Re: public schoools, and, by extension, any public entity. This is why I stated: > What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is leg

Re: public schoools, and, by extension, any public entity. This is why I stated: > What about public authorities? Same thing applies, unless vaccination is legally mandatory. Then we'd have a different discussion. Everything you mention is the "different discussion" in that statement. My comment was a rebuke against what is mentioned in the grandparent comment: > but will be individually implemented by each private org Private organisations - restaurants, shops, music venues, malls, theatres,... - may try and ask for personal medical information, but you are not obliged to divulge anything to them. Private organisations barring entrance because you are unwilling to disclose personal medical information: I'm wondering how well that would hold up in a legal case. For instance, you have an autoimmune disease and you can't get vaccinated. You present at a restaurant. You are asked "are you vaccinated?". If you answer the question truthfully with "no" but you don't want to disclose your medical condition, you likely risk getting barred anyway. So, now you are in a position where you need to make a trade off: divulge your medical condition - which isn't any of the restaurant's business - in hopes of gaining access (no guarantee) or keep silent. See where this is going? The problem isn't people who are against vaccination, it's the potential of creating legal hurdles for people who can't get vaccinated due to a medical condition which may bar them from participating in society. That's just not okay. Moreover, if private venues are afraid of being the butt of an infection cluster (e.g. as a result of contact tracing) then they ought to insure themselves. That would be not much different from insuring oneself from other liabilities such as a patron tripping and breaking their arm in theme park. This is also the very reason why many venues have warnings and provide waivers to patrons giving up the right to take legal action against the venue. Lastly, the article you quote specifically focusses on choosing to not get vaccinated based on philosophical or religious arguments within a public context: getting educated at a public school. Which is a different category of legal challenges. Moreover, the conclusion of the article is that tort law is only a second best approach to publicly mandated vaccination within that category.