SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Judge blocks Biden vaccine rule, citing “liberty interests of the unvaccinated”
A federal judge yesterday blocked a Biden administration COVID-19 vaccine mandate for health care workers, granting a request for preliminary injunction filed by Republican attorneys general from 14 states.
US District Judge Terry Doughty ruled that the government lacks authority to implement the rule that "requires the staff of twenty-one types of Medicare and Medicaid healthcare providers to receive one vaccine by December 6, 2021, and to receive the second vaccine by January 4, 2022." Providers that don't comply face penalties, including "termination of the Medicare/Medicaid Provider Agreement."
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) mandate regulates over 10.3 million health care workers in the US, of which 2.4 million are unvaccinated. The Biden vaccine rule is being challenged by the attorneys general from Louisiana, Montana, Arizona, Alabama, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Mississippi, Oklahoma, South Carolina, Utah, West Virginia, Kentucky, and Ohio. The Republican AGs' lawsuit was filed against CMS and the US Department of Health and Human Services.
The preliminary injunction they won applies nationwide except for 10 states that "are already under a preliminary injunction order dated November 29, 2021, issued by the Eastern District of Missouri," a court order said. Those states are Alaska, Arkansas, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, New Hampshire, Nebraska, Wyoming, North Dakota, and South Dakota.
What states did not participate in this lawsuit and were not covered by the earlier preliminary injunction — i.e. got swept into this decision?
California, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District Of Columbia, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, North Carolina, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin.
(Score: 4, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @03:43AM (37 children)
I guess the liberty to kill others is a thing
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @03:53AM
The liberty to lie is absolutely a thing which tools like you use to laughable extremes.
https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2021/07/30/1022867219/cdc-study-provincetown-delta-vaccinated-breakthrough-mask-guidance [npr.org]
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-28/getting-vaccinated-doesn-t-stop-people-from-spreading-delta [bloomberg.com]
It is impossible for you degenerates not to know this proven fact at this late date. The lie is dead, give it rest.
(Score: 0, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @04:48AM (30 children)
"to kill others"...
Um, who are the "others"? Vaccinated people? Ah, no, they're pretty much protected. Hmmm, who could it be, these "others" you refer to...
Oh! The unvaccinated! But wait, they're the ones you're railing against. Suddenly you care about them?? I'm so confused.
TBF, there are some who for serious medical reasons must not receive SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, so yes, they're being put at risk. But remember, vaccinated people can contract and spread COVID.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Opportunist on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:03AM (10 children)
You know, it feels like talking to the religious nuts and trying to explain to them why their "arguments" are bollocks. No matter how many times you explain to them why their arguments are rubbish, they still come back with the same argument, hoping that eventually they'll end up talking to someone who didn't hear the debunk for their bullshit.
No vaccination is perfect. Not only are there people who cannot get vaccinated, there are also people whose immune system isn't stable enough to withstand an infection even with vaccination. With enough people immunized in the population, this is usually still good enough to create a stable group immunity level to avoid an outbreak.
Without, we have what we have now.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:18AM (2 children)
Which part of "does not stop people from spreading virus" is too hard for you to understand?
https://www.riotimesonline.com/brazil-news/modern-day-censorship/in-gibraltar-100-of-adults-are-fully-vaccinated-against-covid-19-and-yet-new-cases-are-exploding/ [riotimesonline.com]
Look Ma, no group immunity!
You cannot "debunk" observed facts. This is winter 2021, not spring 2020, there is no "fog of war" left for you to abuse.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:47AM
Did you just introduce a new argument and berate me for not countering it pre-emptively?
Gibraltar is experiencing an increase in cases like pretty much all of Europe right now. They have a significant number of new cases, by far not the most right now per capita, but it's really high.
On the other hand, the last day when more than one person died from Covid there was in February. now, of course Gibraltar is a small country and deaths are by definition discreet since it's impossible to half-die, but considering that of the roughly 100 people who died in Gibraltar, less than 10 of them died since the onset of the vaccinations, I dare say there might be some sort of connection, don't you think?
