Coronavirus

Subterms

    More stories

    • 200 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Trump stoked Covid in red states – but there are blue anti-vaxxers too | Robert Reich

      by

      Trump stoked Covid in red states – but there are blue anti-vaxxers tooRobert ReichAmong my neighbors in the bluest region of the bluest county of the bluest state in America, many don’t trust big pharma or the government – or simply choose to put themselves first Is there a relationship between Covid and politics? Sure seems so.Michigan leads US in Covid case count, accounting for one in 10 new casesRead moreBy the end of October, 25 out of every 100,000 residents of counties Donald Trump won by wide margins had died from Covid. That was more than three times higher than the Covid death rate in heavily Biden counties, of 7.8 per 100,000.Counties where Trump received at least 70% of the vote had an even higher average Covid death toll than counties where Trump won at least 60%.Presumably, this is because Trump counties also have the highest unvaccinated rates in the US. Almost every reliably blue state now has a higher vaccination rate than almost every reliably red state.There are some obvious reasons why Trump voters have been hesitant to get vaccinated. Trump politicized the issue – making the jab a hallmark of his peculiar form of rightwing populism. He and Fox News spread false rumors and conspiracy theories about the vaccine. By the time Trump finally called on people to get vaccinated, the damage was already done.In other words, it’s the same trifecta of rightwing media, inadequate education and rejection of science that gave us Trump in the first place.But this isn’t the whole story, because the US as a whole trails every other advanced country in the rate of vaccinations. Why?In recent weeks I’ve discovered that several anti-vaxxers live around me – in the bluest region of the bluest county of the bluest state in America. I’ve known several for years. They are well-informed and well-educated. But they’re as opposed to getting a shot as any Trump anti-vaxxer.Some are ex-hippies, now in their late 60s and early 70s, who regard their bodies as “sacred” and don’t want anything or anyone to “invade” it.One, who grows her own food and lives by herself in a cabin not far from here, told me she didn’t want anything going into her body that she didn’t control. When I asked whether she had been vaccinated against smallpox, measles, diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough, she told me she assumed so but had been too small to have had knowledge or control.Others – also in their late 60s and early 70s – don’t trust big pharma. They see Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson as greedy global corporations in search of people to exploit and tax havens to park their exorbitant profits.“Why in hell would I trust a fucking thing Pfizer says or does?” one of them asked me.None of these people trusts the government. Their generation (which is also mine) came to political consciousness during the Vietnam war – a time when the American flag became an emblem of fascism, particularly in lefty coastal enclaves. They now believe the government has been so corrupted by big money that they don’t trust agencies charged with protecting the public.I’m sympathetic to their distrust of both big pharma and big government. But this doesn’t mean the science is wrong.One of them referred me to a 2017 study published in the Journal of the American Medical Association which found that about a third of the drugs approved by the US Food and Drug Administration between 2001 and 2010 had safety problems after reaching the market.I checked and he’s correct. But he left out a critical fact: as soon as the FDA discovered the problems it forced manufacturers to pull the drugs or issue warnings.Deep down, I think these blue anti-vaxxers are motivated by something different from mere distrust. When I pointed out that they could well be endangering others (including me), they remained unmoved.When I suggested that their concerns, however valid, had to be weighed against the public’s overall interest in conquering this epidemic, they said they didn’t care.My conclusion: They’re infected not by Covid but by a narcissism that refuses even to consider the risks and costs they’re imposing on others.Has living through Covid made me a hypochondriac? I asked some experts | Maeve HigginsRead moreI can’t say for sure that Trump anti-vaxxers share this narcissism, although the leader of their cult surely does. And, of course, my sample size was so small I can’t even generalize to all blue anti-vaxxers.If we blame Trump and the culture that produced him for the relatively low rate of vaccinations in the US, we’re missing a character trait that may offer a fuller explanation.This trait is found among Democrats and independents in blue America as well as Republicans in Trumpland. In fact, I think it’s been near the core of the American personality since before the founding of the nation – a stubborn, selfish, me-first individualism.
      Robert Reich, a former US secretary of labor, is professor of public policy at the University of California at Berkeley and the author of Saving Capitalism: For the Many, Not the Few and The Common Good. His new book, The System: Who Rigged It, How We Fix It, is out now. He is a Guardian US columnist. His newsletter is at robertreich.substack.com
      TopicsCoronavirusOpinionUS politicsUS domestic policyDemocratsRepublicansUS healthcareInfectious diseasescommentReuse this content More

