Vaccines Are Good. Vaccine Mandates From the Government Are Bad.

If you support "my body, my choice," you cannot support vaccine mandates.


Politicians love force.

The idea of leaving us alone to make our own decisions goes against their nature.

To be sure, civilized society sometimes needs government force: police to punish killers, soldiers to protect us from foreign invaders, environmental police to stop my smoke from flowing to your lungs…

But the political class always goes too far.

Now some want medical police to force everyone to get vaccinated. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already.

"It has!" you say. "I have to get vaccinated to keep my job, for my kids to attend school, to go to the movies, a restaurant, etc."

That's force, absolutely. But it's not mandatory. There's an out—we don't have to work for the government, eat indoors, or go to a movie theater. We can homeschool our kids. We still have choice.

So far, politicians haven't sent police into homes to force everyone to get vaccinated.

They did do that once.

In Philadelphia 30 years ago, a measles outbreak sickened 1,400 people, mostly children, and killed nine. The outbreak spread because leaders of two fundamentalist churches told congregants to refuse the vaccine; God would do the healing.

Philadelphia's health department got a court order that compelled parents to allow their kids to be vaccinated.

Remarkably, "They complied with the law," says vaccine expert Dr. Paul Offit in my new video. "They were law-abiding." The Philadelphia parents didn't fight the order. That ended the epidemic.

But I doubt that vaccine-resistant Americans would be similarly compliant today. Now there's an anti-vaccine movement. I'm surprised by the outpouring of hatred for Offit on my YouTube and Facebook channels that follows my video.

Some of it is nonsense from ignorant anti-vaxxers. But I respect commenters expressing versions of the chant, "My body, my choice!"

That slogan makes a good point.

We are not really free if we don't own our own bodies. (It's another reason to oppose the Drug War.) Individuals should get to decide what's put in our own bodies.

But a deadly pandemic is a special case.

COVID-19 continues to kill, partly because some people refuse the vaccine. "This virus has a great many friends," complains Offit. "Science denialists, conspiracy theorists, political pundits. It's hard to watch."

"People have reason to be suspicious!" I say. "The government has experimented on people and lied to people."

(Officials once promised Black syphilis patients treatment but gave them empty pills. The CIA sneaked LSD into people's drinks. More recently, Dr. Anthony Fauci said Americans don't need to wear masks, and then he said we should wear masks.)

"I'm not saying that the government hasn't done things that make one trust them less," Offit responds. "Or that the CDC hasn't made statements that were incorrect, [but] such is the nature of science. You do learn as you go."

What we have learned now is that the vaccine does dramatically reduce hospitalization and death, and we'd all be better off if more people took it.

Vaccine skeptics point to media reports of "breakthrough" cases, vaccinated people who get COVID-19 anyway. Offit's reply? "I'm on CNN and MSNBC a lot…I think they want to scare people."

They do. It raises ratings, and it makes reporters feel important.

But Offit points out that even after delta, "99.5 percent of people killed by this virus are unvaccinated! Ninety-seven percent of those hospitalized are unvaccinated! No vaccine works 100 percent."

Today's COVID-19 vaccines have now been tested on millions of people. It's clear that they are very safe and that they save lives.

It's why Offit would mandate vaccinations.

That's where we disagree.

I consider vaccine refusers foolish and selfish. I got vaccinated, and I wish you would.

But government should never force a treatment on people. That's tyranny.

That said, I shouldn't say "never."

If you are proven a direct threat to others—if your behavior kills—then the safety police do have a right to step in to stop you from hurting others.

Short of that, politicians should never force us to put anything into our own bodies.


NEXT: No, Police Officers Aren’t Resigning in Droves

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 or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

    1. Seriously I don’t know why more people haven’t tried this, I work two shifts, 2 hours in the day and 2 in the evening…RDz And i get surly a check of $12600 what’s awesome is I m working from home so I get more time with my kids.

      Try it, you won’t regret it!…….. VISIT HERE

    2. I made over $700 per day using my mobile in part time. I recently got my 5th paycheck of $19,632 and all i was doing is to copy and paste work online. this home work makes me able to generate more cash daily easily.GBn simple to do work and regular income from this are just superb. Here what i am doing.

      Try now………………. VISIT HERE

      1. This year do not worry about money you can start a new Business and do an online job I have started a new Business and I am making over $84, 8254 per month I was started with 25 persons company now I have make a company of 200 peoples you can start a Business FGe with a company of 10 to 50 peoples or join an online job.

        Join this right now…………… VISIT HERE

    3. Start making money this time… Spend more time with your family & relatives by doing jobs that only require you to have a computer and an internet access and you can have that at your home.FVe Start bringing up to $65,000 to $70,000 a month. I’ve started this job and earn a handsome income and now I am exchanging it with you, so you can do it too.

      You can check it out here……….. VISIT HERE

    4. Vax Macht Frei!

      1. Google pay 390$ reliably my last paycheck was $55000 working 10 hours out of consistently on the web. My increasingly youthful kinfolk mate has been averaging 20k all through continuous months and he works around 24 hours reliably.GNm I can’t trust how direct it was once I attempted it out. This is my essential concern…:) For more info visit any tab on this site Thanks a lot …

        GOOD LUCK………….. VISIT HERE

  1. >>Today’s COVID-19 vaccines have now been tested on millions of people. It’s clear that they are very safe and that they save lives.

    oh ya. you definitely don’t explode upon inject so totes “very safe” … sure you will test positive again and nobody knows what the 2-year mark will bring, but totes “very safe”

    1. Start working from home! Great job for students, stay-at-home moms or anyone needing an extra income…You can work this job As part time or As A full time job.BFc You only need a computer and a reliable internet connection… Make $90 hourly and up to $12000 a month by following link at the bottom… You can have your first check by the end of this week…Lifetime Opportunity

      This is what I do……………… VISIT HERE

  2. Clearly Stossel wants the government to force everyone to get vaccinated. He said mean things about Trump, which means he’s totally in the tank for the entire progressive agenda. So don’t believe what he says. He doesn’t mean it. He’s a progressive like everyone else at Reason.

