UPS: masks required again, based on CDC map
- Thread starter TearsInRain
- Start date
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Oh gee thanks for wearing a mask that did nothing for a year. We're gonna work on getting you ones that actually work now.....
Lol.
Bye Felicia.
"We know today that many of the face cloth coverings that people wear are not very effective in reducing any of the virus movement in or out," Osterholm, the director of the Center for Infectious Disease Research and Policy at the University of Minnesota, said.
Former Biden COVID adviser says cloth masks ineffective, suggests Americans start wearing N-95 masks
Former President Biden COVID-19 adviser and top epidemiologist Michael Osterholm admitted that typical paper masks are ineffective and suggested that Americans may need to switch to heavier duty N-95 masks to battle the new wave of cases in an interview on CNN Monday.www.foxnews.com
"We need to talk about better masking," he continued. "We need to talk about N-95 respirators, which would do a lot for both people who are not yet vaccinated or not previously infected."
In Oxford's predictive study, which was far more accurate than Imbeciles College's study, they factored in 50-60% of the population having cross immunity. If we factor in about 10-20% of the population having gotten covid, we have 60-80% of the population immune. If we are still having cases, then it would be highly likely that the vaccine is actually disrupting people's natural immunity. Which is something vaccine experts and immunologists have warned about.
Though I don't know why anyone takes any of the numbers seriously at this point. It's been clear they have been making things up for over a year now. But with the admission that the tests are unreliable, there is simply no basis for accounting for anything they have said.
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Giving up already? If you are interested in learning the other side, I'll let you read over the following, written by an actual constitutional lawyer. This mostly pertains to EUA vaccines, but some of the information pertains to any vaccine mandate. I guess where the actual issue at hand is that if there are exemptions, can it really be considered a mandate?
Dear Boss,
Compelling any employee to take any current Covid-19 vaccine violates federal and state law, and subjects the employer to substantial liability risk, including liability for any injury the employee may suffer from the vaccine. Many employers have reconsidered issuing such a mandate after more fruitful review with legal counsel, insurance providers, and public opinion advisors of the desires of employees and the consuming public. Even the Kaiser Foundation warned of the legal risk in this respect. (Key Questions About COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates)
Three key concerns: first, while the vaccine remains unapproved by the FDA and authorized only for emergency use, federal law forbids mandating it, in accordance with the Nuremberg Code of 1947; second, the Americans with Disabilities Act proscribes, punishes and penalizes employers who invasively inquire into their employees' medical status and then treat those employees differently based on their medical status, as the many AIDS related cases of decades ago fully attest; and third, international law, Constitutional law, specific statutes and the common law of torts all forbid conditioning access to employment upon coerced, invasive medical examinations and treatment, unless the employer can fully provide objective, scientifically validated evidence of the threat from the employee and how no practicable alternative could possible suffice to mitigate such supposed public health threat and still perform the necessary essentials of employment.
At the outset, consider the "problem" being "solved" by vaccination mandates. The previously infected are better protected than the vaccinated, so why aren't they exempted? Equally, the symptomatic can be self-isolated. Hence, requiring vaccinations only addresses one risk: dangerous or deadly transmission, by the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic employee, in the employment setting. Yet even government official Mr. Fauci admits, as scientific studies affirm, asymptomatic transmission is exceedingly and "very rare." Indeed, initial data suggests the vaccinated are just as, or even much more, likely to transmit the virus as the asymptomatic or pre-symptomatic. Hence, the vaccine solves nothing. This evidentiary limitation on any employer's decision making, aside from the legal and insurance risks of forcing vaccinations as a term of employment without any accommodation or even exception for the previously infected (and thus better protected), is the reason most employers wisely refuse to mandate the vaccine. This doesn't even address the arbitrary self-limitation of the pool of talent for the employer: why reduce your own talent pool, when many who refuse invasive inquiries or risky treatment may be amongst your most effective, efficient and profitable employees?
Federal law prohibits any mandate of the Covid-19 vaccines as unlicensed, emergency-use-authorization-only vaccines. Subsection bbb-3(e)(1)(A)(ii)(III) of section 360 of Title 21 of the United States Code, otherwise known as the Emergency Use Authorization section of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act, demands that everyone give employees the "option to accept or refuse administration" of the Covid-19 vaccine. (21 U.S. Code § 360bbb–3 - Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies ) This right to refuse emergency, experimental vaccines, such as the Covid-19 vaccine, implements the internationally agreed legal requirement of Informed Consent established in the Nuremberg Code of 1947. (The Nuremberg Code ). As the Nuremberg Code established, every person must "be able to exercise free power of choice, without the intervention of any element of force, fraud, deceit, duress, overreaching, or other ulterior form of constraint or coercion; and should have sufficient knowledge and comprehension of the elements of the subject matter involved as to enable him to make an understanding and enlightened decision" for any medical experimental drug, as the Covid-19 vaccine currently is. The Nuremberg Code prohibited even the military from requiring such experimental vaccines. (Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 297 friend.Supp.2d 119 (D.D.C. 2003).
