I mean can we just get over this already? I feel like the more effort that we spend trying to prove that vaccines work, the more merit the anti-vax movement gains. Can we just ignore those people or simply just laugh at them and move on?
At this point, what I'd like to see:
a) accept natural immunity alongside vaccination status, probably need some kind of antibody count test for that to work
b) "incentives" for vaccinated population, e.g. 90% discount on COVID treatments while unvaccinated pay full price
I, for one, do not think the COVID vaccine specifically should be mandatory, nor do I think coercive tactics should be used. I think freedom of conscience is important generally and people should not be compelled against their consciences to do things they do not think they should be doing. We should also avoid fixating on COVID as if it was the be-all and end-all of human existence. It is one consideration and also one that does not justifiably admit imposing a blanket burden on everyone. Perhaps this is the result of the law of instrument: some epidemiology-informed considerations could be so hyperfocused on COVID, everything else if forgotten.
A treatment of this topic is also available here which touches on these considerations: https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2021/10/covid-19-vaccinatio...
What I'm proposing is not black and white but instead two things that give people a range of choices.
The role of government is to cover for market failings, and spillover costs are a prime example of an area where markets are essentially guaranteed to fail.
These are not the same thing. One is an inaction, the other is an action.
It's like saying that forcing someone to have an abortion is the same thing as banning abortions.
Lastly, even all of that aside, there's no rule that says the government can only mandate actions or prohibit actions. There are plenty of examples of both things in the US legal code.
https://www.npr.org/sections/goatsandsoda/2021/09/07/1033677...
I will say that I do not particularly trust NPR any more; they have misreported events in direct contradiction of clear video and audio feeds of the events.
90% discount on lung cancers of nonsmokers
General 30% discount for people exercising regularly
Etc...
For instance, the coverage of tests and vaccines has been legislated and repeatedly updated through the course of the pandemic in the country where I live.
Even in the case of Covid, where people who are vaccinated are still prone to carrying, suffering from, and spreading the disease? I wonder if your sentiment will change after the vaccines pass FDA approval.
https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-appr...
Even if my sentiment was to change (it's not, vaccines work), it's not going to be from a comment on a social media website.
Yet a previous version clarified that these two products are legally distinct, and even contain certain undisclosed differences:
https://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:Zl3xD0...
"COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA) is also known as Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine*
On December 11, 2020, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) authorized the emergency use of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine to prevent COVID-19 in individuals 16 of years and older. On August 23, 2021, COMIRNATY® (COVID-19 Vaccine, mRNA)* received FDA approval.
The licensed COMIRNATY® vaccine has the same formulation as the authorized vaccine Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and the products can be used interchangeably to provide the vaccination series without presenting any safety or effectiveness concerns. The products are legally distinct, with certain differences that do not impact safety or effectiveness."
The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty
It's not about antivaxers (honestly - personally, I haven't even thought about those folks first), it's about vaccine efficiency. Something I am - as someone who was eagerly vaccinated - is curious about. Surely it's always good to know what are my risks those days.
It's a vanishing minority of crazies. 99.9% of over 65-year olds have had one jab; 80% of those over 12 [1]. Close to a fifth of the population has had their booster.
This debate is over. The people who are left will either be nudged by mandates or self-isolate from areas of dense population or economic activity, which automatically reduces their risk to the public.
[1] https://covid.cdc.gov/covid-data-tracker/#vaccinations_vacc-...
Wow, that's amazing. As someone who has followed the covid stuff pretty closely, that's very surprising to me. I would have guessed it would be around 95%.
https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/current-covid-patients-ic...
But scaling issues should subside over time. The U.S. spends 3.8 trillion a year on healthcare.
Scaling issues five years out? Less acceptable. 20 years out? Unacceptable.
I'm fine with jobs requiring vaccination, and I'm fine with government jobs and public schools requiring vaccination, and even businesses (especially ones involving crowds of people, like conference/convention halls and cruise ships) requiring vaccination. It's basically saying, "You don't want to get vaccinated? Fine, then you don't get to participate in our society."
But a law introducing criminal penalties for being unvaxxed? No way.
People are stressed, people are scared, people are exhausted. Righteous anger makes all of that worse.
So, in addition to losing loved ones I think mandates do work. Putting it into law, like you suggest is harder, but giving companies green light for mandates is easier and does have some noticeable effect.
cool. but let us not stop there. there are so many more public health hazards that we can solve that way.
Also: no, we can't stop collecting evidence supporting the efficacy of vaccines, because then the anti-vaxxers will scream blue bloody murder about how "there's no evidence."