COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

[EpiEMS]

But isn’t that kind of the point of our system of government? If legislation can’t be passed, there is a reason for that.

I think I may have opened a can of worms here.
Yes and no - the history of the presidency, for example, has been a story of expansion of unilateral executive authority, but of course there is constraint (in theory). If we use wars as a parallel, think of the last declared war - that was WWII. The post-9/11 era has led to huge executive power expansion, (debatably) necessarily so: legislatures debate when people are dying in the streets, somebody arguing for more executive power might argue.

 

[Carlos Danger]

I think I may have opened a can of worms here.
Yes and no - the history of the presidency, for example, has been a story of expansion of unilateral executive authority, but of course there is constraint (in theory). If we use wars as a parallel, think of the last declared war - that was WWII. The post-9/11 era has led to huge executive power expansion, (debatably) necessarily so: legislatures debate when people are dying in the streets, somebody arguing for more executive power might argue.

“A republic, ma’am……if you can keep it”.

One of the many problems with government by fiat is that the only limiting principle is whatever the executives can get away with. Something is broadly accepted as a reasonable idea now, and then when the other team is in charge they not only use the same precedent to justify actions that are perhaps (at least in the eyes of some) less good and honorable, but they expand that power even further, even if only incrementally.

We can debate whether this pandemic justifies such action (I would argue that it does not), but the thing that needs to be kept in mind is that once authority is taken it is rarely ceded, and can easily in the future be used for something you disagree with. It seems to happen with more and more frequency.

Many people complain about Congress not getting things done. I would argue that is a feature of our form of government, not a bug. Lack of support for something by elected legislators is not inaction; it is a deliberate reflection of the will of the constituents. Yes things are very dysfunctional right now, but I would also argue that that is a result of a hyperpolarization that at least in part comes from not respecting the democratic processes.

 

[EpiEMS]

“A republic, ma’am……if you can keep it”.

One of the many problems with government by fiat is that the only limiting principle is whatever the executives can get away with. Something is broadly accepted as a reasonable idea now, and then when the other team is in charge they not only use the same precedent to justify actions that are perhaps (at least in the eyes of some) less good and honorable, but they expand that power even further, even if only incrementally.

We can debate whether this pandemic justifies such action (I would argue that it does not), but the thing that needs to be kept in mind is that once authority is taken it is rarely ceded, and can easily in the future be used for something you disagree with. It seems to happen with more and more frequency.

Many people complain about Congress not getting things done. I would argue that is a feature of our form of government, not a bug. Lack of support for something by elected legislators is not inaction; it is a deliberate reflection of the will of the constituents. Yes things are very dysfunctional right now, but I would also argue that that is a result of a hyperpolarization that at least in part comes from not respecting the democratic processes.

No qualms with your argument there, I think the precedent of greater executive is *generally* undesirable. However in a more technocratic society I think it is bordering on inevitable. One thought - local mandates give us more natural experiments!

 

[Carlos Danger]

No qualms with your argument there, I think the precedent of greater executive is *generally* undesirable. However in a more technocratic society I think it is bordering on inevitable. One thought - local mandates give us more natural experiments!

I mean, you aren't wrong about that. Big difference between this type of thing being done locally vs. federally.

 

[ffemt8978]

2ND EDIT: this bill has been withdrawn because of reported threats against its writer

Willfully unvaccinated should pay 100% of COVID hospital bills, lawmaker says

Rep. Carroll calls the legislation a starting point to hold unvaccinated responsible.

arstechnica.com

That's a new one, but an inevitable one.

I'm actually okay with something like this. It maintains personal choice while providing consequences if you make a bad decision.

Edit: and it's being done via the legislative process...finally

 

[ffemt8978]

Judge blocks Biden’s vaccine mandate for federal contractors

A federal judge on Tuesday blocked President Joe Biden’s administration from enforcing a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for employees of federal contractors, the latest in a string of victories for Republican-led states pushing back against Biden’s pandemic policies.

apnews.com

And another nationwide preliminary injunction has been issued against the federal mandate, this time covering contractors.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Willfully unvaccinated should pay 100% of COVID hospital bills, lawmaker says

Rep. Carroll calls the legislation a starting point to hold unvaccinated responsible.

arstechnica.com

That's a new one, but an inevitable one.

