4 ms·
You're totally right, but I think there's also something to said for setting new precedent. Status quo rarely changes without disruption.
by pensatoio 5y ago
You're totally right, but I think there's also something to said for setting new precedent. Status quo rarely changes without disruption.
- jjeaff 5y agoSo the new precedent would be that you can refuse an order in the military if you think that order might cause you harm? Seems like that might not work out well.
- pensatoio 5y agoI'm not making an argument, I'm simply addressing the parent comment. Perhaps the status quo in question is whether forcing service members to take a vaccine (totally lawful) is justified in this case. Even the CDC director is openly admitting that pushing these brand new vaccines so aggressively was "overly optimistic." Again, not making an argument here, just pointing out that the status quo in the military for _these specific vaccines_ may change as a result of a shifting political landscape, and a lawsuit like this may well be the avenue.
- jjeaff 5y agoOverly optimistic in terms of harm or just overly optimistic in terms of effectiveness? Because those are two different things.