Coronavirus

Less Than Two-Thirds of Americans Are 'Very' or 'Somewhat' Interested in COVID-19 Vaccinations

But if a shot becomes available, there's a good chance more people will choose to vaccinate without a government mandate.

|

The only sure way to end the COVID-19 pandemic is through herd immunity. This can be achieved either through mass infection or mass vaccination.

Most epidemiologists believe that breaking the chains of coronavirus transmission requires between 50 and 70 percent of the population to become immune to it. Allowing the pandemic to run its course through an unprotected populace would result in misery for millions and deaths for hundreds of thousands. Fortunately, there are more than 100 projects around the world aimed at producing a vaccine against the scourge.

The Trump administration has launched "Operation Warp Speed," with the goal of producing 300 million doses of coronavirus vaccines by the end of this year. A number of vaccine makers in the U.S. are already testing their candidate vaccines in clinical trials. These developments should be good news to all of us who have endured the lockdowns of the past two months. But even in the midst of a pandemic, anti-vaccination fervor apparently never abates.

A new Reuters/IPSOS poll of nearly 4,500 people reports that "a quarter of Americans are hesitant about a coronavirus vaccine." In fact, the poll finds that "less than two-thirds of respondents said they were 'very' or 'somewhat' interested in a vaccine" against the virus. Another 11 percent were unsure. These poll numbers hover just at or below the estimated threshold for COVID-19 herd immunity. This would likely allow the virus to still circulate, endangering neighbors immunocompromised by cancer, HIV treatments, transplanted organs, or another condition.

To close the immunization gap in coronavirus herd immunity, Merrill Matthews, a resident scholar at the pro-market Institute for Policy Innovation asks, "If the government determines that vaccinations are essential to stemming the spread of the disease, would it—could it—mandate vaccination compliance?" His answer is that legally it could and it might.

Although Matthews does not specifically cite it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that the state government could mandate smallpox vaccinations to protect the public's health. In a 2019 overview of the legal authority to require vaccinations, the Congressional Research Service noted that "the states' general police power to promote public health and safety encompasses the authority to require mandatory vaccinations."

So the government can mandate inoculations if and when an effective coronavirus vaccine becomes available. But should it? My hunch is that such a step won't be deemed necessary. The more people die of this pandemic, the more likely those left uninfected will be to seek vaccinations once they become available, assuming they are both effective and safe. If a second and more deadly wave of infections hits in the fall, as some fear it might, the ranks of the vaccine refuseniks will probably shrink even further.

This will be especially true if COVID-19 vaccinations are made available without cost. While the old adage that there are no atheists in foxholes is not true, there will surely be fewer anti-vaxxers in a pandemic.

NEXT: Chris Cuomo's COVID-19 Interviews With Andrew Cuomo Are Disgraceful

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Sorry Bailey, the hyateria is over.

    1. But enough about ENB’s articles.

      1. I Make Money At H0me.Let’s start work offered by Google!!Yes,this is definitely the most financially rewarding Job I’ve had . Last Monday I bought a great Lotus Elan after I been earning $9534 this-last/5 weeks and-a little over, $10k last month . . I started this four months/ago and immediately started to bring home minimum $97 per/hr

        Heres what I do……► Online Jobs provid

      2. You can earn online more than you think. I am making more than 3500 dollars per week doing this link posting job. I started this job without investing any money.
        See my earnings and join here……….………..………Home Profit System

    2. The hyateria… Where hyenas go to eat, cafeteria-style? Or where Hayek (the economist) goes to mud-wrestle in the “terra not so firma” (Hayek-Terra?) that has been all watered down? Your literary allusions have eluded me, truth be told…

      I have noticed on this forum right here, boatloads of “libertarians” have watered down their supposed love of individual freedom so utterly, that it has become addiction to the Trumptatorshit instead!

      1. You an illiterate idiot. You haven’t noticed anything. You would have to have the ability to read and comprehend for that. What you have done is imagined a bunch of delusional bullshit you think is true or are willing to lie and pretend is true.

        1. Compelling, astoundingly persuasive writings there, John! Congratulations! “You an” astounding writer! I HAVE noticed THAT! That’s why I implore you ass below!

          Do you recall the awesome enchanter named “Tim”, in “Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail”? The one who could “summon fire without flint or tinder”? Well, you remind me of Tim… You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic!

          So I discussed your awesome talents with some dear personal friends on the Reason staff… Accordingly…

          Reason staff has asked me to convey the following message to you:

          Hi Fantastically Talented Author:

          Obviously, you are a silver-tongued orator, and you also know how to translate your spectacular talents to the written word! We at Reason have need for writers like you, who have near-magical persuasive powers, without having to write at great, tedious length, or resorting to boring facts and citations.

