A prison is highly analogous to a hospital or other healthcare setting. Both are "conjugal" living arrangements. Both have a locked-in component (the patients in one, the prisoners in the other) and working and mingling in society component (the doctors, nurses, orderlies, janitors, etc. in one, the guards, cooks, janitors, and similar in the other.) In both cases the locked-in persons are not really free to leave; in both, they typically leave only when allowed by the working component (yes, you can sign yourself out against medical advice in a hospital, but few actually do.)
Both confine people, typically two to a room but sometimes one, among the conjugal and locked-in persons. Both, therefore, are highly effective places to spread disease -- especially airborne pathogens.
But -- in the prison, it is now documented that after four months the vaccine's effective rate of protection was statistically zero.
The argument for forcing vaccinations in these highly-confined environments says much less those which have fewer constraints, such as colleges, secondary and primary schools, and other workplaces is that people are put at "unreasonable" risk by unvaccinated individuals.
Yet the data is that four months post-vaccination there is no statistical difference between vaccinated and not when it comes to attacking rates. By the CDC's own data the vaccines are worthless to protect others after four months.
Let me point out a few other inconvenient facts. First, the companies and CDC likely knew this prior to the jabs going into widespread use, since their effectiveness is basically zero compared against unvaccinated controls within four to six months. The original EUA trials were about four months in duration, which means they, or the firms, had this data -- and with a high degree of certainty either ignored indications of it or deliberately concealed it. That's fraud and upon proof retroactively voids liability protection back to the first EUA-administered jab, including that provided by the PREP Act as willful misconduct is outside of PREP Act and other applicable legal liability protection.
Second, the FDA standard for a vaccine, which they formally adopted for Covid-19 vaccines, requiring that they must be at least 50% effective in preventing the disease in question over the period of concern. Since a seasonal respiratory virus is, as the name implies, an annual risk that would place the period of time at "one year." None of these jabs, on the CDC's own evidence, are licensable under the FDA's standards and thus none can be mandated in any way.
We now know why the JAMA study, which found 83% population immunity as of May which is sufficient to suppress Covid-19 given its experimentally-determined R0, failed to do so. 63% of the population was not immune to former infection; they were immune by vaccination and by June and July enough of those vaccinated people had their protection age off sufficiently to be worthless against infection and transmission. This is why, on the facts, the summer surge happened.
Now, you might argue that this means the government can force jabs every four months. Indeed Israel is attempting to do exactly that.
Nope. That is neither lawful or Constitutional in the United States.
Remember the law on accommodations when it comes to those with a "disability" (who cannot choose and thus cannot consent): An accommodation is lawful if and only if it is not an unreasonable burden on the person forced to make the accommodation. If the accommodation would be "unreasonably burdensome" it cannot be required.
Thus you can be forced, when remodeling your commercial building (or building a new one), to put in a ramp, an electric door opener, and a button for someone in a wheelchair because it's not an unreasonable accommodation to do so.
You can't be forced, as an employer, to put in a completely separate air feed, a separate means of entrance and egress, and hermetic seals around a workspace so a person with a void immune system (aka "bubble boy") can be hired as an employee without immediately being exposed to a bacterial or viral agent that will kill him or she yet would be harmless or of minimal significance to someone with a functional immune system.
You also can't be forced, as a homeowner, to put in that same ramp because it is unreasonable to force you, who do not need such an accommodation, to suffer the expense because someone might come to your private residence (or may purchase the same from you in the future) who does.
So can an employee ever be forced to be vaccinated on the premise of protecting others? Maybe. If all of the others can choose to protect themselves for no more risk than the employee is required to take then the answer is no. In other words, you can't make me wear a mask so you don't have to. But you might be able to make me wear one if you can't wear one and you can prove there is the less or equivalent risk to me from doing so than not.
And here we get into the next problem for the CDC, which is their own data once again:
Divide all those numbers by 10 to get "per-100,000" rates.
So for someone under 17 the risk of death from Covid-19, assuming you get infected, is 2/100,000 (or 0.002%)
For someone 18-49 it is 50/100,000 (or 0.05%)
For someone 50-64 it is 600/100,000 (or 0.6%)
And for someone 65+ it is 9,000/100,000 (or nine percent)
These are obviously too-broad ranges but they're the CDC's numbers. We could take a stab at disentangling them using the NYC Coroner data, for example, and I have -- but we don't have to in this case because the CDC has provided enough data on their own, within the Federal government, to complete the analysis.
VAERS says the risk of death shortly following vaccination for Covid-19 is at least 15,386 / 200,000,000 (remember, this is "died with" not "died of" in both cases of vaccination and infection) or 7.69/100,000. This, by the way, is wildly higher than that for the flu shot (about 20-30 deaths per year across 170 million shots delivered) and thus is very unlikely to be a coincidence.
Here's the problem -- this rate of risk is per vaccine delivered. For someone under 17 the risk of the vaccine exceeds the risk of their dying from Covid-19. For someone in 18-49 the math looks better -- if you only take one shot ever. But that's not the paradigm, is it? Nope. So the risk of the vaccine over three shots a year is 21/100,000 and over six shots in total, or approximately 18 months, it is virtually the same as the disease. Yet over the first 16 months or so -- most of which was during a time when there were no vaccines -- only 20% of the population was infected. The risk is taken when you get jabbed (is certain), but the risk of infection is only taken if you get infected (is not certain.)
