All things CoronaVirus

[MDlaxfan76]

I see they (CDC) also changes the definition for fully vaccinated to "up to date".

Seems reasonable based on varying first-round completion schedules - e.g. someone who received their second Pfizer dose two months ago is not yet eligible for a booster.

Glad to see that they're doing this now...it seemed obvious that if immunity wanes (whether from infection or vaccines), and the point is to have strong immunity from infection and severe outcomes, being on schedule is the best proxy.

Better still would be an actual test for immunity level, but I don't think they have that as of yet.

So, the proxy of "up to date" makes sense.

[MDlaxfan76]

I see they (CDC) also changes the definition for fully vaccinated to "up to date".

Seems reasonable based on varying first-round completion schedules - e.g. someone who received their second Pfizer dose two months ago is not yet eligible for a booster.

Agreed. And the timing of this change is pushing on the mandate date....which is also a line item to address that has currently NOT been part of the original "vaccinated requirement". Another evolution in the ongoing process.

I wouldn't want these guys' jobs...!

[kramerica.inc]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

[youthathletics]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

[kramerica.inc]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political ends.

[youthathletics]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political ends.

"So far all three liberal justices on the court have made it clear that they would back the federal mandate, and have in fact appeared somewhat astonished by the opposition to it." Following here.

[smoova]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

I agree and it may turn out to be one of the more interesting, unintended side effects of the GOP's court-packing activities.

[kramerica.inc]

Indeed. But the myriad of state and private-company mandates lead me to believe that may be the path of least resistance we see.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Bart,
So your job requires an attestation daily?

What do you do? Do you have a lot of contact with coworkers and/or the public?

I get notifying on a positive test. The problem this week is the lack of tests. And that boosters/ vaccines arent as effective as hoped against omicron.

TLD, what is your booster timeframe? Based off of?

Based off of scientific consensus that supports waning protection and the observation that boosted folk ain’t been in the hospital as much. You don’t have to work for us if you don’t want to. We are mandating boosters but non booster personnel protocols are different than protocols for the boosted. Animals aren’t running our farm and we run an ethical business so we aren’t looking to work around our responsibility to our clients and community.

I get you think you are doing it right. But what is your booster frequency? Daily, monthly, 6 mos? a year? Brand?
Based off of what scientific finds/studies exactly? I cant find anything that is definitive about boosters.
Like to go to HR with something, but I can't say, "there's scientific consensus" without actual information.

Anyway. Good luck. We are moving forward.

[a fan]

The hillarious part is that you have all answers....just depends on who you are replying to. So tell us, I'm all ears, who are the dues paying union members listening to, so much so that their leadership is listening to them and making these demands?

I don't have all the answers. YOU are making the answer to every question: Fauci. I'm simply pointing out, that if you look at the scoreboard, you're clearly, plainly, obviously wrong. Is every State running the same rules? No, not even close, right? So there you goes your claim that everyone is listening to Fauci, and simply doing what he tells them to do.

You're wrong. You don't get to throw stones at me when I'm not giving you an opinion. I'm giving you a simple syllogism that proves you are simply incorrect. Fauci isn't calling the shots, sorry. Trump made our Pandemic response State based, rather than Federal. And as I said at the time, and say now? It was the right choice.

So I'm sorry, you don't get to use Fauci as your punching bag when he's not calling the shots, and Governors CLEARLY aren't doing what Fauci suggests.

You are in la la land if you think Fauxi is not 'the man' driving the message to which all others use as the barometer for all things cv-19. He's only the most important man in infectious disease in the USA; he loves to let us all know each day.

I'm waiting......if not him, than who(m)?

Asked and answered. I haven't seen Fauci speak in months. Why? I already told you-----he has no power over my State. What do I care what he says?

So to answer your question, I give the same answer again: our Governor. He's the one who has power over our specific pandemic condition.

I'm not giving you know it all opinions, YA. I'm calmly using logic to tell you who's running things in my community when it comes to the pandemic. It ain't Fauci.....

[tech37]

High risk research still being funded:

Virus Hunters
How the Pursuit of Unknown Viruses Risks Triggering the Next Pandemic

https://theintercept.com/2021/12/28/cov ... zak-wuhan/

[MDlaxfan76]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

[youthathletics]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

[kramerica.inc]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

Winner, winner.

