Common Sense and Science Prevail in Federal Court

https://tinyurl.com/n9ah7bcs

If this is paywalled for you the headline tells the story . . .

“Judge dismisses lawsuit filed by Houston hospital system employees who refused coronavirus vaccine. “

“Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the covid-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients and their families safer. [Plaintiff] Bridges can freely choose to accept or refuse a covid-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else.”

54 thoughts on “Common Sense and Science Prevail in Federal Court

  1. And it all started with # LIBERATE dividing us into partisan camps over a pandemic.

    30% of Republicans refuse to take the jab. Which is really ironic since those same folks take offense that Trump doesn’t get enough praise for getting vaccines in record times. Now the excuse is that it was too fast.

    It sure seems like the right wing has opted to let others try to achieve herd immunity so they can get a free ride, still praise Trump, and keep recounting ballots over, and over and over….

    Liked by 2 people

    1. Odd, there must be a very large black Republican population. Nationally, only 22% of blacks have been vaccinated. The pilot just ran a story abt Norfolk and Portsmouth black vaccination rate severely lacking all other races. It’s not like vaccines are not widely available, they are thanks to OWS. Are they in on this Liberate narrative too? Inquiring minds want to know….

      Like

      1. Saw that too. Interesting and somewhat puzzling.

        Liberate was a stupid, stupid move. All it did was pit Americans against Americans based on Trump’s efforts to minimize a pandemic that rained on his parade.

        But why Republicans won’t get the shot is a curious item. Probably part and parcel for conspiracy lovers and ANON believers.

        Liked by 2 people

      2. There are historical, cultural and economic reasons that explain the lower vaccination rates among African-Americans that have nothing to do with current politics. So, your observation about African-Americans reinforces the evidence for the disastrous #LIBERATE effect. White Democrats are maybe twice as likely to get vaccinated as white Republicans.

        Not only are these silly Trumpkins endangering their own lives and other Trumpkins, they are accelerating the end of the GOP by the simple expedient of dying off.

        https://tinyurl.com/wx6bw9a8

        Liked by 1 person

          1. “left wing extremist bubblehead blather”

            I know you get your few jollies by coming on-line to troll and hurl ignorant and childish insults but really and all sincerity such behavior just screams “I am loser.” Intellectually, emotionally and most probably economically.

            Beyond that, your choice of epithets simply shows how out of touch with reality you are. There is hardly anything that I, Len or Adam have advocated that does not enjoy strong majority support. That is not “left wing.” That is mainstream. You and other Trump losers wallowing in your muck of LIES, hatred and cultural whining are the extremists. Laughably so.

            Now as for your lame attempt at citing evidence, all this article says is that there are many factors behind the data as indeed there are. But the polling and the data are consistent. Republicans are significantly more likely to avoid vaccination than non-Republicans. That is what they say and that is what they do.

            Liked by 1 person

  2. I doubt that common sense and science prevailed, as the post title implies.

    The plaintiffs correctly observed that the trials needed for the FDA’s emergency use authorization of Covid vaccines were less rigorous than the trials needed for full approval. On that basis they argued that the vaccines are “experimental” and that being forced to take them amounted to being forced to participate in an experiment.

    The judge rejected the argument because he found no evidence of a formal experiment or clinical trial in which the plaintiffs were being forced to participate. The ruling is illogical in that the vaccines may well be “experimental” in the way the plaintiffs allege even in the absence of a formal experiment or clinical trial.

    Courthouse arguments aside:

    • It is common sense to acknowledge that the Covid vaccines are of a type never tried before and we have only limited experience with using them now.
    • It is good science to observe that the Covid vaccines carry both known and unknown risks that we don’t fully understand.

    The present court case doesn’t really address either of those conditions.

    Like

    1. “It is common sense to acknowledge that the Covid vaccines are of a type never tried before…”

      The technology has been around for at least a decade or more. It was not invented just recently. This is why it was able to come forth so quickly.

      No one was forced to take the vaccine anymore than those same folks were “forced” to wear clothing to work.

      As conservatives are so proud of saying, if you don’t like the deal you get from your employer, just move on elsewhere.

      Liked by 1 person

    2. RE: “The technology has been around for at least a decade or more.”

      That’s true, but beside the point. No other vaccines produced using the technology have ever been approved.

      RE: “No one was forced to take the vaccine anymore than those same folks were ‘forced’ to wear clothing to work.”

      That’s debatable. Clothes, as a rule, don’t pose a health risk to the wearer.

      RE: “As conservatives are so proud of saying, if you don’t like the deal you get from your employer, just move on elsewhere.”

      The employer here changed the deal after it was made. Why should the employees “move on” without a fight?

