Mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court [pdf]

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/unpub/21/21-60845.0.pdf

by SQL2219 • 5 years ago

104 118 5 years ago

ca5.uscourts.gov

falcolas• 5 years ago

TL;DR: 5th Court (based out of Texas) issued a stay against the OSHA vaccine mandate.

pindab0ter• 5 years ago

This should have been the title.

redis_mlc• 5 years ago

The CDC head just testified that the CDC has not studied if previous corona infections confer immunity.

She refused to say if CDC staff were returning to work or what their vaccination rate was.

Not sure what they do all day. (My understanding is they have 3,000 staff.)

throwoutway• 5 years ago

If the CDC said that, it is just carefully worded ignorance. The US’ NIH supported a research that confirmed it: https://directorsblog.nih.gov/2021/06/22/how-immunity-genera...

Just because “we the CDC” didn’t fund it doesn’t make it any less true.

kronin• 5 years ago

The study states: "We studied sera from adults (ages 18 to 55 years) who received two doses of the Moderna mRNA-1273 vaccine in phase 1 clinical trials (12). The majority of our study focused on 14 individuals who received the 250-μg dose, although we validated key conclusions with a smaller subset of eight trial participants who received the 100-μg dose. The sera were collected at 36 and 119 days after the first vaccine dose, corresponding to 7 and 90 days after the second dose."

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8369496/

Strange that the study would focus on individuals who received a 250-μg dose. The adult dose is 100-μg (https://reference.medscape.com/drug/mrna-1273-moderna-covid-...). Yes, the study states that key findings were validated with 8 participants who received the regular dosage, but still seems odd to me.

The comparison dataset is explained as: "The convalescent plasma samples were characterized in earlier studies (13–16) and grouped into an early time point of 15 to 60 days after symptom onset and a late time point of 100 to 150 days after symptom onset."

So the comparison was between vaccinated individuals, most of whom received a higher dose than is being given out, to infected individuals, and the time periods don't exactly line up. For the vaccinated dataset, the time periods were 7 and 90 days after the second dose. For the other dataset, the time periods were 15-60 days, and 100-150 days after symptom offset.

Deeper into the study, there is also this: "The escape maps of the 100-μg cohort resembled those of the 250-μg cohort and fell into the 456/484-targeting, core-targeting, or flat categories (fig. S6). Although the sample sizes are small, and a higher fraction of the 100-μg dose escape maps were flat than for the 250-μg cohort (4 of 8 versus 5 of 14, respectively), this suggests that 100- and 250-μg doses elicit antibody responses similar in the breadth of their RBD-binding specificity."

mullingitover• 5 years ago

They may not have studied it themselves, but others have[1].

This study found that among Kentucky residents who were previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 in 2020, those who were unvaccinated against COVID-19 had significantly higher likelihood of reinfection during May and June 2021. This finding supports the CDC recommendation that all eligible persons be offered COVID-19 vaccination, regardless of previous SARS-CoV-2 infection status.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/volumes/70/wr/mm7032e1.htm

disambiguation7• 5 years ago

Kind of a tangent, but I hate how all these studies have a 6 month cut off on vaccinated participants

We know the vaccine confers high immunity early on, and then wanes.

As opposed to natural immunity which is proving to be more robust and long lasting.

I would really like to see if this 2.34x improvement lasts in individuals vaccinated 6+ months ago.

bigodbiel• 5 years ago

That study is so problematic, and when it completely goes against every single study on natural immunity before it, you know there is something fishy

maxerickson9• 5 years ago

Are you referring to the testimony here:

https://thehill.com/video/senate/580032-watch-live-fauci-wal...

More specifically, the exchange ~46 minutes with Burr where she discusses how the CDC is studying infection derived immunity?

(I'm not gonna watch the 3 hours to figure out what timestamp you are referring to with the vaccination rate)

_kst_• 5 years ago

Does "previous corona infections" refer to previous Covid-19 infections, or previous infections by other corona viruses?

pupdogg• 5 years ago

Even more interesting is when asked "What percent of CDC employees are vaccinated?"...Walensky essentially responded, she didn't know. As the primary national tracker of the pandemic, you would think CDC would know their numbers (especially internal ones) inside out.