I'm actually okay with something like this. It maintains personal choice while providing consequences if you make a bad decision.

Edit: and it's being done via the legislative process...finally

Speaking strictly on principle (practically is another thing, of course), I agree 100%. People should be held responsible for the consequences of their choices. But why limit it to those who won't be vaccinated? Why not apply it to everyone with a BMI over 30? Who smokes cigarettes or drinks alcohol or test positive for any illicit substance? Who doesn't see a doctor regularly and submit to all the recommended screenings and medical management of chronic diseases? Who exceeds the speed limit or doesn't wear seat belts? Who can't plausibly attest to exercising at least 150 minutes per week and eating 35 servings of vegetables per week?

On a timeline of a handful of decades, what it costs society to treat unvaccinated COVID patients is a drop in the bucket compared to what it costs society to treat dozens of other conditions that result from lifestyle choices, so I don't see how it makes any sense to hold the unvaccinated responsible for their decisions but no one else.

 

[Summit]

@Carlos Danger

Which one of those ailments that we might hold others responsible for is currently taking up 57% of Colorado's ICU beds? Oh... COVID.

Which one of those ailments is in pandemic state but can be almost entirely mitigated in terms of health system effects with two cheap shots? Ah... COVID.

You can't give obesity, smoking, or illicit substance based diseases to someone who sits next to you for 15 minutes. But you can transmit COVID.

Please stop comparing communicable disease to chronic nontransmissible conditions. It is nonsense to say they of the same principle in honest debate.

I know you are a Libertarian. Well, at heart I am too. The Libertarian adage is: Your right to swing your arm ends before my nose.

So, society has always reasonably placed some requirements on behavior to be part of a free society.

Even the Founding Fathers understood the need for public health measures such as quarantine and immunization (variolation), and the right of society to command such things from unwilling members.

Do you have the right to be drunk? Yes. In Public? If you do not disturb others. While driving? That is hazarding others.

I equate choosing to be unvaccinated with being drunk while driving. Yea you might make it home from the bar without hitting anyone. Or you might cause a multicar pileup. You are hazarding others, society, and yourself much more than if sober and society has decided to restrict your liberty to behave in such a manner so that they can be free and safe from such unjustifiable danger.

No man is an island when it comes to communicable disease.

 

[Carlos Danger]

@Carlos Danger

Which one of those ailments that we might hold others responsible for is currently taking up 57% of Colorado's ICU beds? Oh... COVID.

Which one of those ailments is in pandemic state but can be almost entirely mitigated in terms of health system effects with two cheap shots? Ah... COVID.

You can't give obesity, smoking, or illicit substance based diseases to someone who sits next to you for 15 minutes. But you can transmit COVID.

Please do us a favor for the sake of honest debate: stop comparing communicable disease to chronic nontransmissible conditions. It is wildly silly.

I know you are a Libertarian. Well, at heart I am too. The Libertarian adage is: Your right to swing your arm ends before my nose.

So, society has always reasonably placed some requirements on behavior to be part of a free society.

Even the Founding Fathers understood the need for public health measures such as quarantine and immunization (variolation), and the right of society to command such things from unwilling members.

Do you have the right to be drunk? Yes. In Public? If you do not disturb others. While driving? That is hazarding others.

I equate choosing to be unvaccinated with being drunk while driving. Yea you might make it home from the bar without hitting anyone. Or you might cause a multicar pileup. You are hazarding others, society, and yourself much more than if sober and society has decided to restrict your liberty to behave in such a manner so that they can be free and safe from such unjustifiable danger.

No man is an island when it comes to communicable disease.

No man is an island when it comes to lots of things.....not just communicable diseases. That's the whole point here. It appears as though you didn't get that I was actually agreeing with the idea. I just took it a bit further and said that if we are going to be fair and logically consistent, then we can and should apply the same reasoning elsewhere.