          At Reason, we pay above-market-band salaries to permanent staff, or above-market-band per-word-based fees to freelancers, at your choice. To both permanent staff, and to free-lancers, we provide excellent health, dental, and vision benefits. We also provide FREE unlimited access to nubile young groupies, although we do firmly stipulate that persuasion, not coercion, MUST be applied when taking advantage of said nubile young groupies.

          Please send your resume, and another sample of your writings, along with your salary or fee demands, to ReasonNeedsBrilliantlyPersuasiveWriters@Reason.com .

          Thank You! -Reason Staff

          1. I agree with John: You an idiot.

            1. You are an enchanter who can summon persuasion without facts or logic! We ALL adore YOU!

              1. Have you ever been beaten until you pissed blood?

                1. Only by those of extremely dim wit, who have been soundly beaten by my libertarian love of facts and logic! But that’s the usual… Libertarians use facts and logic, and the disciples of force and violence use… Surprise, surprise! Force and vile violence! All Hail Government Almighty! You’d think we’d have learned, after Hitler and Stalin and Mao and Idi Amin and Pol Pot and now Gasbag Blowhard too! But NOOOOO….

                  WHEN will we ever learn?!?!?!

                  1. I just asked if it ever happened to you. Because your inbred kids said you did it to mommy, and made them watch.

                    I think the family court judge assigned to your case might take that into consideration.

        2. You are one of whom he speaks.

          1. You pulled out the sock for this response. Lol.

      1. Maybe where you are.

        Yeah – in the SF Bay Area the hysteria ain’t no ways near over.

        1. Absolutely true. It is bizarre. I live in southern california, and when I am on meetings with the people here, everyone is talking about getting out of the house. But get on the horn with people in northern cal, and they react with shock that anyone would venture out into the wasteland.

          1. Great observation. I am in SoCal, on the border of Orange and LA County and everyone is going stir crazy too. But, having lived in the Bay Area for a while, I know they are more liberal on the whole, and like all things lately, levels of concerns seem to be following partisan lines. Next door to where I live, in Orange County, a conservative and well off California County, people are going out and they mostly behave politely and wear masks. However, in the inland empire, where I live, the local rednecks think they deserve a gold star for remembering to wear shoes, pants and a shirt to the store, and seemed puzzled that everyone else wants them to also wear masks. I do go to stores, but avoid many where I live because stores in more wealthy communities show a healthier level of caution. I want to go to the beaches too, but realize most will close because half the people can’t seem to figure out that for now, beach parties are not OK. I do want the beaches open anyhow, but probably won’t go more than once or twice. Maybe that shows that I am overly concerned, or less Libertarian. I don’t really care. I have an immune compromised family member that I don’t want to get sick, so I am operating much more carefully than I would otherwise.

    3. Not even close, now the talking points have shifted toward….

      …. ‘The Second Wave™’

  2. //So the government can mandate inoculations if and when an effective coronavirus vaccine becomes available. But should it?//

    No.

    1. So the government could end racial conflict by eliminating any given race. But should it?

      So the government could end gender inequality by forcibly sterilizing and/or chemically castrating everyone. But should it?

      So the government could win the drug war by seizing control of private production and poisoning existing supplies. But should it?

      It’s not even clear that the prior conditional Bailey posits is remotely factual. It probably wouldn’t be the case in MA but it’s easily conceivable that a more rational OH judge would look at a ruling based on the smallpox vaccine and declare the previous ruling irrelevant. He’d see that, relatively, smallpox was overwhelmingly more destructive to young people and that the vaccine was overwhelmingly effective while the COVID vaccine is likely to be of no use to young people with an ongoing open question as to long term efficacy; that, on the one hand, you’re talking about inoculating a 10-yr.-old against his will to save him for the rest of his life from a disease that has a good chance of killing him at any time vs. the other hand where even if the vaccine is 100% effective, the child being vaccinated will likely see no direct benefit from the vaccination and any benefit from the vaccination will optimistically be measured in the amount of months we extend the life and/or suffering of the average octogenarian with multiple comorbidities.

      The fact that Bailey’s so emphatically jumping the gun to answer the “Should the vaccines be mandatory?” question is very telling.

      1. //The fact that Bailey’s so emphatically jumping the gun to answer the “Should the vaccines be mandatory?” question is very telling.//

        Agree 100%.