Source: https://youtu.be/AXHYgn3g-wQ?t=7715 (time 2:08:35)

rbobby2• 5 years ago

If the pandemic has taught me anything, it's that the strangest thing about a zombie outbreak will be the zombie supporters.

molbioguy• 5 years ago

The pandemic has taught me that rational relative risk assessment crumbles in the face of personal fear.

Supermancho• 5 years ago

people rather fail than change <a conclusion from the british doctors study 1951-2001> - chris wilson

https://www.slideshare.net/gvwilson/bits-of-evidence-2338367

This will be taught in every US highschool one day.

jengler• 5 years ago

If the pandemic has taught me anything, it's that the strangest thing about a zombie outbreak will be the Umbrella Corporation supporters. ;)

rbobby2• 5 years ago

HODL Umbrella?

mrfusion• 5 years ago

Here’s what I’ve learned (thanks Zuby)

Most people would rather be in the majority, than be right.

At least 20% of the population has strong authoritarian tendencies, which will emerge under the right conditions.

Fear of death is only rivalled by the fear of social disapproval. The latter could be stronger.

Propaganda is just as effective in the modern day as it was 100 years ago. Access to limitless information has not made the average person any wiser.

Source: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1412012561164390403.html

maxerickson9• 5 years ago

So some of the resistance to the vaccines is reactionary, following anger from the so-called lockdowns?

That makes an unfortunate amount of sense.

rhn_mk1• 5 years ago

This is full of hot takes, but it's missing sources and examples, so can't be taken as valid observations.

slg2• 5 years ago

These are phrased well because for most of them people are going to think "yeah, the other side is crazy". Only a few of that full thread reveal Zuby's bias.

hn_throwaway_992• 5 years ago

This is the same frustrating nonsense I see over and over. And it's frustrating specifically because many of his points I can agree with (somewhat), but shit like this always devolves into "the evil government and media is trying to keep you down".

I mean look at all the talk of "authoritarianism" and "people enjoy being subjugated". I can only assume he's talking about things like mask and vaccine mandates. Which is so fucking bizarre to me because we've had things like seatbelt and helmet laws for decades, vaccine mandates ever since I was born, and one of his complaints is that "the government and media can politicize anything"?? None of this shit used to be politicized to anywhere near the degree it is today - now even things that have the most mild downsides, yet with clear benefits to others, are "the government is out to own you". All with the same bullshit tone of "ahh, look at those ignorant sheeple"...

jmnicolas• 5 years ago

What I learned is that I was giving way too much credits to humans than what they deserved.

People I thought were rational just turned complete morons.

My disappointment is high, I'm getting lonelier and lonelier.

maestroia• 5 years ago

PT Barnum was an optimist.

disambiguation7• 5 years ago

The least strange thing is that it would also originate in a government lab

influx• 5 years ago

I'm vaccinated, but I'm also glad that Trump couldn't have written an Executive Order to inject the population with bleach. There does need to be some limits on what the executive can do, that said, Congress should just pass a law if that's the right thing to do.

aidenn0• 5 years ago

Zombie un-lives matter?

smarx007• 5 years ago

Side note: this looks like a very well typeset document. Also, seems like the first use of Butterick's fonts [1] by the courts?

[1] https://practicaltypography.com/mb-fonts.html

maxerickson9• 5 years ago

I'm not sure if it was 2013 or 2016, but the type engine in Word got a big update.

(It may also be that it works better with PDFMaker, doing paragraphs instead of individual words, I've only noticed the difference, not figured out the specifics)

jcrawfordor• 5 years ago

A lot of larger courts have a proprietary document management system that typesets the final documents. And a lot of smaller courts use the modern-day WordPerfect suite (with Paradox and Perfect Authority) as a sort of home-grown one. It depends a lot on the individual court and government.

In this case the metadata just tells us the PDF was generated by iText, so it's probably from a Java or .NET DMS the court uses. The use of Butterick's Equity suggests it's pretty new but I wasn't able to figure out what product they're using.

maxerickson9• 5 years ago

I used the HN site link ( https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=uscourts.gov ) to quickly grab an older filing from the 5th circuit, which shows a similar Adobe PDF Library; modified by iText as the Producer, and PDFMaker for Word as the Creator.

https://www.ca5.uscourts.gov/opinions/pub/17/17-41251-CR0.pd...