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @02:58PM
Clearly you do not understand group immunity.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday December 02 2021, @01:13PM (3 children)
There's also a chance that you could kill somebody by getting behind the wheel of your car, people who are completely innocent and have done nothing wrong. How dare you take chances with their lives?! Why can't you just take the subway or ride a bike like you have been told to do? If you would just cooperate, then everybody could be 100% safe.
You keep talking about probabilities when 100% solutions are what you secretly think they are.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Thursday December 02 2021, @03:06PM
Amazing. You apparently know more about how I think than I do.
Im my country, about 300-500 people die every year from car accidents (ignoring 2020, that year we had an all-time low for obvious reasons). Which is about 10-15 times fewer people than died from Covid.
Cars at least work as transportation means, so using them has a purpose that could be considered warranting the endangering of those 500 people. What exactly is the purpose of not being vaccinated that warrants the killing of ten times as many people? It should be something that's about 10 times as important as transporting people, goods and services.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by pipedwho on Friday December 03 2021, @04:37AM (1 child)
This is the reasoning the has speed limits imposed to reduce the risks of killing or injuring others. Likewise, mandating a vaccine is equivalent to other laws that avoid unnecessary deaths.
(Score: 2) by Phoenix666 on Friday December 03 2021, @05:34PM
Great. Then you won't have a problem when the government implants a control chip in your head. It's for your safety, after all. And before then, you certainly won't have a problem when they overturn Roe vs. Wade; "My body, my choice" doesn't really work as a slogan when you advocate forcibly injecting people against their will.
Personally, I am pro-choice and do agree that bodily autonomy is sacrosanct. The government does have no business telling you what to do with your body or your healthcare. I try hard to avoid hypocrisy.
"We're doing it for your own good!" is the cry of every tyrant.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @07:23PM (2 children)
You're a stupid fucking cowardly slave. I am not responsible for your puny immune system, or viruses unless i manufacture them and inject you with them. It's you vaxxed umbrella corp zombies who are manufacturing spike proteins, causing "breakthrough" infections and variants and shedding them on humans (unvaxxed people).
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03 2021, @02:36AM
lol
(Score: 3, Funny) by Opportunist on Friday December 03 2021, @07:09AM
Since I have a discussion with someone on another site about what an ad-hominem attack looks like when you run out of arguments, I hope you don't mind if I link this one as a great example.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:55AM (15 children)
The unvaccinated are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they don't want the vax
(Score: 5, Insightful) by pTamok on Thursday December 02 2021, @09:17AM (11 children)
Cigarette smokers are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they choose not to give up
The obese are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they choose not to control their eating
The poor are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they choose not to work harder
Drunks are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they choose not to be sober
Parachutists are hogging medical services. Let's put them in the back of the line if they choose to throw themselves out of aircraft that work fine.
It can be argued that anyone who chooses a course of action that generates an increased risk of needing medical services is placing an unreasonable load on medical services, and therefore should be denied those services.
Medical ethics works on the basis of treating the patient and not looking at why the patient is presenting themselves. Collectivised and insurance-based payment for medical services takes the view that it is reasonable and fair to spread the risk across the paying population so that individuals who are hit by rare (or even not-so-rare) catastrophic events are not ruined by medical expenses.
Excluding people for making poor choices is not ethical. I agree that it is a huge problem, and the problem of people making poor choices needs to be addressed. It is possible to debate whether coercion is an appropriate response, considering the public health crisis we are living in. Some people take the strong view that it is always wrong to coerce in a free society - although coercing psychotic people into medical treatment seems to be generally accepted - but no everyone agrees that non-coercion is correct when the consequences are dire.
I think individual liberty is important. Not everyone does, and certainly when individual liberty has consequences for other people, we get into a difficult area. I have no simple answer.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @11:44AM (8 children)
An overbroad statement is rarely true. A counterexample proving this false as an iron-vlad rule is organ transplants not being given to smokers or drunks.