    • 163 Shares159 Views

      in US Politics

      Former Trump adviser claims to ‘expose unvarnished truth’ of Covid in new book

      by

      Former Trump adviser claims to ‘expose unvarnished truth’ of Covid in new bookScott Atlas resigned after four months but blames Anthony Fauci and Deborah Birx for ‘headline-dominating debacles’ In a new book, former Trump adviser Scott Atlas blames Deborah Birx and Anthony Fauci for “headline-dominating debacles” about quack cures for Covid-19 – but omits to mention the chief proponent of snake-oil treatments, including hydroxychloroquine and disinfectant, was the US president he loyally served.US hospitals prepare for influx of Covid patients as millions travel for ThanksgivingRead moreAtlas, a radiologist, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, California, specializing in healthcare policy. He became a special adviser to Donald Trump in August 2020, five months into the pandemic, but resigned less than four months later after a controversial spell in the role.His book, A Plague Upon Our House: My Fight at the Trump White House to Stop Covid from Destroying America, will be published on 7 December. Its publisher is Bombardier Books, an imprint of PostHill Press, a conservative outlet that will also publish a memoir by Kayleigh McEnany, Trump’s fourth press secretary.Speaking to Fox News, Atlas promised to “expose the unvarnished truth” about Trump’s Covid taskforce, including “a shocking lack of critical thinking about the science … a reckless abuse of public health and a moral failure in what should be expected from public health leaders”.Birx, an army physician, is a longtime leader in the fight against Aids. Fauci has served seven presidents as director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases. Both were senior members of Trump’s Covid taskforce. Atlas’s book is replete with attacks on both.Describing the fight against Covid before he came to the White House, Atlas accidentally sideswipes Trump when he writes: “Birx and Fauci stood alongside the president during headline-dominating debacles in the Brady Press Room about using hydroxychloroquine, drinking disinfectant, ingesting bleach and using UV light to cure the virus. They were there as the sole medical input into the taskforce, generating the entire advisory output to the states.”Hydroxychloroquine, an anti-malarial, was touted as a Covid treatment by non-governmental voices including two billionaires, Elon Musk and Larry Ellison.Fauci said repeatedly such claims should be treated with caution. But Trump himself proved an enthusiastic advocate, disagreeing with his senior scientist and asking the public: “What do you have to lose?”Trump even took the drug himself, before the Food and Drug Administration revoked emergency use authorization, citing concerns about side effects including “serious heart rhythm problems” and death.Atlas’s reference to “drinking disinfectant, ingesting bleach and using UV light” is to the events of a memorable White House briefing when again it was Trump’s pronouncements that went wildly awry – not those of his officials.On Thursday 23 April 2020, William Bryan, undersecretary for science and technology at the Department of Homeland Security, discussed a study of effects on the coronavirus from sun exposure and cleaning agents – as applied to surfaces, not the human body.Trump said: “And then I see the disinfectant, where it knocks it out in one minute. And is there a way we can do something like that by injection inside or almost a cleaning because you see it gets in the lungs and it does a tremendous number on the lungs, so it’d be interesting to check that, so that you’re going to have to use medical doctors with, but it sounds interesting to me.“So, we’ll see, but the whole concept of the light, the way it kills it in one minute. That’s pretty powerful.”As the Guardian reported, Birx “remained silent. But social media erupted in outrage.”Trump asked if sunlight might work, saying: “Deborah, have you ever heard of that? The heat and the light relative to certain viruses, yes, but relative to this virus?”Birx said: “Not as a treatment. I mean, certainly fever is a good thing. When you have a fever, it helps your body respond. But, I’ve not seen heat or light as a –”Trump interrupted: “I think that’s a great thing to look at. OK?”The president subsequently claimed to have been “sarcastic”.01:58In his book, Atlas treats Birx and Fauci’s work for a taskforce he says Trump “never once” met or spoke to with sarcasm, criticism and disdain.Seven doctors contract Covid after attending Florida anti-vaccine summitRead moreHe accuses Birx of “volatile behavior” and “interrupting all who challenged her” but says vice-president Mike Pence decided removing her was “simply not worth the risk to the upcoming election”.Among criticisms of Fauci, Atlas echoes Trump in complaining about his profile.“Dr Fauci kept on interviewing, of course,” Atlas writes, “positing the ever-present, potentially negative turn of events that never happened.”A year after Atlas’s resignation, more than 772,000 Americans have died of Covid-19.TopicsCoronavirusDonald TrumpAnthony FauciUS politicsPolitics booksRepublicansTrump administrationnewsReuse this content More

