- Decreased insurance claims, which are paid for by other patients in the form of premium increases
- Prevented burdens on taxpayers from illness or premature deaths of workers (welfare payments, orphanned children, lawsuits, etc.)
No one in a developed, Western society is an island. They borrow from society in childhood and pay society back as an adult. And they use common resources like drugs, hospitals, and (in the case of insurance) risk.
Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.
Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
> Same if we limited the amount of cigarettes or alcohol people purchased.
We already attempt to do these things through public health campaigns and laws against the purchase of cigarettes/alcohol by minors.
You're actually making my point for me, because public interventions to reduce smoking have saved tens of millions of lives and many billions of dollars of taxpayer money.
> Certainly the same if we enforced our drug laws around things like fentanyl (although ODing in a Waffle House parking lot at 32 might actually save the taxpayer some money in the long run).
In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?
Federal worker? BMI needs to be below 30, because otherwise you're costing the system too much. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7990296/
Private sector business with 100 more employees? Nobody is allowed to smoke on premises because of the risk of second hand smoke, just like the OSHA justification for vaccination requirements.
>In what universe is the US not trying to enforce laws around fentanyl?
Oregon passed Measure 110, decriminalizing heroin, methamphetamine, and fentanyl, only backtracking because the policy was so bad. California has Prop 47, knocking possession down to misdemeanors on par with jaywalking. New York has safe injection sites, and I'm going to guess this isn't for safe injection of insulin.
Enforcement of laws around these drugs would mean arresting and prosecuting the flocks of fentanyl users bent over in Philly's Skid Row, SF's tenderloin, or basically all of Portland: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9372555/Philadelphi...
Weigh 500lbs, don't work, and drink a six pack a day? You get free healthcare via Medicaid, making the taxpayer shoulder your burden.
Self-employed, 35, and can run a 7 minute mile, but broke a bone? Expect outrageous healthcare costs, deductibles, etc.
The current approach to public health is the epitome of a moral hazard.
And if you really want to make this calculation, any vaccine that predominately helps old people actually increases costs to society in the long run.
> any vaccine that predominately helps old people actually increases costs to society in the long run
I think that big difference between the political sides is that one of them does not see "kill all old people" as ethical strategy.
No. That's a straw man and you know it. I'm against forced vaccinations. No one in the US was forced to be vaccinated.
However, most of the people against vaccination in the US are against abortion rights, so how could this debate really be about bodily autonomy? Forced birth is actually forced by the government, unlike vaccination programs. There is no situation where you could be put in jail for refusing a vaccine.
And you know the anti-vaxxers know this because they also intersect heavily with the set who get very mad/judgemental about unemployed people or about people who don't eat well and exercise.
A great way to get herd immunity is through mass vaccination.
It’s unfortunate, but it’s the reality of this disease. I’m not immunocompromised, but I still modify my behavior to try and protect myself: mask on planes, avoid certain situations, etc.
The good news is if you didn't trust the accelerated process you could choose masking/testing for moments away from YouTube and Joe Rogan.
Well, no, it was evident in the fact that mRNA vaccine manufacturers would only sign contracts with countries that agreed to give them blanket immunity from any and all possible legal consequences.
Bit of a red flag, that.
Giving it a mainstream platform for a few political points was a deal with the devil, and they deserve to be condemed for that.
There's no reason to be hindering availability of safe and effective vaccines because a previous administration made it mandatory for some people to get some vaccines.
FWIW, I think what you're saying here and in another comment, about this burning a century of good will, is true.
People turn it into a liberal vs right partisan issue, but that's a convenient simplification.
The people protesting the lockdowns, mandatory vaccination, ID checks everywhere were not politically homogenous: if you looked at who was vocal about it, there were people on the right, but the other half were wokes, hippies, liberals, leftists, socialists, antifascists.
What burned goodwill is the authoritarian measures, the weak arguments, the demonisation of those against it for political gain and status (Trudeau and Biden would routinely accuse those opposed to mandatory vaccination and lockdowns of various -isms in public speeches).
The pandemic was indeed a major public health issue, but the way this was managed made it about a fight against the erosion of rights and societal polarisation.