3 ms·

That’s orthogonal to the headline, isn’t it?

• walterbell 5y ago
  It's a response to the general comment about legal precedent on vaccines. Since the definition of vaccine has changed to denote a new category, it remains to be seen how the precedent will be interpreted. Prior to this CDC revision, there has been widespread confusion about the relationship between immunity and Covid vaccination. "Prevention" is a bright legal and scientific line, which rapidly stops contagion. "Protection" is debatable, as we see from the many studies on efficacy.
  • moistly 5y ago
    Inoculation dates back longer than strictly sterilizing vaccination. I don’t think there’s a legal argument against mass vaccination. Apropos of nothing, today a group of anti vaccination lunatics terrorized several schools in an adjacent school districts. This, after disrupting a hospital that is at the bursting limits with mostly unvaccinated Delta victims. Public health interests have always had ultimate priority over personal health decisions.
    • walterbell 5y ago
      Fortunately, lawyers have monetary incentives to fund evidence collection, e.g. autopsies that would otherwise never take place, or expensive genome sequencing to identify which variant infected a vaccinated person, to quantify public health benefits, costs and risks. The fuzzier the claims, the happier the lawyers. Pharma manufacturers and governments may not have liability, but a range of individuals and organizations may be surprised to find themselves liable for "mandates" not encoded in legislation. OSHA has rules which require employers to track all adverse events from mandated vaccines, but these are not currently being enforced. That ambiguity should make lawyers happy, NSW in Australia has proposed that employers be liable for worker vaccine injuries when the vaccine is mandated by the government.