Who thinks the CDC will roll back their new mask rules from two days ago?

[AndreaA]

I'm curious what laws & civil rights would be violated by a private business asking for proof of vaccination, and then barring those who can't (or won't) show such proof. As I understand it, the unvaccinated don't fall under a "protected class" (race, gender, religion, etc) so as long as a business treats ALL unvaccinated the same, where's the violation?

That being said, I don't think any business will require vaccination proof of customers. It will be too difficult to verify. If it can't be verified, what's the point?

No, asking for your vaccination status doesn’t violate HIPAA. However, anyone could lie or fake documents. Therefore you would need a system of verification. Unless everyone has signed a HIPAA waiver that addresses whatever that system of verification is, it would be in violation.

As for the unvaccinated not being a protected class, I think that’s actually questionable. If someone cannot get a vaccine due to a prior medical condition, that could easily fall under the ADA and just like at Disney where they cannot ask your disability in order to get a DAS pass, no one would be able to question why you aren’t vaccinated. Again anyone could claim medical condition without proof.

Basically having businesses require someone to simply tell or even give them “proof” of vaccination only prohibits those who aren’t willing to skirt the truth. I just don’t see it happening - especially as cases continue to diminish. The courts would fill with the cases against such practices and even if the businesses prevailed in court, would they really want to shell out that money and also lose business by alienating part of their clientele? Seems unlikely.

Of course there will always be a group of Karens shouting that stores/parks/offices should be demanding proof of vaccination, but generally speaking those places will wait for them to tire themselves out as the actual threat of covid decreases, and then they will go about business as usual.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

As for the unvaccinated not being a protected class, I think that’s actually questionable.

That's for the courts to decide. Until then it is not protected, until then it doesn't fall under ADA. And it may only be a state by state not a federal thing in the end with courts. The federal government is being hands off with this one at this time. ADA is a federal jurisdiction. HIPAA is a federal jurisdiction. One of the quirks with the U.S. being the U.S. is states get to make some decisions for themselves and the federal government steps back on some things (ironic I know given how the pandemic has appeared to some).

I realize that it's a hard subject but a lot of people are twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to figure out ways for why something would violate something. Reality is our systems, including social programs like unemployment, like public assistance programs, and more, are designed in such a way that it's limited protection which I know can upset people, right now with how people feel uneasy about the covid vaccine for completely different reasons than what people refer anti-vaxxers to. People aren't anti-vaxxers all the time with covid vaccine just because they show hesistancy towards getting it.

No one really knows if any of this will become reality I think one side is just saying don't be surprised if it does because it doesn't violate things and the other side is saying it does. Right now it's not violating things as the law is written. In the end it may be that this state has this rule passed but another state does not. Welcome to the U.S.

 

[OregonDisDad]

People are making way too much out of a potential vaccine verification system. Such a system, if implemented in the USA, would almost CERTAINLY be voluntary, and would require a full OPT IN by the participants. Businesses or venues who choose to require vaccines would simply be a participant on whatever network gets established. This is ALREADY being done in some places. Its not the privacy trap so many people seem to think it is. Its similar to programs like Clear, or Global Entry. You pay to join those, and as a member you have access to the credentials needed to gain access to various perks. I have "electronically signed" a bunch of HIPAA forms for various entities. It's not a big deal.

It's not some nefarious thing for an entity to scan a QR code that verifies that you are who you say you are and you have been vaccinated. Sheesh...you would think people are being asked about their last STD test results. It's a vaccine that hundreds of millions of people have gotten so far.

I can tell you that Orange County, CA, and the state at large, is working on creating a vaccine passport system. While the Karen's of the OC are busy showing up to county board of supervisors meetings yelling HIPAA until they turn blue in the face, the county is patiently waiting until they get tired of talking so they can go ahead with this. They have already said that anyone who got vaccinated at a county run site would be able to verify their status in whatever system they roll out. They are working with the Federal Pharmacy partners like CVS and Walgreens to integrate their records for seamless verification as well. It's gonna happen in some places whether people like the idea or not. Its legal and there is a market for this kind of thing, so you better believe there are already companies who are focusing on developing these kinds of apps.

Not sure I’d give to much credence to what some in California are trying to do (or what local courts or politicians say is legal from a civil rights perspective). I note that nothing really has happened yet (even in California). Those opposed will fight this with far more ferver than those supporting. It also will become increasingly meaningless as society opens back up (other than perhaps as a federal test case).

