COVID19 UPDATE: 9.11.21 - The iron fist of COVID 19

https://www.nbcchicago.com/news/coronavirus/delta-lambda-gamma-heres-a-breakdown-of-covid-variants-and-what-we-know-so-far/2591458/ The iron fist of COVID 19 - Bill Wilson – www.dailyjot.com This Daily Jot is written before the expected Biden announcement of new COVID 19 restrictions for the unvaccinated. This unprecedented move, no matter how little or farreaching. is a bad precedent for American health and freedom. First and foremost, let us take inventory of what we know: 1) The COVID 19 “vaccine,” in retrospect, is a stopgap measure that appears to prevent death, but does not prevent the spread of COVID19 and long-term side effects are unknown; 2) the vaccinated and unvaccinated are spreading the disease; and 3) the politicization of the disease has cost lives and will continue to cost lives irrespective of what heavy-fisted move Biden takes against theunvaccinated. Time to face facts. This COVID 19 problem reaches far, far beyond the disease itself. It has become so politicized that no one knows what to believe except what they want to believe. The “left” condemns, ridicules, hates the unvaccinated to the point of wanting to deny them public services, food, medical treatment and freedom. The “right” focuses on every theory about the disease development, the vaccine ingredients, the studies and counter-studiesthat support one theory or another. MEANWHILE, THE DISEASE PROGRESSES AND NEITHER SIDE CAN SET DOWN THEIR RHETORIC LONG ENOUGH TO ASSESS THE SITUATION AND SOLVE THE PROBLEM. The disease doesn’t care what political side of the fence you are on, it is a commonenemy. This is why a political solution to COVID undermines the health of ALL Americans and is a threat to the freedom of ALL Americans, vaccinated or unvaccinated. That the USgovernment can manipulate politics, policy and law to withhold basic freedoms, and potentially life sustenance, from its citizens is not only bad precedent, but a sea change in the guaranteed freedoms of the Bill of Rights. Vaccinated and unvaccinated AmericanCitizens must resist this temptation for what is used against one today will be used against the other tomorrow. There is no end to the despotism that uses the combination of fear and personal health to control a society. In communist countries people areeliminated over such. Christ prophesied in Matthew 24:7-9, “and there shall be famines, and pestilences, and earthquakes, in diverse places. All these are the beginning of sorrows. Then shallthey deliver you up to be afflicted, and shall kill you: and you shall be hated of all nations for my name’s sake.” Do you see where this is headed? It is time for those of us in America to put our foot down and demand a reasonable non-political solution tofight COVID 19. All well-intended people from the medical community—allopathic, homeopathic, naturopathic—must get out of their group think and come together to develop protocols that work to end this deadly threat. We need to demand politicians stand downtheir rhetoric and lead the medical community to sensible conclusions. And we need to put aside our own offenses for the time being and work together to end the iron fist of COVID 19 before it becomes the iron fist of tyranny. -------------------------------------------------------- https://vaers.hhs.gov/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cOH7cFWS7o4&t=44s NOTE: From here, you can see other videos and etc.... This was sent to me and demands some research....... ------------------------------------------ REPOST: www.newsweek.com Can the Government Force You to Get a Coronavirus Vaccine? Stateand federal governments can't force people to receive a new coronavirus vaccine against their will, experts said, but lawmakers may be able to create a mandate that imposes consequences for not being vaccinated. Vaccine research for a new coronavirus is moving forward at an unprecedented rate and experts champion high rates of immunity in a population as a solution to stopping a virus from spreading. But a recent Reuters poll found about a quarter of the American publicisn't interested in a vaccine for SARS-CoV-2, and the federal government may have a tough time creating a requirement that people be inoculated. It's possible Congress could have the power to mandate a vaccine under the commerce clause since the virus travels across state borders, constitutional law experts told Newsweek.The question is whether that power actually includes the power to require vaccines and Steven Wilker, a partner at the law firm Tonkon Torp, told Newsweek thatit would likely be a "reach." Ifthe federal government did want to pursue mandating vaccines, the more realistic scenario is to tie it to federal funding or tax individuals who refuse to vaccinate. The Supreme Court upheld the individual mandate in the Affordable Care Act, signaling to Wilkerthe tax may be permissible. "Ineither case, that does not mean an individual could be vaccinated against their will if they were willing to suffer the consequences of not doing so," Wilker said. The federal government could also leave the decision up to states. In the 1905 case, Jacobson v. Massachusetts, a