    • 125 Shares199 Views

      in US Politics

      Florida lawmakers’ special session aims to thwart Covid vaccine mandates

      by

      Florida lawmakers’ special session aims to thwart Covid vaccine mandates
      Governor Ron DeSantis promises to ‘strike a blow for freedom’
      Republican seen as contender for 2024 presidential nomination
      LA has one of the strictest vaccine mandates: will it work?
      Florida lawmakers will meet on Monday for a week-long special legislative session called by the Republican governor, Ron DeSantis, with the goal of thwarting coronavirus vaccine mandates imposed by businesses or government agencies.Conservative judges block Biden’s vaccine requirement for businessesRead moreDeSantis recently announced he is running for re-election in 2022 but is seen by many as a potential presidential candidate in 2024 – particularly if Donald Trump decides not to run again.The special legislative session will be about “a combination of policy and politics”, said Aubrey Jewett, a political science professor at the University of Central Florida, adding that DeSantis is following Trump’s lead in being staunchly against mask and vaccine mandates.According to an agenda released by the governor’s office, a body of legislators dominated by Republicans will consider four bills to impose penalties on businesses and local governments that require workers to be vaccinated against Covid-19.“No cop, no firefighter, no nurse, nobody should be losing their job because of these jabs,” DeSantis said in a media release, echoing a previous plea for first responders from other states to relocate to Florida if they do not wish to be vaccinated by mandate.“We’re going to be striking a blow for freedom,” DeSantis said.Resistance to vaccine mandates and other public health measures to combat Covid-19 has spread in Republican states and among Republican politicians using it to buttress their pro-Trump bona fides and attack the Biden administration.By Sunday, the US had recorded nearly 763,000 deaths from Covid-19, out of more than 47m cases. Florida has recorded the third-highest state death toll, with more than 62,600, behind only California and Texas. Around 58% of the population is fully vaccinated. On Friday, a conservative federal court in New Orleans refused to lift a stay it imposed on a Biden administration rule which says businesses with 100 or more employees must insist on vaccinations or masks and regular testing from 4 January.The administration has said it is confident the rule is legal and will ultimately prevail.DeSantis has railed against vaccine mandates but is vaccinated himself, according to media reports. The governor “knows that Trump supporters don’t like masks or this vaccine”, Jewett told Reuters. “There’s no denying it’s politics with an eye not only on the governor’s race, but an eye toward the White House.“If passed into law, the new Florida bills considered in the special legislative session will impose fines on private businesses that do not allow employee exemptions to Covid-19 vaccine requirements.“This is something that his base will love,” Jewett said. “[DeSantis] is establishing himself as a freedom fighter.”TopicsCoronavirusFloridaUS politicsRepublicansUS elections 2024Donald TrumpUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More

