Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Has Nothing To Do With Fighting COVID

[mystery-ak]

Biden’s Vaccine Mandate Has Nothing To Do With Fighting COVID
I & I Editorial Board
September 10, 2021

As soon as President Joe Biden announced his plan for a widespread vaccine mandate to fight COVID-19, protests erupted. And rightly so. But the real reason Biden chose now to announce it is so he could claim credit for what is already happening with COVID.

In what is almost certainly a vast overreach of his executive authority, Biden declared that he’d develop “an emergency rule to require all employers with 100 or more employees, that together employ over 80 million workers, to ensure their work forces are fully vaccinated or show a negative test at least once a week.”

Of course, this mandate will raise constitutional challenges. Which is no doubt what Biden wants.

After all, if such a move is constitutional – and there are no shortage of “experts” who say that it is – then God help us all. Because that would open the door to federal intervention into our daily lives on an unprecedented scale. All that would be needed is to declare something, anything an “emergency.”

It’s no accident, for example, that the left now calls it a “climate emergency” instead of “global warming.” Why not use that to mandate that Americans working at large companies ditch their gas-powered cars? Biden could declare racism an “emergency” and force any business with 100 or more employees to conduct critical race theory courses.

But there’s another reason Biden is pushing this mandate now.

more
https://issuesinsights.com/2021/09/10/bidens-vaccine-mandate-has-nothing-to-do-with-fighting-covid/

[Hoodat]

In what is almost certainly a vast overreach of his executive authority,

Almost certainty?  It is 100% guaranteed.  It's what fascists do.

[240B]

From the article:
While the number of new COVID cases has been high, the number of deaths per case is lower than it’s ever been. The case fatality rate since June is 0.1%, which is half of what it was during the previous year’s outbreak.

So for a ten percent of one percent fatality rate, Biden's controllers want to mandate the vaccine and to go back into lockdowns?
This is way beyond just stupid. It has to be a deliberate plan to foment discord in America. There is no other reasonable answer.

[Hoodat]

So for a one percent of one percent fatality rate, Biden's controllers want to mandate the vaccine and to go back into lockdowns?
This is way beyond just stupid. It has to be a deliberate plan to foment discord in America. There is no other reasonable answer.

Well, there's the California recall election and the Virginia gubernatorial election to consider.  And next year, we have the House races again.

[Kamaji]

I posted this on another thread, but I think maybe it belongs here as well (please delete if the mods think I'm spamming the forum):

The mandate should fall for the simple reason that, as drafted, it is arbitrary and capricious because it will not apply to 1/3 of the American workforce, and therefore cannot plausibly be considered a legitimate or reasonable workplace safety regulation.

This is because, as it was announce, it will only apply to individuals employed by companies with at least 100 employees or more.  According to the Small Business & Entrepreneur Council, companies with fewer than 100 employees employ 33.4% of the American workforce.  Therefore, by necessary implication, the mandate would only apply to 66.6% of the American workforce.

That would leave substantial numbers of individuals not covered by the mandate, and for no legitimate reason (e.g., level of risk, degree of exposure, likelihood of passing it to others, risks to customers, etc) other than that they happen to work for a small employer.

Furthermore, this means that the mandate cannot even be justified as a means, however surreptitious, of achieving herd immunity, because it is mathematically impossible for the mandate to reach the necessary minimum level for herd immunity, which is at least 70% for this virus.

In short, the mandate, if issued by OSHA, should be rejected by the courts as an arbitrary and capricious exercise of regulatory power (i.e., the test for invalidating regulations under the APA), as well as being outside the statutory powers granted to the OSHA.