OSHA Report: What you need to know - part 2
More brief commentary and screenshots. Hope you have the stomach for this.
In Part 1, we tackled the opening of the OSHA document (400+ pages long). In it they laid out the general plan and cited the legal justification for such. It’s a bear.
Next section tries to make the “grave danger” designation by laying out the “scientific” outlays for transmission in the workplace. Honestly - I think a lot of you can help on this. It starts on page 23 and they cite a BUNCH of studies. Some of them I know to be bunk and some of them we haven’t tackled yet.
Lots of interesting revelations here — including the part where OSHA downplays the accuracy of PCR tests so that they don’t have to exempt prior infection folks from their measures. If they can prove that the tests really don’t mean anything… well… we can all laugh together:
1) They’ll be using that phrase “grave danger” throughout the entire document. It’s a legal term but I’m hoping folks can knock some big holes in the measure.
2) The next section is taken up by citing study after study about the deadliness of the disease and transmission in the workplace. They then go on to try and rebut the vaccinated vs unvaccinated risk for infection and transmission.
I’m certain the great @donwolt will take issue with this section:
And Martin Kuldorff will want to speak to OSHA about dismissing the Israel study so readily. As he notes, fully vaccinated individuals are 27x more likely to get infected than someone who had prior immunity.
3) Then, a wisp of sanity as they determine that the rule will not apply to workers whose jobs are outside.
Our friend @ethicialskeptic might be able to help them figure this one out. Why do field workers get infected MORE frequently than workers who are outdoors but not in the fields? Hint: poop (fecal-oral transmission from fertilizer)
4) Then we get to prior immunity. They won’t stand for it.
They cite just 3 studies and one them notes that natural immunity holds up very well — but because the authors of the study recommend a booster then we should just dismiss half of the U.S. population:
As a reminder we have a HOST of studies showing how natural immunity is AS GOOD if not better than vaccine acquired immunity:
But here’s the fun part. They take a few pages to throw shade on the PCR test in order to demonstrate that we can’t rely on just a positive test to prove immunity:
Keep reading with a 7-day free trial
Subscribe to Rational Ground by Justin Hart to keep reading this post and get 7 days of free access to the full post archives.