      Like

      1. “The employer here changed the deal”…

        Damn that pesky market thing.

        Employers CAN and DO change rules of employment all of the time. It just proves that the employment “contract” is very much a one-way street. So the idea that you can take your skills elsewhere goes out the window when YOU don’t like the conditions.

        H-Y-P-…

        Liked by 1 person

        1. RE: “Employers CAN and DO change rules of employment all of the time.”

          And sometimes in ways that employees dispute. Why shouldn’t they do that here?

          Like

          1. The next case will be an appeal, potentially as far as the Supreme Court. Federal courts have already ruled that no one can be required to take “experimental” drugs.

            Like

          2. By the time it gets to the Supremes, it will be moot. And just because they are being used under an EUA does not mean they are “experimental”.

            Like

          3. “Federal courts have already ruled that no one can be required to take “experimental” drugs.”

            That smacks of being a made-up fact. Cite?
            Is there ANY drug that people can be required to take?

            Don’t hold your breath waiting for this decision to be reversed. It was not even a remotely close call.

            Liked by 2 people

    3. …”were less rigorous than the trials needed for full approval”

      You can thank OWS for that. But also, instead of being linear in the process, the manufacturers used a stacked procedure where they did A nd B while D and E were also being done.

      Don complains about the FDA process all of the time (including this morning’s LTE in the Pilot). Yet here they speed things up and the same people complain about it.

      Liked by 1 person

      1. RE: “Yet here they speed things up and the same people complain about it.”

        Do we really know it’s the “same people”? It’s not fair to accuse them of hypocrisy if we’re unsure.

        Like

        1. Check your mirror. You praised OWS to the hilt because it was a 45 win. (And we thanked him for it repeatedly). Now, you being one of the hesitant ones is QUESTIONING the safety of that which your boy got accomplished.

          If that ain’t hypocrisy, then I just don’t know what to say any more.

          Like

          1. Nope. And my cognitive abilities are just fine, as is my recall.

            You don’t like being called out as a hypocrite, the solution is simple: Quit being one.

            Like

          2. Thank you for proving that hypocrites are so blind to their own hypocrisies even when they are pointed out, they refuse to see them.

            As far as childish goes; I’ve never heard a child call someone a hypocrite. That is something that requires critical thinking skills and the ability to discern the food from the fertilizer.

            Like

    4. The vaccines might have been “experimental” in January, but with hundreds of millions of doses administered, any risks are now known.

      The risk of the vaccines is negligible compared to the risk of infection. Remember that even those with mild infections have lingering damage to their blood vessels. You could think it as a mild infection that doesn’t kill you now, but ages your blood vessels, which do not recover, by 15 years or so shortening your lifespan accordingly.

      On the bright side, it might well help the Social Security trust fund.

      Liked by 2 people

          1. Good article that puts the issue into a nice, easy to read package that even conspiracy addled folks can understand.

            Liked by 2 people

      1. RE: “Remember that even those with mild infections have lingering damage to their blood vessels.”

        That’s an interesting point. There is some evidence that the mRNA vaccines cause blood vessel damage, just like the virus does.

        Like

        1. Don’t confuse qualitative similarities with quantitative.

          There is some evidence that there is transient inflammation in the blood vessels but there is never enough of the spike protein circulating to equal the virial load of the early part of the infection.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. I get that, but the difference between vaccine spike-protein load and virus spike-protein load may not be dispositive.

            Like

  3. I wonder what is gonna happen when EUA is replaced by FULL USE?

    All of the vaccine manufacturers have applied for regular use authorizations. They are expected to come to pass in the Fall.

    Will the hesitant THEN decide that it is safe to get a vaccine? I have a close acquaintance who has stated that is his intention. I disagree, but I respect his reasoning.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I wonder how many we could save next time around by eliminating the FDA entirely, leaving safety to the product liability insurers and efficacy to the professional journals.

      We should have had the vaccines in October instead of December and primary care doctors should have been using HCQ, and later Ivermectin at the first sign of exposure saving hundreds of thousands. of lives.

      Like

      1. The ivermectin was recently shown not to help. I think it was a Hill piece today, but the practice, like HCQ, was proven to be unreliable and not worth the time.

        As far as eliminating the FDA, it is a small government argument that really only appeals to the base. Without the FDA there would be a lot more food and drug issues that the liability courts could handle.

        Liked by 1 person

        1. EVMS uses the I-MASK protocol and has had significantly better results than Sentara or Chesapeake

          Click to access Marik_Critical_Care_COVID-19_Protocol.pdf

          I’d like to see your Ivermectin source, but I’m going to guess it was another too little too late study.