    • 100 Shares99 Views

      in US Politics

      Conservative judges block Biden’s vaccine requirement for businesses

      by

      Conservative judges block Biden’s vaccine requirement for businessesPanel of judges rules stay of requirement for businesses with 100 or more workers is ‘firmly in the public interest’ Judges appointed by Donald Trump and Ronald Reagan declined on Friday to lift a stay on the Biden administration’s Covid-19 vaccine requirement for businesses with 100 or more workers.LA has imposed the strictest vaccine mandate in the US. Will it prevent a Covid surge?Read moreOne law professor said the move showed the court was “radical and anti-science”.Under the federal Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) requirement, such workers must be vaccinated by 4 January or use masks and weekly tests.The measure is softer than those implemented by many private businesses and state or local governments, and the Biden administration has expressed confidence in its legality.Nonetheless, the fifth US circuit court of appeals, based in New Orleans and one of the most conservative federal panels, granted an emergency stay last Saturday.Justice and labor department lawyers filed a response on Monday in which they said stopping the requirement would prolong the Covid-19 pandemic and “cost dozens or even hundreds of lives per day”.On Friday, a three-judge panel rejected that argument. In his ruling, Judge Kurt D Engelhardt wrote that the stay was “firmly in the public interest” and referred to the Osha requirement as a “Mandate”, with a capital “m”.More than 762,000 people have died from Covid-19 in the US, from a caseload of nearly 47m. Nonetheless, vaccine mandates, rules and requirements and other public health measures are the focus of concentrated opposition among Republican voters and politicians, including many jockeying for the presidential nomination in 2024.More than 434m doses of vaccines have been administered and more than 194 million Americans, or 58.5% of the population, are fully vaccinated.Resistance to vaccine mandates has produced protests and fears of staff shortages. At the same time, the Biden administration has heralded strong jobs numbers and what it says is an economy rebounding from its Covid battering.Engelhardt said “the mere specter of the Mandate” had stoked “workplace strife” and “contributed to untold economic upheaval in recent months”.“Rather than a delicately handled scalpel, the Mandate is a one-size fits-all sledgehammer that makes hardly any attempt to account for differences in workplaces (and workers) that have more than a little bearing on workers’ varying degrees of susceptibility to the supposedly ‘grave danger’ the Mandate purports to address.”Experts say Covid remains a grave danger. Writing for the Guardian, Eric Topol, a professor of molecular medicine and executive vice-president of Scripps Research, said the US was “sitting in the zone of denial”.“We are already seeing signs that the US is destined to succumb to more Covid spread,” Topol said, “with more than three weeks sitting at a plateau of ~75,000 new cases per day, now there’s been a 10% rise in the past week.“We are miles from any semblance of Covid containment, facing winter and the increased reliance of being indoors with inadequate ventilation and air filtration, along with the imminent holiday gatherings.