    1. Youre so broken. The irony of you not understanding Syosset argument is hilarious. You’ve taken to berating people for not doing what you think they should do, even pushing Jeff’s strawman of “if the vaccines aren’t 100% effective nobody should take them.” Need the link? Oh the irony.

      The correct approach is as Strassel states. The moral argument is over mandates, not berating others to take the vaccines. You do the latter.

      And once again only you bring up trump because you’re a broken piece of shit unaware of his own idiocy despite most of the posters here now pointing it out to you.

      1. Why don’t you cry about the election some more. Go ahead, let it all out!

      2. No, as far as the discussion around here goes, it isn’t really about the mandates. Everyone here, with perhaps one or two exceptions, agrees that the government shouldn’t mandate the vaccine. But you and a bunch of other right-wing morons around here go even further – not only should you not be mandated to take the vaccine, but you shouldn’t even have to put up with anyone else encouraging you to get the vaccine either. Mandates are wrong, and persuasion is also wrong. Because the vaccines are “dangerous”. It is just more of the right-wing entitlement mentality. The world revolves around you, your position should be the normative standard against which everyone else should be judged, so even trying to persuade you to get the vaccine is a violation of your safe space and shouldn’t be tolerated.

        If you want to make a stupid choice and refuse to take the vaccine, fine. But you have no right to stop everyone else from calling you stupid for your stupid choice, and trying to persuade you to get the vaccine anyway.

        1. Anyone who tries to persuade people to get the vaccine really wants government mandates. All right-wingers know this.

          1. You act all bitchy that people on the right are ruining the conversation around here, but then you continue to do this bullshit. I am trying to clarify what I actually believe, and you are here making shit up. Constantly. It isn’t sarcasm or funny. It is part of the problem.

            1. You’re telling me you haven’t equated people seeing a moral obligation to take the vaccine with wanting government mandates? I’m not going to dig through the comments, but I’m pretty sure you’ve said that more than once.

              1. Pretty rich coming from someone who’s always crying about people putting words in your mouth, even when they didn’t say things you’re accusing them of saying.

              2. You once jumped in to argue with me on a thread where I was SPECIFICALLY arguing about mandates. So I initially put you down there. When you clarified your stance, I tried repeatedly to point out:

                1) Whether we mandate or not, I am specifically stating that there is no MORAL OBLIGATION to vaccinate.

                2) It is the belief that there is a moral obligation that ultimately leads to mandates, whether YOU would stop short at mandates or not.

                I don’t believe that it is a good idea to take drugs. But that doesn’t mean one is morally obligated (whether mandated or not) to abstain. I believe it is a good thing to give charity. That doesn’t mean people have a moral obligation to give to charity.

        2. >>encouraging you to get the vaccine either

          you don’t encourage, you badger.

          “”If you want to make a stupid choice and refuse to take the vaccine, fine.”

          1. chemtard radical deathfat confuses encouragement with guilt-mongering.

            This is the same fat fuck who thinks getting the coof shot is a moral obligation so he doesn’t die with a vent tube down his throat from being a candidate for “My 600-Pound Life.”

        3. “else encouraging you to get the vaccine either.”

          Are you encouraging or shaming? Because I think it is the latter. The second that you call someone selfish, or saying that they bare responsibility for the spread of the virus, you are attempting to assign blame to them and shame them for declining to shoot their body up with chemicals.

          If you were just encouraging people to get vaxxed, I don’t think anyone would care. I encouraged my family and friends to get vaxxed. And yet when one of them declined to vax their kids, I didn’t sit and berate them or try to explain that they have some sort of responsibility to vaccinate, as you have done.

          I also didn’t do what many on the left on this board have done and call them idiots, or declare that they should be treated as second class citizens who, say, should be second in line for medical treatment.

          1. “Are you encouraging or shaming?”

            Leftists don’t understand the question, because to them those are synonyms

        4. Dude, get a hobby. You’re going to lose your mind judging people who post on the internet.

        5. “If you want to make a stupid choice and refuse to take the vaccine, exercise and lose weight, fine. But you have no right to stop everyone else from calling you stupid for your stupid choice, and trying to persuade you to get the vaccine stop being a black hole for fried foods anyway.”

  3. I am a little confused how all of these Reason and Reason adjacent libertarians can argue that you are selfish for not getting the vaccine but then say they are against mandates. Saying that a person who refuses vaccination is selfish implies that that person is then infringing upon the rights of a non-consenting third party.

    From Stossel: “If you are proven a direct threat to others—if your behavior kills—then the safety police do have a right to step in to stop you from hurting others.” If this is the case then shouldn’t the government have a right to mandate whatever they see fit to mitigate this? Forced vaccination, forever masks, health screenings before leaving home?

    To be logically consistent, we should then mandate mitigation strategies for all potentially deadly diseases.

    Reason continually undermines all of the arguments against mandates then slips in at the end that there should be no mandates.

    1. Exactly what I said! Reason can say they oppose vaccine mandates all day long, but people who read between the lines can see what they really mean!

    2. Yes this is exactly right. If you argue that a person has a moral obligation to vaccinate, then whether you mandate or not is just some sort of cost-benefit analysis.

      Are we against the drug war because it is a costly exercise with only minor benefits, or are we against the drug war because it is wrong for the government to dictate what we put in our body?

      Many will say “Both” but that is illogical. If you are against the government dictating what you put in your body, IT DOESN’T MATTER WHAT THE COSTS. The poor cost/benefit ROI is an aside but it isn’t the root cause of opposition.

      And if you only oppose the War on Drugs because of the costs, then you are just haggling price- encouraging the government to come up with a cost/benefit analysis that does meet your needs.

      I can understand during a crisis (as we were arguably in, during the first couple weeks of the pandemic) you might be forced to make cost-benefit analyses until you have the time to figure out where rights are settling. But it has been 18 months and the moral issues are clear. On the one side we have people who think we have a responsibility to protect others from a natural plague and on the other side we have people who believe no such obligation exists. Only one of those sides is libertarian.

