Mandate is hereby stayed pending further action by this court [pdf]
Reminder that before their hard left turn away from civil liberties and towards partisanship, the ACLU was against vaccine mandates:
<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.michigancapitolconfidential.com&#x2F;aclu-flip-flops-on-vaccine-mandates" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.michigancapitolconfidential.com&#x2F;aclu-flip-flops-...</a><p>Another interesting piece of the public conversation around mandates is the redefinition of the term vaccine (<a href="https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.miamiherald.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;article254111268.html" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.miamiherald.com&#x2F;news&#x2F;coronavirus&#x2F;article25411126...</a>). The CDC claims they redefined it away from the word “immunity” towards the word “protection” because no vaccine grants perfect immunity. Personally I find that to be a bad answer. By taking a weighty word like “vaccine” and redefining it, the expectations of risks and benefits the public holds were exploited. For the majority of the public, those who are under 50 and healthy, COVID poses little risk - it’s not much different from a typical seasonal flu. Personally I think getting an mRNA vaccine is a reasonable low-risk action but the risk of undergoing any medical intervention is nonzero, and it is higher for a novel technology. I bet that if the COVID vaccines were not called a vaccine, people would evaluate the risk reward trade off differently.