“Now is the time for the US to … pull out all the stops. Promote primary vaccination and boosters like there’s no tomorrow. Aggressively counter the pervasive misinformation and disinformation. Accelerate and expand the vaccine mandates that unfortunately became necessary and have been proven effective, and mass distribute medical quality masks and rapid home testing kits at no cost.”Judge Engelhardt said the Biden business requirement potentially violated the commerce clause of the US constitution.“The Mandate imposes a financial burden upon [businesses] by deputising their participation in Osha’s regulatory scheme,” he wrote, “exposes them to severe financial risk if they refuse or fail to comply, and threatens to decimate their workforces (and business prospects) by forcing unwilling employees to take their shots, take their tests, or hit the road.”Federal judges routinely claim to be above politics. But the system for nominating and appointing them runs through the Senate, where Republicans are aggressive in seeking to tilt the bench their way.Engelhardt was nominated by Trump and confirmed in 2018, as was Stephen Kyle Duncan, who joined Engelhardt’s opinion on Friday. So did Edith H Jones, a Reagan appointee in 1985.Amy Coney Barrett claims supreme court ‘not comprised of partisan hacks’Read moreAll three have links to the Federalist Society, a conservative group which has worked with Republicans in Congress to install judges including Neil Gorsuch, Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett, supreme court justices nominated by Trump.At least 27 states have filed challenges to the Osha vaccine rule in federal appeals courts. The federal government said in court filings the cases should be consolidated and one circuit court should be chosen at random on 16 November to hear it. Administration lawyers also say there is no reason to keep the requirement on hold while the court where the cases ultimately land remains undetermined.In an email, Carl Tobias, a law professor at the University of Richmond in Virginia, said the fifth circuit was “acting politically”.“But it also seems to be attempting to dictate the terms of the debate and to be violating the intent of Congress … to have an orderly system to resolve appeals when there are multiple challenges to an agency’s action and to prevent litigants from ‘forum shopping’ by racing to the courthouse to secure a decision from the court that it believes most favors the litigant’s position.“The appeals court which ‘wins’ the lottery and receives all of the challenges is free to ignore what the fifth circuit did or other courts may do.”On Twitter, Rick Hasen, a law professor at the University of California, Irvine, said: “One factor federal courts must consider in granting or denying emergency motions is the ‘public interest’. [It is] ASTONISHING that the fifth circuit does not even MENTION prevention of death/disease from Covid as a public interest to justify the vaccine mandate”.He also said he did not “even think conservative is the right word” to describe the fifth circuit court.“It’s pretty radical and anti-science,” he said.TopicsUS newsCoronavirusVaccines and immunisationUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans resist mandates to curb Covid but lawsuits likely to prove futile