Or job class. NAICS codes wouldn't matter.

[MDlaxfan76]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

How so?

Seems to me that size of head count has to do with a couple of logistical/practical issues, not politics, unless you think the Dems want to be liked by small businesses but not those with more than 100 people?

Seems to me that they know that there's a burden on tracking all of this for employers, larger employers actually have HR debts, smaller don't...larger are more likely to have more people exposed to one another than smaller (though I think this is more arguable).

EDIT...I do agree with Kram that certain job situations have more congregate risk, indoors, etc than others, so even more delineation might well be argued for.

[youthathletics]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

How so?

Seems to me that size of head count has to do with a couple of logistical/practical issues, not politics, unless you think the Dems want to be liked by small businesses but not those with more than 100 people?

Seems to me that they know that there's a burden on tracking all of this for employers, larger employers actually have HR debts, smaller don't...larger are more likely to have more people exposed to one another than smaller (though I think this is more arguable).

pick a lane dude. So the burden of public safety as outweighed by tracking heads less than 100; got it. Money is more important than safety...mmmm okay.

[MDlaxfan76]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

How so?

Seems to me that size of head count has to do with a couple of logistical/practical issues, not politics, unless you think the Dems want to be liked by small businesses but not those with more than 100 people?

Seems to me that they know that there's a burden on tracking all of this for employers, larger employers actually have HR debts, smaller don't...larger are more likely to have more people exposed to one another than smaller (though I think this is more arguable).

pick a lane dude. So the burden of public safety as outweighed by tracking heads less than 100; got it. Money is more important than safety...mmmm okay.

ohhh, don't get me wrong, I'd have it for all employers...just trying to explain what I think their rationale must have been in choosing a cut-off...the legal sorts may have an explanation for why there are all sorts of waivers for small businesses that may have impacted this cut-off...not my area. Nor OSHA restrictions (I think the cut-off is 10 employees).

I just think they were looking to make this reasonably manageable and enforceable...it's not like they aren't encouraging all businesses, of any size, to institute their own mandates or testing regimens.

I think practical considerations were driving this.

[kramerica.inc]

The 100 employee standard is incredibly random. It sounds good. A nice, round number. But it's also been my experience that small or growing business that are 100- 250-ish employees are the size when things get REAL dicey when it comes to resources. Many companies that size don't have the ability to hire overhead personnel and implement the proper overhead functions. That size is too big to operate like a small business and too small to operate like a large business with enterprise services.

[a fan]

That's a decent spin, YA. You may be the next Jenny Psack!
But more than just that. The myriad of court injunctions and legal challenges are pushing on the mandate date too.

They are giving Biden and his administration a clear path out of this......we'll see if they double down or change the terms of this as a pandemic story into an Endemic.

Perhaps. The SCOTUS stakes are larger than pandemic policy. This is a real test of how far administrations can go in stretching ambiguous statutes for their own political (PUBLIC HEALTH) ends.

Fixed it

If that were the case there would be no delineation based on employee head count.

How so?

Seems to me that size of head count has to do with a couple of logistical/practical issues, not politics, unless you think the Dems want to be liked by small businesses but not those with more than 100 people?

Seems to me that they know that there's a burden on tracking all of this for employers, larger employers actually have HR debts, smaller don't...larger are more likely to have more people exposed to one another than smaller (though I think this is more arguable).

pick a lane dude. So the burden of public safety as outweighed by tracking heads less than 100; got it. Money is more important than safety...mmmm okay.

OSHA rules are different for differently sized companies, YA. Always has been like this. You may not know this because you work for a real company, and my little shop has fewer than 10 employees.

[MDlaxfan76]

The 100 employee standard is incredibly random. It sounds good. A nice, round number. But it's also been my experience that small or growing business that are 100- 250-ish employees are the size when things get REAL dicey when it comes to resources. Many companies that size don't have the ability to hire overhead personnel and implement the proper overhead functions. That size is too big to operate like a small business and too small to operate like a large business with enterprise services.

Fair, IMO.