In other words, since we now know from the CDC itself that the vaccines are not durable and must be repeated every four months for someone under 50 the cross-over of risk occurs in less than two years after which they are better off being infected. For someone under 18, they are always better off being infected.
Remember that infection confers sterilizing immunity and, on the science, is durable. How durable we do not know precisely but we do know that other coronaviruses, including OC43, were believed to cause a similar pandemic (specifically in the 1890s) and now cause colds and mild flu in most people. In addition, persons infected with the original SARS were shown to still have protection against reinfection seventeen years later. In other words, if you choose natural immunity and get infected the odds are you permanently protected against a severe (hospitalized) or fatal outcome, although at some point you will get it again, likely more than once in your lifetime.
Now here's the punchline: To argue that you must take the jab "for others" the argument is in fact that you must risk your own life to save other's lives because the common good, albeit diffuse and indistinguishable from person to person, mandates you place yourself at risk of permanent disability or fatal outcome and the risk of that disabling or fatal outcome is, over time, higher than that which would occur if you did nothing and risked a natural infection.
This is simply not supportable under our Constitution or law and in fact, is a violation of your pre-political rights.
Contemplate this scenario which is exactly the same as those arguing for and imposing "mandates": We clearly need more children in the United States. As of 2018, the birth rate is 1.73 live births per woman and it has fallen further in recent years, down 20% since 2007. At a birth rate under approximately 2.1 per woman your nation and society eventually go extinct since that is the number required to maintain your population.
It is a clear societal yet diffuse "good" to have children born to at least replace those persons who die. Without the same over sufficient time, there is quite literally nobody left!
This outcome absent change is guaranteed to occur. Long before you actually all go extinct, however, the government will fail due to a lack of the ability to collect the taxes and fund itself necessary to operate. In other words, the destruction of your society doesn't happen when the last person dies -- as I'm sure you can realize it happens long before then when there are insufficient people to maintain the infrastructure necessary to keep a modern way of life operating.
This is identical to the "risk" posed by Covid-19. It is diffuse and uncertain, yet statistically, it will do harm. That it will harm some specific person cannot be determined in advance; indeed, among my close associates, I had an older married couple, both with serious morbidities. One was killed by this virus in early 2020, the other untouched despite sleeping in the same bed. Similarly, who will get harmed as the population dwindles cannot be determined in advance either, but that it will happen is a mathematical certainty.
Therefore the government and private businesses have the right to forcibly impregnate women who do not otherwise get pregnant and force them in each case to carry the fetus to term so as to prevent that from happening -- right?
Uh, of course not.
Why not?
Because the personal risk of harm -- physical, medical, psychological and financial -- to any given woman may, at some time and indeed most of the time over time, exceeds the diffuse societal benefit from her giving birth to said child. Therefore even though it is clearly not only in the interest of the public as a whole for the rate of child-bearing to be at least replacement it is not lawful to intrude into a person's body to cause it to be so.
The exact same analysis applies here. Yes, protection of public health is a proper function of government since public health is diffuse yet personal health is, by definition, personal and thus not diffuse. When the two align mandates are supportable. A cost of personal health (or risk thereto) that is de minimis or is literally zero of course argues for the public interest.
For example, quarantining someone known infectious with reasonable scientific certainty with an infectious disease is reasonable because the public benefit is clear and the personal cost is limited in time and impact, with a zero risk of mortality due to a temporary constraint on personal movement. In the context of mandated vaccinations the USSC has been clear as well; for a disease (e.g. smallpox) where the fatality rate was 30% and the vaccine killed you one or two times in a million the argument held for this reason. You had a tiny risk of dying from the vaccination (personal harm) but the public benefit with a disease that killed 30% of the time was immense. Further, for all persons not previously infected the personal risk .vs. reward odds were always positive by utterly ridiculous ratios. When your personal risk of the smallpox vaccine killing you was 1/500,000 (0.0002%) yet the disease killed 30% of the time in non-vaccinated persons there's little argument to be had.
This is clearly not the case here; in those under 50 repeated vaccination is, on balance, more dangerous than the virus and in those under 18 it is always more dangerous even from the first use. Never mind that the jabs contribute nothing to population immunity (a public good) since you can still be infected and become contagious while infection and recovery do.
Biden's position, and that of the Federal Government, is unsupportable on both the facts and the law.
There is no debate on the facts when those arguing for mandates prove with their own claims and data that their argument is unsupportable both as a matter of fact and as a matter of law. A viable disagreement to be submitted to a court requires that a trier of fact have some set of facts in dispute. The CDC, an organ of the government itself, has admitted there are no facts in dispute; the vaccines are ineffective and are, on their own data, more harmful than the infection in a large percentage of the population. The public health argument thus fails on its first premise.
We are either a nation bound by law or we are not. If we are not, and the government and judiciary so-declare they must understand that this declaration means exactly what you think it might.