citizen arguedforced smallpox inoculations infringed on his personal liberty. The Supreme Court upheld the Cambridge Board of Health's authority to require the vaccination under the 10th Amendment that grants state police powers. As it's still a "perfectly good law," Laurence Tribe, a Carl M. Loeb University Professor at Harvard Law School told Newsweek. Theanswer to whether states could mandate vaccinations, he said, was a "clear yes." NEWSWEEKSUBSCRIPTION OFFERS > Sylvia Law, a law professor at New York University, called it "easy" for states to require vaccinations and pointed out that they've already done so in a number of contents. Students are often required to be vaccinated to attend school and in the case of COVID-19,she said. "I think they have a reasonable basis for doing so." Wilker said he wasn't convinced that a state's police power by itself would be enough to allow a vaccination mandate. To answer that question, he said officials would have to review each state's laws in regard to public health emergencies. Officials have confirmed more than 1.6 million cases of a new coronavirus in America and nearly 100,000 people have died as of Tuesday. Inoculations are known to help establish herd immunity, a concept where most of the population's immunity protects thosewho aren't, and officials claim high immunity rates are key to safely resuming gathering in large numbers and once again moving about freely. Not everyone can be vaccinated safely, though. Law said if states impose a mandate, they should include a health exception for those who could be put at risk. All 50 states already grant exemptions for medical reasons, according to the National Conference ofState Legislatures, and 45 have religious exemptions. In the case of a new coronavirus vaccination, Tribe said disputing the mandate on a religious basis would be difficult because the danger to public health is likely to "trump any claim" to special treatment. An argument that the mandate violated the 14th Amendmentwould have a "slightly better chance" against a federal mandate than a state mandate, but Tribe said he wasn't confident a person would be successful in either instance. "Either way I think the odds are if we came to the point politically where the federal government began mandating that people be vaccinated against COVID-19 it's almost certain there'd be some appropriate federal statute or regulation that would back it up,"Tribe said. It's not enough to have a mandate, experts said, and officials need a way to enforce it. States exclude children from school if they aren't vaccinated, but there's no mechanism in place to enforce a mandate with adults. One option that would "appear consistent"with restrictions on students, Wilker said, was to impose limitations on adults, but he added, "they might be much harder to enforce." -------------------------------------------------------------------------- aarp.org Can Your Employer Require You to Get a COVID-19 Vaccine? Workers have rights, but the answer is more complicated than you think With millions of people out of work and millions of others forced to work from home, the pandemichas reshaped the nation's labor force. And it's not done yet. As the unemployed look ahead to getting hired and remote employees prepare for a return to the workplace, many are contemplating the same question: Could they eventually be required to get aCOVID-19 vaccination if they want to keep their jobs? The question has become more urgent since the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) granted Pfizerand BioNTech�s coronavirus vaccine emergency use authorization on Dec. 11. The short answer: Yes. An employer can make a vaccination a requirement if you want to continue working there. But there are significant exceptions for potential concernsrelated to any disability you may have and for religious beliefs that prohibit vaccinations. And experts say that employers are more likely to simply encourage their workers to get immunized rather that issue a company-wide mandate. On Dec. 16, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) confirmed that a COVID-19 vaccination requirement by itself would not violate Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). That law prohibits employers from conducting some types of medical examinations. OnMay 28, the EEOC reaffirmed that employers can require workers who are returning to offices to be vaccinated for COVID-19. �If a vaccine is administered to an employee by an employer for protection against contracting COVID-19, the employer is not seeking information about an individual�s impairments or current health status and, therefore, it is not a medical examination,� theEEOC says. But some employees may be exempted from mandatory vaccinations based on potential concerns related to any disability you may have and for religious beliefs that prohibit vaccinations. And experts say that employers are more likely to simply encourage theirworkers to get immunized rather that issue a company-wide mandate. "Employment in the United States is generally �at will,� which means that your employer can set working conditions,� says Dorit Reiss, a law professor at the University