      by

      Republicans resist mandates to curb Covid but lawsuits likely to prove futileThe Biden administration is on solid legal ground in imposing Covid-related public health measures, scholars argue Republican elected officials continue to challenge government mandates aimed at stopping the spread of Covid-19, but legal experts predict the lawsuits and bans on mandates will largely prove fruitless because the law allows for such public safety measures.But as those legal fights play out the US will probably still be riven by a dispute between mostly Democrats on one hand who argue they are trying to curb a deadly virus, and usually Republicans on the other who say the Biden administration is involved in government overreach, often using rhetoric that can veer into the conspiratorial.Republicans slam Biden vaccine rule for businesses as health groups defend itRead moreTen states filed a lawsuit on Wednesday seeking to block the Biden administration’s vaccine mandate for healthcare workers because it could “exacerbate an alarming shortage of health care workers, particularly in rural communities, that has already reached a boiling point”, the filing states. All the states but one have Republican attorneys general.That petition comes days after a federal appeals court temporarily blocked a federal vaccine requirement for large businesses in response to a lawsuit from Republican officials, businesses and religious groups challenging the rules.And judges in two states issued rulings on Wednesday offering potentially different outcomes for masking mandates in schools. In Texas, a federal judge ruled that Governor Greg Abbot’s ban on school mask mandates violated the rights of students with disabilities, which clears the way for districts to issue requirements for face coverings. The Texas attorney general tweeted that he was “considering all legal avenues to challenge this decision”.In Pennsylvania, a state court ruled that the state health secretary did not have the authority to issue a school mask mandate, but the Democratic governor, Tom Wolf, appealed, which means the requirement can for now remain in place.While the judicial rulings create hurdles for Democratic elected officials’ use of government authority to try to bring the pandemic to an end, legal experts say there is precedent for such health policy measures and that they will largely remain in place.“There is no fundamental right to wear or not wear a mask in the public square,” said Derek Black, a law professor at the University of South Carolina School of Law whose focus is education law and policy, and constitutional law. “Even where some fundamental right might be impinged,” such as the right not to be vaccinated, “it doesn’t mean that it can’t be overridden if there is some compelling state interest for doing so.”The latest wave of lawsuits comes after the Biden administration last week announced rules concerning vaccinations for companies with 100 or more employees, and healthcare workers.The rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha), which the federal court blocked, would take effect on 4 January and require large companies to ensure their employees have been vaccinated or regularly administer Covid-19 tests for those who decline the vaccine and require them to wear masks at work. It would affect an estimated 84 million workers.The rule concerning healthcare workers from the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services (CMS) has the same deadline – with no option for weekly testing rather than vaccination. That would affect 76,000 providers and more than 17 million healthcare workers.The lawsuit concerning healthcare workers argues that the mandate is unreasonably broad in part because it includes staff who would probably not have contact with patients, such as construction crews.But Sidney Watson, director of the Center for Health Law Studies at Saint Louis University School of Law, argues that the administration is on solid legal ground in issuing the vaccine mandate because hospitals must comply with certain conditions in order to receive payment through the Medicare and Medicaid programs, which they are not required to participate in but which almost all hospitals do.The vaccination requirement “only applies to providers who step forward and say, ‘I want to take this federal money,’” said Watson.But the Republicans are also challenging the mandate on the basis that it could hurt rural hospitals, which are already facing a labor shortage and could lose more employees who do not want to get vaccinated. Hospitals across the country are having a difficult time finding nurses, but the problem is particularly acute in rural areas, according to reports from Vox and PBS.“We think the goal of having all employees in rural hospitals vaccinated is a good one. The problem is, the mandate and its timing may be difficult, especially if it leaves some hospitals with severe staff shortages,” said Brock Slabach, chief operations officer of the National Rural Health Association (NRHA), which is considering requesting during a public comment period that the CMS instead allow hospitals to regularly test unvaccinated workers, the same as the Osha rule for large companies.But Watson, of Saint Louis University, said she sees concern about the mandate causing large numbers of employees to quit their jobs or be fired as speculation. She points to places like New York, where the police union warned that a vaccine mandate would cause 10,000 police officers to be “pulled from [the] streets”, but the number of officers who were placed on unpaid leave was ultimately only 34.Despite his concerns about the mandate, Slabach does not expect courts to strike it down and is recommending that rural hospitals prepare to come into compliance with it.In addition to facing a labor shortage, the rural healthcare organizations must contend with a population base that is vaccinated against Covid-19 at a much lower rate than in urban areas. For example, in Pulaski county in central Missouri, only 17% of its more than 50,000 residents are fully vaccinated.As such, it’s crucial that hospitals in such areas employ staff that is fully vaccinated because they could see a surge in Covid cases, said Slabach.“When you complicate that with the fact that rural communities have populations that are more vulnerable to the disease itself, meaning they have co-morbid or chronic diseases,” then vaccination is “critically important”, Slabach added.TopicsCoronavirusVaccines and immunisationBiden administrationRepublicansUS politicsnewsReuse this content More

