Grave Danger or Vaccine Coercion?
“Grave danger!” These are strong words that immediately conjure up images of a worker teetering off the edge of an unguarded rooftop or elbow-deep in an electrical panel with the power on. But would you use these words to describe the risk of COVID transmission in your office? As we approach the two-year mark of the COVID-19 pandemic with millions of Americans having some form of immunity, “grave danger” is not an apt description of the risk of COVID infection in most U.S. work environments. Yet, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) is set to release an Emergency Temporary Standard (ETS) that is based on the determination that workers are in grave danger due to exposure to COVID in the workplace, and therefore, the ETS is needed to protect them. Unfortunately, this ETS has little to do with worker protection and more to do with vaccine coercion by the federal government.
On October 12, OSHA submitted the ETS to the Office of Management and Budget for review, and the rule is set to go into effect on January 4, 2022. The OSHA ETS will require employers with 100 or more employees to ensure their workers are fully vaccinated or require unvaccinated workers to produce a negative COVID test result weekly before coming to work. This is all to protect workers from the “grave danger” of COVID transmission in the workplace, or so they say.
If one accepts the stated ETS objective of worker protection from COVID transmission, the details of the standard do not add up. If the vaccinated — and we know this to be true — can become infected by and transmit the SARS-CoV-2 virus, do they not present a danger to their vaccinated and unvaccinated co-workers? The COVID vaccine does not eliminate the risk of COVID transmission in the workplace, so why exclude the vaccinated from weekly testing? Contrary to the messaging of the media and government that vaccination protects others, COVID vaccines only offer some protection to those who receive them. One must question the true objective of the ETS, and this should make it difficult for OSHA to substantiate a “grave danger” claim during the legal challenges that most definitely lie ahead. And while they are at it, OSHA should be forced to explain why a “grave danger” exists at an employer with 100 employees, but not at one with 99.
JBS Member or ShopJBS.org Customer?
Sign in with your ShopJBS.org account username and password or use that login to subscribe.
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically
Subscribe Now
- 24 Issues Per Year
- Print edition delivery (USA)
*Available Outside USA - Digital Edition Access
- Exclusive Subscriber Content
- Audio provided for all articles
- Unlimited access to past issues
- Cancel anytime.
- Renews automatically