    3. You seem to have lost sight of the fact that people who are unvaccinated are providing the virus with fertile ground to continue to mutate until we get a variant that our vaccines do not protect against. This is where those who refuse vaccination negatively impact the rest of us.

      1. we’re also the control group.

        >>a variant that our vaccines do not protect against

        every cold/flu virus?

      2. You will never have 100% of the human population vaccinated. So then what?

        1. Or the nonhuman animal reservoirs of this bug.

        2. You don’t need 100%. I know you have been following this topic long enough and you are smart enough that there is no possible way you haven’t heard of herd immunity, so what’s up with acting as if you haven’t?

          1. What do we need, then? The “science” is out on this.

            Denmark, for instance, is dropping all COVID restrictions, including their temporary (imagine that!) passports mid this month because their population is at 70 percent vaxxed. They are also not recommending vaccines for children.

            Certainly, between previous infection and current vaxx rates, most U.S. states are at 70 percent. But Delta still supposedly rages.

            To me, we are locked into a Zero COVID mindset like Australia and New Zealand, and won’t be unlocked any time soon.

            1. More like over 80% seroprevalence according to the CDC.

      3. “You seem to have lost sight of the fact that people who are unvaccinated are providing the virus with fertile ground to continue to mutate until we get a variant that our vaccines do not protect against. This is where those who refuse vaccination negatively impact the rest of us.”

        1) This assumes that if we were 100% vaccinated there wouldn’t be fertile ground for the vaccine to land and mutate. This is completely incorrect. First, we know that even the vaccinated get infected, which means even they are helping to train the next, more contagious strain. Second, we know that this virus has spread into the wild- into stray cats, deer and other animals. Even if humans were 100% vaccinated with a vaccine that made them immune, that would forever be temporary until a new mutation in the wild crossed back in. So your argument isn’t even based in basic fact.

        2) Even if we assumed (incorrectly) that 100% vaccination would prevent the virus, so what? You have no right to make my body more or less fertile to a natural pathogen. I am not under any obligation to protect YOU from nature. If I vaccinate, it is for me. I don’t owe it to you any more than I owe you a coat to protect you from the cold.

        1. …and the vaccines themselves are directing the evolution of the virus in potentially dangerous directions.

        2. I agree that it’s not clear that vaccination prevents infection and therefore reduces the virus’s chance to mutate. However, while not clearly proven yet, it does seem to be the case. There is research showing reduced viral loads in vaccinated patients who then get COVID, which in turn is associated with less contagiousness and less spread. Assuming this does turn out to be the case (as most experts believe), that leads to your point #2.

          Your point #2, if 100% vaccination would prevent (reduce) the virus, society / gov’t DOES have a right to take steps to mandate it. For the same reason we have the right to prohibit drunk driving. You do not have the right to put alcohol in your body to a high level and then drive, because even if you have the right to kill yourself (which i fully support), you do not have the right to kill others.

          To use your coat analogy, it’s not that you are failing to give someone your coat, it’s that you are choosing to willfully turn down the thermostat knowing some will freeze.

      4. The WHO is urging America and other nations not to push the third booster, as it’s expected to drive the rise of vaccine-resistant strains before the rest of the world pays their pharma dues.

    4. They can. You can be selfish and allowed to be selfish without a mandate prohibiting it.
      An analogy would be you can say a plethora of racial epithets, be allowed to do so where someone agrees with both of those but disagrees with you doing it.

      1. Exactly. I can think you have a moral obligation to get vaccinated without thinking I need to the government (or anyone) to enforce my morals on you

      2. So is there no harm done to a third party if a person is unvaccinated? If there is no harm done to a third party, then there is no moral obligation, no damages and no need for government impositions. No reason to be considered a selfish decision.

        However, the claim that unvaxxed are selfish inherently infers that there is harm being done to an un-consenting third party. In this case, the government has the right to mitigate.

        I am definitely not saying that Stossel actually believes in mandates. I am simply saying that he and many others at Reason seem to undermine the no mandate argument. I think there needs to be more push back on the dialog a few levels up that leads into the mandate debate. If you acquiesce on a lot of these things, then you have no moral or NAP legs to stand on when it comes to the mandate discussion.

        1. “However, the claim that unvaxxed are selfish inherently infers that there is harm being done to an un-consenting third party. In this case, the government has the right to mitigate.”

          I disagree that selfishness necessarily means direct harm is being done to anyone. I also disagree the government should have some arbitrary amount of power to mitigate harm.

          For example, how much mitigation should the government be able impose? Just vaccine mandates? Vaccines and masks? Vaccines, and masks, and social/economic lockdowns?

          You seem to be coming from the premise that if a moral obligation exists, the government should have the power to enforce it on everyone. That is a far more dangerous starting position than anything coming from Stossel

          1. “I disagree that selfishness necessarily means direct harm is being done to anyone.”

            Then what is the line that distinguishes “Selfishness” from “Acting in one’s self interest”?

            I cannot for the life of me see the bright line that makes “declining to get vaccinated” somehow selfish but “declining to give 50% of my income to a guy on the street” not selfish. This seems like it will always come down to “well, doing X costs you very little so it is selfish not to pay it.”

            Of course that it a pretty terrible moral code, in my mind, because it always comes down to someone insisting that X is a cost YOU can bare- ultimately imposing obligations on you without any action on your part.

            “You seem to be coming from the premise that if a moral obligation exists, the government should have the power to enforce it on everyone. ”

            No you have this exactly backwards. He is (and I am) saying that the second you concede that a moral obligation exists, you have opened the door to Government mandates. After all, what is the government’s job if not to enforce our obligations to one another?

            The question of “how much mandate is too much” only occurs BECAUSE you have said that I have an obligation to protect others from a natural pathogen. If in fact no moral obligation exists, we don’t have to get to “haggling over price”.

            1. “No you have this exactly backwards. He is (and I am) saying that the second you concede that a moral obligation exists, you have opened the door to Government mandates.”

