I don't know if I would call it collision. Almost all major media outlets are owned by about 6 companies. So if one or more of those companies wants it a certain way, then it would affect dozens or hundreds of smaller outlets.
"won't be eligible for unemployment" is typically because being terminated for failure to follow company policy does not follow under unemployment criteria, specifically "unemployed through no fault of your own." I highly recommend looking up your state's unemployment laws/rules and consulting with an attorney to make sure you are well informed on how to proceed.
The Oklahoma Highway Patrol also advertises "No Vaccine Mandates" http://www.jointheohp.com/
I believe the premise behind it is that COVID-19 is carried via droplets that are created when you breathe/talk/cough. The masks are supposed to reduce the amount and distance these droplets can travel. While masks are considered a medical device, the guidance provided by the CDC, etc. likely circumvents the case of someone practicing medicine without a license. I'm thinking the court is going to view it the same as a company requiring an employee to wear a hair net, long sleeves, etc.
FWIW, I'm not a lawyer.
I'm wondering if there any formula differences between the two. Even though the names are different, if the are identical otherwise it might be deemed semantics. But from what I found recently, there wasn't a full list of ingredients available for the Pfizer BioNTech.
One thing I want to know, when it's said "X% of people in the hospital are unvaccinated," what percentage of those have not yet had COVID and what percentage have underlying morbidity factors? That information seems to conveniently absent.
There is no Omicron, only Zuul