In this case it doesn't apply as there are no vaccines. Legally nor medically do the current experimental medical devices meet the definitions. They are not FDA certified. The FDA says they will not certify them. And the emergency authorization is only legal when no treatment is available. At least three treatments are available. Invalidating the emergency authorization.

In this case, you're simply arguing against unethical and illegal medical experimentation.

The worst is when the supreme court does it.

They redefined "Manner" in the Constitution in regards to the election of the President. With previously understood meaning, States choose the "Manner" of appointing Electors (for Pres.) then those Electors would vote (freely) by the words in the 12th Amendment. Now with new definition of "Manner" States choose how the Electors are appointed but also get to tell those Electors how they must vote weeks after they were appointed.

Most people don't see a problem with this. I do and here is why: That redefinition came from an Article 2 sec 1 case in 2016 (Chiaffalo case). The word "Manner" is also in Art 1 sec. 4 where States can prescribe the "Manner" of electing Senators and Representatives. So applying the new definition, State Legislatures could pass laws either telling us Electors who we must vote for in those positions or they can tell them how they must vote after we elect/appoint them. I guess a 3rd option exist and that is the word "Manner" means 1 thing in Article 1 and something different in Article 2 which is an evil Constitution destroying thought. Imagine if they redefine "People" or "Right" pending on its location in the Constitution.