Possible 11th Pillar of Economic Wisdom: When you’re in a hole, stop digging.
One of the most absurd things that have happened with the Pfizer COVID-19 vaccine is that politicians have been trying to increase demand for a vaccine of which, not surprisingly at a zero price, there is a shortage.
The rationale for putting Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, Mike Pence, and Karen Pence at the front of the line way ahead of almost all of the rest of us is that it will persuade people that it’s safe and those otherwise-hesitant people will be more willing to take it. They might be more willing to take it, but if that’s the rationale, the rationale makes zero sense in December. Tens of millions of us are ready to take it now. There’s no need to persuade people to take it when there isn’t enough in the short term to satisfy all willing takers.
Hmmm. Do you think there might be another reason for Pelosi, McConnell, and Pence to take it now? Let’s scratch our heads really hard and we might come up with a reason.
Here it is. They’re selfish people who are using their privileged position to get immunized. This is Newsom French Laundry all over again.
This “patriotic” behavior on their part is the opposite of admirable.
READER COMMENTS
KevinDC
Dec 20 2020 at 5:18pm
Indeed, if the goal was merely to reassure the public that the vaccine would be safe, it would have been easy enough to arrange for some high profile displays of nurses and doctors and the like getting the vaccine administered in this first wave of vaccination. If anything, it would probably have had a greater impact too – people have a much higher opinion of and level of trust for medical professionals than career politicians. Saying that you’re trying to reassure the public with a demonstration involving some of the people least trusted by the public seems like very poor planning.
David Henderson
Dec 20 2020 at 6:08pm
Your last sentence is particularly well stated.
Thomas Hutcheson
Dec 20 2020 at 7:54pm
But hesitance is not uniform. I think there are more people that the “gummit” people like Schumer and Pelosi are trying to kill them than high profile doctors. And can you imagine the Newsmax headline, “Pelosi refuses to take vaccine tay kills nursing home resident”
Jon Murphy
Dec 20 2020 at 6:24pm
I think it’s important to remember that when you have a shortage, the market value of the good in question is relatively high. The politicians and the people they are trying to convince are relatively low-value: they are not the ones facing the virus on a daily basis. They’re all fairly low-risk to catch the virus. Conversely, the nurses and doctors and elderly who are at risk are considerably higher value.
Thus, the cost of the politicians getting the vaccine is very high. For every shot that a politician gets, that one fewer a high-risk person can get right now.
myst_05
Dec 20 2020 at 6:27pm
Sorry, but this take is wrong and smells of SJW/woke style arguments that this blog frequently denounces. Pelosi, McConnell and Pence are some of the most crucial decision makers in this country – directly affecting the lives of hundreds of millions of people. I might disagree with their politics, but as an American I want them to be given the best possible treatments to ensure they’re capable of fulfilling their Constitutional duties. In an ideal world I would also want them to receive a massive salary boost to reduce their temptation towards corruption, but providing them with top notch medical care and physical security is a baseline prerequisite.
Yes, them taking away the vaccine from healthcare workers will result in a few more deaths. Providing them with Secret Service bodyguards is also causing several deaths per year, as these bodyguards could’ve been protecting others vulnerable Americans instead – but it’s a worthy price to pay for maintaining the country’s stability and a peaceful transition of power during regularly scheduled elections. Vote them out in 2022 rather than demanding that COVID is able to take their lives while they’re in office.
Jon Murphy
Dec 21 2020 at 10:32am
Two quick points:
First, I don’t think arguing that when there currently isn’t enough quantity supplied to satisfy the quantity demanded, increasing the quantity demanded is a poor idea is particularly “woke.” Indeed, it seems quite prudent.
Second, even if one wants to argue that politicians should enjoy certain splendors of the office denied to us commonfolk for political/anti-corruption/statesmanship reasons, it’s still not necessarily reasonable they get inoculated first. Again, there is a shortage of the vaccine. Politicians are not in a particularly high-risk group. They do not face the virus every day. The odds of them catching it is quite low. Additionally, there are lots of constitutional and administrative safeguards in place in the event one (or several) of them get sick at once. The virus doesn’t pose a unique risk to the Ship of State. So, it’s not obvious why, even given the reasons you list, politicians should get the inoculation ahead of people who are in clear and present danger.
myst_05
Dec 21 2020 at 2:02pm
The “woke” part comes from demanding that politicians live an ascetic lifestyle and refuse the vaccine until all of their constituents are vaccinated. And while I agree that politicians shouldn’t be doing things like eating out at French Laundry, its perfectly reasonable for them to take up measures that help them prevent a catastrophic disease.
Donald Trump and 43 other politicians in the Federal government have been diagnosed with COVID so far (source: Ballotpedia). One of them (Stephen F. Williams) died while in office. Given the explosion of cases all around the US we can expect the virus to keep coming back to DC over and over again.
Yes, there are – Lyndon B. Johnson famously succeeded JFK after he was killed while in office. Doesn’t mean having a powerful politician die while in office is something routine that we should just let happen. I personally hate both McConnell and Pelosi, but I want to see them expelled from the office during the next election as part of routine process, rather than see them succumb to COVID.