        Even with relatively more dangerous viruses, the issue is still thorny. It is not at all clear that Jacobson would survive constitutional scrutiny today.

      2. He’s already lumping in people who don’t want a covid vaccine as antivaxxers. I’ve seen more people than ever question THIS particular vaccine that are definitely not in the antivax camp. Dangerous rhetoric indeed.

      3. Setting aside constitutional questions, the idea of forcibly sticking needles in peoples’ arms for the sake of “public protection” is completely un-libertarian.

        Disease is a fact of nature. It spreads through us, and through the air and through the water. Regardless of the vector of attack, it is not my responsibility to lower the risk for others. I shouldn’t have to put a water purifier on my property to treat water flowing across into yours, and I should not have to vaccinate myself to prevent viruses from using me to get to you.

        I don’t mind holding people accountable for spreading the virus with gross negligence (c.f. testing positive, then going out to a concert), so that might justify some soft quarantine practices. But that is a corner case that would not require the level of mass infringement that people are discussing here.

        But it is all part and parcel of the same lack of respect for liberty. The country that thinks it can jail the entire populace to lower risk is the country that thinks it can drug everybody without any question.

        1. Good points.

        2. Amen! Very succinct!

          Punish those who knowingly spread something, and self-quarantine (formerly known as using a sick day) when you’re sick.

          1. LOL. When an employee starts a job with me, that’s part of the standard talk: “You get sick days, use them, I don’t want your cold”.

        3. Good points and good luck getting through the hysterical sheep with that.

        4. Well said! Treat disease like the mirror of drugs: if you knowingly do something to harm another, or enter into action that is likely to do same, then you should be held accountable. Aside from that, if you want take your chances, feel free (but don’t ask me to pick up the hospital bill either).

  3. The only sure way to end the COVID-19 pandemic is through herd immunity.

    Extinction would also be a pretty sure way to end the COVID-19 pandemic.

    Considering those are pretty much the only 2 alternatives, this is a bit like saying the only sure way see to 2020-05-22 is to survive 2020-05-21.

  4. https://www.sph.umn.edu/news/modeling-covid-19-for-minnesota/

    Before Friday, March 20, Marina Kirkeide, who graduated from the University of Minnesota College of Science and Engineering in 2019, was a School of Public Health part-time research assistant working on HPV transmission for Kulasingam. On a gap year before starting Medical School at the University in fall 2020, Kirkeide also had a second job as a lab tech at St. Paul’s Regions Hospital. That Friday, Kulasingam called her and two other research assistants and asked if anyone was available to “work through the day and night” to get a COVID-19 model to Governor Walz the following Monday. They all jumped at the chance.

    “I don’t think a lot of researchers get to work on something over the weekend and have public figures talk about it and make decisions based on it three days later,” says Kirkeide, who had to leave her hospital job to focus solely on modeling. She feels the responsibility of such a big project, too. “[In this situation] you don’t have the time to validate as much as you normally would. You want to get it right the first time. And your work has to be really, really quick.”

    1. On March 25, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz presented two scenarios describing the state’s future outlook related to the COVID-19 outbreak. One projection showed that cases would peak around April 26 in Minnesota if there were no mitigating steps to slow the virus. The death toll in this scenario could reach 74,000. The other scenario showed a time frame with significant and staged mitigations in place that pushed the peak to about June 29 and projected deaths in the 50,000–55,000 range.

      1. “The other scenario showed a time frame with significant and staged mitigations in place that pushed the peak to about June 29 and projected deaths in the 50,000–55,000 range.”

        May 21st death toll in Minnesota, per worldometers: 818.

        “Jussssst a bit outside.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Jdv2Wp9MzY0

    2. I don’t think a lot of researchers get to work on something over the weekend and have public figures talk about it and make decisions based on it three days later

      The lack of any remorse for having done such bad research that reached conclusions that were so abysmally wrong is stunning. It’s like, ‘they wanted it quickly’ is an excuse for complete abandonment of the scientific method. The correct answer is: you can’t have my research until it is demonstrably accurate.

      If she were part of the Manhattan project, they would have taken her out back and shot her.

      Science!

      1. “The correct answer is: you can’t have my research until it is demonstrably accurate.”

        Then they would have gone to the next desperate grad student, and forgotten all about her. Until it was time to approve any grants she or her graduate advisor wanted approval on, of course.

      2. Something rather in between I believe. You work multiple pathways, and accept that maybe 95% probability will have to do, you just don’t have time / resources to hit 99%. You, or the project manager, keeps an eye on the big picture, and hopefully if something happens that would change those probabilities, he picks up on it downstream.

