Forced by whom? The government? That would be an outrage -- and my view on that is perfectly consistent with what I've already posted.
I actually faced a situation last year where I was forced to accept a variation of this "vaccine mandate" from a CLIENT. It wasn't a vaccine mandate, but a COVID testing requirement. I absolutely refused to accept the terms of this requirement even though it involved something far less invasive and dangerous than a vaccine.
The good news is that I recognized this as nothing more than a stupid, ineffective measure that the client was imposing at the behest of its lawyers to cover their asses and protect the company from a lawsuit.
The better news is that the client recognized how stupid and ineffective their COVID rules were. Not only did they see it my way, but they agreed to my proposal to eliminate the need for any COVID testing by completing the project on MY premises and under MY terms -- which also protected THEM from any stupid lawsuits.
To me, it makes no difference if the government or an employer is requiring someone to take an experimental drug with known issues for you to be gainfully employed at the job you were previously employed at.
I don't think this contradicts what the judge has said in this case. What it DOES mean is that the vaccine mandate is a matter of contract law regarding the employer-employee relationship, or maybe even state labor law or health codes -- but not a constitutional matter.
Personally, I think most employers are absolutely crazy to impose a vaccine mandate of ANY kind on their employees -- even if it involves fully approved, "safe" vaccines. Why would I, as an employer, ever want to take on potential liability for myself by getting involved in mandating that sort of thing? A health care facility is one of the rare exceptions to this, though -- because the employer is involved in treating illness and injuries as a matter of course, and must always be mindful of legal exposure from their patients in addition to their staff.
To make it clear, condition of employment at the hospital includes a number of mandated vaccines including the yearly flu and pneumonia shots.
But, I do think you're right, manufacturers are entirely protected for their COVID offerings. If at some point someone brings a case about side effects or long term effects of COVID vaccines, it won't be the government or the manufacturers who face debilitating claims, it'll be employers who mandated employees get the COVID shot.