Xtreme87

https://www.euroweeklynews.com/2021/01/25/netherlands-and-denmark-leaders-warn-of-civil-war

No they’re not.

germanaviator

This article you linked to is not even talking about vaccine passports in Denmark or elsewhere. Its headline reads:

Netherlands and Denmark Leaders Warn Of ‘Civil War’

But there is nothing(!) in the article that substantiates this headline. Really bad journalism. Why would you even link to such trash reporting? By the way: Denmark are certainly developing a digital vaccination passport according to a number of reputable news sources. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN29D1DM

uavking

Nice deflection. The Financial Times backs up Al Jazeera's story on Danish digital COVID vax passports:

"Morten Bodskov, Denmark’s acting finance minister, said on Wednesday that a coronavirus passport would be launched in simple form by the end of this month, showing whether somebody had been vaccinated, while it would take another two to three months to develop a full digital passport." (FT, 03FEB21)

Source: https://www.ft.com/content/b0814db0-...0-b0a407746e1d

Xtreme87

That’s great and all, but in order to impose such mandates, you have to have the consent of the general population. Otherwise this is going to be the result. The protests aren’t only about lockdowns. Btw, half of France won’t take the vaccine. Distrust in government and the elites are at an all time high. Saying you will implement something is one thing, actually getting enough people to go along with it is another story.

Phins2right

Here in the USA no one can mandate you take the vaccine as it is still under the EUA (Emergency Use Authorization).“Emergency Use Authorization” means that any product with this designation must be voluntary. Under 21 U.S.C. § 360bbb-3, “Authorization for medical products for use in emergencies”:

(ii) Appropriate conditions designed to ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed —

(I) that the Secretary [of Health and Human Services] has authorized the emergency use of the product;

(II) of the significant known and potential benefits and risks of such use, and of the extent to which such benefits and risks are unknown; and

(III) of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product, of the consequences, if any, of refusing administration of the product, and of the alternatives to the product that are available and of their benefits and risks.

Further, in this case Fed law does override states' under the Federal Preemption Doctrine.

"Governors may not mandate EUA vaccines, or EUA tests for COVID infection. States cannot override federal law or set up their own mandatory scheme. See for example, Lorillard Tobacco Co. v. Reilly, 533 U.S. 525, 570-71 (2001), which overturned a state public health law because it was already the subject of a comprehensive federal scheme to manage public health, and Department of the Navy v. Egan, 484 U.S. 518, 530 (1988). For more information on state and local law, see this Emergency Use Authorization Toolkit from the Association of State and Territorial Health Officials."This was also confirmed in August 2020 at a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention published meeting of the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, where its Executive Secretary Dr, Amanda Cohn, stated (@1:14:40):

“I just wanted to add that, just wanted to remind everybody, that under an Emergency Use Authorization, an EUA, vaccines are not allowed to be mandatory. So, early in this vaccination phase, individuals will have to be consented and they won’t be able to be mandated.”


What about private employers you ask? A private party, such as an employer, school or hospital, cannot circumvent the EUA law.

With that said, the law on private entities is likely to be litigated. Even the most ardent advocates for COVID vaccines acknowledge that employer mandates would be “problematic” and would likely lead to litigation.

One of the initial issues in litigation would be that EUA law applies to “a person who carries out any activity for which the authorization is issued.” While this phrase plainly refers to healthcare workers, i.e. those who vaccinate the public, it can also refer to anyone who participates in the EUA activity, such as employers requiring the product (see e.g., reference below to private employers as “program planners”).

The FDA even applies the term to those that advertise the product. So courts are likely to find that EUA law covers employers carrying out their own vaccination requirements, as well as states and municipalities.

But what if a private employer stubbornly refuses to heed the EUA law and attempts to require its employees to get EUA vaccines anyway?

Employers are likely to lose if challenged in court for the above-stated reasons, and also because the FDA did not issue an Emergency Dispensing Order to even attempt to circumvent EUA requirements.

Indeed, the EUA law preventing mandates is so explicit that we found only one precedent case regarding an attempt to mandate an EUA vaccine, and the court held that the vaccine could not be mandated, even to people in the military. In Doe #1 v. Rumsfeld, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5573 (D.D.C. Apr. 6, 2005).

---Greg Glasier Esq.

Xtreme87

“Individuals will have to be consented and will not be able to be mandated”

That my friend is always the case. If that ever stops becoming the case, then fascism has prevailed and global stability will start to tumble.

highfarfast

These vaccines won't be EUA only forever.

rickair7777

The US government will not (and probably has no legal basis to) mandate vaccines for anyone who's not in the mil. Politically that would never fly, and I agree that's a bit autocratic. After all, it's your body as they like to say.

But legal precedent exists to *require* vaccination as a condition for participation in certain activities (schools, daycare, certain jobs) if it's addressing a specific hazard (or an employment requirement such as entry into foriegn counties). An employer cannot require a a vaccine as a condition of employment for purposes of improving absenteeism (any more than they can require mandatory PT at 0600 every morning, although I'd be OK with that personally). A vaccine would need regular, not EUA, approval before an employer could do that.

There's also no reason you couldn't require vaccination for entry into a bar, theater, or restaurant since there is a potential hazard to other people if you're eating and drinking without a mask. Grocery stores, probably not since they've officially establsihed that masks and Social D prevent covid and you don't linger for hours.

Schools and employers will likely require real proof of vaccination, which is looking to involve digital verification. But small businesses will just want to CYA and comply with code, so I'm sure you can print a fake vaccination cert off the internet and use it to get into your local bar.

Requiring a vaccine for certain activities is not "mandatory" vaccination. You just have to weigh your priorities, there is such a thing as zoom jobs right now and that's likely to continue post-pandemic.

But you already know what I'm going to say about airline pilots, so I won't bother.

rickair7777

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-h...-idUSKBN2A4134

Xtreme87

This article pretty much said what I said, this will not be successful because you will leave a lot of people out of being able to participate in everyday things. There has to be other options or there will be problems. I guess testing will be the alternative at least for now.

This is what I like to call corporate terrorism. Where large corporations work to make up whole new revenue streams. If they can’t make enough profit, they eventually come up with ways to lobby the government to force their product on to you. Either way, we’re going down a rabbit hole that only leads to one outcome, a revolution. I can’t exactly pinpoint how much time we have until we reach that point, but it’s fast approaching.