(Score: 2) by stretch611 on Thursday December 02 2021, @12:05PM (7 children)
You might want to check your facts... then again you probably don't care about facts.
My father was a drinker and smoker (2 packs of unfiltered camels a day at his peak; at least half his life at that level of smoking.)
20 years ago he had his heart and both lungs transplanted at the same time. (from a single donor) Prior to that he had a kidney transplant (I don't remember if it was just one or two.)
While he obviously abstained from drinking and smoking while in the hospital waiting for a donor he went right back to both after he was released.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @12:18PM (5 children)
You provided 1 example of someone who squeaked by, but that doesn't disprove my counterexample at all:
https://www.upmc.com/services/transplant/liver/candidates [upmc.com]
(Score: 5, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @01:54PM (2 children)
And to a European, this is the worst of all: "Lack of adequate insurance". It is not health care, it is medicine for profit.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday December 02 2021, @10:55PM (1 child)
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03 2021, @02:40AM
Wtf?
Seriously, I don't get this. "But somebody has to pay for it! Waaaaah!" Of course somebody has to pay for it, numbnuts!
You just can't stand the fact that they pay much less per capita than American healthcare, and it's OMG SOCIALIST. OMG capitalism couldn't find the optimal solution!! OMG! GOM! GHOM! MOHGHOMYOG!
(Score: 3, Informative) by stretch611 on Thursday December 02 2021, @11:23PM (1 child)
And you provided reference to only a single place with those requirements... and it is specifically for livers (and alcohol consumption has a major influence on liver health.) And it does not specifically mention smoking.
As another poster mentioned... "adequate insurance is required"
Also notice "adequate social support"... so if you don't have enough family/friends to watch over you, they will let you die. (and I doubt a large facebook friendslist will qualify.)
"Other diseases or conditions"... oops you are one of the many adults with diabetes... disqualified.
The fact is that different locations have different qualifications. Some places will not take high risk patients because their staff may not be experienced and refer you to a place with better qualified doctors that can give better care for increased chances of success. (Or they are interested in boasting a high rate of success and do not want to risk their reputation on a high risk individual.)
Yes, my father was a high risk case. He actually had 2 heart attacks before he was even 50. He also needed an aortic stent before a transplant could even be considered. He actually went into NY and saw the (in)famous Dr Oz. Dr Oz refused to do anything because he was high risk and Dr Oz kept his success rate up by only treating easier cases with higher chances. My father ended up going to a university hospital in Philadelphia (IUP iirc) where they accepted high risk cases.
There are no universal standards (as already pointed out.) The fact is that when an organ becomes available it doesn't necessarily go to the best candidate... in fact it often goes to the best *local* candidate as the length of time the organ is not in a living body has a large impact on the success rate.
smokers/drinkers may not have as easy time getting a transplant, but the are not disqualified.
Now with 5 covid vaccine shots/boosters altering my DNA :P
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday December 03 2021, @07:33AM
My argument was that it happens, which requires exactly 1 example. In order to disprove me, you have to show that there are NO examples.
You failed Logic 101. Jesus fuck. What did they teach you in school..
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday December 05 2021, @04:26PM
"Sure, you say murder is illegal but the zodiac killer murdered a bunch of people and was never arrested. Q.E.D."
(Score: 4, Touché) by epitaxial on Thursday December 02 2021, @01:09PM
Let me know when those conditions are contagious.
(Score: 2) by digitalaudiorock on Thursday December 02 2021, @04:33PM
While the things you've listed do use a lot of medical services, none of them, nor even all of them put together, ever causes an ICU to run out of beds.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by DannyB on Thursday December 02 2021, @06:10PM (1 child)
Singapore to end free Covid treatment for unvaccinated [soylentnews.org]
I predict more countries will do this.