As for companies developing this kind of app, I don’t doubt that somebody is working on it. However, having an app capable of allowing people to share their medical history is very different from requiring them to do so (or treating them differently if they refuse to). No business would ever adopt this. Some might try to ask about vaccine status short term, but that will quickly go away when people push back, or in the face of uncooperative jurisdictions in free states such as Florida and Texas.

 

[sam_gordon]

No, asking for your vaccination status doesn’t violate HIPAA. However, anyone could lie or fake documents. Therefore you would need a system of verification. Unless everyone has signed a HIPAA waiver that addresses whatever that system of verification is, it would be in violation.

I never mentioned HIPAA. PP made the claim that "Aside from HIPPA, they would need to deal with a variety of state and local laws, and likely civil rights challenges. " I simply asked what laws and civil rights would be violated.

As for the unvaccinated not being a protected class, I think that’s actually questionable. If someone cannot get a vaccine due to a prior medical condition, that could easily fall under the ADA and just like at Disney where they cannot ask your disability in order to get a DAS pass, no one would be able to question why you aren’t vaccinated. Again anyone could claim medical condition without proof.

Agree w/PP... until a court says they're a protected class, they're not. It's not questionable.

Basically having businesses require someone to simply tell or even give them “proof” of vaccination only prohibits those who aren’t willing to skirt the truth. I just don’t see it happening - especially as cases continue to diminish. The courts would fill with the cases against such practices and even if the businesses prevailed in court, would they really want to shell out that money and also lose business by alienating part of their clientele? Seems unlikely.

Of course there will always be a group of Karens shouting that stores/parks/offices should be demanding proof of vaccination, but generally speaking those places will wait for them to tire themselves out as the actual threat of covid decreases, and then they will go about business as usual.

I agree, and even stated, businesses won't go through the trouble of limiting to those vaccinated. But that doesn't mean they can't, or that it would be illegal to do so. If you've got something that says it would be illegal to do so, please post.

 

[OregonDisDad]

I never mentioned HIPAA. PP made the claim that "Aside from HIPPA, they would need to deal with a variety of state and local laws, and likely civil rights challenges. " I simply asked what laws and civil rights would be violated.

Agree w/PP... until a court says they're a protected class, they're not. It's not questionable.


I agree, and even stated, businesses won't go through the trouble of limiting to those vaccinated. But that doesn't mean they can't, or that it would be illegal to do so. If you've got something that says it would be illegal to do so, please post.

Without going too far down the rabbit hole here....

• Various states (including Florida) have existing laws against asking for vaccine status.
• We all have civil rights, even if we are not in a “protected class”. Vaccine passports would raise issues in connection with various civil rights set forth in the US Bill of Rights.
• Your civil rights are protected before the violation of those rights is verified in a court. While a court may decide that there was not a right where we thought there was, the court ultimately is charged with determining the remedy for a past wrong, not determining a future right.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

Various states (including Florida) have existing laws against asking for vaccine status.

Which is a state rule not a federal rule. It doesn't fall under ADA or HIPAA which people constantly use to show why it would violate something. People have to understand that part because otherwise they will get confused. And as far as state rules there's even checks and balances there between going to court over that, vetoing, overriding of a veto and more. I understand that people want that protection and feel upset if there isn't any. If someone feels strongly enough should a business require a vaccine verification take them to court, because that's the way to do it in our country.

And maybe we should not go into civil rights because that back and forth discussion usually gets the thread shut down.

 

[AndreaA]

[QUOTE="Heigh-Ho, post: 62988062, member: 667782“

I realize that it's a hard subject but a lot of people are twisting themselves into a pretzel trying to figure out ways for why something would violate something. Reality is our systems, including social programs like unemployment, like public assistance programs, and more, are designed in such a way that it's limited protection which I know can upset people, right now with how people feel uneasy about the covid vaccine for completely different reasons than what people refer anti-vaxxers to. People aren't anti-vaxxers all the time with covid vaccine just because they show hesistancy towards getting it.

No one really knows if any of this will become reality I think one side is just saying don't be surprised if it does because it doesn't violate things and the other side is saying it does. Right now it's not violating things as the law is written. In the end it may be that this state has this rule passed but another state does not. Welcome to the U.S.
[/QUOTE]

I disagree that the “I doubt this will happen” people are twisting themselves into pretzels In order to figure out why something is a violation. I see it the opposite. People who apparently really want something like a vaccine passport to happen keep posting over and over again that “it’s going to happen” as if that’s going to actually make it happen.

Yes, there are some people stating this or that being a violation. Most of us are just saying that the mere possibility of people claiming it’s a violation - as well as the methods necessary to keep it from being a violation - are prohibitive enough that no business is going to bother even attempting such a thing, ESPECIALLY with cases on the DOWNWARD trend. It simply would never get the support it would need to be worth the extra effort of implementation.