of California, Hastings, who specializes in legal and policy issues related to vaccines. �Certainly, employers can set health and safety work conditions, with a few limits." Those restrictions generally are tied to the federal Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. If employees have medical reasons or sincerely held religious beliefs that prevent them from taking a potential coronavirusvaccine, employers could be legally required to give the workers some reasonable alternative to continue to work, Reiss says. The EEOC guidance notes that even if an employer finds that a worker who cannot be vaccinated due to disability poses a risk to the workplace, the employer cannot exclude the employee from the job � or take any other action � unless there is no way to providea reasonable accommodation that would reduce this risk to others. "That might be a [wearing a] mask, a workingfrom home, or a working separately from other people alternative. As long as it's not too significant a barrier for the employer,� Reiss says. �If you can achieve the same level of safety as the vaccine via mask, orremote working, you can't fire the employee. You need to give them an accommodation." Vaccine recommendations vs. requirements The potential medical and religious accommodations are just two of the factors employers will have to consider when deciding whether to put a vaccination requirement in place. Experts say that given all the different concerns employers will need to balancewith a potentialCOVID-19 vaccine, many might choose to simply recommend their workers get immunized rather than make vaccination a condition of employment. For example, employers also need to weigh any liability issues a vaccination requirement might raise. Some federal lawmakers already have raised concerns that employers are vulnerable to lawsuits from workers and customers who might have contracted COVID-19at the business. A mandate that all their employees get inoculated could complicate the risks for companies. "It's a treacherous area for employers,� says Jay Rosenlieb, an employment law attorney at the Klein DeNatale Goldner law group in California. �The reason it's treacherous for employers is liability that arises from requiring a vaccine where the vaccine goessideways and creates harm to the employee. That's going to probably be a workers compensation claim against the employer. And, of course, some kind of claim against the vaccine manufacturer. There's a lot of weighing that goes on here." L.J. Tan, chief strategy officer for the Immunization Action Coalition � an advocacy group that supports vaccinations � says that because potential COVID-19 vaccines are largely being developed in the same manner as earlier vaccines, researchers have the benefitof past scientific experience to better ensure that a vaccine for this coronavirus will be safe. But he noted that the speedof the development of a COVID-19 vaccine � compressed into months rather than the usual years � and the politics that have accompanied it add to the reasons employers may be unwilling to make vaccination a requirement. "One of the challenges we're going to be dealing with, obviously, especially now is that there is a shadow of politics over the vaccine,� Tan says. �As a result, there's some fear about whether the vaccine can be safe, whether it can be approved appropriately.Because of that shadow, I think it's going to be extremely difficult for an employer to make COVID-19 vaccination a condition of employment." Vaccine requirement more likely in health care, other high-risk jobs The industry most likely to require COVID-19 vaccinations for workers is health care, where most employers already require workers to get a flu shot annually. In fact, interim guidance from the Centersfor Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) on which groups might be among the first to have access to a coronavirus vaccine placed �healthcare personnel likely to be exposed to or treat people with COVID-19� at the top of the list. But once enough doses of a vaccine have been produced for distribution to the broader public, some employers might start to consider a mandate. "For example, essential workers in retail stores or in food production plants, such as a meat-packing plant, seem to be at high risk,� Reiss says. �Those employers could reasonably require [a COVID vaccination], because remember, if an employee doesn't vaccinate,it's not just a risk to them. It's a risk to other employees, and � if it's a customer-facing business � a risk to the customers. So, in high-risk places, I think it's reasonable." Some companies may make inoculation voluntary but make it as easy as possible for workers to get the shot. For instance, Ford already has purchased twelve of the ultracold freezers required to store doses of Pfizer�s vaccine so it can provide the shot to employeeswho want it. For those workers who might be told to get a vaccination, remember to raise any concerns you might have with your employer. "Ask for reasonable accommodation and have a discussion with the employer as to whether there might be reasonable alternatives such as work from home or such as continued use� of personal protective equipment, Rosenlieb says. If vaccination requirements do become more common, both workers and their employers will have to find ways to balance personal concerns with public safety. "On one hand, [vaccine requirements] do limit the autonomy of workers that have reservations,� Reiss says. �On the other hand, they also protect workers by making the workplace safer from the disease. So, it's not just a mandate to limit your rights. A mandatecan also protect your right to a safe work environment." Editor�s note: This article originally was published on September 30, 2020. It has been updated with more recent information from the EEOC about employer vaccination requirements. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------- www.history.com A1905 decision provided a powerful and controversial precedent for the flexing of government authority. In 1901 a deadly smallpox epidemic tore through the Northeast, prompting the Boston and Cambridge boards of health to order the vaccination of all residents. But some refused to get the shot, claiming the vaccine order violated their personal liberties underthe Constitution. One of those holdouts, a Swedish-born pastor named Henning Jacobson, took his anti-vaccine crusade all the way to the U.S. SupremeCourt. The nation's top justices issued a landmark 1905 ruling that legitimized the government�s authority to �reasonably� infringe upon personal freedoms during a public health crisis by issuing a fine to those who refused vaccination. In 1901, the city of Boston registered 1,596 confirmed cases of smallpox, a highly contagious, fever-inducing illness infamous for causing a severe rash on the face and arms that often left survivors scarred for life. In Boston alone, 270 people died from smallpoxduring the extended 1901 to 1903 outbreak. That�s why public health officials in Boston and neighboring Cambridge issued their compulsory vaccination orders, hoping to reach the 90 percent vaccination rate required for herd immunity. Jacobson, who served as the pastor of a Swedish Lutheran church in Cambridge, had been vaccinated against smallpox in Sweden when he was 6 years old, an experience that helater said caused him �great and extreme suffering.� So when Dr. E. Edwin Spencer, chairman of the Cambridge Board of Health, knocked on the Jacobsons� door on March 15, 1902, the pastor refused vaccination for himself and his son. A few months later, Cambridge was in a full-fledged smallpox �panic� with the city ordering the closure of all schools, public libraries and churches to stem the spread of the disease. Police officers accompanied health officials like Spencer, who went doorto door vaccinating as many as 100 people a day. But while the Cambridge vaccine order was compulsory, it wasn�t a �forced� vaccination. People like Jacobson who refused to get vaccinated faced a $5 fine, the equivalent of nearly $150 today. On July 17, 1902, Dr. Spencer issued a criminal complaint againstJacobson and other anti-vaccine activists to collect that $5 fine. Jacobson Goes to Court Amid Anti-Vaccination Uproar The broader battle over the validity of vaccination science reached a fever pitch during the smallpox outbreak. Anti-vaccination groups, citing alleged cases of death and deformity from bad reactions to smallpox vaccine, called compulsoryvaccination �the greatest crime of the age,� claiming that it �slaughter[s] tens of thousands of innocent children.� In response, newspaper editorials characterized the smallpox vaccination controversy as �a conflict between intelligence and ignorance, civilization and barbarism.� The New York Times dismissedanti-vaccine activists as �a familiar species of cranks� who were �deficient in the power to judge [science].� It was against this heated backdrop that Jacobson fought his $5 fine, first in a state trial court and then by appeal in the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. Jacobson wanted to present evidence that vaccines themselves were dangerous and ineffective, butthe judges wouldn�t hear it. Instead, Jacobson�s chief argument became, �Compulsion to introduce disease into a healthy system is a violation of liberty,� specifically the personal liberty he believed was guaranteed by the U.S. and Massachusetts constitutions. The highest court in Massachusetts also rejected Jacobson�s claims, siding instead with the authority of public health officials to determine the best methods for fighting an epidemic. Not ready to give up, Jacobson appealed his case to the U.S. Supreme Courtin 1905, where he was accompanied by officers of the Massachusetts Anti-Compulsory Vaccination Association. In the case known as Jacobson v. Massachusetts, Jacobson�s lawyers argued that the Cambridge vaccination order was a violation of their client�s 14th Amendment rights, which forbade the state from �depriv[ing]any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.� At question, then, was whether the �right to refuse vaccination� was among those protected personal liberties. The Supreme Court rejected Jacobson�s argument and dealt the anti-vaccination movement a stinging loss. Writingfor the majority, Justice John Marshall Harlan acknowledged the fundamental importance of personal freedom, but also recognized that �the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjectedto such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.