Demanding employees divulge their personal medical information invades their protected right to privacy, and discriminates against them based on their perceived medical status, in contravention of the Americans with Disabilities Act. (42 USC §12112(a).) Indeed, the ADA prohibits employers from invasive inquiries about their medical status, and that includes questions about diseases and treatments for those diseases, such as vaccines. As the EEOC makes clear, an employer can only ask medical information if the employer can prove the medical information is both job-related and necessary for the business. (Questions and Answers: Enforcement Guidance on Disability Related Inquiries and Medical Examinations Under the Americans with Disabilities Act | U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission). An employer that treats an individual employee differently based on that employer’s belief the employee’s medical condition impairs the employee is discriminating against that employee based on perceived medical status disability, in contravention of the ADA. The employer must have proof that the employer cannot keep the employee, even with reasonable accommodations, before any adverse action can be taken against the employee. If the employer asserts the employee’s medical status (such as being unvaccinated against a particular disease) precludes employment, then the employer must prove that the employee poses a “safety hazard” that cannot be reduced with a reasonable accommodation. The employer must prove, with objective, scientifically validated evidence, that the employee poses a materially enhanced risk of serious harm that no reasonable accommodation could mitigate. This requires the employee's medical status cause a substantial risk of serious harm, a risk that cannot be reduced by any another means. This is a high, and difficult burden, for employers to meet. Again, look at the all prior cases concerning HIV and AIDS, when employers discriminated against employees based on their perceived dangerousness, and ended up paying millions in legal fees, damages and fines.
Conditioning continued employment upon participating in a medical experiment and demanding disclosure of private, personal medical information, may also create employer liability under other federal and state laws, including HIPAA, FMLA, and applicable state tort law principles, including torts prohibiting and proscribing invasions of privacy and battery. Indeed, any employer mandating a vaccine is liable to their employee for any adverse event suffered by that employee. The CDC records reports of the adverse events already reported to date concerning the current Covid-19 vaccine.(Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) )
Finally, forced vaccines constitute a form of battery, and the Supreme Court long made clear "no right is more sacred than the right of every individual to the control of their own person, free from all restraint or interference of others." (UNION PAC. RY. CO. v. BOTSFORD.)
With Regards,
Employee of the Year
Why Some Assert Religious Exemption to Vaccine
"Each of the Covid vaccines currently available include forms of testing and development with fetal cell lines, which originated from aborted fetuses. For example, each of the currently available Covid vaccines derived from protein testing using the abortion-derived cell line HEK-293. Partaking in a vaccine made from aborted fetuses makes me complicit in an action that offends my religious faith. As such, I cannot, in good conscience and in accord with my religious faith, take any such Covid vaccine at this time. Please provide a reasonable accommodation to my belief, as I wish to continue to be a good employee, helpful to the team.
Employee of the Year,
zubenelgenubi
I'm a star
Even though the courts have ruled certain ways, like in the Jacobson case, you should be sure not to assume the Court is always right. Putting American citizens in internment camps without due process was allowed by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court also said forced sterilization was allowable. They also affirmed segregation, that African Americans could not become American Citizens, that Congress could not establish laws banning child labor in intrastate commerce, and that taking property from one private party and giving it to another is ok.
We always have the right, the duty, even, to resist tyranny, even the tyranny of bad case law.
We always have the right, the duty, even, to resist tyranny, even the tyranny of bad case law.
Non sequitur
Well-Known Member
Your free thought is responsible for a lot of dying. LOL.Oh……. They tested positive via a pcr test that is no longer valid
FAQs on Testing for SARS-CoV-2
Answers to FAQs relating to the development and performance of tests for SARS-CoV-2.www.fda.gov
the same pcr test that the Inventor mr mullis has stated should not be used to test for a virus?
it’s truly mind boggling how people have such strong opinions or want to enter a convo when they literally know nothing about nothing besides what the narrative says.
Social media is 100% compromised, the media is ran by people who sit on the board of big pharma companies, there are bots and shills posting the same bs on social media at the same time word for word.
they took away your critical thinking skills from schooling, they use emotion and fear and humans loose all common sense or ability to take a step back and analyze what is happening.
don’t be a parrot, read imbetween the lines. They say it all openly, but nobody has the pattern recognition any more to see it.
brownman2075
Well-Known Member
Actually we are on number 6 and heading towards 7 as people refuse to be poisoned, lose their jobs, followed by their property, as they lose everything and are left homeless. Then you have people self-relocating themselves to other red states in an attempt to escape the madness.
brownman2075
Well-Known Member
The only way out of this is civil war.
brownman2075
Well-Known Member
socialism fundamentally is about workers owning their own labour. so they are not employees following orders and being profitted off of, they are all collectively small business owners essentially.
its not govt controlling the economy.
brownman2075
Well-Known Member
The educational video is 43 min and 43 seconds. You responded to my post by sticking your head in the sand in under 4 min to all documented facts. Nice job.
republicans are even more corrupt than democrats, they are not saviors
capitalism is full of mass murder as well. its called imperialism which america specializes in but many americans seem to be unaware of.
When the vaccines came out ... I remember the Pharma companies saying they were somewhere around 96% effective against COVID.
Now, just months later it's ... yOu CaN STill gEt COVID BuT yoU WOn't geT As siCK.
And they wonder why millions of people don't trust them.
Now, just months later it's ... yOu CaN STill gEt COVID BuT yoU WOn't geT As siCK.
And they wonder why millions of people don't trust them.
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
Well just so you know that’s considered being effective.
I'm trying to think how to spell out how a sheep sounds.....
PT Car Washer
Well-Known Member
Just go to a trump rally. Lots of sheep there.
DriveInDriveOut
Inordinately Right
Rreeeeeeeee orange man bad!!!
You people are sick and no vaccine can help you.
Do you support Biden? Just curious..
tourists24
Well-Known Member
yeah..... the last shutdown worked so well let's do another one
Brownslave688
You want a toe? I can get you a toe.
You clearly haven’t paid any attention at all to anything I’ve said on this subject.
My feelings don’t mean I won’t call someone out when they so clearly have as little clue as you.
Similar threads
- Locked
