Supreme Court blocks Biden OSHA vaccine mandate, allows rule for health care workers
Court ruled that COVID-19 is not an occupational hazard but a 'universal risk'https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/supreme-court-biden-vaccine-mandates-osha-health-care-workers
Does this mean anything for Los Alamos? Do the fired or workers or the ones forced unpaid leave get to come back now? Since the vaccination does little against Omicron why bother with it at this point? I kind of liked Mason but the fact that LANL appears to be the only lab to do this puts us in a bad light. Mason was born in Canada, where they have much more restrictive laws. I have no problem with Canada but I thought the one of the points of of having nukes was so the the US does not end up becoming like Canada.
Also I love how the news is going about how 250 medical personal signed a letter to get Joe Rogan a online blogger kicked off because he has guests on that do not not go along with the strict Covid party line. The media of course cannot do math because there must be close 1.5 to 2 million Doctors, PA, RNs and so on in the US. The fact that they cold only get 250 people to sign this is rather telling. In fact I dare say much of the approach and popular understating of Covid has lacked mathematical reasoning.
24 comments:
Joe Rogan is an idiot who should be banned from any kind of public platform for health safety reasons. He is the same guy that CNN reporter said took horse de-wormer and nearly died. What is so hard to understand about the vaccine? Get a vaccinated or risk death for your and others. If you if you are not vaccinated you are a health menace. What I do not get is Trump takes pride for pushing the vaccine through so fast with his operation warp speed, in many ways he can take partial credit for the vaccines but his followers still will not take it or are even turning on Trump.
As for the LANL I think since they are Federal or at least a Federal contractor they can enforce a mandate. Maybe I am wrong but that is my understanding of it.
It's all theater.
The Public Health profession has been sunk by their own torpedoes - especially the modelers.
Perhaps the guideline concerning the decision of the health workers might be a better guide to how it might affect the labs. That decisions said places that received monies from Medicare/Medicaid could require the workers to be vaccinated. Now, is specific to those two funding sources or does that mean Federal money, period. As a GOCO, can it be argued that Federal money allows a mandate. It is clearer for a DOE employee, they are directly employed, but the labs are not.
Certainly the companies may still require the jab. CITI bank just announced that you get the jab or you're fired unless you have a religious exemption. It was interesting that the US Postal workers were somehow exempt from the federal employee mandate.
Certainly the labs could show the fealty to the NNSA masters and force the shots, that will get them in more solidly with THIS administration. But a key thing to remember, since the government has given the vaccine makers immunity to a potential "bad" product, the next set of big pockets in a lawsuit would be a business that makes mandates where the law does not require the shot.
If the legislatures, either state or federal, make a LAW requiring the shot, then this all resets. The ruling against the OSHA mandate was the court telling the government if you want to do this, do it through legislation, not as a proclamation bypassing the system. Although I do not understand why the color of money (Medicare/Medicaid) bypasses the need for legislation.
While I may be old and have a Covid bullseye on my chest, it is good to be retired and not have this forced down my throat.
And for the Karens of the world, I did take the shots and have suffered medically from it for over 6 months now. I am not an anti-vaxer, but THIS one has trashed my life.
The answers to your questions are in today's SCOTUS ruling.
"Also I love how the news is going about how 250 medical personal signed a letter to get Joe Rogan a online blogger kicked off because he has guests"
Are these the same medical personal that signed letter saying don't shut down the George Floyd protests in June 5 2020?
https://www.cnn.com/2020/06/05/health/health-care-open-letter-protests-coronavirus-trnd/index.html
By the the US was at a dip in cases in June 2020 followed by a spike in July 2020, how did that advice work out? https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2021/us/covid-cases.html
By the way it is a trivial test is all you have to do is look at counties with the riots versus the counties without riots and it is clear the counties where there where large riots had strong peaks a few weeks after the start of the riots, while counties that had small scale protests did not.
A study announced in June 23 2020 initially said the in protests and riots actually increasesd
social distancing which was pointed in MSM and even some LANL scientists. However after July these guys changed the premise of their results by calling protests and riots the same thing
so instead of lowering Covid the riots had no correlations. They did this by saying even though Los Angles had a big peak after the riots that Nome Alaska which had 3 people holding signs one day did not have a peak therefore protests and Covid have no correlation. The latter part is pretty close to scientific misconduct.
