in the country. I really want to be positive, or tell a joke or say something funny about this. The best I can come up with is that more people will get vaccinated as a result. They'll remember why though. The people cheering on this creative interpretation of a rule are the same people that would be shrieking in rage if this happened in the previous administration on a right they hold sacred. It's incredibly sickening.


As a vaccinated person I detest this decision and I will be joining the protests in the street.


So something I haven't seen discussed is what does this mean for boosters? Are boosters now required despite "the Science" and WHO being not entirely positive about them?


In Israel, you're not "fully vaccinated" until you've taken [the third shot](https://www.wsj.com/articles/in-israel-being-fully-vaccinated-now-means-three-shots-11630426257). And, don't worry, there's already a [fourth shot on the way](https://www.timesofisrael.com/virus-czar-calls-to-begin-readying-for-eventual-4th-vaccine-dose/)! For people who intend to comply with the mandate, be prepared to accept booster shots every six months for the rest of your life just to stay employed.


>WHO being not entirely positive about them? It's not that they're not positive about them philosophically; the WHO is just taking the position that developed nations need to hold off on boosters while many countries in the world struggle to get their populations vaccinated for the first time.






> This order gives those businesses a bad guy to blame it on. There was an interview a few weeks ago with CEO COO or what ever with a major airline saying they dont want to mandate vaccines for their employees but the entire interview felt like a "hey uh government can you do this for us please?"


For what it's worth - not me. I've got 120 employees. I'm vaxxed, and I've encouraged my employees to get vaxxed. I wish they would, but I don't want to be put in the position to be the police on what they do or do not decide to put in their body. My main issue is I'm going to be required to apply time, money and resources to implementing and tracking a policy that is going to piss off some portion of my employees. Plus, my increased exposure to a massive fine. If they begrudgingly decide to go the test route, I'll be curious how that plays out. Will they get reimbursed for that time off? If they are asymptomatic positive, will the fed extend covid pay reimbursement? This, on the heels of congress about to pull back the ERTC Q4 credit that was promised is a double punch in the gut.


My thoughts exactly. Most CEOs probably want the economy to stabilize and remove the uncertainty of lockdowns and hospitalizations from their workforce. It’s just become way too political to actually do a mandate at the CEO level. Having Biden do it gets the CEOs what they want without having to bloody their noses.


>"He believes that it's up for a woman to make those decisions, and up to a woman to make those decisions with her doctor," Psaki responded. This was said 1 week ago about abortions. This sure seems hypocritical to that line of reasoning.


Pretty extreme overreach to me and I’m not against the vaccine.


I'm a bit concerned by this overreach. I'm vaccinated, but I believe everyone should be able to choose if they inject a foreign material into their own bodies or not. this feels outright authoritarian to me and completely against being pro-choice on any front. He's also saying the reason for this is to protect the vaccinated from the unvaccinated. That sounds stupid to me. The vaccinated shouldn't have any worries about this. What's he saying really?


Taking away people's livelihoods because they don't consent to an injection is incredibly authoritarian. I am not antivax, but I would rather get fired than comply with this.


Whoever supports this administration will deserve the dystopia that will inevitably follow. Forcing people to get vaccinated to protect people who are vaccinated... By definition that just means the vaccine doesn't work and this mandate is all about something else. The fact that people eat this up gives me no hope for our country. It's like WW2 never happened


Thank god for Florida. Honestly if it wasn’t for de santis, the leftists here in Florida would want to control every waking moment of your life. All you gotta say is I got vaccinated and they can’t ask for proof.


I don’t really get the controversy with this one. It’s not mandating vaccination—it’s mandating vaccination OR regular testing. That hardly seems radical to me. I’d be more shocked to learn that there are companies of this size not doing this already.


Not radical to be tested once a week every week for the rest of your life? Really?


Btw, IIRC polling has indicated majority of Americans support business mandates. Also, Mandates have been a thing since smallpox so don't start pretending this is some new concept. Every major country is doing this. I would argue that this is already late and should have been done the day FDA gave full approval. In case people are wondering about the legal authority, it's via OSHA and looks it might stand courts.




I would point that with all polls, the devil is in the questions. The wording of the questions can greatly affect the results, not withstanding the quality of the poster. The poll people I trust, big data poll found that asking a general passport question found mild support. But as they dug into specifics favoribilty dropped. Employer mandates for shots or being fired (not quite a direct equivalent) was 38% for 57% aganst. Their results can be seen here : https://application.marketsight.com/app/ItemView.aspx?SharedFor=director%40bigdatapoll.com&SharedBy=34090&id=c58edde2-d1e6-47c9-b40f-ad9100bc41fa


I will say there usually is a difference between polling on hypothetical policies and actual policies