Simple fact: It is the unvaccinated that are clogging up hospitals and taking up all of the ICU beds. Yes, some vaccinated do get breakthrough infections, and some portion of those get hospitalized -- but not in nearly the numbers of the unvaccinated.
A person with a heart attack or who was in an auto accident should not be denied an ICU bed because someone wouldn't get vaccinated.
The lower I set my standards the more accomplishments I have.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @07:54PM
No. More countries will not do that. If you read, in detail, Singapore's plan you would realize this.
Note the sentence in bold.
The Singapore government doesn't normally offer free covid treatment. For anyone. It was an exception made to ease the pandemic, and public perception. But now the pandemic has gone on longer than expected and this is costing the govenment more than they planned. They're not taking away treatment for unvaccinated patients, they're ending a program that was created for the pandemic. Starting with unvaccinated patients. Who will now rely on the existing heath benefits they always had before the pandemic.
Singapore isn't taking away anything. They are ending short term benefits which never existed before the pandemic. And this is why comparing them to any other country is apples and oranges.
(Score: 1) by Coligny on Friday December 03 2021, @05:50AM
No…
Just really no…
Full pandemic - pre vaccine France.
Hospital load for covid patient was 4%.(official data report from the healthcare ministry)
Now, with the lack of previous flue season there are real worries for this year flue season.
Not for the next unicron planet eating mutation of covid.
Also… taking into account the appearance of new variants.
Really tell tell me how you prove a negative in the “vaccine prevent complications” for covid. Just tell me how you can state that it’s because of the vaccine and not the usual mechanisme by which, virus that are good at spreading are bad at killing…
Or… how the vaccine could work so well at reducing risks on variants but need countless booster shots because they also don’t work on variants…. Or something….
Lastly… how can companies come up with so many vaccine but no treatment. Or why on earth Russian or chinese vaccine are not recognized by western healthcare ministries…
If I wanted to be moderated by mor0nic groupthinking retards I would still be on Digg and Reddshit.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Thexalon on Thursday December 02 2021, @06:27PM (2 children)
So in addition to the people who can't get vaccinated due to allergies and such, there's also very young children for whom no vaccination protocol exists, and people whose countries don't have enough vaccine doses to go around. Congrats, you're killing 4-year-olds because your mother never convinced you that there was no real reason to be afraid of going to the doctor and getting a shot.
As for the rest of your points, I think the problem is your data model is oversimplified. As in, I'm pretty sure you're mental data model looks something like this:
Larry: Infected? Yes Vaxxed? No
Curly: Infected? No Vaxxed? No
Moe: Infected? No Vaxxed? Yes
...
Groucho: Infected? Yes Vaxxed? Yes
Harpo: Infected? No Vaxxed? No
Chico: Infected? No Vaxxed? Yes
For the sake of simplicity, we'll assume that both comedy trios regularly come in maskless contact with each other.
So, in your mind, each tick of the clock, there's a percentage chance that Curly and Moe will get infected by Larry, and a percentage chance that Harpo and Chico will be infected by Groucho. And when the dust settles, the unvaccinated Larry and Curly and Harpo might be dead, the vaccinated Moe and Groucho and Chico will almost definitely be fine, so therefor the choice to get vaccinated is a personal choice about whether your fears about vaccination are greater or less than your fears about getting Covid-19.
And that mental model makes a certain amount of sense, but it's imprecise, and we lose a lot in that imprecision. Contrast that mental model with this:
Larry: Virus: 100000000 Antibodies: 1000000
Curly: Virus: 0 Antibodies: 0
Moe: Virus: 0 Antibodies: 15000000
...
Groucho: Virus: 100000 Antibodies: 15100000
Harpo: Virus: 0 Antibodies: 0
Chico: Virus: 0 Antibodies: 18000000
And each tick of the clock, several things happen:
- If your virus count is over 1,000,000,000, you die.
