All things CoronaVirus

[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.

Fair, IMO.

Interestingly, it's also been my observation, that these are the size companies that a new mandate (and much moreso new business wins) require more overhead resources and ultimately sink companies.

[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.

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.

Exactly......BUT there should be no delineation between public safety and employee count. For instance, your place of work is likely far more dangerous than most places of employment and rolls far more people through its doors than any other business.


I have been OSHA 30 certified for over 20 years.....safety is safety. We all want each employee to go home safely each night and should never be based on head count.

[youthathletics]

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.

Understood....I just think by doing so, it provides an epic fail to argue "Public Safety"; they backed themselves in to a corner.

[a fan]

Exactly......BUT there should be no delineation between public safety and employee count. For instance, your place of work is likely far more dangerous than most places of employment and rolls far more people through its doors than any other business.


I have been OSHA 30 certified for over 20 years.....safety is safety. We all want each employee to go home safely each night and should never be based on head count.

+1

20 years, huh? I didn't know that! Cool.

I agree with you. We're way above OSHA standards that really don't speak to running a distillery.

[jhu72]

Under the heading "you can't make this stuff up":

2 lawyers arguing to SCOTUS against the vaccine mandates today, tested positive this morning. They will make their arguments remotely.

[wgdsr]

ok, who's handicapping this? 6 - 3, (or 5 1/2 to 3 1/2) what're the chances this goes thru?

also, reports that the 3 lefts are "incredulous" that the mandates are in question given the rising omicron threat situation (paraphrasing)... so now they're (maybe as a group) leaning into "doing their own science research" vs legal? and then how does the fact that for the time being... tests aren't around to fulfill said mandates muddy the waters? what a tangled web we weave.

[a fan]

ok, who's handicapping this? 6 - 3, (or 5 1/2 to 3 1/2) what're the chances this goes thru?

also, reports that the 3 lefts are "incredulous" that the mandates are in question given the rising omicron threat situation (paraphrasing)... so now they're (maybe as a group) leaning into "doing their own science research" vs legal? and then how does the fact that for the time being... tests aren't around to fulfill said mandates muddy the waters? what a tangled web we weave.

I'm more interested in what this ruling will do to the State vaccine mandates that you and I discussed earlier.....

[wgdsr]

Under the heading "you can't make this stuff up":

2 lawyers arguing to SCOTUS against the vaccine mandates today, tested positive this morning. They will make their arguments remotely.

and at least one of them vaxxed and boosted. and sounds like he's working on 10ish days since original positive, maybe more. outside cdc guidelines, but a pcr picked it up. you certainly couldn't make this up.

[wgdsr]

ok, who's handicapping this? 6 - 3, (or 5 1/2 to 3 1/2) what're the chances this goes thru?

also, reports that the 3 lefts are "incredulous" that the mandates are in question given the rising omicron threat situation (paraphrasing)... so now they're (maybe as a group) leaning into "doing their own science research" vs legal? and then how does the fact that for the time being... tests aren't around to fulfill said mandates muddy the waters? what a tangled web we weave.

I'm more interested in what this ruling will do to the State vaccine mandates that you and I discussed earlier.....

well, if blocked someone somewhere will give you what you want to see... challenges.

[jhu72]

... I could predict how this would go under the Robert's Court 18 months ago. All bets are off with the "chock full o'nuts" court. They will probably find that it is unconstitutional for anyone not a country western music singer, to attempt to sing the Star Spangled Banner.

[a fan]

ok, who's handicapping this? 6 - 3, (or 5 1/2 to 3 1/2) what're the chances this goes thru?

also, reports that the 3 lefts are "incredulous" that the mandates are in question given the rising omicron threat situation (paraphrasing)... so now they're (maybe as a group) leaning into "doing their own science research" vs legal? and then how does the fact that for the time being... tests aren't around to fulfill said mandates muddy the waters? what a tangled web we weave.

I'm more interested in what this ruling will do to the State vaccine mandates that you and I discussed earlier.....

well, if blocked someone somewhere will give you what you want to see... challenges.

Oh, I don't want to see that. What I want is intellectual honesty from adults. A judge can't force that to happen, sadly.

If I understand how law works (and I surely don't), if they rule that vaccine mandates are inherently Unconstitutional, the current laws dissolve.

But they always parse things, it seems.....this case is about forcing large employers and health care facilities to get vaxxed/tested, no? You'd think that if you can't force employers to do something, surely you'd think that reasoning would apply to five year old kids. But that ain't the case with American law....

[jhu72]

Study of 2021 vaccinated individuals who had severe breakthrough cases finds that every one of the cases (189 in total) included known high risk factors for the individuals.

Not really surprising.

[kramerica.inc]

Not surprising at all. Most of the United states has pulmonary disease, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, neurologic disease, diabetes or cardiac disease.

[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.

Interestingly, it's also been my observation, that these are the size companies that a new mandate (and much moreso new business wins) require more overhead resources and ultimately sink companies.

Yes, lots of entrepreneurial managers hit the wall at about this size of business...complexity can increase a lot...it's particularly dangerous for low margin businesses trying to stay ahead of cash flows...but I'd sure rather have those complexity challenges in a high margin business growing fast than not!

[MDlaxfan76]

Not surprising at all. Most of the United states has pulmonary disease, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, neurologic disease, diabetes or cardiac disease.

Or pre-diabetes...All related to overweight/obesity, bad nutrition or other lifestyle factors. Well over 2/3 of American adults. Big % of kids too.

[DMac]

Every vaccinated participant who endured serious COVID-19 outcomes as part of a new study of more than 1 million people had at least one risk factor that left them vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Is this saying that it was the vaccination that brought the "serious COVID-19 outcomes"?

[kramerica.inc]

Every vaccinated participant who endured serious COVID-19 outcomes as part of a new study of more than 1 million people had at least one risk factor that left them vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Is this saying that it was the vaccination that brought the "serious COVID-19 outcomes"?

The people with heart issues, maybe. We don't know yet.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Every vaccinated participant who endured serious COVID-19 outcomes as part of a new study of more than 1 million people had at least one risk factor that left them vulnerable, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).

Is this saying that it was the vaccination that brought the "serious COVID-19 outcomes"?

The people with heart issues, maybe. We don't know yet.

. Maybe….

https://www.rwjbh.org/blog/2021/august/ ... ovid-19-v/

[PizzaSnake]

Not surprising at all. Most of the United states has pulmonary disease, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, neurologic disease, diabetes or cardiac disease.

[Typical Lax Dad]

Not surprising at all. Most of the United states has pulmonary disease, liver disease, chronic kidney disease, neurologic disease, diabetes or cardiac disease.

Great LP