Its extremely good that for now vaccination is mitigating serious disease and death. But MANDATES are legally justified only if they substantially limit infection and transmission. Which requires a careful calibration of marginal benefits and marginal costs. Not anything goes.
Economists call this "externalities." But if the benefit of a decision is largely private not external, then that's a matter for private choice. Indeed, to the extent that vaccination makes it less likely that a person is infected and contagious because no symptoms...
Then they are actually CREATING externalities. This is known as the "Peltzman Effect" (or "Seatbelt Effect") named after a famous example by the great economist Sam Peltzman who noticed that mandatory seatbelt laws reduced fatalities to drivers...
but increased accidents and harm to innocent pedestrians because drivers were more protected against the consequences of their negligent driving. Fewer driver deaths and more pedestrian deaths.
For example, if vaccine breakthrough infection infectiousness is high (true) and vaccinated are less likely to get tested (true) then they can inadvertently become super spreaders.
Example story I read: vaccinated person has light symptoms. Assumes it’s not Covid. Boards a plane for a cross country trip. Turns out it’s a breakthrough on the plane.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