              How is that now the same thing? You think moral obligation = government mandate. I do not.

              1. In other words, YOU have it exactly backward. The second you concede the government exists to impose morality, you have opened the door to every single kind of government overreach you can possibly imagine (and many you likely cannot imagine)

              2. Maybe we have different ideas of what morality is. I think morality is what you do because you should do it, not necessarily because you are forced to do it (which is the difference between morality and legality) Donating to charity is moral. Helping an elderly person cross the street is moral. Pulling a drowning person out of the water is moral. But none of these things should be legal mandates.

                1. I think you are confused with the difference between “good things” and “moral obligations”.

                  The whole reason we have the notion of heroic actions is that some things are good- even great- but not an obligation. Case in point, if you dive into a pool to rescue a drowning man, you are doing something heroic. You put your life at risk (and many people have died doing exactly this) to protect another. We laude these actions because they are above and beyond what we are obligated to do.

                  If everyone is OBLIGATED to risk their lives to save someone else, why is it heroic? It is just doing what someone is *expected* to do. It is essentially rendering such things down to participation trophies. Do we consider it heroic to, say, take care of your kid? To pay the tab at the end of an epic bar night? To stay loyal to your wife in spite of propositions from hot, blonde twins? No. Because these are all moral obligations.

                  It is vitally important that we maintain the distinction between what is good to do, and what we are obligated to do- lest we cheapen the former and lionize the latter.

                  The whole purpose of a government is to ensure that our obligations are met. If you contract with someone, you have created an obligation. And pretty much all moral codes define our obligations to one another regarding infringement of life, liberty and the control of our property.

                  Because there are MANY moral codes out there, there is ample disagreement around what our moral obligations *actually are*. This is why liberals can scream their shrill chants about the “Rich paying their fair share”. In their mind, it isn’t just good to give your money to the poor, you are morally obligated, and the government is there to ensure that you own up to your obligations.

                  If the government can force you to do things that *aren’t* moral obligations, then our government is unjust and invalid. This is why it is so important to distinguish between what is “good” (like getting vaccinated, giving charity, or saving someone drowning) and what is a “moral obligation” (like paying your bills). A government invested in creating “Heroes” is tyranny because it uses force to coerce us to do more than we are morally obligated to do, thus cheapening Heroism as a concept.

          2. If you admit the moral obligation exists, you’ve already conceded the field and are just trying to negotiate surrender.

        2. Only if you actually have it.

      3. “An analogy would be you can say a plethora of racial epithets, be allowed to do so where someone agrees with both of those but disagrees with you doing it.”

        Actually, let’s parse this out for a second. Why is an active action “screaming racial epithets at people” being compared to *not* Vaccinating?

        I can see the moral case against taking an action that harasses people- it is an action you are taking and in places such as the public space, one can accept a moral obligation to act in a matter that doesn’t infringe on other peoples’ use of that public space- because your ACTUAL ACTIONS are causing the interference.

        And we recognize that there is a moral obligation to not use our speech to deny people use of a forum- and in fact it is the recognition of this moral obligation that leads to government mandates about how speech can be used in the public square.

        But in the case of Vaccinations, we aren’t talking about an active action. Indeed you are putting an obligation on someone to act on your behalf to protect you from nature. The appropriate analogy would be that we have a moral obligation to dive into a pool to save someone from drowning.

        It is only when we believe that someone DOES have that moral obligation that we start fighting over the price. How much risk is too much to justify forcing the person to do these things?

    5. He obviously means situations like Typhoid Mary or having AIDS and having sex without telling your partner. You know you’re sick and deliberately do things to make others sick.

    6. Saying that a person who refuses vaccination is selfish implies that that person is then infringing upon the rights of a non-consenting third party.

      Here is one example of a large infringement of the rights of a third party.

      46 year old veteran dies of gallstone pancreatitis because all the ICU beds were taken up with covid patients. By the time one opened up (at a VA hospital) 12 hours later, his condition had deteriorated so surgery was no longer possible.

      It is a huge stretch to see an infringement re most of the activity that seems to require mandates. It is ludicrous to believe that filling up ICU’s doesn’t infringe – in the most extreme possible way – on third parties. Apparently many R/Mises types here don’t actually understand Bastiat or opportunity cost when it comes to selfish assholes filling up the ICU’s.

      1. What if he wasn’t vaccinated?

        How many beds were taken up by COVID patients (and not in for X but COVID positive) how many were vaccinated and how many were vaccinated with a booster?

        1. What’s filling up the ICU’s is the unvax being treated for covid. It is also not just a volume problem but a contagion problem. And that particular problem (the ICU’s being filled with the unvax being treated for covid) is preventable – with a jab.

          The problem is not the unvax per se. The problem is not even the unvax testing positive for covid but being treated for something else (though that does have a separate problem of negative pressure bed capacity to isolate those patients from all other patients). The problem is the unvax taking up an ICU bed being treated for covid when that ICU is at capacity. That results in death/harm to non-consenting third parties.

          1. The data was missing from the article. And your post. As was other info such as number in ICU beds taken up due to or contributing from patient lifestyle.

            I agree that if someone is in a high risk category, they should get vaccinated. Would be curious if that data was available too.

          2. Better shut down Coca Cola so we can get all those selfish diabetic fatties out of the system so self righteous soyboys can shimmy ahead in line.

          3. “The problem is not even the unvax testing positive for covid but being treated for something else (though that does have a separate problem of negative pressure bed capacity to isolate those patients from all other patients). ”

            No this is not the problem, despite the attempts of Ghouls like yourself to appeal to emotion. This is a problem of scarce resources and no individual has more right to those scarce resources over another.

            Around the country, even in hospitals that have reached capacity, the majority of their beds are NOT FILLED WITH COVID PATIENTS. So if a Covid patient takes up a bed, how are they more morally culpable than someone who was drinking and fell down some stairs, or wasn’t paying attention while driving and got into a car accident, or smoked for twenty years and not has COPD? How about a football player who got a concussion?