        Very little research is published that the investigator didn’t want to have a bit more time to tweak.

  5. No only American every one is looking for the Vaccinations but we can only hope as all the pharmacy and scientist are working on it going through the graph of patients it looks dangerous every country is suffering from the chines virus or covid 19

  6. the ranks of the vaccine refuseniks will probably shrink even further. This will be especially true if COVID-19 vaccinations are made available without cost

    and if TPTB are televised being injected with saline solution.

  7. The SCOTUS also said slavery was legal too so…

    1. … if some clever attorney argues that mandated vaccines are a form of slavery …

      1. Vaccine or Syphilis? We’ll find out later.

    2. stare decisis ain’t what it used to be

  8. I’d get the vaccine … a year after everyone else does.
    In the meantime I’ll take my chances getting the WuFlu this year and next year (and maybe for many more years if the mythical safe and effective vaccine near shows up).

    1. This.

      Back during the H1N1 epidemic, when 130% of the world’s population died, my doc actually warned me off of getting the vaccine, because it had been rushed out.

      1. Wow, good doc! Usually they have some financial incentive to push it on you. I think they get paid by the flu vaccine. They push it hard.

        1. She was critical of the CDC’s handling of it. Said she didn’t take it, and she wouldn’t give it to her kids. I got the message.

    2. Looking at the demographic data, I’ve got a couple decades and a couple of comorbidities to pick up before the vaccine goes from ‘about as life-saving as obeying the speed limit’ to ‘must-have’.

      TBD whether I’ll contract and develop immunity to COVID before the above sets in or vice versa, but the my finely-tuned model (scribbles on a napkin) that I rigorously tested (by placing multiple beers on top of it) suggests the former is far more likely.

      1. OTOH, if you’re grampa who’s a bit overweight and has high blood pressure, you might think, eh, 80% chance it will work…. that could help.

  9. “”The Trump administration has launched “Operation Warp Speed,”””

    Did he clear that name with the commander of Space Force? Seems like a misappropriation.

    1. Gives him budget flexibility … just wait for the explanation of how completing The Wall is part of Warp Speed now

  10. OT with a segue –

    They better get a cure quickly so the kids can start going to school, including homeschool kids whose parents can’t get a government permission slip –

    “This article describes the rapidly growing homeschooling phenomenon, and the threat it poses to children and society. Homeschooling activists have in recent decades largely succeeded in their deregulation campaign, overwhelming legislators with aggressive advocacy. As a result, parents can now keep their children at home in the name of homeschooling free from any real scrutiny as to whether or how they are educating their children. Many homeschool precisely because they want to isolate their children from ideas and values central to our democracy. Many promote racial segregation and female subservience. Many question science. Many are determined to keep their children from exposure to views that might enable autonomous choice about their future lives. Abusive parents can keep their children at home free from the risk that teachers will report them to child protection services. Some homeschool precisely for this reason. This article calls for a radical transformation in the homeschooling regime, and a related rethinking of child rights and reframing of constitutional doctrine. It recommends a presumptive ban on homeschooling, with the burden on parents to demonstrate justification for permission to homeschool.”

    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3391331

      1. The very notion that homeschooling children outside of the ambit of state controlled educational facilities in any qualifies as “authoritarian” is the precise type of inverted logic for which authoritarians are renowned. How can anyone actually and genuinely believe that?

        1. “How can anyone actually and genuinely believe that?”

          LSD?

        2. I have come to believe that these types genuinely think that “stuff I don’t like” is the definition of authoritarianism.

          1. I have come to believe that anyone that equates ‘taking an interest in your child’s education’ with ‘authoritarianism’ should have their fucking heads cut off.

            Little did I know that being a student of the U.S. Constitution would lead me to the same conclusions as Osama Bin Laden. Whoda thunk?

    1. Many question science.

      Because questioning the established conception of things is totally not the whole point of science…

      1. The stupid cunt can’t even form her argument correctly. What she is pathetically trying to imply is: ‘many question outcomes predicted using the scientific method‘.

        If someone came up to you and said “I study science”, you would assume they were retarded. The word ‘science’ has no meaning the way she is using it, which is exactly why she is using it that way.

        1. I thought she was actually trying to say something like “question the practice of science itself,” or “question methodological naturalism.” In any case, it wasn’t clear at all, and basically comes off as “might question my authoritah”

          1. Tyrants gonna tyrant. Peons must OBEY.

        2. And with the absolutely fantastic record that modern science (particularly government sponsored science) has had over the last 2 decades, it’s a complete fucking mystery why people might not flock to believing what a talking head on the news calls science.