It turns out a few other scientists called them out including at least one from NM that I know of;) and this "working paper" was never published. By the way the news media should never report on findings that have not made it through peer review. Oddly enough I still see this "working" paper tweeted about today.
https://news.ucdenver.edu/study-shows-no-correlation-between-protests-and-general-population-covid-19-case-increase/
The answers to your questions are in today's SCOTUS ruling.
1/14/2022 8:12 PM
This is very dangerous, in light of Jan 6th I think we should annul all three of Trumps picks to the supreme court. This is going to cause tremendous damage to have such zealots on our court. The other choice is to expand to 15 justices with Biden picking the the next 6 now. The Supreme court was never met to be dominated by one party.
1/15/2022 11:08 AM
As long as scientists persist in advertising their results before peer review (publishing preprints on web sites), the press will pick them up and treat them like gospel. Scientists need to stop doing that and just accept that peer review is a necessary delay to achieve legitimacy. Maybe respectable journals should automatically reject papers that have already been given public release through whatever means.
Maybe respectable journals should automatically reject papers that have already been given public release through whatever means.
1/15/2022 5:34 PM
Some of the high end journals like Science do this. The issue with the riot paper is they had to rush it out as fast as possible to take advantage of the hype before it died down. You often see social science faculty do this. They just cobble together or cherry pick some data give a weak argument was to way it fits the narrative and then send it to the press, twitter, and so on. If it agrees with the popular narrative it gets lost of press. In the end the paper may never appear because it cannot get past the referees or even the editor but the hype will have been achieved.
Another thing that people do not seem to understand is that the standards for what is science varies greatly from field to field. In the physical sciences the standards are high also one has to to adhere to the scientific method. In the social sciences you have two problems (1) the standards are very low. This is now recognized as the reproducibility crisis as the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Replication_crisis
is an ongoing methodological crisis in which it has been found that the results of many scientific studies are difficult or impossible to reproduce. Because the reproducibility of empirical results is an essential part of the scientific method,[2] such failures undermine the credibility of theories building on them and potentially of substantial parts of scientific knowledge.
"The replication crisis most severely affects the social and medical sciences,[3] where considerable efforts have been undertaken to re-investigate classic results, to determine both their reliability and, if found unreliable, the reasons for the failure.[4][5] "
There are numerous reasons for this. The other problem especially in the the modern social sciences is that they many consider themselves to be activists first and scientists second, so the point of the research is not to find the truth but to push a narrative or political point.
When large sections of your field is like this there is also no consequence to doing bad research or even fraudulent research. For example in the Covid and riot study paper they used a very odd definition of riot which includes protests and said they where all the same. If you do that the data turns into noise and no correlations arise, however you use a rational definition like riot, had to be over 5k people, had to last longer than 4 hours ect, than you easily get the correlation. It is sort of too obvious that they used such on odd definition unless they had to get the "right" outcome. It would be hard to prove fraud but it is pretty weird what the did. Of course I doubt anyone in the field would care because it was about activism and not science.
The public has a very poor understanding of what is or is not science, how it is done, how long it takes to have good understating and so on.
This is very dangerous, in light of Jan 6th I think we should annul all three of Trumps picks to the supreme court. This is going to cause tremendous damage to have such zealots on our court. The other choice is to expand to 15 justices with Biden picking the the next 6 now. The Supreme court was never met to be dominated by one party.
1/15/2022 4:15 PM
Really? Just exactly how should "we" "annul all three of Trumps picks to the supreme court"??? There is no provision in the constitution (have your read it?)for doing any such thing. Get a grip. "The Supreme court was never meant to be dominated by one party." What? How long have you been alive? The SCOTUS has been dominated by one party or another for many decades. Hint: Roe v Wade was a direct result of Democratic domination of the Supreme Court. Study some history.
Actually Roe was a majority Republican appointed court. (6-3). Only Byron, White, and Marshall were appointed by a Democrat President and White voted against Roe. The case was ruled 7-2 with Rehnquist and White dissenting.
People have gone tribal and forgotten their history.
It isn't about who appointed them, it is about their own politics.
The public has a very poor understanding of what is or is not science, how it is done, how long it takes to have good understating and so on.
1/16/2022 11:37 AM
A number of people have said that the moment that lost trust in the MSM and governments version of Covid is when they said that that gathering are not ok but the BLM riots and protests where fine. If they lied about that why should they be trusted on anything else.
1/18/2022 7:41 AM
They didn't "lie" they just stated an opinion you disagree with. Learn the difference.