- Your virus count changes by a complex formula that reflects both exponential growth of the virus as it reproduces, plus your antibodies slowing down said exponential growth, plus the normal loss of viruses through sneezing, sweating, urinating, etc. But generally speaking, if you have a lot of antibodies, your virus count goes down, if you don't it goes up.
- If you are infected, your immune system makes anywhere between 10,000 and 500,000 antibodies.
- If your virus count is above zero, you'll cough on your mates, giving them 1% of your viruses.
Looking at the Stooges: Larry is in trouble, because his antibodies might not increase enough to save him before his viruses kill him if he's unlucky. When Curly gets coughed on, he's getting a high dose of around 1,000,000, and he has no antibodies at the start, so he's heading in the direction of Larry but he might be OK if he's lucky. Moe's probably going to be OK, because he got vaccinated and thus has the antibodies ready already.
Looking at the Marx Brothers: Groucho looks like he'll be fine, because his antibodies were ready when he first got infected so his virus count isn't multiplying quickly at all. Chico is in the best position of anybody, because Groucho is going to give him a mere 1000 copies of the virus and his excellent immune system is more than ready to handle it. But Harpo also has a much better chance, because he's also getting the smaller dose from Groucho, which means his immune response is much more likely to catch up.
As I said above, I made up the numbers, and it's definitely simplified from what the pros would be using, but I'm reasonably certain the concepts behind it are closer to reality. And when you look at this version, you see that Larry and Groucho's decisions made a big difference to other people: Larry was willing to get Curly into trouble because he feared the shot more than he feared Covid, while Groucho protected both his brothers including the one who didn't get the shot.
TL;DR: Just get your shots already, you'll help both you and anybody you spend time with.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @08:14PM
Looking at the Stooges: Larry might be in trouble. Mostly depends on whether he's a high risk candidate, for a risk which is still not very well defined. He might simply be asymptomatic or end up spending a weekend in bed. Curly may have already been infected and been asymptomatic. You can't really say unless he's been tested for previous exposure. Moe is probably going to be OK. But then again, he might have always been OK for the same reasons as Curly.
Looking at the Marx Brothers: Groucho might be fine. Unless he gets a serious case of pneumonia and puts off going to the hospital because he feels he's safe having been vaccinated. If Chico has so many antibodies, while not being infected, then there might be something seriously going wrong with his immune system. Harpo is as vulnerable as anyone else. Both Groucho and Chico can be shedding virus and not even know it. It's not simply a question of "how much" virus you're exposed to. It's where the virus enters the body, how quickly it takes hold, how quickly your body ramps up to fight it. If the vaccine "eliminated" all chance of Groucho and Chico getting infected then we've protected Harpo. But it doesn't work that way. Harpo will only ever be safe once the world has been eradicated of covid-19. If that's even possible, given that people who have had it can still get it and pass it on. Actually, I think Harpo is the most screwed of all (he should at least get vaccinated).
I like your analogy in principle, but the world is not so black and white.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday December 02 2021, @10:59PM
I suspect it's less an issue with an inaccurate mental data model, than that of us statistically being in an entirely different situation [youtu.be]. Of course, the long COVID symptoms [cdc.gov] aren't helping.
(Score: 2) by krishnoid on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:20AM
Maybe [nbcnews.com].
(Score: 2, Insightful) by darkfeline on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:45AM
Said every oppressive regime other. Do you think any regime ever said, those people are fine, friendly, reasonable people, let's lock them up? No, they always paint them as monsters. Those people are evil, dumb, they mean us harm and we must lock them up, we must fight them.
Those who don't know history are destined to repeat it.
Join the SDF Public Access UNIX System today!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @08:49AM (1 child)
Yeah, it's called abortion. You also get bodily autonomy... except for drugs and vaccines.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @05:43PM
They're not infringing on your rights, just regulating them. Same as the 2nd Amendment vs the GCA, NFA, and so on. In tech, it's the DMCA.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday December 02 2021, @02:07PM
"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"