Here’s why institutionally we tend to rush to the worst case scenario: because if they adopt my policy and some immunocompromised kid with aids winds up in the hospital, the consultant is going to get blamed. What’s worse is the risk managers for the underwriters, prior to issuing their Covid rider, probably required the university to hire said consultant. So the university can’t go against the consultants recommends without losing their rider. And the consultant can’t just say well here are the pros and cons because the underwriter will only insure if there’s a consultant approved plan in place. And there is no upside for the consultant in throwing it down the middle of the plate: if they get it wrong not only might they be professionally liable but they’ll also torch their reputation while being overly cautious costs them nothing. You see this phenomena all the time in outside law forms being asked to give opinion letters to companies as well. The only thing that’s going to shift this is the first big myocarditis lawsuit with a big damage award (the McDonald’s coffee cup case of vaccines) because in most jurisdictions the shield applies to manufacturers and governments, not private employers and institutions that issue mandates (I may be wrong but I think California and Massachusetts extended the shield to education institutions).