They didn't "lie" they just stated an opinion you disagree with. Learn the difference.
1/18/2022 5:22 PM
I simply do not follow your point.
Could you please elaborate on how they did not lie but simply gave an opinion.
They either lied about Covid being super dangerous at gatherings or they lied about it being safe if the gathering is has a certain political agenda.
The official narrative was that that gong to a gathering with 100 people is dangerous and spreads Covid so you should not go and the police should break it up. If on the other hand if the gathering is protest against the police it is not dangerous and does not spread Covid and should not be broken up by the police. It is not an opinion as both statements cannot be true at the same time.
How was there ever an opinion involved in any of this? A gathering of people during Covid is either dangerous or not. The MSM is simply not being honest this point. In this case you simply have two statements that cannot both be true so the contradiction is easy to see. Now on more subtle points where you cannot see more clearly what is going on you have to ask if the MSM can be trusted to be honest in these cases. Once trust is gone it is hard to get back. This is why saying the protests in 2020 was ok in terms of Covid but other gatherings not was such a turning point for so many people. The contradiction was to great that cannot be resolved by saying it is opinion it has to be a lie. I have always encouraged having high school students having to take logic classes as requirement for graduation. I also advocate having all students taking statistics. Did anyone involved in the protests in 2020 ever look at the actual statistics for police killings, crime, and inter-racial violence? Did the media ever once give these statistics? I know that they where given these statistics and knew the implications but would not report on them. Why not?
Again please provide a scenario which this was an "opinion". I am willing to learn the difference but please help me.
"Again please provide a scenario which this was an "opinion". I am willing to learn the difference but please help me. "
It is so obvious that there is no point in trying to explain it to you. It is something you just have feel.
1/18/2022 9:23 PM
If there is a question to which no one knows the entire truthful answer, then every answer is an opinion about what is true. Get it?
"If there is a question to which no one knows the entire truthful answer, then every answer is an opinion about what is true. Get it?"
Sigh, that is not how propositions work. You state one thing as a fact, you follow it up with another statement saying it is also a fact. You have stated two things as entirely truthful but if you do a Venn diagram on them you will see both cannot be true. The MSM never said never said "here is only possibility and we do not know the entire truth", they said one thing is a fact, followed by saying another thing is fact, however logically both things cannot be true. It is of course possible both things are wrong, one the things is partially right or they simply do not really know. This was never how the BLM protests where framed versus other gatherings. It was framed as one is perfectly ok and the other is never ok, at no time did the MSM ever say, we do not know the entire truth or maybe this is incorrect. Maybe I have simply done too much computer programing in my life so that I can spot these contradictions so easily.
For educational purposes.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/Venn-diagram
A graphical method of representing categorical propositions and testing the validity of categorical syllogisms, devised by the English logician and philosopher John Venn (1834–1923). Long recognized for their pedagogical value, Venn diagrams have been a standard part of the curriculum of introductory logic since the mid-20th century.
Next time someone with authority states here is a set of propositions try this technique.
I want to give you some credit, I believe that much of MSM, politics, Covid and economics, actually just as you point out are opinions, or more precisely educated opinions since in most system one does not know the precise truth. One can gather evidence, look at statistics, and give odds but in the end you really do not know for sure. However almost everything on MSM, social media, politics and Covid response are given as 100% facts. For example. Trump is Hitler is presented as a fact. Vaccines will kill 90% of the population is a fact. Police unjustly kill black people way more than any other group is presented as a fact. There are only so many facts in this world we know for certain and when it comes to most things that deal complex system things become probabilistic.
Please explain Venn diagrams in excruciating detail, since none of us know what they are.
Please explain Venn diagrams in excruciating detail, since none of us know what they are.
1/22/2022 5:30 PM
It is pretty easy for some the basics but it can get more formal. For most of simple stuff that you see in news you can construct a conditional statements: If p than q, the converse, but you also have the inverse and contrapositive. The diagram itself is if something is a subset of another set or has some overlap. You can even look up the theorems on this such as if the conditional statement is true then the contrapositive statement is also true and so on.
The diagram simply makes it very easy to see what is occurring if you take a
statement to be true along some applications of the chain rule if p ->q, q ->r, p -r
-------------------------------------------------------
For example take the conditional statement and use the chain rule.
Any gatherings of large number of people will spread Covid. If you accept that as True then this is what follows.
Next :BLM protest are a gathering.
Therefore BLM protests will spread Covid.