Of course they may have upgraded to something else that shows the same producers, but the pattern is still there.

Animats• 5 years ago

Until next Tuesday. This is just a normal pretrial motion.

Meekro• 5 years ago

Is it ordinary for Federal Judges to speak of "grave statutory and constitutional issues"?

throwawaysea• 5 years ago

Reminder that before their hard left turn away from civil liberties and towards partisanship, the ACLU was against vaccine mandates: https://www.michigancapitolconfidential.com/aclu-flip-flops-...

Another interesting piece of the public conversation around mandates is the redefinition of the term vaccine (https://www.miamiherald.com/news/coronavirus/article25411126...). The CDC claims they redefined it away from the word “immunity” towards the word “protection” because no vaccine grants perfect immunity. Personally I find that to be a bad answer. By taking a weighty word like “vaccine” and redefining it, the expectations of risks and benefits the public holds were exploited. For the majority of the public, those who are under 50 and healthy, COVID poses little risk - it’s not much different from a typical seasonal flu. Personally I think getting an mRNA vaccine is a reasonable low-risk action but the risk of undergoing any medical intervention is nonzero, and it is higher for a novel technology. I bet that if the COVID vaccines were not called a vaccine, people would evaluate the risk reward trade off differently.

nerdponx• 5 years ago

I bet that if the COVID vaccines were not called a vaccine, people would evaluate the risk reward trade off differently

Interestingly, one of the entry-level Covid denialist talking points is that the vaccine is "classified as experimental gene therapy, and not a vaccine".

It's probably not worth spending too much energy seeking logic in illogic. I just thought it was interesting and kind of ironic in this context.

dillondoyle2• 5 years ago

I think mandate is too heavy a frame in news reports and here.

The regulation requires a vaccine OR a set weekly testing structure. Seems reasonable to me though perhaps a bit broadly targeted.

Usually I think OSHA has specific regulations by specific industries.

There is a different risk between super tightly packed meat plants and Google work from home.

https://www.nj.com/coronavirus/2021/11/what-is-the-osha-vacc...

spookthesunset9• 5 years ago

The regulation requires a vaccine OR a set weekly testing structure. Seems reasonable to me though perhaps a bit broadly targeted.

Why? Who do these measures protect? What problem is being solved and what metrics are being used to determine when we get there? So far, I have yet to hear any politician state any of this.

gfodor7• 5 years ago

Given the vaccine is not very good at this point at halting transmission, if we wanted a mandate focused on reducing transmission, it would be entirely about testing requirements. As a bonus, that would remove the major issue with coercing people into choosing between an onerous, expensive, and invasive testing regime and having to take a drug they do not want to hold a job.

joshuamorton3• 5 years ago

The CDC claims they redefined it away from the word “immunity” towards the word “protection” because no vaccine grants perfect immunity. Personally I find that to be a bad answer. By taking a weighty word like “vaccine” and redefining it, the expectations of risks and benefits the public holds were exploited.

This isn't anything new though. Vaccines have always had varied amounts of effectiveness. While some, like the polio vaccine are essentially 100% effective, other common ones like the MMR vaccine (components range from 30-90% effectiveness) and flu vaccine (40-60% effective based on year) are about as effective as the covid vaccines, and its never been controversial to call them vaccines.

StanislavPetrov2• 5 years ago

and its never been controversial to call them vaccines.

They've never been mandated by law before (let alone a unilateral executive order). That it was done by executive fiat rather than legislation makes it especially troubling. If the president can unilaterally mandate a forced medical procedure, what can't they do? This isn't a question about vaccines or vaccine effectiveness, its a question about law, Constitutional rights and executive power.

pdonis6• 5 years ago

other common ones like the MMR vaccine (components range from 30-90% effectiveness)

That's not what the CDC says. The CDC says [1]:

"One dose of MMR vaccine is 93% effective against measles, 78% effective against mumps, and 97% effective against rubella.

"Two doses of MMR vaccine are 97% effective against measles and 88% effective against mumps."

Very different from either flu vaccines or COVID vaccines. Especially since, when talking about any vaccines except flu and COVID, when the CDC says "effective", they mean "prevents you from getting the disease at all or being able to transmit it to others". The people who could still get the disease or transmit it to others are the few percent for whom the vaccine is not effective.

