Judge upholds COVID vaccine requirement for those with 'natural immunity'

[struggle4progress]

By Tom Hals

Sept 30 (Reuters) - A U.S. judge upheld the University of California's COVID-19 vaccine requirement against a challenge by a professor who alleged he had immunity due to a prior coronavirus infection, in what appears to be the first ruling on the issue.

U.S. District Court Judge James Selna in Santa Ana, California, said the university system acted rationally to protect public health by mandating the vaccine and not exempting individuals with some level of immunity from an infection ...

Selna's ruling denied a motion for a preliminary injunction by Aaron Kheriaty. And while Selna said the professor at the University of California, Irvine School of Medicine did not show a likelihood of success, Kheriaty said he plans to continue the litigation.

He told Reuters he plans to use the discovery process to determine how the policy was formulated and to question the university's expert witnesses about their reasoning for rejecting his arguments on natural immunity ...

https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-judge-upholds-covid-19-vaccine-requirement-those-with-natural-immunity-2021-09-30/

[ProfessorGAC]

1. There Are Already Studies On This

Having been infected, AND getting vaxxed provides much better immunity than the "natural" immunity alone.
So, it's a dumb argument.
And those R congresspersons who are doctors worried about military "delegation": exactly what security is risked by losing 10% of the world's most powerful military? Now, we'd only be 2.7 times more powerful than anyone else, instead of 3.
Besides, I thought these guys were about keeping a lid on the budget. What more impact could we have if the military budget falls 5-10%?

[Shermann]

2. Also natural immunity is highly variable

The amount of exposure is random and unknowable as is any resulting immunity. Neither of those attributes are desirable in a preventative measure.

[Red Mountain]

3. Sigh

Good.