          Especially when you consider that what they are calling science is nothing more than speculation gathered from models that have shown themselves time and again to be utterly wrong.

          Science is no longer an activity that is based on knowledge, but pre-supposition. We’ve replaced knowledge with modeling, and the results aren’t pretty. Add to that the politicization of science (the “vaping epidemic” of last year is Exhibit A). Even months after it was clear that nicotine vapes had dick to do with it, the CDC and FDA (and their media lapdogs so eager to tell us “But SCIENCE™️!”) stuck to their guns, blaming nicotine vapes, because everything in their body WANTED it to be that way due to politics.

          Real science is still alive and well. But if it’s something being talked about on TV, it’s probably not actual science, but science-y, and agenda-laden.

      2. Some religious fundamentalists do reject the scientific view of the world. But so what? People get to think what they want. And raise their children as they see fit.

    2. “overwhelming legislators with aggressive advocacy.”

      “Allow us to parent our children all day, not just after the government mandated babysitting hours!”
      *Workday continues as normal, without rioters blocking traffic or throwing bombs in storefront windows*

      Uncivilized monsters

  11. This virus is only a problem if you have underlying health conditions or are over 70. If you are under 70 and have no underlying conditions, you would be stupid to take a vaccine that has not been proven safe. You are risking your health to protect yourself from a virus that isn’t a threat. Mandating this vaccine would be monstrous.

    1. Mandating this vaccine would be monstrous.

      So it’ll be mandated in NY, NJ, MI, IL, and CA.

      1. Of course it will. And it will kill and ruin the health of a bunch of people who were in no danger for the virus to begin with and likely prove to be only marginally effective at preventing you from getting the virus.

        This will be called “bad luck”.

        1. Of course it will be tested. Think of all the people that lost their livelihoods from forced shutdowns lining up around the block to get pricked for $50 to feed their family. It’s better than the prick they’ll have to take for $5 in the alley.

        2. The experts are going to demand that we all get vaccinated for a disease that has a 99% survivability rate. And we’ll be told to OBEY the same people who were wrong on so many basic things about this virus.

          We’ll spend billions on researching a vaccine that is 99% safe. Which means a tiny fraction of the people who get it will have adverse reactions and possibly die. Statistically that’s the EXACT same risk as this virus but the vaccine will be FORCED on us!

          And many, including many of my friends, will actually argue FOR this and willingly give up their rights and INSIST that I give up mine in the name of safety.

      2. Hopefully this isn’t too late, but can you link me an article about IL? I have heard about the other states doing this but not IL.

    2. It’ll be mandated for military members and they will almost certainly get it first. Should provide enough data to qualify it as “safe”.

  12. You first.

  13. I’ll trade mine for baseball cards.

    1. Groups of 10 are OK, but once someone gets on base, the next batter makes 11. No baseball for you!

      1. dude I’ve played for +40 years I’m well aware of how much baseball I can’t play right now

      2. Home plate, 1st and 3rd base, have no more than a group of 3. Everyone else on the field is socially distancing.

      3. You just need to get the teams up to hit immunity. You don’t have to get every batter to hit either home runs or strike out, just enough that the relatively small percentage of hit-susceptible players don’t effectively bring the game to an end. 95-99%, with good fielding would probably get you through a season. 85-95% will likely get you through most games. 75-85% and any given game gets dicey and below 75%, even with good fielding, any given inning gets unlikely to finish.

        The real question is, “Do you lay off every last one of the good hitters league-wide so that great fielders who can’t swing a bat can continue to play?”

  14. This would likely allow the virus to still circulate, endangering neighbors immunocompromised by cancer, HIV treatments, transplanted organs, or another condition.

    No it wouldn’t Ron. If you don’t take the vaccine and get the virus, you will develop an immunity to it and thus become a part of the herd immunity. Also, the people who are vaunerable are free to and probably should take the vaccine. If they are vaccinated, all they have to do is quarantine themselves for a few days or maybe a week to let their antibodies develop and they won’t get the disease, assuming the vaccine is effective.

    So there is no reason to force everyone to get this. Ron did you really think about this before writing this article? It doesn’t appear you did. This is not the same thing as childhood vaccines. Those vaccines are proven safe and are against diseases that can drastically affect anyone. This disease only affects a small part of the population. Most people are in no danger from getting it. So, you don’t force everyone to get the vaccine. You let people who are in real danger from the virus choose to take the risk of getting an unproven vaccine.