In the Venn Diagram BLM protests are completely encircled by the large set of gatherings.
So now you see why the public has an issue with this. Either the MSM is wrong about P which would mean that gatherings do not spread Covid, or they are wrong about saying BLM protests do not spread Covid. Remember the contrapositive is also true. Gatherings do no spread Covid, BLM protests are gathering, so BLM protests do not spread Covid.
One could get out of this by modifying the initial statement to "Some gatherings spread Covid", so in your Venn diagram you can have some of the circles only partially
overlapping with each other, so BLM protest could be in portion of gathering that do not intersect with the portion of gatherings that do spread Covid. Of course MSM and politicians never said only some gathering spread Covid they said all gatherings spread Covid.
Now hopefully you see the power of the Venn diagram, you need to use this every time you
start reading the news. It is rather eye opening. Also remember to apply the inverse and contrapositive as well because sometimes these must also follow the rules of logic and it maybe more clear why something is absurd when you look at the contrapositive and so on.
Thanks
For fun, try and illustrate the important concept of p is independent of q using a Venn diagram. I think you’ll discover that Venn diagrams aren’t nearly as useful as you seem to believe.
For fun, try and illustrate the important concept of p is independent of q using a Venn diagram. I think you’ll discover that Venn diagrams aren’t nearly as useful as you seem to believe.
1/23/2022 7:51 PM
I am not sure what your point is, since this is not really how they work. In these you assume if p is true that something must follow or not follow. Are you saying that p is just a probability?
Indeed in science Venn diagrams in some cases are not relevant since you do now know for certain if p is true. However, even in science you can still use than to a check things like saying things like if P is true than Q is is also true and so on so it can guide you in experiments or help you to understand if P is even true, for example if P is true and different Qs must also be true but if you the experiment and find the Qs do not follow than either the experiment is wrong or P is wrong or only right in certain cases. To be clear scientists do not actually use Venn diagrams they simply know this well enough already.
On the other hand for basic logic courses or introduction to logic they are great. All I really said is you need to apply them to MSM and you will see very rapidly all the issues. It seems like you get people all the time saying something is true because I heard in on CNN, read it NYT or watched on Fox. It follows that if you disagree with P then you are an idiot because P must be true if it is on the news so end of discusion. Try the Venn diagram approach and it will become obvious that in many cases it is simply not true or least not as certain as the news makes it sound. Perhaps you smart enough to already know this but many are not. I agree that in may of these issues P is not known for certain to be true so many of these issues are best guess or opinions, hopefully based on information. However is rare to find MSM or other institutions come out and say this is only
an argument we do not know for certain. Instead you get "these are the facts and any disagreement is false news".
I have also noticed on twitter that people always say "cite your source!!!" or people saying "this is a fact here is my source!!!"
The problem is sources are not facts, they may be information to support your claim or provide evidence for your claim but they can never really make something a fact. This is on top of the fact that no one ever reads the source. What they actually do is read a headline from the MSM that says "so and so paper says this!!!' but if you go to the actually paper and read it often never makes that claim or says there is some evidence for the claim but there are also issues as well.
Going back to how this started you still have people twitting that the BLM protest lowered the spread of Covid, because
a news media organization cited an unpublished paper. It must be true because the MSM said it and there is a source. They never read the paper, do not understand that scientific papers only provide evidence for something to be true and cannot prove something is true, do not understand peer review. This is on top of doing the Venn diagram of other things that must be true if what they are saying is true do not add up.
1/24/2022 8:03 AM
Verbose, overbearing, and at the same time, trite. Why do you get so much space to lecture people? What are your qualifications? Sheesh!
Verbose, overbearing, and at the same time, trite. Why do you get so much space to lecture people? What are your qualifications? Sheesh!
1/24/2022 6:22 PM
This is a blog, the qualifications are like having a box to stand on in speakers square Hyde Park. It is free, you can stand and listen, walk away, or make you your own speech. Take it easy.
I do like "overbearing and trite at the same time" that is almost worthy of on insult from someone from Kensington with a Eton accent.
OSHA withdraws it's order for vaccine requirement for companies with 100+ employees.
From their web page:
"The U.S. Department of Labor’s Occupational Safety and Health Administration is withdrawing the vaccination and testing emergency temporary standard issued on Nov. 5, 2021, to protect unvaccinated employees of large employers with 100 or more employees from workplace exposure to coronavirus. The withdrawal is effective January 26, 2022"
Post a Comment