A specter is haunting Europe—the specter of compulsory vaccination.
In the face of the Omicron variant, European governments are escalating in their anti-Covid measures. Compulsory vaccination is on the table, but so is the idea of going back to at least partial lockdowns. It is interesting that by now shutting down at least part of social life is sort of a default option, happily embraced by governments and experts as a first resort application of the precautionary principle. “When in doubt shut down”. Who would have predicted this, say, two years ago?
One of the reasons for this is a particular belief which has been circulated since Sars-Cov-2 reached us from Wuhan: the idea that “closed societies” are better at protecting people and fighting epidemics than open societies. Interestingly enough, those holding this belief do not waste their time in producing any evidence in support of their contentions. The idea that individual liberty is a nuisance in a pandemic is sort of taken for granted. This meant and still means that the tougher things get, the less justification is apparently needed to curtail older liberties.
Since Omicron appeared, just to recap, Ursula van der Leyen, the EU’s President, has mentioned the possibility of compulsory vaccination all through Europe; Germany, which thus far has not made recourse to this measure, went for a “lockdown of the unvaccinated,” and even Portugal, where 87% of the population is double jabbed, tightened rules including a compulsory week of “remote working” on January 2 to 9.
I fear the consequence of this activism may actually damage vaccinations, fueling the very vaccine skepticism that it is aimed to contrast. The same can be said of making vaccination mandatory. People tend to believe that compulsory vaccination means the police going home by home and jabbing people, resorting to force when needed. Well, not quite: you will always have a portion of the population which objects to the measure, and perhaps in a more vocal way.
The Guardian ran an interesting survey of the pros and cons of compulsory vaccination. There may be unintended consequences or, if you prefer, side effects (pardon the puns). In particular:
“There are a number of concerns, including that it may risk undermining public confidence in public health measures.
“I think the main problem is public backlash, increase in polarisation and the possibility of political parties gaining ground on the anti-vaxx ticket,” said Dr Samantha Vanderslott of the Oxford Vaccine Group. “Also it might ignore improvement of vaccine services and access to vaccines,” she said.
Savulescu also pointed out concerns. “The risks are public confidence in government but more importantly, liberty should only be restricted to the least extent necessary. Unless the public health system is on the verge of collapse, it is hard to justify treating the decision to treat the unvaccinated differently to the decision to smoke, drink alcohol, eat unhealthily, not exercise etc,” he said, adding if mandatory policies were brought in, they should be as selective as possible.
“The Greek approach of making [Covid] vaccination mandatory for over-60s is more ethically defensible than the Austrian or German proposals to make it mandatory for all adults,” he said.”
READER COMMENTS
JFA
Dec 6 2021 at 8:35am
“the idea that “closed societies” are better at protecting people and fighting epidemics than open societies. Interestingly enough, those holding this belief do not waste their time in producing any evidence in support of their contentions.”
Werner Troesken has a book called The Pox of Liberty: How the Constitution Left Americans Rich, Free, and Prone to Infection about the tradeoff between the institutions that allow the freedom that make us prosperous and the ability of governments to respond to epidemics.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 6 2021 at 9:07am
He might wish to write a sequel. I suggest: “The Pox of Covid 19: How Covid 19 Left Americans Poor, Less Free and More Divided, but Still Prone to Infection”.
And, frankly, the Constitution has pretty much been ignored and/or overridden during this pandemic. Also, interestingly enough, I would suggest that the clear burden of proof should rest on those who advocate “closed societies” as a means of fighting epidemics. I find such proof lacking, much less such proof that would meet an appropriate burden of persuasion.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 6 2021 at 9:14am
Better yet:
“The Pox of Government: How the Government Response to Covid 19 left Americans Poor, Less Free and More Divided, but Still Prone to Infection””
Philo
Dec 6 2021 at 2:07pm
Would that the response to the pandemic were the only manifestation of “the pox of government”! (To be fair, the government occasionally does something good.)