Is it possible that a very liberal area might try to float it as a possibility? Well, anything is possible. Will it actually get off the ground? That seems very unlikely. The sad thing is that something like this would be judged “liberal” vs “conservative”. Anyone who is a true liberal should rankle at even perceived rights being infringed upon.

 

[sam_gordon]

Without going too far down the rabbit hole here....

• Various states (including Florida) have existing laws against asking for vaccine status.

• Laws or "governor mandates"?

• We all have civil rights, even if we are not in a “protected class”. Vaccine passports would raise issues in connection with various civil rights set forth in the US Bill of Rights.
• Your civil rights are protected before the violation of those rights is verified in a court. While a court may decide that there was not a right where we thought there was, the court ultimately is charged with determining the remedy for a past wrong, not determining a future right.

I never said people didn't have civil rights. I simply asked WHICH civil rights would be violated. In general, a business has a right to refuse service to anyone (unless they're a protected class). So, what civil right would be violated? It seems like a simple question.

 

[Heigh-Ho]

I disagree that the “I doubt this will happen” people are twisting themselves into pretzels In order to figure out why something is a violation. I see it the opposite. People who apparently really want something like a vaccine passport to happen keep posting over and over again that “it’s going to happen” as if that’s going to actually make it happen.

Yes, there are some people stating this or that being a violation. Most of us are just saying that the mere possibility of people claiming it’s a violation - as well as the methods necessary to keep it from being a violation - are prohibitive enough that no business is going to bother even attempting such a thing, ESPECIALLY with cases on the DOWNWARD trend. It simply would never get the support it would need to be worth the extra effort of implementation.

Is it possible that a very liberal area might try to float it as a possibility? Well, anything is possible. Will it actually get off the ground? That seems very unlikely. The sad thing is that something like this would be judged “liberal” vs “conservative”. Anyone who is a true liberal should rankle at even perceived rights being infringed upon.

You yourself described why it would be a violation to ADA using Disney's DAS system as an example, I think I'm confused then by your comment about seeing it as the opposite. I do understand what you were trying to look for in ADA.

Whether it happens or not as it stands it's not a violation under ADA or HIPAA. If people want to say that a state has made whatever against their state law that is perfectly reasonable (and there are active legislation going through the courts right now). Just don't use federal protected laws when there is no default protection there.

I think the main reason people get frustrated is how some people use these federal protected laws to say why it couldn't happen. Whether it happens or not is anybody's guess but I think the reasoning that it would be more hassle than it's worth is much better received (and really a valid discussion) when talking about it than using laws that don't say what people think they say and don't give them the protection they think it gives. Discuss all you want about it but realize that ADA and HIPAA aren't the reasoning you want to use.

I won't touch the political comments.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I think the main reason people get frustrated is how some people use these federal protected laws to say why it couldn't happen. Whether it happens or not is anybody's guess but I think the reasoning that it would be more hassle than it's worth is much better received (and really a valid discussion) when talking about it than using laws that don't say what people think they say and don't give them the protection they think it gives. Discuss all you want about it but realize that ADA and HIPAA aren't the reasoning you want to use.

Yeah..going to agree with you here. Seems the conversation predictably goes off track (usually devolving into a back and forth dissecting the laws and the what if's out there and yes the civil rights/freedom stuff gets there and I agree often the thread is shut down after that).

I think it's analogous to talk about it like "yes it's going to happening just you wait" and "ehh majority of businesses probably don't want to deal with all of that" but once you start veering off track with HIPAA and I guess ADA (haven't seen that one mentioned much in comparison to HIPAA) it just tends to go all over the place.

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Back to the original point of this thread parents here have been on both sides of masks staying in school some protesting to maintain them some protesting to not. One school district had a meeting yesterday and there was a protest out front to remove the mask requirement (there's 8 days left in the school year). I guess some parents were using CDC's updated guidance to say their kids shouldn't have to wear them ( ) but again these updates were fully vaccinated which the majority of kids are not and majority are not eligible (so people hearing what they want to hear). I guess 2 days after CDC released these updated guidelines they made a clarification that reads "“CDC recommends schools continue to use the current COVID-19 prevention strategies for the 2020-2021 school year.” What a cluster this has become.

 

[AndreaA]

Mostly I object to what feels like the constant push-back against GOOD NEWS. Heck, this whole thread was created with “this isn’t going to work” as the default position. I mean why ask a question that is going to allow people to air their negative thoughts about this whole situation? Haven’t we all been subjected to enough negativity this year? Do people really have to continually push their thoughts about why limits/barriers/restrictions need to be/should be/will be implemented instead of just enjoying that there are fewer people getting sick and even fewer passing away?

 

[kdonnel]

Mostly I object to what feels like the constant push-back against GOOD NEWS. Heck, this whole thread was created with “this isn’t going to work” as the default position. I mean why ask a question that is going to allow people to air their negative thoughts about this whole situation? Haven’t we all been subjected to enough negativity this year? Do people really have to continually push their thoughts about why limits/barriers/restrictions need to be/should be/will be implemented instead of just enjoying that there are fewer people getting sick and even fewer passing away?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negat...also known,processes than neutral or positive

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

Mostly I object to what feels like the constant push-back against GOOD NEWS. Heck, this whole thread was created with “this isn’t going to work” as the default position. I mean why ask a question that is going to allow people to air their negative thoughts about this whole situation? Haven’t we all been subjected to enough negativity this year? Do people really have to continually push their thoughts about why limits/barriers/restrictions need to be/should be/will be implemented instead of just enjoying that there are fewer people getting sick and even fewer passing away?

There are those who may only see negative those who may only see positive. I'll always maintain though it's okay to discuss in a practical matter things which means sometimes things are more positive sometimes things are more negative. Sometimes people try really hard to make something good news when there's underlying not so good news and the opposite is the truth as well.

To put it a different way do people really have to continually push their thoughts about only seeing things as great instead of understanding why people look at things like honor systems and other things as questionable in their effectiveness. Trusting the masses to do the right thing has not served us well through this pandemic. Practically looking at it (whether you agree with it or not) that's something I think we can all agree on. What the consequences of that remains to be seen.

***With all due respect if you feel this thread was created with a this isn't going to work default position and that frustrates you and you don't know why someone would ask the question to begin with scrolling past the thread may be the way to go about it. People get sick of the covid threads, they avoid the covid threads eventually.

 

[mrs. magoo]

Mostly I object to what feels like the constant push-back against GOOD NEWS. Heck, this whole thread was created with “this isn’t going to work” as the default position. I mean why ask a question that is going to allow people to air their negative thoughts about this whole situation? Haven’t we all been subjected to enough negativity this year? Do people really have to continually push their thoughts about why limits/barriers/restrictions need to be/should be/will be implemented instead of just enjoying that there are fewer people getting sick and even fewer passing away?

I don't see it that way at all. I am all for people who are fully vaccinated getting to do things again without a mask but those who are not vaccinated for whatever the reason should not be going out willy nilly. Covid is a tricky little virus. If you are not vaccinated you are vulnerable to getting Covid and possibly having complications even from a "mild" case as a stated up thread we know of 3 young athletes who are dealing with heart problems that occurred from their "mild" case. The problem is that people are hearing "No More Masks" when the message was "No More Masks for those Vaccinated."

 

[ShirikiUtundu]

Of course there will always be a group of Karens shouting that stores/parks/offices should be demanding proof of vaccination, but generally speaking those places will wait for them to tire themselves out as the actual threat of covid decreases, and then they will go about business as usual.

Wait, aren't the Karens antimaskers/antivaxxers? You might be thinking of a Susan.

 

[Joe in VA]

I've always thought of the Karens as the people yelling "Put on a damn mask!"

 

[Mackenzie Click-Mickelson]

I've always thought of the Karens as the people yelling "Put on a damn mask!"

lol nope. If peeps are going to use Karens it was the ones going to the anti-masking, anti-stay at home/shelter in place/safer at home orders protests way back when. I know it may be hard to think back that far. They are also the ones yelling at the poor worker at Costco for just trying to enforce the policy.

Not that there aren't a subgroup yelling to put on a mask but they aren't the Karens.

 

[jrmasm]

I've always thought of the Karens as the people yelling "Put on a damn mask!"

Nope. Karen insists on speaking to the manager about why her constitutional right to shop at Costco are being violated by the mask requirement.

 

[wenrob]

I've always thought of the Karens as the people yelling "Put on a damn mask!"

Nope. Karen insists on speaking to the manager about why her constitutional right to shop at Costco are being violated by the mask requirement.

So is it really like that in either case where you guys live? Granted I don’t go out much but I haven’t seen not a single person who refused to wear a mask. I have seen people with them below their noses but I’ve never seen anyone confronted one way or the other. On the DIS there seems to be an extreme in both directions and of course there are those viral videos but in “real life” I just have not experienced anything like this. Folks just seem to be going about their day to day.