I of course agree about her substantive point (that ironically perhaps is so flimsy) but just to spend a moment of "sovereignty." It's not a ludicrous use of the word: it can mean control over things other than a body politic, in this case, our corporeal bodies. And this of course runs us directly into an irony that begs for an intellectually firm analysis. Many/most of those who believe people have sovereignty to decide whether the vaccine goes into their body are not the same as those who believe women have sovereignty to decide if they want an abortion. This is the crux of the issue that led Amy Coney Barrett to rule as she did in relation to the bodies of Indiana college kids. I think the resolution of the seeming conundrum is pretty straightforward: there is an enormous public interest in getting needles in everyone's arms whereas there is zero public interest in prohibiting abortions. Likewise, the regulation of the unvaccinated does not assume sovereignty over their bodies; it simply establishes the consequences of the choice. If Osnes does not want to be vaccinated, that's her choice; it is not her choice to endanger others or to not be treated as an outcast. That's exactly what she is and deserves to be.