    It is not about being a vax denier. It is about having some god damned common sense and understanding that one bit centrally mandated solution isn’t always the right one.

    1. People are taking the precautionary principle to the extreme with the virus, but throwing it out the window for the potential vaccine.

    2. First, Ron has previously shown a willingness to mandate vaccinations for the protection of the public. He has generally been up front about it, and even did a “written debate” a few years ago.

      But your analysis is basically right. One complicating factor is that for some people, vaccinations just do not “take”. So a person who is susceptible could take the vaccination and still get sick- indeed the Flu Virus doesn’t always prevent sickness, just lessens the impact.

      The point here, though, is that the onus should be on the vulnerable to protect themselves. Back when measles broke out at Disneyland, a friend of mine was screaming “How dare you anti-vaxxers kill this 6 week old baby!”

      Why the fuck would you take an 6 week old baby to a theme park? People need to take responsibility for their kids and understand that it isn’t civilization’s responsibility to bubble wrap the world for you.

  15. Stupid polls are stupid. How many people get the yearly flu vaccine, what’s the effectiveness of that vaccine, how many people get the flu? I’ve never gotten the yearly flu shot and I’ve never had the flu as far as I know, certainly not a bad enough case that I’ve actually had to see a doctor who could actually diagnose it. Am I concerned about the coronavirus vaccine? What coronavirus vaccine? A hypothetical vaccine? Is that like the hypothetical Democrat that beats the hypothetical Republican in a hypothetical race? Tell me what the effectiveness of the vaccine will be, what the potential side-effects might be, how difficult or expensive the vaccine might be to get, what my chances of getting the coronavirus might be if I don’t get the vaccine and then maybe we’ll talk about my concern or lack thereof.

    1. I’ve got all my normal vaccines, you know the ones I’m talking about. a couple of years ago they wanted me to get a tetanus booster. Ok, sure, why not? But I’ll be damned if I take a seasonal flu vaccine.

    2. Tell me what the effectiveness of the vaccine will be, what the potential side-effects might be, how difficult or expensive the vaccine might be to get, what my chances of getting the coronavirus might be if I don’t get the vaccine and then maybe we’ll talk about my concern or lack thereof.

      Why would a science writer do that when he could rightfully shame those anti-vaxxing rubes and talk up the libertarian merits of mandatory vaccination like it’s a done deal all the way around?

      1. That’s the kicker.

        Things are 1 way when we don’t have any information to base our decision on. But as that info rolls in, things change rapidly. He’s putting the cart before the horse here.

        Example: Youth baseball season was just starting as we were all quarantined. Kids and parents want their baseball. Until we find out the rules being instituted by people who clearly have never even held a fucking baseball. Mandated masks. Catchers 6’ behind the batter. Disinfecting fucking bats. No parents at games. Etc.

        Circumstances change when relevant info comes in.

        It’s too bad a science writer doesn’t get that.

  16. “”Although Matthews does not specifically cite it, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 1905 case of Jacobson v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts that the state government could mandate smallpox vaccinations to protect the public’s health.””

    From the WHO website

    “”Two forms of the disease are recognized, variola minor with a mortality rate of approximately 1%, and the more common variola major with a mortality rate of 30%. Between 65–80% of survivors are marked with deep pitted scars (pockmarks), most prominent on the face. “”
    https://www.who.int/biologicals/vaccines/smallpox/en/

    The Corona virus is nowhere near as fatal as the more common version of Smallpox.

    1. Referenced in your link is Edward Jenner. A country doc as he would have been known then. He noticed something. The milkmaids tending the dairy cows had better complexions. It is a terrific story as to how he developed the first real vaccine long before a virus was even understood.

    2. Yeah, I could possibly be convinced that a resurgent smallpox, or airborne ebola or something really horrible might warrant some coercive measures. But this is so far from anything like that.

  17. You only need a little less than 2/3 (including their kids and grandparents) to create a vaccine herd immunity.
    So, this is all correct. The Anti Vaxers are outnumbered. They are no different than a draft dodger during WW II.
    Vaccines are a victim of their own success. Small Pox killed 30% of those infected. That virus terrorized humanity for thousands of years. It killed 100’s of millions in the 20th century.
    Do anti vaxers think smallpox just vanished with no aid from the vaccine?
    You know how you force someone to take a vaccine? Have a loved one become infected with COVID-19 who has underlying conditions for severe COVID-19 and they will change their tune damn quick.

