Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
OSHA to Employers: Vaccines More Important Than Occupational Safety, Health
The fix is still in, not news. But here’s a nifty little corner I found poking out from beneath the carpet, from (apparently) May 2021:
DOL and OSHA, as well as other federal agencies, are working diligently to encourage COVID-19 vaccinations. OSHA does not wish to have any appearance of discouraging workers from receiving COVID-19 vaccination, and also does not wish to disincentivize employers’ vaccination efforts. As a result, OSHA will not enforce 29 CFR 1904’s recording requirements to require any employers to record worker side effects from COVID-19 vaccination at least through May 2022. We will reevaluate the agency’s position at that time to determine the best course of action moving forward.
And what was there before May 2021? (I cannot validate the dates — that’s why I went to the site for the current version and linked it above.)
Well, that ought to keep the recorded side effects nice and low. Exhibit 4,783 in why I do not trust ANY of the numbers this compromised, runaway government puts out. I will not sign up for the shot-of-the-month club, and I support people whose shot record is less compliant than mine (reasons). I am not even arguing the medical or health aspect of this. Uncle Joe Biden, this IS about our freedom, our personal choice.
See how this works?
Big Goverment: “If YOU [a business] mandate the shot, you must report adverse reactions. If WE [government] mandate the shot, you are not required to report side effects. We simply refuse to enforce the law we wrote about that a while back. Changed our minds, conveniently enough.”
Which is just as well anyway because (unless this has changed recently) nobody is liable for damages from this supposedly safe and increasingly legally mandatory shot. Not Pfizer, not the government, not the employer, not the hospital, not the testing company. If this thing takes you out — that’s nobody’s fault but yours.
Published in General
How is this not one-sided? Requirements to report worker side effects reassure workers that faulty medicines will be controlled and corrected or halted. If the workers know their cases are not being raised to higher authorities, they will invariably feel that any problems will be covered over and their cares are being disregarded. Workers would rightly expect that prior OSHA reporting practices would apply to the current pandemic. But how would they not know or learn of this change from prior practice? Workers are a community of people who, having similar concerns, will talk between and amongst themselves and learn about any cases of fellow workings having problems as a result of taking the medicine. For authorities and employees to not be cognizant of this truth about workforces is to insultingly treat them like lemmings, or worse, experimental test subjects who don’t have the right to object. Does this not sound like something the Nuremberg Code was intended to address? Given that employers would know these facts in advance of any experiment (sorry, mandate), it is absurd for this perspective evidently being conveyed for the purpose primarily of allaying concerns about problems of implementing any mass introduction of the medication into its workforce. Such program could only be successful if it were completely voluntary, but also supported by agreements with the workforce to record and report side effects and offers of appropriate recompense in the event of severe side effects attributable to the medicines. Without these, any program of mandatory medication is bound to be met with resistance and distrust.
For a good discussion of vaccine mandates, Glenn Greenwald had a good review of the recent changes in the ACLU’s position since Covid-19.
https://greenwald.substack.com/p/the-aclu-prior-to-covid-denounced
Same sense of arrogance. And to claim that somehow, you are more reasoned that the likes of Saint A on Ricochet is pretty irrational in and of itself.
Oh I get your point. I made the *same point* in a post a couple of days ago, that nobody can actually convince anybody of anything through argument. Only I did it without a drive-by trolling “deboooonked” and then hauling my nose so high that my shorts shifted. Why, I wasn’t even rude when I did it. You’ve convinced me of something, it’s true, but not the point you wished to make, and certainly not through argument.
Take care now.
Thank you CarolJoy. But there are I believe also moral reasons for not taking a leaky transfection innoculation which is not sufficient to prevent infection and not sufficient to prevent transmission. It is that the disease will be propagated without end and select for increasingly deadly variants until most of the population is wiped out. This is what happened in the poultry industry with Marek’s disease. I refuse to be a conscious willing participant of the chain for this biowarfare on Western civilization.
Then there’s this:
https://hotair.com/allahpundit/2021/09/13/sure-sounds-like-oshas-going-to-have-a-hard-time-enforcing-bidens-federal-vaccine-mandate-n415594
I wish I can be confident in my reading comprehension skill. I wrote a comment explaining why “this is the sword to fall on” for me. But in rereading your comment, this jumped out – “There are so many other reasons that are more important and you guys want to hang your hat on slavery? Really? Making people chattel is your reason for secession?” Now, I am not sure whether I have missed your sarcasm on the first pass. Did I?
Mollie Hemingway gave a great acceptance speech for some award she received. It’s worth reading because it sums up the current situation well.
She concludes with
Yes, ma’am.
