DocPsychosis t1_jeeg01d wrote
Reply to comment by jamesland7 in SJC rules Mayor Wu had the authority to require municipal workers to get the COVID-19 vaccine - The Boston Globe by TouchDownBurrito
I would assume there has to be some legitimate public safety concern, it's not a carte blanche. For instance I assume a city government couldn't compel, say, librarians to get smallpox or yellow fever vaccine given actual infectious disease risks in MA in 2023.
sord_n_bored t1_jeehnak wrote
I mean, arguing against human vaccines, a universally good thing, is a hard needle to thread. There's not really any statement to be made against it unless the employer was requiring vaccines and not offering employees reasonable time and opportunity to attain them. There also isn't any reason to expect that a state entity would tell all librarians to go get the smallpox vaccine, one because smallpox now isn't like Covid-19 now, and two because most Boston librarians are, arguably, smart enough to already have been vaccinated.
The one (and only) actual argument to be made here is about if employers have the right to force employees to get medical procedures and under what circumstances. Right now it's fine, but if you actually wanted to make this argument you'd likely say that, it may be in the future there's a medical procedure where all USPS employees need to have mail canons installed on their arms to more efficiently deliver mail.
It's a stupid argument, and also the only one that half-makes sense.
pslessard t1_jeep51h wrote
I for one would love to see a future where all USPS employees had mail cannons for arms
MammothCat1 t1_jefb5k8 wrote
Mecha postman would be a great TV show on PBS for sure.
abhikavi t1_jef7dnb wrote
> and two because most Boston librarians are, arguably, smart enough to already have been vaccinated.
Smallpox is the one that's been eradicated, right?
maranello353 t1_jeeiq8r wrote
Jacobson v massschusetts 1905. There’s one more case I can’t remember but there’s well over a century of precedent supporting mandatory vaccinations/quarantine/isolation/masking. Public health agencies/authorities have the power to implement these interventions (and they have to meet the 4 requirements established under Jacobson v Massachusetts in order to do so)
theliontamer37 t1_jeej8c1 wrote
And there it is. While what you say is true, that specific case has been abused by states to do some really fucked up things. It was used to chemically castrate the mentally ill in state hospitals for “public safety”.
downthewell62 t1_jef0dap wrote
> for “public safety”.
what are the 4 requirements
theliontamer37 t1_jef2fr5 wrote
Necessity, reasonable means, proportionality and harm avoidance
McFlyParadox t1_jefavvw wrote
>For instance I assume a city government couldn't compel, say, librarians to get smallpox or yellow fever vaccine given actual infectious disease risks in MA in 2023.
And if there ever was - somehow - an outbreak of smallpox or yellow fever, I would 100% expect librarians to be covered under any govt-mandates regarding vaccines for those diseases.
If you're going to use hypothetical arguments, at least make sure the whole thing matches, rather than picking and choosing.
Individual_Brick5537 t1_jeep0oj wrote
In this case that concern was pretty easily met. An internationally declared pandemic, and an FDA approved vaccine. The whole time, this has been so far on the side of reasonable that the opponents just looked like idiots.
Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments