据一位知情人士透露，美国总统乔·拜登(Joe Biden)可能会在周四宣布美国联邦雇员的疫苗需求。
这一决定取决于正在进行的政策审查，这可能决定员工是否能够选择不接种疫苗，而是接受定期检测继续屏蔽。
拜登在周二下午谈到联邦工作人员的疫苗授权时说:“现在正在考虑中。“但如果你没有接种疫苗，你就远没有我想象的那么聪明。”
首席副新闻秘书郭佳欣·让-皮埃尔周三表示:“作为一名联邦雇主，我们的目标是保护我们员工的安全，同时拯救生命。”。
对于美国近210万联邦文职人员来说，许多关于此举的问题仍未得到解答。这一可能的要求也引发了道德问题，因为这些疫苗还没有得到食品药品监督管理局的完全授权。
辉瑞、Moderna和强生公司疫苗我们获得了紧急使用授权(EUA)，但美国食品和药物管理局面临着对疫苗进行全面授权的压力，这可能会为学校和军队的授权打开大门。
美国食品和药物管理局发言人艾莉森·亨特在一份声明中说:“美国食品和药物管理局认识到疫苗是结束新冠肺炎大流行的关键，并正在尽快审查申请以获得完全批准。”。
斯坦福生物医学伦理中心主任大卫·马格努斯(David Magnus)认为，考虑到疫苗已被证明在目前的使用中是安全有效的，这一步骤在伦理上不需要要求疫苗。
他在接受美国广播公司新闻采访时表示:“我认为，美国食品和药物管理局对EUA的批准不应该对授权是否到位有任何影响。
马格努斯认为，预期的公告可能会让工人在疫苗上有一些选择，但这是没有接种疫苗的后果。
“一些疫苗授权——我相信拜登提出的那个，以及加州已经实施的那个，实际上相当温和。它们不是真正的命令，”马格努斯说。
“它们是要求，而不是命令，因为它们不仅有允许的例外，不接种疫苗的后果也不是这是就业的条件。如果你做不到这一点，那么你必须采取其他公共卫生措施来改善它，比如定期检测和随时戴口罩，”他补充道。
但是司法部的律师得出结论，该法律“不禁止公共或私人实体强制实施疫苗接种要求”，即使是那些尚未得到FDA完全批准的疫苗，根据7月6日的意见来自司法部法律顾问办公室。
“尽管许多实体的疫苗接种要求保留了个人拒绝接种EUA疫苗的最终‘选择’，但它们对行使这一选择造成了有时严重的不利后果，”DOJ法律分析总结道，举例来说，拒绝在大学招收拒绝接种疫苗的学生。
今年6月，德克萨斯州的一名联邦法官做出了有利于休斯顿卫理公会医院的裁决，该医院因该医院的疫苗授权而被117名员工起诉。
“卫理公会试图在不给他们新冠肺炎病毒的情况下拯救生命。这是为了让工作人员、病人和他们的家人更安全而做出的选择，”美国地方法官林恩·n·休斯在意见书中写道。
首席原告法官写道，“可以自由选择接受或拒绝新冠肺炎疫苗;然而，如果她拒绝，她将只需要在其他地方工作。”
代表联邦雇员的一个专业协会，联邦执法官员协会，周三对预期的疫苗需求表示担忧。
协会主席拉里·科姆在一份声明中说:“强迫人们接受医疗程序不是美国的方式，无论支持者如何为其辩护，这都是对公民权利的明显侵犯。“因此，我们鼓励政府与FLEOA和其他联邦雇员团体合作，激励所有联邦雇员接种疫苗，而不是惩罚那些没有接种的人。”
预计的疫苗需求出现之际，美国疾病控制和预防中心(Centers for Disease Control and Prevention)周二发布了经修订的口罩指南，呼吁在“高”或“相当高”传播水平地区已完全接种疫苗的个人恢复佩戴口罩。
周三，拜登离开白宫前往宾夕法尼亚州，被看到未戴口罩离开椭圆形办公室，尽管华盛顿被认为是一个“重要”的传播区。拜登的目的地是宾夕法尼亚州利哈伊谷的马孔吉乡，这里被认为是“中度”传播区，所以总统没有在那里戴口罩。
但在美国疾控中心周二发布声明后不久，白宫记者被白宫记者协会指示在室内恢复戴口罩，有人看到副总统哈里斯在室内会议期间戴口罩。
哈里斯对事态的发展直言不讳。
“没有人喜欢戴口罩，”她周二说。“接种疫苗。就是这样。”
Expected vaccine requirement for federal workers raises new questions
President Joe Biden is likely to announce a vaccine requirement for the nation's federal employees Thursday, according to a source familiar with the discussions.
