I didn’t think we would end up in a timeline where courts are trying to protect the replication of a deadly virus that has killed millions. Look at the results. Mandate->lives saved; no mandate->more death. I thought you all claimed to be pro life?
mandate -> no choice. I thought you all claimed to be pro-choice?
See? It's almost as if someone's political beliefs has more nuance than a two word slogan.
In this case the increasingly fanatical "vaccinate everything over and over" brigade refuse to accept that disagreement can have any kind of rational basis, and thus don't even listen to the people who don't want to take it. But that is exactly why this type of mandate is really bad news.
As for "what about the other vaccine mandates" - yep, time to revisit them too. Apparently public health agencies aren't at their most trustworthy when talking about this topic. Their treatment of COVID vaccine data has been shockingly poor. It's not a big leap to wondering whether they've been acting like this in the past too and people just didn't notice.
I'm not saying it doesn't work, but it's not a silver bullet, and only time will tell if it's safe.
It had 'due process', the same process any other vaccine would receive (including previous vaccines), culminating in an FDA authorization for use. All based on decades of research and 18 months of "shots in arms" data to back it up, when we know after a great deal of experience that vaccine side effects would show up in weeks, not years.
That doesn't make the Pfizer vaccine a "silver bullet" but it has not sideswiped due process and there's no additional data to be gained from waiting longer. So we're at the situation where if the courts decide this vaccine mandate is contrary to the public health, no vaccine mandate could be enforced either.