Whereas, when the CDC talks about COVID vaccines, reducing the severity of illness or reducing (not eliminating) the chance of passing it on to others are what you get if the vaccine is "effective" for you. So not only has the meaning of "vaccine" been changed, the meaning of "effective" has been changed as well.

[1] https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vpd/mmr/public/index.html

maxerickson9• 5 years ago

People under 50 and healthy probably aren't a majority of the population.

You can probably get away with 'mostly healthy', but there's enough people under 50 that are overweight to make it so that more than half the country is either over 50 or has a co-morbidity. And then there's lots of other things that are impacting people's health.

If you called the mRNA vaccines something else, the risk reward trade off wouldn't change, and there is nice clear evidence that they reduce overall risk for adults, even relatively health adults. The trade off is tighter for younger males, but it also slightly favors vaccination (the number of serious adverse events due to vaccination is smaller than the number of infections requiring hospitalization).

015a2• 5 years ago

The saddest part of all this is really the destruction of centrism. There's a strong amount of nuance lost on both extremes in the common centrist opinion that 'the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine, public vaccine mandates may be premature." Primarily:

1. It doesn't close the door on private vaccine mandates, which while certainly concerning to some on the fringe, aren't as much of a hot topic.

2. It specifically calls out "premature"; one of the strongest pro-public vaccine mandate arguments is in their precedence. We absolutely do require vaccination in many situations, such as at grade schools or going to university. A critical, nuanced centrist opinion is simply the sense that these vaccines are extremely new; while they have scientifically demonstrated safety for the duration of the studies, and more generally perceived safety for the duration of their availability, both of these timelines pale in comparison to the timeframe many other commonly available vaccines have been available for.

3. Additionally, on the premature angle: We did have three highly effective vaccines in the US. This has been more-or-less reduced to two (as the J&J's efficacy is in such broad question, combined with their production issues, many vaccine sites aren't offering it anymore). Public vaccine mandates would in-effect be a public backing of a private corporation's revenue; the same people who rightly despise America's military-industrial complex aren't seeing the incredibly apt correlates to the increasing power of the public health-industrial complex.

4. Finally, on the premature angle: I strongly, in all walks of life, take the stance "if a choice isn't obvious, its because you don't have enough data". The choice on public vaccine mandates, democratically, is undeniably Not Obvious; its obvious to many individuals, in both direction, and thus it is not obvious to the voting public in aggregate. Thus, doing nothing except gathering more data, which our public health institutions are quite great at, is the right course. This always crystalizes the correct choice.

In short, the issue has become too politicized; I feel the best course of action right now is for politicians to step back and let our doctors and scientists take the lead. With the increasing existence and availability of effective treatment options, combined with the increasing pro-vaccine population driving down infections, hospitalizations, and death; a public vaccine mandate may end up inflaming one side of the political spectrum, and hurting our economy by causing significantly increased turnover and vacancies in an already difficult climate for businesses, unnecessarily.

pdonis6• 5 years ago

the common centrist opinion that 'the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine, public vaccine mandates may be premature."

I think you've misstated the centrist opinion here. If it were really obvious that "the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine", then public vaccine mandates would be the obvious choice. The reason public vaccine mandates are premature is that it is not obvious that everyone should get the vaccine. People's risk profiles vary widely, for both vaccines and for COVID. That's why it should be left to individual people and individual workplaces to strike the best balance for them, instead of a one-size-fits-all mandate for everybody.

gfodor7• 5 years ago

Mandating all Americans get a extremely new vaccine or else they are unable to be employed is pure madness with few exceptions, such as a plague that stands to kill off a large % of the species.

Not all mandates are equal, not all vaccines are equal, and not all diseases are equal. A mandate barring employment, for a vaccine involving a novel mechanism and drug, for COVID is bonkers.

015a2• 5 years ago

This inability to discern the nuance of the situation really scares me. It showcases an unfortunate lack of critical thinking concerning the impact of large scale public policy, like this vaccine mandate.

"The vaccine is good, and everyone should get a vaccine" is, ultimately, a personal health decision.