            The fact is, the VA (and hospitals around the country) have seen COVID cases climbing in a completely predictable manner. They have had weeks to clear their ICUs and Surgery wards (surgical beds can be used as ICUs) of patients in order to make room for any critical care cases. They have not done so, does that make them morally culpable?

          4. So what makes the unvaccinated person in the ICU less guilty than the motorcycle rider without a helmet? Or even the motorcycle rider with a helmet when the next person is someone who was driving a car? Do co-morbidities come into play? Is an obese person with Covid less of a problem than a fit person with Covid? What about an obese person with an acute non-Covid condition vs a vaccinated Covid patient who was unmasked at a large gathering? Who gets the bed then?

            1. This is the problem with “Crisis Morality/Ethics”. Authoritarians always want to render decisions down to a crisis. “You are on an out of control train and you have a choice to kill 2 people or kill 65, what do?!” “You are in a hospital and you have to choose between the unvaccinated guy and the drunk driver, WHAT DO YOU DO!!?”

              These constructions require you to ignore every choice that led to this crisis, and focus you onto this one choice. As WOPR says, it is an interesting game, but some times the only answer is not to play.

              Living a life planning for, or basing our morality on crises does not crystalize things- it forces us to make rash decisions. The beauty of the NAP is that it is a clear, consistent moral code from which we can plan 95% of our lives. In the crisis, we can forgive people for making the wrong decision. If we let that 5% guide our entire worldview of obligation and expectation, we merely encourage the enemies of freedom to create crises around every corner.

      2. So do you support vaccine mandates? It is a little unclear from your response.

        Definitely a sad story. A few thoughts/questions on this.

        – Along these same lines, you would also then have to acknowledge the opportunity costs and harm done by the vaccine. Many of these people being coerced into taking it. Are those losses worth less than ones similar to the one you highlighted?

        – Does one person have more of a right to immediate access to an ICU bed than another’s right to control their own body? Does one even have a right to immediate access to an ICU bed?

        – If a person has natural immunity, why are they selfish for not taking the vaccine?

        – If all of these people in the ICU were vaccinated, would that make this loss more acceptable?

        1. No I don’t support vaccine mandates. Though I am seeing some stories (eg nursing home employees who are refusing vax) that make me question that this really is no longer about freedom in any meaningful sense. I support only a ‘negative’ mandate. ie – if ICU’s are full, no covid treatment for the unvax.

          At core – the person making those frantic phone calls trying to find an ICU to get oxygen should be the unvax w covid – not everyone else (vax or unvax) for every other serious/critical health problem.

          1. So… You’re full of shit and are a vile little hoptoad that wishes ill on others who disagree with you out of spite. Must be a Biden voter.

            Yep. Fuck right on off, JSlave.

            1. You can prevent all of that. Just get vaccinated. Otherwise, you bear the cost of your mistakes/stupidity instead of foisting it off to yours

              1. Which of your lifestyle choices could result in a hospital trip, and can we leave YOU out on the curb if for some reason the ER is full?

                If not, why not? What is the moral principle that suddenly singles out COVID patients from people who drink alcohol, or drive a car, or go to work? Shit, I could have prevented my daughter’s RSV by not sending her to daycare. Would you have denied her care because I put her in harms way by sending her to the childhood equivalent of a petrie dish?

                1. This is not about the cost of delivering that care. It is about the cost of DENYING the care to someone else because the ICUs are full.

                  You all want to pretend this is some moral lesson about what people deserve. It isn’t. It is about people who have chosen to be vulnerable to a highly contagious disease where:
                  a)the fatality rate that they are dismissing as unimportant/insignificant is based on ready access to an ICU

                  b)at a time/place (and only at that time/place) when there is no ready access to an ICU precisely because of the contagion/vulnerability of those who have chosen to be vulnerable to that contagious disease.

                  1. “It is about the cost of DENYING the care to someone else because the ICUs are full.”

                    This is incoherent nonsense.

                    Resources are limited. They always will be. This is, to paraphrase Thomas Sowell, an economic reality that only politicians (those folks commanding the storm troopers) deny.

                    When I send my kid to daycare, I am putting her at risk. When I drink and walk up stairs, I am putting myself at risk. When you eat that new york cheese cake, you are putting yourself at risk. When Joe Bob smokes a pack a day, he is putting himself at risk. When Joe Smith declines to get vaccinated, they put them selves at risk. When Johny GI enlists, he is putting himself at risk.

                    In all these cases, we have engaged in behavior that increases the risk that we will have to consume a limited resource- hospital beds. So why is a Vaccination special? Why does it disqualify you from consuming a hospital bed while the asshole drinking on the job does not? How about a poor person unwilling to clear out in front of a hurricane because they are trying to protect their one investment (their house) from looters?

                    1. I just checked back in on this discussion, but you are 100% right. You have articulated my exact line of reasoning. Thank you for continuing to clarify these positions.

        2. If all of these people in the ICU were vaccinated, would that make this loss more acceptable?

          If all those people were vaccinated, then roughly 90% of them would not be in the ICU or in the hospital. They would simply have tested positive and maybe a mild case. Therefore, the ICU would not be anywhere near full. Therefore, there would be no loss because the guy would have been quickly admitted to ICU.

          1. That doesn’t answer the question. Lets say there is small town with a particularly bad outbreak. Everyone is vaccinated but the limited, small town, ICU is still full. What then?

            1. That’s a completely different question. One that was somewhat similar to last year. If everyone is unvax or everyone is vax, then it is the same. It is the contagion of the disease that is expanding the infected and there is no easy way to reduce the overall virulence (which is what is filling the ICU).

              But the mere act of filling the ICU causes the overall death rate to shoot up. eg in Florida the week ending Aug 14 2021 had a ‘normal’ death count of 3727 – a preliminary (not all deaths from then will get recorded for a couple more weeks) death count (all causes) of 6224. Those will not necessarily be recorded as covid – maybe heart attack or gallstone pancreatitis. But that is a massive number of excess deaths – roughly 60% higher mortality rate. If you’re ok with that, then you are a nihilist not a libertarian.