    • 150 Shares169 Views

      in US Politics

      Republicans slam Biden vaccine rule for businesses as health groups defend it

      by

      US newsRepublicans slam Biden vaccine rule for businesses as health groups defend itDivided reaction to mandate requiring that large companies either vaccinate staff or administer tests mirrors vaccine rollout in US Eric BergerMon 8 Nov 2021 05.00 ESTLast modified on Mon 8 Nov 2021 12.07 ESTBiden administration plans to get US companies with 100 or more workers to vaccinate their staff or bring in regular tests have been welcomed by public health groups but slammed by Republicans and trade groups, who claim government overreach with negative economic consequences.Federal court temporarily blocks Biden’s vaccine mandate for larger businessesRead moreSuch divided reaction to the rules announced last week mirrors much of America’s problematic vaccine rollout, where social and political headwinds have seen vaccination take-up slow down worryingly. US vaccination rates are some of the lowest in industrialized countries where the vaccine is readily available.Subject at least to a temporary stay issued by a circuit court in New Orleans on Saturday, the new rule from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Osha) will take effect on 4 January.It requires that large companies either ensure employees have been vaccinated or regularly administer Covid-19 tests and require masks at work for those who refuse to get the shot.The rule will affect an estimated 84 million workers.The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services also issued a rule requiring healthcare workers to be vaccinated by the same deadline, with no option for weekly testing rather than vaccination. That will affect 76,000 providers and more than 17 million workers.The administration also extended a deadline for federal contractors to comply with the same sort of rule – vaccination without the testing option – from 8 December to 4 January.“Too many people remain unvaccinated for us to get out of this pandemic for good,” Joe Biden said in a statement.But the rules sparked new backlash from Republican lawmakers and conservative groups who described the measures as unconstitutional. Republican governors or attorneys general in 15 states plan to file lawsuits against the mandate, according to the Associated Press.“This rule is garbage,” South Carolina’s attorney general, Alan Wilson, a Republican, said, according to the AP. “It’s unconstitutional and we will fight it.”Celebrating the Saturday ruling in Louisiana, the state attorney general, Jeff Landry, said: “The president will not impose medical procedures on the American people without the checks and balances afforded by the constitution.”While courts have largely declined to block state and local vaccine mandates, the federal government “has more constraints on it than state and local governments do when it comes to public health and vaccination”, said Lindsay Wiley, a public health law professor at American University.On whether the Osha rule could be overturned, Wiley said: “It’s difficult to predict, in part because the environment has become so politicized.”Plaintiffs could also seek to file lawsuits in circuits with conservative judges appointed by Donald Trump, Wiley said.Lawrence Gostin, a global health law expert at Georgetown Law, tweeted earlier this week that “Biden is on rock-solid legal ground. He’s acting to protect the US workforce and will get us all back to normal sooner.”But groups such as the National Retail Federation (NRF), the country’s largest retail trade group, condemned the Osha rule because they said it places an unreasonable burden on businesses during the holiday season, which for many ventures is the busiest time of the year.The NRF is requesting an extension of the deadlines, though Edwin Egee, a vice-president of the group, did not provide a preferred date.“NRF members have for months taken extraordinary efforts to distribute the vaccine, to incentivize the vaccine. We have been, and will continue to be, very much in favor of the vaccine and its efficacy,” Egee said.Republicans have also warned that the vaccine requirements could cause employees to quit. If faced with a mandate, 11% of the unvaccinated said they would be most likely to get the vaccine and 46% said they would opt for weekly testing, according to an October survey from the Kaiser Family Foundation (KFF). More than a third of unvaccinated workers said they would quit if their employer required them to get a vaccine or get tested weekly. But that amounts to just 5% of all adults in the US.“When we are looking at the bigger picture amongst all adults … it’s a pretty small share of the population,” said Lunna Lopes, senior survey analyst for KFF.There is evidence that workers often opt to get vaccinated rather than lose their jobs. For example, Houston Methodist hospital required 25,000 workers to get a vaccine by 7 June, the Conversation, a non-profit news organization, reported. Before the mandate, about 15% of employees were unvaccinated. By mid-June, that had dropped to 3%.David Michaels, a former Osha chief now a professor of public health at George Washington University, argued the new rules would help businesses who wanted to institute requirements but were constrained by state and local rules or feared litigation.“This actually allows employers to do what they want to do and blame the federal government,” said Michaels, who has advised the Health Action Alliance, a coalition of corporations such as Starbucks and Amazon and non-profits such as the CDC Foundation and the Ad Council aimed at promoting Covid-19 vaccination and prevention.The rules will make the workplaces safer, Michaels said.“The retail industry should give a gift to the American people and start to be supportive of vaccination requirements,” Michaels said. “That’s the only way that we will save lives and return to normalcy. It’s outrageous to ask for an exception to a public health measure.”TopicsUS newsVaccines and immunisationCoronavirusBiden administrationUS politicsUS healthcareUS domestic policynewsReuse this content More

