I don’t think voluntary exceptions will be granted for Covid, and I’m hard-pressed to come up with a case where an involuntary medical exception would be necessary for someone that is mobile. (No doubt a one in a billion case exists, of course.)

Immunocompomised people can be mobile and still lack the defenses necessary to tolerate a vaccine. I know one personally; he jogs by my house every evening, but by his own estimation, a flu vaccine would almost certainly land him in the hospital.

Pregnancy is one. It wasn't tested on them.

Allergies to one of the components? Raw egg allergies can preclude some vaccinations.

Neither vaccine under consideration today uses eggs or triggers the egg allergies that the most common influenza vaccines can. The general population degree of allergic reactions to vaccines is 1-2 people per million, with hives as the most common outcome; or between 1500 and 3000 people across the United States in a 100% vaccination scenario, of which many would get hives and no worse.

Egg allergies trigger careful treatment protocols surrounding many influenza vaccines, but do not in any way preclude vaccination or exempt one from it. Specifically, if your allergic reaction to eggs is severe enough to impair breathing, delivery of the vaccine must be delivered in a monitored medical setting that can treat you if an allergic reaction that impairs your breathing. You are only precluded from receiving an egg-based vaccination once you have experienced a severe reaction from an egg-based vaccine. Egg allergy alone is not sufficient.

I expect that state school systems will mostly apply their existing laws for required vaccines. (which is that 4 or 5 of them actually require them, and the rest give religious and/or philosophical exemptions)

But for the vast majority of workplaces, there's not much of an existing precedent to do this, and I suspect the vast majority of employers will not want to rock the boat too much. I suspect it'll be something that will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice. The people who want to get vaccines will get them, and those who do not will ignore the policy without repercussions.

>will be "required" by policies but not enforced in practice

That would seem to be extremely unethical and possibly at least borderline an OSHA violation. If a workplace is claiming that certain procedures are being followed and they are in fact not being followed, I think plenty of lawyers would be happy to take that lawsuit.

I didn't necessarily mean that they would be breaking procedure -- I think it's more likely that the procedures won't be very rigorous. I doubt that procedures for vaccination will be any more rigorous than the procedures for ensuring compliance with mask wearing.

As far as this being unethical -- maybe it is -- but since when has that stopped anyone? There are people still being forced to go to work sick because they have no way to take sick leave without losing their jobs.

Dunno. Larger companies I'm familiar with have pretty rigorous back to the office procedures which I could see extending to proof-of-vaccination at some point. Without it, they could just not enable badge access. But, as you say, uncharted territory.

I think, at best, we'll see a situation similar to the requirements that state schools have for enrollment. All 50 states "require" kids to be vaccinated.... but 48 states have religious exemptions.

At the end of the day, it's a lot less risk to HR to not piss off a couple of politically fringe employees over something that the vast majority of employees will do voluntarily anyway, without any coercing. Two unvaccinated employees out of hundreds probably won't cause a problematic COVID outbreak, but they could file a lawsuit.

Most schools require vaccines which have been in circulation for a long long time and presumably whose long term risks are well understood. I think it would be pretty stupid to force mass vaccinate such a rushed vaccine, don't you think?

A lot less stupid than continuing with "distance learning".

You and I have very different definitions of stupid. Requiring an entire country to go whole hog on something with zero real understanding of long term effects is my definition of stupid. When is that ever the wise thing to do?

When the other choice is a demonstrably inferior learning environment, economic ruin, and a major public health hazard that has already killed just shy of 250k people in just over 9 months.

So vaccinate those at serious risk who we were closing things down for in anticipation of the vaccine. When the serious at risk people are no longer seriously at risk then there is no need for all the shutdowns. No need to vaccinate everyone is there?

I don't think that's how vaccines generally work. The virus won't actually disappear, it'll continue to be spread among the unvaccinated, and eventually people not at risk become at risk due to changes in life circumstances.

I'm also not sure there's quite the bright line you seem to be suggesting between "at risk" and "not at risk." Young health people still die of COVID-19, just not at as high a rate as already-unhealthy or older people.

I actually don't think the federal government has the power to require it. However, private companies and schools can impose whatever safety requirements they feel prudent for their employees, customers, and students. Which may of course make life difficult for those who don't want to go along.

State governments probably have the power to require it.

You may be right although I have a hard time seeing that happening politically. IANAL, but the relevant case law seems to be Jacobson v Massachusetts (1905) upholding mandatory smallpox vaccinations which AFAIK has never been superseded. [1] That said, the US Supreme Court also upheld a Virginia law that authorized the involuntary sterilization of “feeble minded” persons in state institutions in 1927. It's hard to imagine similar laws passing muster today, probably for 14th Amendment reasons.

[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1449224/

The US federal government can require it by passing laws if they see fit to do so. Presumably the states with the highest Covid infection rates would fight it in court on some constitutional basis to avoid vaccination, and some armed citizens would kill medical personnel enforcing the federal directive, but none of that prohibits the laws from being passed.

Isn’t that kind of what we have done with distance learning?

It was the wise thing to do for the polio vaccine.

The risk profile for all the age groups is wildly different. I don't think its a bad idea for people > age X to get this vaccine, one because they have a much higher risk of serious harm from corona _AND_ perhaps less risk of long term affects. But for someone who has very low risk of serious harm from corona, perhaps it makes sense to wait a little bit?

Depends on what you mean by "a little bit." My understanding is that general availability isn't expected until probably April of 2021, by which point health care workers and other high risk groups of people will have had the vaccine for five months, and the trial participants for six months.