    1. Here, as if on cue, comes someone equating an unwillingness to take an unproven vaccine, in a class of viruses where previous attempts to make a vaccine resulted in one that was more lethal than the virus—-Oh, and to add a cherry to this shit sundae, it’s incredibly likely you won’t be able to sue the COVID vaccine manufacturer if it does end up wrecking you. Anyway, equating them with your garden-variety, essential oils pimping, healing crystal wearing, Karin! With An “I”! anti-vaxxer.

      It’s all so tiresome.

      1. He acknowledges that fully 1/3 of the population is refusing to take the vaccine while fabricating the patently absurd notion that none of them are healthcare workers, have had a relative die of cancer or other degenerative disease (or are in the process), or are soldiers or are otherwise rational humans who could fathom allowing other people to die on their own terms.

        It continues to be amazing how persistent this shallow-thinking lunacy. But, I suppose that if you’re a king in a world populated by straw men, you don’t let people burst your bubble.

  18. Virus vaccines have been tried again and again and just don’t work well if at all.

    1. small pox, poliomyelitis, measles, mumps, rubella, chicken pox, yellow fever, rabies, hepatitis B, human papilloma viruses and rotavirus.

      All antiviral vaccines proven to be highly effective.

      1. I think he meant bacterial and/or microbial vaccines (don’t ask me how) but still, across-the-board “don’t work well if at all” has several notable exceptions.

        1. Or he could mean “coronavirus vaccines”. That would be true as far as I know.

    2. “Virus vaccines have been tried again and again and just don’t work well if at all.”

      Bullshit.

  19. Sure, line up to take a vaccine that was developed at “warp speed” for a respiratory illness approximately like the flu.

    1. And I wouldn’t recommend taking hydroxchloroquine prophylactically either.

      1. Just do what the media said Trump told you do, inject some bleach.

  20. There is no vaccine to talk about.

    1. And herd immunity is an overt rhetorical stepping stone to socialism. Narrowly useful for bean counters forced to squeeze the most out of a dollar, for everyone else, it’s merely a linguistic tool to interchange the state of a thing for the thing itself, to eschew the ‘is’ in favor of the ‘ought’.

      1. What term would you prefer be used to refer to the phenomenon currently known as “herd immunity”?

  21. A vaccine is only useful if it wasn’t developed by a wite male clinger. No matter what a transgender latinx/ African American should get all of the credit and praise

  22. The same people who mock Trump for taking an established drug preventatively will line up to be the first guinea pigs for the vaccine, as long as the right people are saying it’s fine.

    1. Mr. Trump can take any medications he wishes. I do not care at all what he takes or uses. He does not need to share that.

      As the president he should be careful about what he says in public which in this case is well beyond his level of expertise.

      So HCQ has been and is still being investigated. This study has strong statistical power in numbers with many limitations. It is not multi centric, it is limited to already sick patients, it only looks at two outcomes those requiring intubation or dying.

      They found no significant benefit to additional HCQ therapy. It really says nothing at all about prophylaxis in otherwise healthy individuals.

      https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa2012410?query=featured_coronavirus

      1. Clutch those pearls, bitch

        1. Which is a funny way to put it.

          In medical training “pearls” has a meaning. It meant something like “pearls of wisdom”. So you would be working, say reviewing a case and the attending would drop a pearl like “so when you you see a large unilateral pleural effusion in a patient this age, look for malignancy”.

          Then there were “black pearls” when you got misleading information. At that stage you were expected to learn on your own and find the difference. So you are right in a way, I have been clutching at pearls all of my life.

          I gave you two pearls. Two studies strongly indicating something about the use of a certain drug in patients hospitalized with Covid-19 infection.

          I try to read at least one each day because never miss an opportunity to learn something.

          Here is one about a very different agent. It shows at best modest benefit yet significant. Very well designed large scale multi center trial. Double blinded with placebo control.

          https://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa2007764?articleTools=true

      2. “As the president he should be careful about what he says in public which in this case is well beyond his level of expertise.”

        Were you triggered? Did your mommy tell you that you shouldn’t watch it?
        When will you grow up? If ever…

  23. Will the HIV vaccine be rolled out at the same time?

  24. Hey, I’m not anti-vaxxers and would consider it. I’ve never taken a flu shot though so the decision should be mine.

    Not a fan of mandatory anything but as long as it doesn’t come with any of these creepy strings attached like Digital ID and the like. Nor do I like this ‘vaccination papers required’ to travel or go to events thing either. I’m prepared to not engage in either if they go that far.

    But I’d much rather have one that goes through the proper clinical trials than a rushed one. If that’s the case, I find it irresponsible of the government would make it mandatory. I’d rather wait just out of basic prudence.