The proposal in question wasn't just about physical safety......it was more about the economic costs involved, or at least that is what the article implied. Anyone who is vaccinated is pretty safe, physically, from those who choose not to be. In fact, if you are going to equate choosing to be unvaccinated to driving drunk - and I get that analogy - then a more appropriate penalty would be a criminal one, not simply being forced to bear the financial costs of your choice.

Again, on a timeline any longer than a handful of years, the costs borne by society as a result of the choices of those refusing to receive the COVID vaccine will be negligible as compared to the costs borne by society as a result of the many common chronic diseases that result from lifestyle choices. If we are arguing that people should bear the costs of their choices, then why does it matter that one choice relates to a communicable disease and the others do not? Externalities are externalities, are they not?

 

[Summit]

@Carlos Danger

To say "well the Pandemic is only a few years long so I can amortize the impact over the next XX years to compare it with chronic problems that will be active of XX years" is dubious reasoning. The impact of the pandemic is HUGE over the 2-3 years where it occurs and the chance to mitigate by immunizing people is simple, sudden, cheap, and huge in impact. Mitigating chronic illnesses is difficult, slow, expensive, and of limited impact. I strenuously disagree that financial impact over different time scales makes them comparable.

As to your assertion that since being unvaccinated is tantamount to physical endangerment of others and thus potentially criminal, well the solution historically during epidemics was to command vaccination; for those who refused, the solution was to temporarily deny some liberty (reduce public participation/quarantine) or to issue a fine. There are SCOTUS cases supporting these measures.

Many people complain about Congress not getting things done. I would argue that is a feature of our form of government, not a bug. Lack of support for something by elected legislators is not inaction; it is a deliberate reflection of the will of the constituents. Yes things are very dysfunctional right now, but I would also argue that that is a result of a hyperpolarization that at least in part comes from not respecting the democratic processes.

In general, I agree with everything you said, and also about the dangers of governing by fiat and the tendency of government not to give up powers once assumed. If a contentious issue cannot be addressed by normal lawmaking procedures, then that is a feature, not a bug. Normally I agree!

I beg to differ when it comes to urgent issues and the stick-in-the-spokes of legislation is misinformation and narratives heavily pushed by foreign enemy disinformation operations. Such is the case with vaccines refusal vs mandates.

The issue of urgency is illustrated by the reasonable narrative pushed by seemingly reasonable vaccine hesitant folks when they say "I don't think we should have vaccines without 5-10 years of long term testing." Such a position means you can never vaccinate your way out of a pandemic. It is also a self-deceptive reasoning to take this position: "we really need to have a traditional legislative process that will take years or will be stymied by disinformation operations to solve time sensitive and newly emergent issues in an urgent situation like hospital systems being overwhelmed due to vaccine reluctance fueled by disinformation driven tribalism."

I too fear powers being given and not given up. But to say we can never take emergency actions in an emergency is throwing up a giant target. We invite information warfare to stymie our very vulnerable system. I do agree the standard must be very high for such things as emergency rulemaking.

 

[Carlos Danger]

@Carlos Danger

To say "well the Pandemic is only a few years long so I can amortize the impact over the next XX years to compare it with chronic problems that will be active of XX years" is dubious reasoning. The impact of the pandemic is HUGE over the 2-3 years where it occurs and the chance to mitigate by immunizing people is simple, sudden, cheap, and huge in impact. Mitigating chronic illnesses is difficult, slow, expensive, and of limited impact. I strenuously disagree that financial impact over different time scales makes them comparable.

As to your assertion that since being unvaccinated is tantamount to physical endangerment of others and thus potentially criminal, well the solution historically during epidemics was to command vaccination; for those who refused, the solution was to temporarily deny some liberty (reduce public participation/quarantine) or to issue a fine. There are SCOTUS cases supporting these measures.


In general, I agree with everything you said, and also about the dangers of governing by fiat and the tendency of government not to give up powers once assumed. If a contentious issue cannot be addressed by normal lawmaking procedures, then that is a feature, not a bug. Normally I agree!

