Hacker News Reader

From a legal perspective, if the injection does not provide 100% immunity (when used as directed), then it cannot be called a vaccine, instead it is a therapeutic treatment.

Because courts of law have recognized covid mRNA injections as therapeutic treatments, they cannot be mandated.

View on HN

From a legal perspective, right and wrong are decided by a coin flip most of the time.

That sounds like nonsense. Most vaccines do not provide 100% immunity.

Not to the union, it's not.

'The plaintiffs alleged that the vaccines do not prevent someone from becoming infected with COVID-19 and characterized it as a treatment rather than a “traditional vaccine.”'

https://calmatters.org/education/2024/06/covid-vaccine-manda...

You're aware that the article you posted is full of sovcit antivaxers?

The reason the case was dismissed was because the requirement was removed.

The case was reopened on appeal due to the rules being temporarily re-established.

Anything else is nonsense. This is spelled out in the article but wrapped with a bunch of whatifs and maybes and possiblies.

If your hypothesis was correct, then NOTHING is a vaccine.

Do I care?

Well you're the one making the claim that a vaccine needs to block infections permanently, so I guess you do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com