    I would probably do it for my daughter. BUT NO VACCINE FROM CHINA. ALL BETS ARE OFF WITH THEM.

    Fuck China.

    They put us in this fricken mess and I’ll be damned if I take a vaccine from them. China is asshole.

    1. A couple of hours later I’d like to just clarify the part with my daughter.

      The Coronavirus, so far, seems to really like one demographic. The young and healthy with no secondary issues seem to deal with it.

      So for me to administer it to my daughter would be in consultation with her paediatrician.

      I don’t see why this virus is the hill we want to die on.

      But the powers that be sure act like they want to. Which makes me kinda nervous really. Cui bono?

    2. It would be interesting to require thing like vaccination papers for concerts and the like.

      Surely not every state will require vaccines, even if only because it, like everything else, is mindlessly politicized. So will Colorado (which theoretically requires a vaccine in this scenario) be able to keep me from watching a concert at Red Rocks if I live in a state that does NOT require a vaccine and I haven’t otherwise gotten one?

      Would that not violate the 14th Amendment?

  25. How about instead of forcing people to get vaccinated you force them to take a statistics class and actually discuss the actual fucking numbers for deaths from Covid… like Pennsylvania’s average age of death being 80.

    Doctors in Northern California say they have seen more deaths from suicide than they’ve seen from the coronavirus during the pandemic.

    “The numbers are unprecedented,” Dr. Mike deBoisblanc of John Muir Medical Center in Walnut Creek, California, told ABC 7 News about the increase of suicide deaths adding that he’s seen a “year’s worth of suicides” in the last four weeks alone.

    https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/california-doctors-say-theyve-seen-more-deaths-from-suicide-than-coronavirus-since-lockdowns

    1. I am a little skeptical about your numbers, but if you mean Northern Northern California, north of the Bay Area, which is an area that is larger than most states but only has a few million people, it doesn’t seem that out there. They have been devastated by the economic crash and their case rate is very low. I don’t think you can blame all suicides on the Covid shutdown, though It is terrible and soul crushing to put people out of work.

  26. “While none of the above was especially remarkable (with the exception of the hint at QE), the reason why stocks gave the report a thumbs down is because as Premier Li also said, China will safeguard national security in Hong Kong, i.e., China plans on expanding its crackdown on Hong Kong sovereignty, a step that comes one day after China announced dramatic plans to rein in dissent by writing a new law into the city’s charter, and just hours after the Senate passed a bill that will retaliate against China should it do precisely that, effectively ensuring an even further deterioration in US-Sino relations.

    Specifically, the National People’s Congress confirmed plans to pass a bill establishing “an enforcement mechanism for ensuring national security” for Hong Kong, with Reuters adding that China’s draft Hong Kong legislation says Hong Kong “should finish enacting as soon as possible the regulations in basic law regarding national security” and that Hong Kong government and legal bodies should effectively prevent, stop and punish activities that endanger national security.

    Chinese lawmakers were preparing to soon pass measures that would curb secession, sedition, foreign interference and terrorism in the former British colony, local media including the South China Morning Post reported Thursday, citing unidentified people.

    “We will establish sound legal systems and enforcement mechanisms for safeguarding national security in the two special administrative regions, and see that the governments of the two regions fulfill their constitutional responsibilities,” Li said according to prepared remarks on Friday.

    As Bloomberg adds, any attempt to impose security laws now could reignite the unrest that hammered the city’s economy last year and serve as a flash point amid broader U.S.-China tensions. Protesters urged democracy advocates to hold rallies across the city Thursday night, with one poster describing the moment as a “battle of life and death,” but mass demonstrations didn’t immediately materialize.

    “This is the end of Hong Kong,” said Dennis Kwok, an opposition lawmaker representing the legal sector. “I foresee that the status of Hong Kong as an international city will be gone very soon.””

    http://www.zerohedge.com/markets/end-hong-kong-china-announces-crackdown-hong-kong-national-security-law-abandons-gdp-target

  27. The “Tattoos Are 1st Amendment” thread got closed, why?
    Was a snowflake triggered?

  28. “These poll numbers hover just at or below the estimated threshold for COVID-19 herd immunity. This would likely allow the virus to still circulate, endangering neighbors immunocompromised by cancer, HIV treatments, transplanted organs, or another condition.”

    The unstated assumption here is that the vaccine will be 100% effective, or nearly so. You might want to check out the CDC’s own numbers on the flu vaccine, about 50% effective:

    https://www.cdc.gov/flu/spotlights/2019-2020/interim-flu-vaccine-effectiveness.htm

Please to post comments