Jon Murphy
Dec 21 2020 at 2:10pm
Was that demanded? I don’t see it anywhere.
True. Exactly my point. They’re not facing a clear and present danger from the virus. According to the OPM, 0.2% of Federal workers have caught COVID. For comparison, about 40% of medical workers have caught the virus. For the general population, it’s around 5.6%. The Federal Government appears to be quite protected from the virus. No particular reason they should be first in line for the vaccine.
Of course. That’s why there are safeguards in place. But the virus doesn’t present a threat to the Federal government. Nothing suggests that, if left unvaccinated, there will be “routine” deaths of politicians.
Karen Selick
Dec 20 2020 at 6:54pm
David, as I’ve mentioned to you before, I think you need to become better informed about vaccines. I would strongly recommend, at the very least, that you read “Dissolving Illusions” by Dr. Suzanne Humphries and “Jabbed” by Brett Wilcox. You are making a mistake, my friend, if you think that vaccines are safe—or even if you think that this virus is worth being vaccinated for. I’ve always admired your intelligence and your rationality, but there is so much evidence you seem to have dismissed that I’m just scratching my head and wondering why. Another good place to start would be the writing of Bill Sardi on LewRockwell.com.
john hare
Dec 20 2020 at 7:09pm
I am willing to consider the possibility that you are correct across the board, and still want the freedom to make my own decisions.
Mark Bahner
Dec 21 2020 at 1:54am
What evidence do you have that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines for COVID-19 are not safe?
What evidence do you have that this virus is not “worth being vaccinated for”…particularly for people over 60, as David is?
P.S. Regarding Bill Sardi…I go to LewRockwell.com, and one of the first Bill Sardi articles I see is dated 12/5/2020, and is titled, “Does the COVID-19 coronavirus really exist?” Not a promising start! 🙁
Mark Brophy
Dec 21 2020 at 8:41am
There is very little demand for the vaccine because young people don’t need it and no testing has been done on old people because it’s dangerous to them. About half of doctors and nurses want the vaccine and the others refuse. Why should anyone else take it if doctors and nurses aren’t sure?
The quality control of vaccines is poor. If Ford makes a dangerous car then you can sue them but the drug makers are immune from vaccine lawsuits. If that’s not bad enough, they didn’t risk any capital because the government paid for development. If there was a market then they’d have accepted the development risk.
Jon Murphy
Dec 21 2020 at 10:33am
Well, part of the problem, as David notes, is that there isn’t very little demand for the vaccine. Indeed, demand is relatively high!
Mark Z
Dec 22 2020 at 12:14pm
Can you elaborate? Are you saying the risk posed by the vaccine is higher than empirical evidence suggests?
If you look through the medical literature on vaccines, they are, by and large, extremely safe. Even 50 years ago a really bad vaccine was one that caused severe side effects in 1 in tens or hundreds of thousands of people, and modern vaccines are much safer. I’m pretty much certain that if one is the kind of person who is so risk averse that the risk posed by a vaccine is too much, one should also probably never leave one’s home. The risk of driving on the highway regularly is certainly greater than the risk of getting a vaccine.
Stevepgh
Dec 20 2020 at 6:58pm
Are you criticizing the attempt to increase demand or just the method they chose?
I’m all in favor of increasing demand, even though the supply can’t keep up. The 30% or so of Americans who don’t currently want it may take some time to convince.
I’ve seen plenty of publicity about doctors and nurses getting vaccinated. I’ve also heard plenty of conspiracy theories about them being actors. So there may be some value in well-known people getting vaccinated.
I doubt there are more than a half dozen people who care if McConnell or Pelosi get vaccinated, but Pence might convince a few. Trump could be even more influential, despite not needing it (or because of that), but Trump doesn’t seem inclined to help out.
In any case the number of “influencers” who get the vaccine early is so small relative to even the limited supply available, that I guess I’m OK with it.
Jerry Brown
Dec 20 2020 at 7:54pm
I just want to say I agree with you Professor. Since usually you only hear when I disagree. But honestly I wouldn’t want to speculate on the motivations of those politicians as far as publicly getting vaccinated. But I grant you could be right.
I myself will get the vaccine as soon as possible unless Pence, McConnell or Pelosi suddenly keel over.
Michael
Dec 20 2020 at 8:17pm
I think that there is a reasonable case to be made for immunization of the President, Vice President, key members of Congress, etc, for continuity of government reasons.
I also think there is merit to the persuasion argument, even in December.
David Q
Dec 23 2020 at 6:01pm
How does the principle of charity apply in this case? Do we steelman the public figures’ arguments, saying that their stated reason is not as good as they think it is?
It might start something like this: “They probably believe that their public willingness to take the vaccine is a good thing. But actions increasing requests for the vaccine are imprudent, and here’s why…”
Or is that the wrong way to apply the principle of charity?
David Q
Comments are closed.