"The vaccine is good, and everyone must get a vaccine if you want to work" brings in a fantastically large number of externalities to the discussion, including, but not limited to:

* The exploitation of America's lack of social safety net to more tastefully hide the assertion that this is a blanket vaccine mandate. America is capitalistic; most people work. A bill which straight-up said "every citizen must get a vaccine" would be shot-down by every judge in the country, rightfully; is this bill really, meaningfully different, when there are few public safety nets in place to catch people who refuse?

* The overuse of executive power to dictate private company behavior. This is basically what OSHA does; no one is arguing there is not precedence. The argument is whether this goes too far beyond their jurisdiction.

* The overuse of executive power to force companies to become vaccine police; this is something many companies, even ones that BROADLY support the vaccine, fundamentally do not want to do. Its a massive internal logistical effort. They've never done anything like it before.

* Personal liberty; like it or not, America is founded on a strong basis of personal liberties, arguably the strongest in the world. A common counter-argument is "what about my freedom to feel safe among my coworkers"; first, semantically, what's being described here is not a Freedom. You cannot have the "Freedom" to feel safe. Maybe it could be classified as a Right, but the Rights afforded to US Citizens are few between and very well defined; this is absolutely, in any sense of the word, not one of them.

* Logistics; everyone forgets about the second part of the mandate; either be vaccinated or face continuous testing. Going back to the corporate vaccine police argument; companies are not set up to do in-house testing, by and large. Its OBSCENELY expensive and time-consuming; one local, large company, here in a low-vaccination state, says they've already spent eight figures this year on testing, thanks to an internal mandate that looks identical to this upcoming public one. Off the record; they wish they could discontinue it, they fundamentally cannot afford it. Many companies will outsource it to the Walgreens and CVS's and other private healthcare entities, which are already strained enough. Can our healthcare system handle the increased load of tens of millions of tests every day? Did anyone in power even consider this?

* Executive christening of private corporation profit; we have, effectively, two highly functional vaccines. Passing this bill means, in no uncertain terms, that these two companies will make billions of dollars. We already have a military-industrial complex; why not add a public health-industrial complex to the mix as well; so much for equitable, public good.

* Impact to other countries; Vaccines are a critical, limited resource. We have the best ones, and the best manufacturing capacity. Other countries, including many low-income underserved ones like in Africa and East Asia, need and want these doses that we're forcing onto people who don't want them.

* Impact to future elections; We live in a democracy. This is a massive gambit by the left, which may end up inciting the right-leaning centrists to actually get out and vote Biden out. Political power is a limited resource; is this the best thing for the left to spend theirs on?

* Impact to the economy; we're in a worker shortage right now. Forcing a massive portion of the population to make a decision between their personal health and work, will inevitably lead to many choosing personal health. They'll "make it work"; maybe by moving to smaller companies that aren't subject to the mandate, leaning on spousal support, what little public safety net our country has, or something else worse.

lborsato• 5 years ago

If it were really obvious that "the vaccine is good, everyone should get the vaccine", then public vaccine mandates would not be necessary.

AnnoyedComment• 5 years ago

Just because you think this thing is deadly doesn't mean I have to have an injection. Go. Fuck. Yourself.

dang• 5 years ago

We've banned this account for repeatedly posting unsubstantive comments and breaking the site guidelines. That's not what HN is for.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

rp12• 5 years ago

I'm so sick of hearing about COVID-19...

The virus completely endemic at this point, it will never be eradicated. We have a vaccine that is effective and free to all who want it. Breakthrough infections happen, but not often and those who get them usually recover. Will I need to wear a mask for the rest of my life? Will I need to worry about my children staying home from school forever? I want to forget about the virus and get on with my life.

swiley• 5 years ago

I'll keep talking about the vaccine mandates publicly until I'm no longer affected by them.

Toutouxc• 5 years ago

Breakthrough infections happen, but not often and those who get them usually recover.

Data from my country (the Czech Republic), last Thursday (4th): 372 people newly admitted to hospitals, out of them 167 were fully vaccinated. I'm not saying the number is huge or alarming (much more vaccinated people in the population, those 167 people are also older on average than the other group), but it's still far from "not often".

Will I need to wear a mask for the rest of my life? Will I need to worry about my children staying home from school forever? I want to forget about the virus and get on with my life.