� This decision established what became known as the �reasonableness� test. The government had the authority to pass laws that restricted individual liberty, if those restrictions�including the punishment for violating them�were found by the Court to be a reasonablemeans for achieving a public good. �Bottom line, there had to be some kind of real and substantial connection between the law itself and a legitimate purpose, which was the public�s health, safety and welfare,� says AnthonySanders at the Institute for Justice. READ MORE: WhyDo 9 Justices Serve on the US Supreme Court? Compulsory School Vaccinations and Forced Sterilizations The Jacobson decision provided a powerful and controversial precedent for the extent of government authority in the early 20th century. In 1922, the Supreme Court heard another vaccination case, this time concerning a Texas student named Rosalyn Zucht who was barred from attending public school because her parents refused to have her vaccinated. Zucht�s lawyers argued that the school district�sordinance requiring proof of vaccination denied Rosalyn �equal protection of the laws� as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. The Supreme Court disagreed. Justice Louis Brandeis wrote inthe unanimous decision: �Long before this suit was instituted, Jacobson v. Massachusetts had settled that it is within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. Theseordinances confer not arbitrary power, but only that broad discretion required for the protection of the public health.� In a far darker chapter, the Jacobson decision also provided judicial cover for a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of �feeble-minded� individuals in state mental institutions.In the 1920s, eugenics enjoyed wide supportin scientific and medical circles, and the Supreme Court justices were not immune. In the infamous 1927 case Buck v. Bell, the Supreme Court accepted the questionable �facts� presented in the lower court cases that a young Virginia woman named Carrie Bell hailed from a long line of �mental defectives� whose offspring were a burden on public welfare. �The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes (Jacobson v Massachusetts, 197 US 11). Three generations of imbeciles are enough,� wrote Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in a chilling opinion. The Buck decision opened the floodgates and by 1930, a total of 24 states had passed involuntary sterilization laws and around 60,000 women were ultimately sterilized under these statutes. �Buck v. Bell is the most extreme and barbaric example of the Supreme Court justifying a law in the name of public health,� says Sanders. Supreme Court Rules on Pandemic Lockdown Orders A lot changed since 1905, including the ways in which the Supreme Court decides if certain laws and statutes violate an individual�s constitutional rights. Starting in the second half of the 20th century, the Court began to recognize certain constitutionalrights as �fundamental,� including the freedoms of speech and religion, and personal decisions about marriage, contraception and procreation. Near the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, as states issued lockdown orders that closed businesses and prohibited large gatherings, several judges justified those restrictions by citing Jacobson v. Massachusetts,since it was the most recent Supreme Court ruling explicitly addressing state powers during a disease epidemic, even if it was 115 years old. But in a reversal, the Supreme Court ruled in 2020 against broadly applying the logic of Jacobson to all COVID-19 lockdown restrictions. In RomanCatholic Diocese Of Brooklyn, New York v. Andrew M. Cuomo, the Court decided that the State of New York violated the constitutional rights of citizens wanting to safely gather in churches and synagogues during the pandemic. The reasoning was thatthe lockdown laws barred religious gatherings altogether while still allowing secular business to operate at limited capacity. �Jacobson hardly supports cutting the Constitution loose during a pandemic,� wrote Justice Neil Gorsuch for the 5-4 majority. �That decision involved an entirely different mode of analysis, an entirely differentright, and an entirely different kind of restriction.� As vaccines against COVID-19 became readily available across the United States in 2021, employers, including government agencies, hospitalsand health care systems and privatecorporations, started to mandate the shots among its employees. This followed a jointstatement from major medical groups encouraging the policy. On July 26, 2021 the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs announced itwould require its frontline health care workers to get inoculated, making it the first federal agency to mandate that employees be vaccinated against the coronavirus. Three days later, on July 29, 2021, President Biden announced allfederal workers and contractors must be vaccinated, or else face weekly testing and other mandates.