This submission broke the site guidelines badly by editorializing the title. <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a><p>Submitters: If you want to say what you think is important about an article, that's fine, but do it by adding a comment to the thread. Then your view will be on a level playing field with everyone else's: <a href="https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&sort=byDate&type=comment&query=%22level%20playing%20field%22%20by:dang" rel="nofollow">https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&so...</a><p>Commenters: if you're going to post to a thread on a divisive topic, make sure you're up on the site guidelines: .<a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html" rel="nofollow">https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html</a>. Note this one: "<i>Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive.</i>" We got a lot of hellish flamewar in this thread. That's not cool.
PAGE 20<p>Of course,
the principles at stake when it comes to the Mandate are not reducible to
dollars and cents. The public interest is also served by maintaining our<p>constitutional structure and maintaining the liberty of individuals to make<p>intensely personal decisions according to their own convictions—even, or
perhaps particularly, when those decisions frustrate government officials.
"We next consider the necessity of the Mandate. The Mandate is
staggeringly overbroad. Applying to 2 out of 3 private-sector employees in
America, in workplaces as diverse as the country itself, the Mandate fails to
consider what is perhaps the most salient fact of all: the ongoing threat of
COVID-19 is more dangerous to some employees than to other employees. All
else equal, a 28 year-old trucker spending the bulk of his workday in the
solitude of his cab is simply less vulnerable to COVID-19 than a 62 year-old
prison janitor. Likewise, a naturally immune unvaccinated worker is
presumably at less risk than an unvaccinated worker who has never had the<p>virus. The list goes on, but one constant remains—the Mandate fails almost
completely to address, or even respond to, much of this reality and common
sense. "
> It is thus critical to note that the Mandate makes no serious attempt to explain why OSHA and the President himself were against vaccine mandates before they were for one here. (elided further citations)<p>Many measures have been contemplated (and some taken) that would've been over-reaching and extreme had the disease been smallpox. And COIVD was never smallpox.
I really don't quite understand this fuss about the mandate.<p>Americans have tens of thousands of laws that are locally inconvenient but globally useful for public well being, such as stopping at red lights, not carrying guns on flights, or god forbid, breast-feeding one's kid (who has received a zillion other vaccines).All laws are one-size-fits-all mandates, so why the fuss about this one, other than the obvious political theater?<p>The petition claims that it is being treated as an "emergency" even after two years. But isn't it the case that it is because of the people like the petitioners that has led to vaccine misinformation and hesitancy, which has stretched the timeline?<p>I am less surprised about the petition than seeing this as the top voted post on HN.
What is the point of weekly testing anyway? If it doesn't equally apply to both vaccinated and unvaccinated. If the test is positive it's too late with unvaccinated anyway. And if vaccinated aren't tested they are still wilfully spreading to those who aren't vaccinated...
I didn’t think we would end up in a timeline where courts are trying to protect the replication of a deadly virus that has killed millions. Look at the results. Mandate->lives saved; no mandate->more death. I thought you all claimed to be pro life?
If they mandate we all take the latest and greatest anti-viral cocktail daily or even weekly, fresh out the Merck/Pfizer lab, would we all be onboard with that also? You see the legal precedent that have been set here because "just save one more life".<p>Because if the goal is elimination and not crushing the curve, then mandating experimental anti-virals is the only logical next step, and it will only work if its truly global.<p>This virus is endemic now, deal with it. It will never go away, and anyone who thought that 60-70-80-90% vaccination in the USA only would magically stop it was nuts. The vaccine wont prevent transmission or replication, not even in the slightest. Its only at best a therapeutic that 'might' keep you out of the hospital, not even guaranteed.<p>The government didn't want to create "vaccine hesitancy" so they ignored any and all counter data, doubled down on a bad idea and mandated it, pitted neighbor against neighbor, and suckers fell for the groupthink. Now that its endemic, we have to step back and ask, is +0.07% more deadly then the flu worth all this heartache (lockdowns, mandates, masks, etc)? If its never going away, then at what point do we all plan to take the masks off?