I beg to differ when it comes to urgent issues and the stick-in-the-spokes of legislation is misinformation and narratives heavily pushed by foreign enemy disinformation operations. Such is the case with vaccines refusal vs mandates.

The issue of urgency is illustrated by the reasonable narrative pushed by seemingly reasonable vaccine hesitant folks when they say "I don't think we should have vaccines without 5-10 years of long term testing." Such a position means you can never vaccinate your way out of a pandemic. It is also a self-deceptive reasoning to take this position: "we really need to have a traditional legislative process that will take years or will be stymied by disinformation operations to solve time sensitive and newly emergent issues in an urgent situation like hospital systems being overwhelmed due to vaccine reluctance fueled by disinformation driven tribalism."

I too fear powers being given and not given up. But to say we can never take emergency actions in an emergency is throwing up a giant target. We invite information warfare to stymie our very vulnerable system. I do agree the standard must be very high for such things as emergency rulemaking.

I am not amortizing anything. The impact of the COVID pandemic on society over a short period of time is huge. The impact of the diseases caused by obesity, etc over a long period of time is even more huge. Why force accountability for one but not the other?

 

[ffemt8978]

@Carlos Danger

To say "well the Pandemic is only a few years long so I can amortize the impact over the next XX years to compare it with chronic problems that will be active of XX years" is dubious reasoning. The impact of the pandemic is HUGE over the 2-3 years where it occurs and the chance to mitigate by immunizing people is simple, sudden, cheap, and huge in impact. Mitigating chronic illnesses is difficult, slow, expensive, and of limited impact. I strenuously disagree that financial impact over different time scales makes them comparable.

As to your assertion that since being unvaccinated is tantamount to physical endangerment of others and thus potentially criminal, well the solution historically during epidemics was to command vaccination; for those who refused, the solution was to temporarily deny some liberty (reduce public participation/quarantine) or to issue a fine. There are SCOTUS cases supporting these measures.


In general, I agree with everything you said, and also about the dangers of governing by fiat and the tendency of government not to give up powers once assumed. If a contentious issue cannot be addressed by normal lawmaking procedures, then that is a feature, not a bug. Normally I agree!

I beg to differ when it comes to urgent issues and the stick-in-the-spokes of legislation is misinformation and narratives heavily pushed by foreign enemy disinformation operations. Such is the case with vaccines refusal vs mandates.

The issue of urgency is illustrated by the reasonable narrative pushed by seemingly reasonable vaccine hesitant folks when they say "I don't think we should have vaccines without 5-10 years of long term testing." Such a position means you can never vaccinate your way out of a pandemic. It is also a self-deceptive reasoning to take this position: "we really need to have a traditional legislative process that will take years or will be stymied by disinformation operations to solve time sensitive and newly emergent issues in an urgent situation like hospital systems being overwhelmed due to vaccine reluctance fueled by disinformation driven tribalism."

I too fear powers being given and not given up. But to say we can never take emergency actions in an emergency is throwing up a giant target. We invite information warfare to stymie our very vulnerable system. I do agree the standard must be very high for such things as emergency rulemaking.

It's just as self deceptive to state that the legislative process takes years to pass a new law. Yes it may in some cases, in others it takes much less time. What takes years is the court battles resulting from mandates issued without proper legal authority or by using the proper process.

 

[ffemt8978]

The traditionallegislative process that takes years to respond to an urgent crisia has now responded...by voting agaisnt a federal mandate for private employers. The US Senate just voted against the mandate.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavi...lth-congress-d48c96a241ea8922420a3866c6adda2d

 

[mgr22]

The traditionallegislative process that takes years to respond to an urgent crisia has now responded...by voting agaisnt a federal mandate for private employers. The US Senate just voted against the mandate.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavi...lth-congress-d48c96a241ea8922420a3866c6adda2d

Yes, they did. And this morning, I'm concerned about the latest obstacle to public health. I'd rather feel pride in our "traditional legislative process," but the 2021 version doesn't do it for me. Maybe I'll try again when we're not having a national health crisis.