Ryan M
Dec 8 2021 at 1:42pm
Exactly. In all of this talk about whether governments should be permitted to take draconian measures to “fight epidemics,” it has never been demonstrated by proponents that these measures are in any way more capable of fighting epidemics than would individuals/groups acting according to their own free will. In fact, I would say that the past 2 years has shown the exact opposite to be true. Meanwhile, the damage to liberty is very real, and long lasting.
steve
Dec 7 2021 at 2:18pm
Shouldn’t there be some limits when your behavior has negative effects on others?
Steve
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 8 2021 at 10:24am
Regarding “limits on behavior having negative effects on others”, I was thinking the same thing. Specifically, limits on governments (and teachers) forcing schools to close with disastrous consequences for kids, mandatory or defacto closure of businesses, etc., etc. Unmasked or unvaccinated folks walking down the street, not so much, although as to the latter I’m much more open to logical persuasion.
Viv
Ryan McPherson
Dec 8 2021 at 1:39pm
I don’t think there is anyone who would argue that there should not be limits on when “behavior that harms others” is permitted. You are stealing a very important base, here.
I would argue that, if you justify a coercive measure by saying that it curbs behavior that harms others, the burden is on you to conclusively demonstrate that this behavior does in fact harm others, and that your proposed coercive measure will end that harm. In the case of mandates, neither can be shown.
Ryan M
Dec 8 2021 at 1:43pm
I don’t think there is anyone who would argue that there should not be limits on when “behavior that harms others” is permitted. You are stealing a very important base, here. I would argue that, if you justify a coercive measure by saying that it curbs behavior that harms others, the burden is on you to conclusively demonstrate that this behavior does in fact harm others, and that your proposed coercive measure will end that harm. In the case of mandates, neither can be shown.
Vivian Darkbloom
Dec 8 2021 at 3:55pm
Regarding “harming others”, I live in France where the push to vaccinate children is getting pretty mandatory. So much so that I’m tempted to call Messrs Sunstein and Thaler to order for starting this abuse with “nudging”. Kids (currently aged 12 and up) and/or their parents are now faced with a choice—get vaccinated or lose your right to see movies, participate in sports, go on school trips, etc. This, despite the fact that there is demonstrably miniscule danger to those children themselves and the evidence of danger presented to others is hypothetical to the extreme (especially if one considers the danger to others by the hypothetical difference between vaccinated and unvaccinated). But, the damage to those kids from this policy (not the Covid virus) is very real. Not only have children suffered educationally due to school closures, etc; but almost all children have suffered psychologically and emotionally . Study after study shows increased depression and anxiety in children. Again, this isn’t due to Covid 19—it is primarily due to harm caused by the government response to it. I’m claiming the moral high ground here—this abuse needs to stop.
For example, but there are many, many others:
https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamapediatrics/fullarticle/2782796
Jon Murphy
Dec 8 2021 at 3:32pm
Ryan M makes a good point, but it’s also worth discussing that not every harm needs to be mitigated. Sometimes, simply adapting to the harm is better.
A simple example: There is a nightclub down the block from my apartment. On some weekends, the club-goers will get drunk and wander down the block to their cars making lots of noise. This noise can bother folks like me who live on the street. This is a harm: I am sometimes woken up. Should I call the cops to stop the harm? I suppose I could, but the more reasonable way to stop the harm would be for me to simply put in my earplugs.
It’s also worth noting that harm is reciprocal.
Ryan M
Dec 8 2021 at 1:36pm
It should also be pointed out that compulsory vaccination must necessarily be based on a lie. The only possible justification for such a policy (if there is any justification at all) would rest on the idea that unvaccinated individuals pose some sort of special threat to everyone else. But this is demonstrably untrue. The idea that the unvaccinated are suddenly going to overwhelm hospital systems to the point that nobody is able to receive any care is also indefensible, considering those same hospitals made it through a year of worse covid strains with zero vaccination. By mandating vaccination, governments essentially declare a handful of falsehoods to be true. Nobody has been able to explain the obvious reality that if the justification for mandates is valid, vaccinations must not work, which itself invalidates mandates.
Leaving aside entirely the fact that mandatory vaccination is both unethical and tyrannical and should not be tolerated in any sort of free society.
Comments are closed.