Abstract
S Srinivasan in his article "The vaccine mandates judgment: Some reflections", in this journal, analyses a judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in summer this year [1]. Therein, he underscores significant points of interest, the logic behind them, a few points of contention, their scientific basis and areas where logic defies rationality and prudence. Nevertheless, certain relevant points about vaccination are overlooked in the article. Under the subheading, "Vaccine mandates and the right to privacy", the author states that the order "finally zeroes in on this proposition…and that is that the risk of transmission of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS-CoV-2) virus from unvaccinated individuals is almost on par with that from vaccinated persons". Therefore, when the immunisation does not serve the social purpose of stopping propagation of the infection, why should the authorities mandate people to accept vaccination? This is the argument put forth by the author.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