 

[Summit]

The traditionallegislative process that takes years to respond to an urgent crisia has now responded...by voting agaisnt a federal mandate for private employers. The US Senate just voted against the mandate.

https://apnews.com/article/coronavi...lth-congress-d48c96a241ea8922420a3866c6adda2d

I would not call that a response.

I'd call it a non-response.

 

[ffemt8978]

Yes, they did. And this morning, I'm concerned about the latest obstacle to public health. I'd rather feel pride in our "traditional legislative process," but the 2021 version doesn't do it for me. Maybe I'll try again when we're not having a national health crisis.

My point was, and has been, that if vaccines are to mandatory, then it should be enacted via the legislative process and not one person deciding to do it on his own...no matter how much you support the outcome.

What is enacted by executive fiat can be removed by the next executive's fiat (as has been amply demonstrated by the past few administrations).

If you want it done, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it...and that is something thst is still supposed to matter in this country. We've been dealing with this disease for ovet two years now, and vaccines have been available for about a year. There has been more than enough time to pass a law, but nobody has bothered trying because they figure if they claim this requires an urgent response they get a free ride on having to do it the right way. At some point, this disease is going to become a fact of everyday life because it's not going anywhere. We're going to be stuck dealing with mutations for a long time to come, and at what point do we accept that and stop treating it as an emergency worthy of discarding our rights, freedoms and principles as a society?

 

[mgr22]

My point was, and has been, that if vaccines are to mandatory, then it should be enacted via the legislative process and not one person deciding to do it on his own...no matter how much you support the outcome.

What is enacted by executive fiat can be removed by the next executive's fiat (as has been amply demonstrated by the past few administrations).

If you want it done, there is a right way and a wrong way to do it...and that is something thst is still supposed to matter in this country. We've been dealing with this disease for ovet two years now, and vaccines have been available for about a year. There has been more than enough time to pass a law, but nobody has bothered trying because they figure if they claim this requires an urgent response they get a free ride on having to do it the right way. At some point, this disease is going to become a fact of everyday life because it's not going anywhere. We're going to be stuck dealing with mutations for a long time to come, and at what point do we accept that and stop treating it as an emergency worthy of discarding our rights, freedoms and principles as a society?

Sometimes rights, freedoms, and principles are explicitly supported by laws; sometimes they have little basis other than imagination; and sometimes they are in between. In all of those cases, I believe a willingness not to exercise rights is as important as having them. Otherwise, rights can become excuses for inaction or self-serving actions that benefit only a minority.

I understand the concern about exceptions to SOPs, but I think those exceptions are part of the governing process, and also an element of the trust we put in elected officials.

 

[Summit]

The nice thing about executive fiat is that in appropriate urgent circumstances and within the confines of the constitution, it allows actions to be taken urgently.

The nice thing about executive fiat is that it can be undone by the next executive who deems the urgent need over or disagrees with the fiat.

Emergency legislation is a fraught and failure prone process, as all COVID legislation has demonstrated, including the Senate voting to sit on their hands.

 

[ffemt8978]

The nice thing about executive fiat is that in appropriate urgent circumstances and within the confines of the constitution, it allows actions to be taken urgently.

Except in this case, at least three courts have found the federal mandate may have exceeded those limits.

As fare as legislation goes, I'm only aware of two cases. The one in Illinois covered earlier in thread, and the Senate vote. I would posit that given the lack of any serious effort to go that route to date, there is no desire to do so. Several in the executive branches of our various government levels seem to have decided they will rule by executive orders and mandates, because to them the ends justify the means. That is not a society based on the rule of law, but one based upon the rule of the pen and how much they think they can get away with.

 

[ffemt8978]

CDC has come out and recommended Moderna or Pfizer vaccines over the J&J vaccine

CDC recommends Pfizer, Moderna COVID-19 shots over J&J's

U.S. health officials say most Americans should get the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines instead of the Johnson & Johnson shot.

apnews.com