              If there is no easy way of reducing the overall virulence when the ICU’s are full, then you do stuff like crash-build ICU capacity, find as many neighbors as you can who aren’t having the overload and send patients there — or flatten the damn curve because what is overloading the ICU’s is the contagious disease not everything else that is the same as it was last week. Ideally by mobilizing whatever ‘societal’ reservoir of goodwill one has rather than via coercion.

              What you don’t do is stick your head up your butt, pretend nothing is happening, drink sheep dip, and shout Freeeeedooooom!! Or maybe that’s exactly what our society should do.

      3. here is the real stupid thing they could have done the surgery since covid patients are not in the surgery room. Most gallstone patients go home the day of the surgery. there is a lot of BS going on to scare people and let others die just for some “greater cause” , and that cause is submission

        1. This wasn’t just a gallstone. The pancreatitis indicates that the pancreas was already inflamed from fluid backing up. As apparently was the kidney. And the liver would have been next. The ICU was to monitor/assist all three of those pre and post-surgery. That is what the ER he was already at was not able to do.

          The 12 hour window until death is evidence that organs were already shutting down. Not evidence of wanting to scare people with a narrative.

          1. “The pancreatitis indicates that the pancreas was already inflamed from fluid backing up. As apparently was the kidney.”

            Wow, it sounds like a condition that had been going on for quite a bit. Are you sure you shouldn’t be denying this person care because he didn’t go to the doctor earlier to address this issue? After all, it was his actions- leaving this until it became a life or death issue- that would have had him taking up an ICU and preventing other more “deserving” people from getting the bed.

            Are you starting to see the moral bankruptcy of your logic here?

            1. The first symptom is severe pain. Not ‘take two aspirin and call me in the morning’ pain. But apparently more like ‘Jack the Ripper is trying to deliver a horse via c-section – no wait through the back – with no anesthetic’ pain.

              Oh – and gallstones aren’t contagious. Nor are they prevented via vaccine.

              1. I’ve known plenty of people with gallstones who weren’t at the point of organ failure, and the first symptom certainly wasn’t ‘Jack the Ripper is trying to deliver a horse via c-section – no wait through the back – with no anesthetic’ kind of pain. So is it at all possible that your example waited just little bit longer than necessary to seek medical attention?

                If so, what level of responsibility does he bear, vs anyone else who may have been occupying an ICU bed

    7. “Saying that a person who refuses vaccination is selfish implies that that person is then infringing upon the rights of a non-consenting third party.”

      How do? Libertarianism typically makes a clear distinction between ethical duties and legal duties. When a libertarian criticizes some behavior as selfish it is one of the “standard libertarian disclaimers” that it does not automatically follow that said selfishness should be against the law.

      1. Hey look, Mike is quoting the strawmen in his head again.

    8. Your argument is the weakest fucking argument I’ve seen in the comment section “if you support vaccination then you must support mandates or you’re intellectually dishonest”. Bro that’s just fucking dumb and indefensible; even by the most smooth brained Q member should realize that.

      1. This is definitely not what I was saying.

        While I did mention intellectual consistency in my original post, this is not the main point I was trying to make. I even said later that I believe Stossel is anti-vaccine mandate. The trouble is that if you concede all arguments that support no mandate, then it is hard to argue against the mandate itself even if you believe it to be the most evil infringement of individual rights. If you care to have an actual understanding, you can read the whole thread.

  4. And then there is the science of an individual consulting with the doctor that actually knows his entire medical history, and deciding that in that one individual instance, the vaccine risks exceed the risks of the Communist Chinese Virus.
    But that requires use of the banned word “individual”, so forget it.

  5. I’ve known and respected Paul Offit for many years, but there’s a huge difference between government mandating vaccines (which I oppose, except for certain government employees) and private businesses making those decisions (which I support).

    It makes sense for cruise lines, concert venues/promoters/artists, stadia, and other businesses that require customers to gather in very close quarters to require evidence of a covid vaccine (or negative covid test).

    Seems like many/most people who opine for and against vaccine mandates fail to distinguish between government imposed mandates and mandates made by businesses or associations regarding their customers/consumers.

    1. Businesses should also be allowed to require covid vaccines for their employees, especially for those who work in nursing homes, hospitals and other jobs that have high virus transmission risks.

      1. Businesses should be able to do that. Businesses should also be able to hire/fire anyone for any reason. Also not sever anyone they dont want to.

        Until Lefties get rid of unconstitutional accommodation “laws”, businesses are puppets of the government and dont have the rights they think they do.

    2. Are we supposed to ignore the President demanding private businesses mandate vaccines or… what was his followup comment… “or face strict requirements”.

      There doesn’t appear to be the clear line between the government and private business that we believe exists.

      1. Fascism of the Lefties.

        Fascistii of Italy were Socialists.
        Nazis of Germany were Socialists.
        Democrats in America are Socialists.

        All just different brands of Communists.

        1. If only where was a Final Solution to the Socialist Problem.

    3. business are mandating not out of choice but out of fear of government reprisal

      1. Not necessarily. They might have chosen to do so without any coercion. One of the effects of coercion is you can no longer get credit or be blamed for what you would have chosen in the absence of coercion.

        I have seen, during the lockdowns last year, that some local businesses were relieved when the city mandated masks because they could tell people that refused to wear a mask, “Hey, don’t get mad at us — it’s the city saying we have to!”

        1. My experience is that not is not so much because the businesses wanted to require masks, but because they wanted their competitors to have to require masks too, so they didn’t have to compete for customers with businesses that made different choices in the same market

    4. Only if they did the same for polio, diphtheria, or measles.

      Otherwise, they are ethically estopped.

    5. You stated exactly what I’ve been telling my friends for months now. My liberal friends shake their heads and disagree but mostly respectfully; the Trump leaning ones lose their shit over it. I’ve had to drop a few of those.

  6. Thalidomide. It took 10 months to discover it wasn’t as safe as some might have hoped. And it didn’t screw with your RNA.