    • 138 Shares189 Views

      in US Politics

      California town declares itself a ‘constitutional republic’ to buck Covid rules

      by

      CaliforniaCalifornia town declares itself a ‘constitutional republic’ to buck Covid rulesOroville’s city council adopted a resolution stating it would oppose state and federal orders that it deems to be government overreach Dani Anguiano in Los Angeles@dani_anguianoFri 5 Nov 2021 06.00 EDTLast modified on Fri 5 Nov 2021 10.00 EDTA northern California town has declared itself a “constitutional republic” in response to Covid-19 health restrictions imposed by the governor, in the latest sign of strife between the state’s government and its rural and conservative regions.The city council in Oroville, located at the base of the Sierra Nevada foothills about 90 miles from the capital of Sacramento, adopted a resolution this week stating it would oppose state and federal orders it deems to be government overreach.Oroville leaders said the designation was a way of affirming the city’s values and pushing back against state rules it doesn’t agree with, although a legal expert said the designation was merely a gesture and did not grant the city any new authority.Religious exemptions threaten to undermine US Covid vaccine mandatesRead moreTensions have existed throughout the pandemic between the rural north and California’s leadership, which has been among the first to implement lockdowns, mask mandates and vaccination requirements.In Butte county, fierce opposition to Covid lockdowns and school closures drove support for recalling the state’s governor, Gavin Newsom, with 51% of voters in the county backing the ultimately failed effort. Newsom’s policies, however, appear to have worked and the state had the lowest Covid infection rate in the US last month.Last year, Oroville refused to enforce state requirements prohibiting indoor dining. Butte county, where Oroville is located, declined to recommend a mask mandate earlier this fall, even as cases surged and a a local medical center reported treating more patients than at any other point during the pandemic.Before passing the resolution, council members argued they were taking a stand and advocating for residents to make their own health choices.“I assure you folks that great thought was put into every bit of this,” the city’s mayor, Chuck Reynolds, said. “Nobody willy-nilly threw something to grandstand.”But the city’s declaration does not shield it from following federal and state laws, said Lisa Pruitt, a rural law expert at the University of California, Davis, who said it was not clear what the designation meant.“A municipality cannot unilaterally declare itself not subject to the laws of the state of California,” Pruitt said. “Whatever they mean by constitutional republic you can’t say hocus pocus and make it happen.”Leaders in the city of 20,000 say the resolution is an effort to push back against state government and affirm the city’s values and commitment to the constitution. Oroville drafted its resolution from scratch after not finding any examples of other cities with similar resolutions, said Scott Thomson, the city’s vice-mayor.“I proposed it after 18 months of increasingly intrusive executive mandates and what I felt to be excessive overreach by our government,” said Thomson. “After the failed recall in California, our state governor seems to [be] on a rampage and the mandates are getting more intrusive. Now he’s going after our kids and schools.”The majority of speakers at the Oroville city council meeting expressed their support for their resolution – applauding its introduction and calling council members “heroes” – with several specifically citing the state’s vaccine requirement for schoolchildren.“We’re hoping that becoming a constitutional republic city is the best step in order to regain and maintain our inalienable rights protected by the constitution of the United States. What will be left if we don’t have that? if we don’t have bodily autonomy?” one speaker said in tears. “What else are they gonna want me to let them do to my kids? Where does it stop?”The resolution does not affect local schools, which fall under the purview of the school district, Thomson said, but is a way for the community to declare it will not use city resources to implement state rules it does not agree with. “We’re not ignorant that there are serious issues at hand, we just do not agree with the way it’s being handled.”One council member argued that mandates were “political theater” and that the immune system is the best defense against disease. The best protection against against Covid-19 is vaccination – Butte county has a vaccination rate of 48%, according to New York Times data.The council approved the resolution by a 6-1 vote on Tuesday, even as one member who voted in favor of it warned residents it had “no teeth” and was a “political statement”.The city’s efforts tap in to a common sentiment in rural northern California that the region is ignored, but also over-governed by the state, Pruitt said. Signs for the state of Jefferson, a movement to secede from California, are common here. But, Pruitt says, the city’s gesture does not grant it more power or the ability to ignore state law.“It seems to make the people of Oroville feel better that their city council has made this gesture but as a practical matter it doesn’t make any difference,” Pruitt said.TopicsCaliforniaCoronavirusUS politicsGavin NewsomnewsReuse this content More