The decision is dependent on an ongoing policy review, which could determine whether employees will be able to opt out of vaccination and instead, undergo regular testing andcontinue masking.
"It's under consideration right now," Biden said of a vaccine mandate for federal workers Tuesday afternoon. "But if you're not vaccinated, you're not nearly as smart as I thought you were."
"Our goal as a federal employer is to keep our employees safe and to also save lives," principal deputy press secretary Karine Jean-Pierre said Wednesday.
For the nation's nearly 2.1 million civilian federal workers, many questions about the move remain unanswered. The possible requirement also raises ethics questions, since the vaccines have not been fully authorized by the Food and Drug Administration.
Pfizer, Moderna and the Johnson and Johnsonvaccineswere granted an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA), but the FDA is facing pressure to issue full authorization of the vaccines, which could open the door to mandates in schools, and the military.
"The FDA recognizes that vaccines are key to ending the COVID-19 pandemic and is working as quickly as possible to review applications for full approval," FDA spokesperson Alison Hunt said in a statement.
David Magnus, the director of the Stanford Center for Biomedical Ethics, argued that the step was not ethically needed to require vaccines, given they have proven to be safe and effective in their current use.
"I don't think that the FDA approval versus the EUA should have any bearing at all on whether or not a mandate is put in place," he told ABC News in an interview.
Magnus argued that the expected announcement could leave workers with some choice on vaccine, but a consequence for not getting the shot.
"Some of the vaccine mandates -- I believe the one that's proposed by Biden, and the one that's been put in place here in California are actually quite soft. They're not really mandates," Magnus said.
"They're requirements, but not mandates, because not only do they have exceptions allowed, the consequences of not being vaccinated are not that this is a condition of employment. It's that if you fail to do this then you have to take other public health measures to ameliorate it, like regular testing and wearing a mask at all times," he added.
But Department of Justice lawyers have concluded that the law "does not prohibit public or private entities from imposing vaccination requirements," even for vaccines that are not yet fully approved by the FDA,according to a July 6 opinionfrom the department's Office of Legal Counsel.
"Although many entities' vaccination requirements preserve an individual's ultimate 'option' to refuse an EUA vaccine, they nevertheless impose sometimes-severe adverse consequences for exercising that option," the DOJ legal analysis concludes, citing, for example, refusal to enroll students who refuse to vaccinate at a university.
In June, a federal judge in Texas ruled in favor of a Houston Methodist Hospital, which was sued by 117 employees over the hospital's vaccine mandate.
"Methodist is trying to do their business of saving lives without giving them the COVID-19 virus. It is a choice made to keep staff, patients, and their families safer," U.S. District Judge Lynn N. Hughes wrote in the opinion.
The leading plaintiff, the judge wrote, "can freely choose to accept or refuse a COVID-19 vaccine; however, if she refuses, she will simply need to work somewhere else."
One professional association representing federal employees, the Federal Law Enforcement Officers Association, expressed concern about the expected vaccine requirement Wednesday.
"Forcing people to undertake a medical procedure is not the American way and is a clear civil rights violation no matter how proponents may seek to justify it," association President Larry Cosme said in a statement. "We would therefore encourage the administration to work collaboratively with FLEOA and other federal employee groups to incentivize all federal employees to be vaccinated, rather than penalize those who do not."
The expected vaccine requirement comes as the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention released revised mask guidance on Tuesday, calling for fully vaccinated individuals in "high" or "substantial" transmission level areas to resume wearing them.
Departing the White House for a trip to Pennsylvania Wednesday, Biden was seen unmasked exiting the Oval Office, despite Washington being considered a "substantial" transmission area. Biden's destination, Macungie Township in Pennsylvania's Lehigh Valley, is considered a "moderate" transmission area, so the president did not don a mask there.
But shortly after the CDC's announcement Tuesday, White House reporters were instructed to resume wearing masks while indoors by the White House Correspondents Association and Vice President Harris was seen wearing a mask during an indoor meeting.
Harris was blunt about the development.
"No one likes wearing a mask," she said Tuesday. "Get vaccinated. That's it."