    Just sayin’…


    1. Thalidomide is legal, FDA approved, and marketed at Thalomid. It’s been used in cancer treatment since the mid ’90s.

      1. It received the FDA’s seal of approval?

        1. Eventually.

      2. Pregnant women are told to avoid this drug.

        Not back then. oooops.

    2. None of the current vaccines mess with your RNA, they simply use it to manufacture antibodies. If you read anything at all about the mRNA vaccines you’d fucking know that. Please stop talking out of your ass.

      1. And exactly how do they “use it to manufacture antibodies”? The mRNA “tells” your RNA to “manufacture antibodies”. What else might the vaccines tell your RNA to “manufacture”?

        Time will tell.

        (Full disclosure – I’m vaccinated… took the J&J the first day I was eligible.)

  7. There is nothing selfish about declining to get vaccinated, Mr Stossel. By giving in that one point, you have opened the door for all that the government gets.

    Unvaccinated people aren’t spreading this plague. Infected people are. And infected cats, dogs and deer. This virus is in the wild and it will never be contained. There is nothing selfish about looking at the risks of vaccination, the risks of the WuFlu and making a personal decision about what to do with your body.

    To call this selfish is to concede that we have a moral obligation to protect others from a natural pathogen. If we are so morally obligated then why aren’t we obligated to suit up and fight fires in lake tahoe? Isn’t it selfish to decline to protect residents of Tahoe from a natural fire?

    1. But feelings. Not one more death. We need to act. Follow the (political) science.

      Whatsoever liberty is forfeited to the government ain’t coming back.

    2. Quit lying to yourself. Most people don’t even know they’ve caught it for several days. If we got 90% update we’d essentially reach herd immunity but Q’s don’t like to admit that. They prefer to get their science facts from random idiots on the internet and Q forums.

  8. I spent some time this morning following the chain of logic on how we’re approaching this covid situation and I find it similar to the Abbot/Costello post that someone made previously.

    Get vaccinated and you can return to normal.

    Ok, I did, I’m vaccinated.

    Keep your mask on, social distance, avoid large gatherings.

    I thought if I got vaccinated, I could return to normal.

    No, it’s too dangerous to return to normal.

    But I’m vaccinated.

    Yes, but you can still get sick.

    So what good was the vaccination?

    Oh you won’t get that sick, it’s a much milder form of the disease.

    100% of everyone I personally know that got it had a fairly mild case and got over it– and they were unvaccinated.

    That’s anecdotal, this is the worst plague of the last two centuries. Bodies are piling up and cases are increasing. Don’t you watch the news?

    Even as more people get vaccinated?


    So if I can still get sick, then the vaccines aren’t as effective as we’ve been told.

    That’s medical misinformation.

    So they are effective.

    yes, like 95% effective.

    Then what about Israel?

    What about Israel?

    Israel is having an explosion of cases, despite being the most vaccinated country on the planet.

    Yes, but if you paid attention to the news, you’d know that those cases are far less severe or likely to even require hospitalization!

    So then what’s the problem?

    What’s the problem with what?

    Why am I reading headlines that say things like “Israel is being Devastated” and “Israel is reeling” and “Israel should serve as a dire warning to the world”.

    Oh, don’t listen to the news, they exaggerate and catastrophize.

    So if I’m vaccinated, it won’t be that bad– more like a regular flu, so why can’t I return to normal if I’m vaccinated?

    Because you could get sick and spread it to others. This is the worst plague of the last two centuries.

    1. You forgot to vote Democrat to protect everyone, because personal autonomy is irresponsible.

  9. Usually a Stossel fan, but this one sucked. Apparently he’s afraid of COVID (not unexpected for an older guy) and allowed that to influence his approach to this topic.

    1. Don’t see where he expressed any fear.

    2. This one was exactly correct and one of his best from the past year. Are you blind?

  10. Reminds me of 2 live crew and censorship.

    While technically correct, it is a dumb hill to die on.

    Unless there is a mechanism to exclude unvaccinated people from hospital beds, it’s not an entirely personal decision.

    1. I promise I won’t goto the hospital.

    2. By that rationale, all personal actions should be controlled and constrained by the government.

      1. The Lefties want their cake and eat it too.

        They want all the tax revenue under the welfare clause but want to restrict who gets it if you speak ill of Communism.

        I for one, cant thank the Commie Democrats and unreason staff for all their propaganda and tyranny.

        The trend is going toward private schooling and parents controlling their kids education choice, govt is the enemy of the People, the media are Commies traitors and should be ignored, tell govt bureaucrats and politicians to take their tyranny and shove it up their asses.

    3. “Unless there is a mechanism to exclude unvaccinated people from hospital beds, it’s not an entirely personal decision.”

      Then you are not a libertarian. That hospital bed should be available to anyone who is able to pay for it. If a hospital is short on resources and wants to prioritize, that is of course within their rights.

      The idea that you think you have a greater claim over a hospital bed merely because you shot yourself up with chemicals is the same logic that got us the war on drugs. It is nefarious and evil.

    4. That’s fine; I want a refund on my taxes.

  11. A friend of mine made an interesting point today.

    He pointed out that the left has, for the last 30 years been screeching about the Evil Pharmaceutical companies. Every movie ever made, if there’s a biotech company, it’s evil. Basically, an endless onslaught of negative propaganda about pharmaceutical companies as being the source of the worst evil, and suddenly we’re all supposed to turn on a dime and emphatically trust these corporations and their mysterious elixirs and serums.

    1. Big Corporations are only evil when they aren’t asking permission and obeying orders. In this case we’re talking about a vaccine that was all government’s idea. That means it only exists because the government told Big Pharma to make it. So because it’s government’s idea and done at the bidding of government, the vaccine is a good thing. Had Big Pharma come up with the vaccine on its own then it would have been for profit, and that makes everything icky. But this was done for government, and that makes it wonderful. See?

      1. (Except they were always working on mRNA vaccines before COVID-19 came along, in hopes of making a profit.)

        1. always -> already
          (My iPhone “corrected” me.)