With respect, what do you think the sword to fall on is regarding covid? Last year we started with a two-week lockdown to “flatten the curve” that extended well into the following year. Draconian masking, social distancing and curfew regulations were put in place that bankrupted thousands of small businesses among other deleterious social effects. I thought that most of that was probably unnecessary but went along with it. We were told early this year that if you got the jab, you were good to go back to normal, notwithstanding whether anyone else got the jab or not. Half the country is now vaccinated, many others have natural immunity, but that’s not enough somehow, now we need to see people fired for not getting the jab. It never ends.
Nothing here was the hill to die on. Well, ok, what is? Is there any step that might be taken that you would say – sorry, no more? Because the history is that the promised return to normal never happens, there’s always a yet further anti-covid step that must be taken that involves some infringement on liberty, so even if everyone gets the jab, nothing will change. There will just be more jabs or something else. When do we say no more?
I asked someone: Why, in 12 words or less, does the government want to make everyone take the vaccine? Answer: There are too many people and they want to kill them all off.
I said: That’s thirteen. And he went on about control, and so forth and I asked the question again.
He said: You have to control people to kill them off.
I said: Nine. That’s better.
I can do it in one: submission.
Thanks for the post BDB. Great job.
The actions of OSHA are a clear indication that no study issued from our government can be relied upon at all anymore, particularly if it supports the official delusional Democrat/Progressive/Never Trumper narrative. These actions are an incredibly damaging act of fraud intended to influence public policy which OSHA should absolutely not be a part of at all. These actions grossly violate the equal protection rights of millions of Americans. Anyone at OSHA involved in these efforts should be tried, convicted and packed off to prison for a minimum of decades. These acts are simply unconscionable.
Furthermore, by significantly altering the reporting of problems with the COVID vaccines, OSHA has corrupted almost all studies here in the US as to the harmful effects of these vaccines, doing irreparable harm to any effort that seriously wants to combat COVID, and/ or that wants to serious investigate the problems with of these vaccines in any kind of neutral way.
No For those of us who actually read studies. I don’t believe squat unless someone has a primary source. Or a subject matter expert is using/quoting multiple primary sources which I will often read for their argument. Then I will give them the benefit of doubt for some of their other arguments which they don’t quote a primary source for.
All you are is a tabold journalist when you state a “fact” and don’t bother providing corroborating evidence. Yes it takes a lot more effort and time. So just because someone does not comment does not mean they can’t be persuaded that you are right. As far as I am concerned when someone refuses to show a study they claim debunks another study so people can read both and make up their own mind (aka engage in science) they are full of it.
Tabolds are right sometimes but a vast majority of their stuff is pure fiction.
The person who sites a well-done study I am always going to believe until someone provides evidence contrary to that. I am not going to listen to some arrogant teenage no it all argument without evidence. I have changed my mind plenty of times when I read studies that contradict or make the issue more complex than I thought.
No studies are well done or trustworthy anymore, and none are worth citing. Scientist and doctors have all ruined their credibility.
So no, I won’t cite anyone or anything. It’s counter productive to even try because none will be convinced one way or the other. The point is only that there have been debunkings. There are always debunkings and they come out fast and as sloppy as the reports they debunk.
Well, heck yeah!
I doubt that’s entirely true, but it sure goes a long way.
In my desperate, pitiful efforts to get some handle on the election fraud question, I find a lot of terrible fact-checking. Blatant errors, easily fact-checked if you can read and do logic at a high school level. In the fact-checks.
In Hulky green growl: IN. THE. FACT. CHECKS. RARRGGGGHHH!
Be careful where you put your nose you might get a crick in your neck from so much navel gazing. You take a lot of things personally and I don’t even know who you are.
https://rumble.com/vmghw2-episode-1498-scott-adams-put-earmuffs-on-the-children-when-i-talk-about-our.htm
First few minutes.
(Language warning.)
Scott Adams is still a disingenuous huckster. I happen to know two young men who got myocarditis just days after receiving their second vaccination.
Adams says that we should (only) make decisions based on good science, but then he says (as he has said in the past) we can’t know what good science is: so we can’t (ever) make good decisions. Though he’s deliberately vague, saying this sequence is meaningless.
And he says that a study that came out was debunked because one person disapproved it, so there (which he says a lot). One man, or twenty men, saying that a study is wrong, does not mean it’s wrong.
Then he makes his point by saying that your chances of getting dangerous myocarditis early in life in less likely than getting even mild covid five, ten or fifty years from now (because it’s “endemic”). These two things are not comparable.
He’s a cartoonist for pete’s sake, and he makes a big deal out of convincing you that he can convince you of anything. In this he may be right.
He is sometimes entertaining, but he is a complete nihilist.
I only listened to a single episode ofhis podcast, having been impressed with some things he has said. I moved on when he was totally down with the boys-in-girls-sports nonsense, even for public schools. Talk about a guy who doesn’t understand society or what’s at stake.
That would be consistent with nihilism.
He loves to say that no man has any right to have any opinion on abortion because they don’t have a uterus. Yet all men have been in a uterus and definitely have a stake in what happens there.