          The EVMS article above has a very good explanation of the process of COVID infections, and again stresses that antivirals are useful only in the early phase.

          But again. what is critical is to get treatment into the hands of your GP as soon as you are exposed. Waiting until hospitalized is too late for antivirals.

          Like

      2. “We should have had the vaccines in October”….

        Much of the hesitancy NOT tied to politics was the safety concerns that the vaccines were developed TOO quickly. (The acquaintance I mentioned earlier comes to mind, as does Mr. Roberts.) That hesitancy may have been exacerbated by bringing them to market sooner.

        Just a thought.

        Also, here is the story I referenced a few minutes ago. I’m not sure if the treatment in the story, AZD7442, is the same as the Ivermectin, but it does show that some of the therapeutics studied were not effective.

        https://thehill.com/policy/healthcare/558443-astrazeneca-antibody-treatment-did-not-prevent-symptomatic-covid-19-in

        Like

        1. RE: “The acquaintance I mentioned earlier comes to mind, as does Mr. Roberts.”

          You should stop reading minds, as the practice is prone to failure. I have NEVER suggested the Covid vaccines were developed “TOO quickly” or brought to market too soon.

          Like

  4. Odd, there must be a very large black Republican population. Nationally, only 22% of blacks have been vaccinated. The pilot just ran a story abt Norfolk and Portsmouth black vaccination rate severely lacking all other races. It’s not like vaccines are not widely available, they are thanks to OWS. Are they in on this Liberate narrative too? Inquiring minds want to know….

    Like

    1. The vaccine hesitancy issue in the Black and Brown communities is tied to the mistrust earned over time by the medical field. It has NOTHING to do with Black Republicans.

      But 30% of Republicans nationwide have said they won’t get the vaccine. If the rest of the people do get the vaccines we will be closer to the herd immunity goal. The Republicans are all about the HEARD immunity, as in Tucker told them they were immune.

      Liked by 2 people

      1. So you want to chastise Republicans who don’t trust the vaccine but give a pass to blacks who don’t trust the vaccine? What is the difference beyond a narrative? If you look at the story I linked above, it appears to be more regional than party. But if the story is blacks get a pass for cultural reasons the whites earn the same pass since those cawntry folk sure have reason to distrust them sety folk. This comes from someone who supports vaccination…me. Stop making this a political issue.

        Like

        1. “Stop making this a political issue.”

          Too late for that. Trump already did.

          Anybody black or white or brown who refuses to get the vaccination is a jackass. There is no excuse. Nobody gets a pass. But, the reasons for such jackassery are not the same. For many blacks it arises from a distrust based on decades of maltreatment and abuse. For many whites, it is the effect of Trump and Trumpism.

          We cannot change history but TODAY Trump could change his side of the equation by a robust call for his followers to get it done. Why not? Because it might make President Biden look good.

          Liked by 1 person

          1. Oh, I’m so sorry you have such a pathetic life that all you have time for is getting up an angry left wing extremist and babble angry extremist nonsense on this forum. Ask your doctor for a pill…

            Like

          2. You are just sad. Nothing to add to the discussion but grade school name-calling.
            I am pretty sure I got it right the other day when I used the word “loser.” A very substantial portion of Trump support comes from economically marginal old white men whose hatred and bitterness is eating them alive. You seem to be one of those. IMHO.

            Liked by 2 people

          3. Yes, he has said so once or twice kind of half-heartedly. That is why I suggested that he should make a “robust call” for his followers to do so. And by that I mean repeatedly and strongly. His followers seema to believe that getting it done is disloyal to him. He should make them believe that NOT getting it done is disloyal. And save some of their lives.

            Liked by 1 person

          4. Ok, now I understand. If he doesn’t state it the way you feel he should that negates the fact that he said it at all. Thanks for the clarification.

            Like

          5. You can be as sarcastic as you want but the fact is that millions of people over whom he COULD exercise some influence are risking their lives – and ours – by resisting vaccination. And yet, he has not even tried to get them to follow the science or help President Biden beat this thing.

            Liked by 1 person

          6. I’m not being sarcastic at all. At least I didn’t mean to be. What I am being is real and calling them as I see them.

            Like

          7. Well, don’t you agree that if Trump set himself the task of getting his people vaccinated he could save a great many of them from sickness and death? And if you agree, don’t you see that his failure to even try is another black mark against his character? The effort would be de minimus. A few hours to film some PSAs. And a tiny part of his enormous wealth to run them frequently on Fox.

            Liked by 2 people

  5. Paul constantly slings schoolyard insults at others and then claims others are guilty of it but not him??? What a childish toddler he presents himself as. And he calls others “losers”?? How pathetically quaint.

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s