    2. We were always at war with Big Pharma Covid Denialists.

    3. Yeah, and for 30 years you’ve been singing the praises of pharma companies and opposing the careful regulation of pharmaceuticals. What’s changed?

        1. So, you have no personal agency? Your thoughts are controlled by Democrats? What are you arguing here?

    4. Just a few years ago Pfizer was on the shitlist over how they marketed opioids. But I’m sure they are marketing their vaccine responsibly

      Full disclosure, I’ve have both doses of the Pfizer vaccine

    5. The biggest difference between Obamacare and Bush Jrs healthcare plan was the pharmaceutical lobby got their ban on foreign medications.

      Dems love lobbyist money. Reps as well, but the hypocrisy on the left makes it particularly jarring.

    6. Wow, that argument could be put in the dictionary as the very definition of “disingenuous”.

      “My partisan opponents have flouted a belief, which I have never shared. Now that they are seeing things more the way I have seen them all along, they can’t expect me to change my mind on a dime!” That is what you just argued.

      1. Are his partisan opponents seeing things the way he has, or are they the ones being disingenuous because it politically suits them at the moment?

  12. Stossel…. The upward trends of SARS-COVID19 correspond to the start of the Influenza season. They arent not counting Influenza much anymore and they wont admit that getting the Flu lowers your immune system protection, so you might have an easier time getting COVID.

    Stop spreading the kungflu hysteria Stossel. Natural immunity is the way to go for everyone under 65 years old. If over 65, the vaccine risk might be worth the immune help for this specific virus. It might not.

    We dont know because of the all the lies associated with this topic. The government cannot be trusted.

    Its why America is in Civil War 2.0 that Democrats started.

  13. Let’s never forget that idiot Republicans are taking horse anti-parasite medication instead of the vaccine.

    1. I’m still surprised no one has picked up on the obvious angle for further ridicule. Remember, these are people who have not changed their habits or behavior in response to Covid. Put that 2 and 2 together and get back to me

    2. Let’s not forget Molly is a stupid cunt who can’t even do basic research.

      Ivermectin is used the world over in varying doses (some even large enough for livestock!) as an FDA approved antiparasitic that, over years of research, “demonstrated antiviral properties against a number of DNA and RNA viruses, including severe acute respiratory Coronavirus…”
      To quote the National Institute of Health. Which you would have seen had you bothered to type two words, “ivermectin antiviral” or somesuch, into a search engine before spraying partisan flavors of stupid all over. You idiotic shit.

      1. It is funny how the pro-covid nuts will cite fake, out of context, or poorly run studies to justify their point, yet ignore the real and massive evidence that shows that vaccines work.

        You idiots are taking horse dewormer.

        1. National Institute of Health. Dozens of peer-reviewed studies from around the world. Decades of research.

          Look it up, you ignorant shitstain.

          1. Fake. Out of context. Poorly run study.

            /end NPC bot script

    3. Let’s never forget that Paid Trolls such as yourself are making up bullshit and sucking the cocks of faggot cucks that run the IC and news media.

  14. Let’s never forget that idiot Democrats started Civil war 2.0 and this is another attack on your civil liberties.

    Will you take it or fight back?

    1. You should get together with Nardz. I’m sure you guys could kill a few Democrats before you got caught.

      1. Its Civil war 2.0. The last time Democrats started a civil war, the lost all sorts of people.

        Theyre losing Civil war 2.0 too.

        1. More ignorant terroristic bullshit from lc. What else is new?

          You ever get a tissue for your hurt feelings there snowflake? Oh wait, I forgot that somehow Trump won. When is the “real” inauguration? Did they push it back from August apparently?

    2. Is Civil War 2 a video game I can play with LARPing morons like you? Sounds like fun.

      1. I thought it was the next crossover maxi-series from Marvel

      2. Sure, but Antifa trash pandas tend to run when people fight back, so promise you’ll stick around to play.

  15. If you support “my body, my choice,” you cannot support vaccine mandates.

    Maybe. It depends. Certainly, if you’re appropriating that slogan and then opposing abortion rights it would mean you are a insufferable and gaslighting fuckhead.

    1. I’m pretty sure most everyone using that slogan and supporting abortion rights is also an insufferable gaslighting fuckhead

    2. “insufferable and gaslighting fuckhead”

      Describes you perfectly, faggot.

  16. Who decides which vaccines will be mandated?

    Top Men of course.

    1. It’s mostly employers who are trying to protect their workers from Covid— a deadly pandemic.

      1. Maybe they can pay their mortgage while they’re at it.

      2. you can’t possibly be this naive

        1. YES HE CAN!!!!

        2. He’s 41% anarcho-socialist, 20% libertarian, 14% unicorn and 148% an idiot.

          1. Most of the people here are 100% boilerplate conservative hack so at least I deliver some ideological breadth.

            1. Nah you’re just a feckless cunt with multiple sock accounts.

              You don’t bring anything useful or original.


              1. There isn’t always a ship arriving at the dock and he needs to make extra money somehow.

            2. The prosecution rests its case, yer honor.

  17. John you need to hire a new executive assistant. hoping people die who are not vaccinated is not the kind of woke you want working for you

  18. Why are we ignoring the very simple fact that our judicial system is based upon the premise that we are all innocent of a crime until proven guilty, and, furthermore, it is not a crime to be sick with a virus or even to pass it along (if it were, man, I’d be rich suing everyone I’ve ever come into contact with in my life). And yet those who are sick or who choose to risk getting sick have suddenly been branded as criminals, their behavior judged by neurotics as being anti-social, selfish, and immoral.

    1. Because this is not about right or wrong it is about my side vs. your side. If Trump had pushed mandates and lockdowns leftists would be pushing back against them.

  19. “Vaccines Are Good. Vaccine Mandates From the Government Are Bad.”
    Yes, vaccines are wonderful.
    When and if they work.
    When they don’t or only partially work and people are being forced to get them….
    Then those poor suckers are just being forced to pay to make Already-Fat Cats even fatter.

Please to post comments