Some people never learn/ San Francisco Chronicle

There are not that many people who are pro-vaccine zealots:  all vaccines for every person all the time.  My impression has always been that frontline doctors hear about (or see for themselves) the adverse reactions, and that is why doctors tend to be vaccinated less than most other healthcare workers, when they can refuse. The zealot doctors tend not to treat real patients, though Paul Offit is an exception.

Federal authorities created "standing orders" for hospitals about 12 years ago, in order to enforce flu and pneumonia vaccinations in patients, by bypassing their treating physicians.  The nurses were to push these vaccines on all eligible patients.  Even when it was contrary to the patients' interests.

For example, everyone hospitalized between October 1 and April 1 got a flu shot.  Let's say you had a heart attack in October.  No flu anywhere.  And why would you want another stressor, another hit that would increase systemic inflammation, when you were recovering from a heart attack?  But unless you strenuously refuse, you will be vaccinated for flu, and your doctor will probably be unaware of it.

What I am trying to convey is that nonsensical strategies to push vaccinations when they are not medically indicated is not new. And the public and the medical profession became psychically numbed to it.  It has just become more profitable lately.

Not that many doctors push all vaccines all the time for all people.  But sometimes lawyers do.  Michelle Mello is a very up-and-coming health law professor at Stanford.  She has made it in the profession, and her screeds on pushing vaccines on the population haven't hurt.

For example, in 2020 she gave states a roadmap to get to forced vaccinations:  

https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp2020926

Although a vaccine remains months to years away, developing a policy strategy to ensure uptake takes time. We offer a framework that states can apply now to help ensure uptake of the vaccine when it becomes available — including consideration of when a mandate might become appropriate. 

SIX TRIGGER CRITERIA FOR STATE COVID-19 VACCINATION MANDATES.

• Covid-19 is not adequately contained in the state.

• The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has recommended vaccination for the groups for which a mandate is being considered.

• The supply of vaccine is sufficient to cover the population groups for which a mandate is being considered.

• Available evidence about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine has been transparently communicated.

• The state has created infrastructure to provide access to vaccination without financial or logistic barriers, compensation to workers who have adverse effects from a required vaccine, and real-time surveillance of vaccine side effects.

• In a time-limited evaluation, voluntary uptake of the vaccine among high-priority groups has fallen short of the level required to prevent epidemic spread.

She gave the WaPo a deceitful quote in May about the EUA statute. I suggest you read the WaPo article to learn more about mandates and litigation, and the heroic little law firm Siri Glimstad. Here is the Aaron Siri-authored article in Stat that explains the statutory language giving Americans the right to choose whether to participate in an EUA experiment. It says,  “ensure that individuals to whom the product is administered are informed … of the option to accept or refuse administration of the product.”  Yet here is what Mello claimed:

"Michelle M. Mello, a professor of law and medicine at Stanford University, said it’s not clear whether the statute was meant to address making the shots compulsory for work or school."

Ms. Mello's 45 year old husband had a stroke a few days after his second Covid vaccination. She wrote about it in today's San Franciso Chronicle.  And then she vaccinated her (12-15 year old) child, while her husband was recuperating.