Here's a scary thought: We the humanity are a bit more intelligent than other animals and a bit more flexible (also more destructive), but no one said we'll be the kings forever. Maybe a single lucky virus is enough to significantly hurt us. Maybe we're a couple of mutations far from never being able to forget the virus and yes, wearing masks for the rest of our lives. We can't forget that HIV exists, can we? Nobody said that a stupid new coronavirus can't be our downfall.

reureu2• 5 years ago

I think everyone is sick of hearing about COVID-19, but hitting your information saturation point is not the same as a disease becoming endemic.

The virus is objectively not endemic yet, as demonstrated by the overwhelmed hospital systems. This may not be the case where you live, but there are many places in the US where crisis standards of care are either currently implemented, on the verge of being implemented, or have just been ceased. While you're totally right about breakthrough infections etc, it's a bit premature to say we're back to normal when people are at risk of dying of treatable conditions solely because hospitals are full of mostly unvaccinated covid patients.

rp12• 5 years ago

The virus is objectively endemic. It's regularly found in people and cannot be eradicated. Even if you could somehow eradicate it among humans, it has animal reservoirs so re-contamination would always be a threat. If hospital capacity is an issue, then we should expand capacity to reflect the current state of the world, instead of hoping that the world will somehow return to how it was prior to the pandemic.

qwertyuiop_• 5 years ago

If I am vaccinated for chicken pox why do I have to worry if my friend is not vaccinated for it and gets it ?

If Covid vaccination is a vaccination i true sense the above assumption should apply to it no ?

Also using a government agency intended for construction / mining hard hat and fall safety for vaccinating people who don’t want to get vaccinated for personal medical reasons is outrageous. This is the kind of stuff that happens in a communist country like North Korea

seanmcdirmid2• 5 years ago

If I am vaccinated for chicken pox why do I have to worry if my friend is not vaccinated for it and gets it ?

Vaccines don't work like that. They give you a better chance of not getting something (chicken pox vaccine is 90% effective), and the rest of the vaccine's effectiveness is made up in scale (if everyone has 90% resistance, the virus has nowhere to "catch hold" and just disappears). Many people don't get that, and think vaccines should either be 100% effective or they shouldn't be used at all, or they don't understand that they only work well when they are applied at scale (which is why schools mandate many vaccines with few exceptions).

his is the kind of stuff that happens in a communist country like North Korea

Or America in the 1950s and 1960s when they wanted to get rid of polio, chicken pox, measles, hepatitis, etc... It is crazy: America back then didn't care about these nut case concerns, they were just focused on getting the job done. What happened to this country?

iammisc• 5 years ago

By all reasonable metrics, the covid vaccine makes the risk of covid negligible for all interested groups. If you're worried get the vaccine (I have) and carry on.

Sticking your nose in everyone else's business is just unhealthy. If others don't want to get it. That is their decision

mindslight• 5 years ago

Postmodern (post-truth) politics, affluenza-induced solipsism, and mass media selling domestic influence on the international market.

Arainach• 5 years ago

If I am vaccinated for chicken pox why do I have to worry if my friend is not vaccinated for it and gets it ?

When my "friend" is taking up an ICU bed at the local hospital and I die from a heart attack that would have been easily treatable when there were beds available, I care. When I can't get the surgery I need to deal with cancer because the hospital is overstressed dealing with my "friends", I care.

Every time the virus infects someone, it replicates millions of times inside their body. If one of those mutations is more contagious and prolongs this pandemic, I care.

As other posters have told you, vaccines aren't 100%. I get my flu shot each year and I still don't want to spend time around people who have a cold.

thoughtstheseus• 5 years ago

OSHA estimates 6,500 lives will be saved by the mandate over six months or ~0.02% of the U.S. population. While there is uncertainty in these estimates, they are confident hundreds of lives will be saved. At first glance there seems to be many less politically fraught avenues of improving public health.

rsj_hn2• 5 years ago

OSHA estimates 6,500 lives will be saved by the mandate over six months

So that's a justification for lawlessness? If it's so important, then pass a law, don't rule by executive order.

colejohnson66• 5 years ago

OSHA was created through the law, and they have the authority to change what they deem necessary whenever they want. Their decisions can be challenged in court (as this rule has been), but it’s not “executive order” per se. Congress gave the President the power to do this.

A vaccine mandate by OSHA, however, is unprecedented, and I can’t speak on how successful it’ll be and whatever unintended consequences it may have

Mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court [pdf]

Related Stories