The Case for Paying People to Take a Coronavirus Vaccine

Economist Robert Litan makes a strong case that this step is likely to save both lives and money.


Brookings Institution economist Robert Litan has an insightful new article making the case for paying people to take a coronavirus vaccine, once one is approved and ready for distribution (as may well happen by sometime next year). I had been planning to write a piece making a similar argument. But Litan beat me to it, and he therefore deserves the credit for the idea. As he explains, this could save both lives and money, and is likely to be better than simply mandating vaccination:

When I was a child, doctors giving vaccine shots used to hand out candy or a little toy to take the sting and fear out of the shot. A similar idea could rescue the U.S. economy when one or more COVID vaccines are approved by the FDA and widely available for mass uptake.

Infectious disease experts, such as Minnesota's Michael Osterholm, tell us that "herd immunity" – or the point at which the virus will quit spreading like wildfire – will be reached when at least 60 percent of the population is immune. A truly effective vaccine… will avoid the tragedy of the million-plus deaths it otherwise could take for the country to reach herd immunity.

Provided enough people take the vaccine when they can. Since no vaccine will be perfectly effective – Dr. Fauci has said he could live with a vaccine that was 75 percent effective, which could be optimistic – that means that at least 80 percent of the U.S. population (60 percent divided by 75 percent) must be vaccinated if the virus is to be tamped down to the point where enough people will feel safe to patronize service establishments and travel so the country and the economy can return to some semblance of normal.

But now that seemingly everything about the virus – its severity and whether to wear masks in public, to take two examples – has become deeply politicized, is there any hope of reaching that 80 percent threshold?

Not according to a poll by NPR/PBS/Marist released on August 14, which reported that more than one third – 35 percent to be precise – of Americans won't take the vaccine when it is available, which means that the population take-up percentage would only be 65 percent, or well short of the 80 percent target. The take-up rates predictably differ by party, with 71 percent of Democrats saying they'll take the shot versus 48 percent for Republicans…

In principle, a President Biden could take executive actions or seek legislation – assuming Democrats control both the House and Senate and the filibuster rule is abandoned – penalizing those who don't take the shots (for example, by requiring vaccination certificates before entering most public spaces). But imposing any penalties on people who don't take the vaccine at the outset of his presidency – even if the penalties were both effective and constitutional, which is not at all clear it would be – would aggravate polarization, conceivably cause violence, and prevent any healing of the country that Biden has promised to usher in….

The "adult" version of the doctor handing out candy to children, fortunately, points toward a solution: pay people who get the shot (or shots, since more than one may be required).

How much? I know of no hard science that can answer that question, but my strong hunch is that anything less than $1,000 per person won't do the trick. At that level, a family of four would get $4,000 (ideally not subject to income tax) – a lot of money to a lot of families in these difficult times, and thus enough to assure that the country crosses the 80 percent vaccination threshold.

As Litan explains, even if we end up "overpaying" to get people to take the vaccine, it would still be a massive savings of money on net. Every day without herd immunity is a day when many lives are lost, and the economy continues to stagnate - costing us far more than vaccine payments would.

I agree with most of Litan's analysis, and have a few points to add.

First, the poll he cites is far from the only one indicating many Americans will refuse to take a Covid vaccine. Other surveys paint a similar picture (see, e.g., here and here). It is possible that such attitudes will decline once a vaccine is actually available, and taking it holds out the promise of returning to normal life. Vaccination might also be incentivized by businesses requiring employers and/or customers to have vaccination certificates. But it's hard to say whether either of these will happen quickly enough or on a large enough scale. Even a few weeks or months delay in getting to vaccine-driven herd immunity is likely to be extremely costly.

Second, many will be tempted to reject the idea of paying people to get vaccinated because vaccination is a moral duty we must fulfill in order to protect others against the disease. We have mandatory vaccination against other contagious diseases. Why not this one?

In principle, I agree. Mandatory vaccination against deadly contagious diseases can even be justified on libertarian grounds, overcoming the strong presumption against coercion. Libertarian political philosopher Jason Brennan has a good explanation of the reasons why.

But that which is justifiable in principle isn't always the right approach in practice. Coercing tens of millions of unwilling people to get vaccinated is likely to be a huge and painful undertaking. It is far from clear that either the federal government or the states are up to the task. Currently, most mandatory vaccinations are imposed on children; parents can be relatively easily incentivized to permit them on threat that the children will otherwise be excluded from schools. Imposing mandatory vaccination on some 300 million (mostly adult) Americans is a far dicier proposition.

Moreover, using law enforcement to coerce so many people is likely to lead to serious abuses. If you believe (correctly) that police too often use excessive force, engage in racial profiling, and otherwise abuse their authority, imagine how often these things would happen in the process of forcing millions of people to take a vaccine.

It's worth emphasizing that African-Americans - the group with the worst relations with police - are also disproportionately likely to be suspicious of vaccines. If mandatory vaccination leads to high-profile incidents of violence between police and the black community, it could simultaneously set back race relations and undermine the vaccination campaign.

If you think federal law enforcement officers can take up the slack from local and state police, you should remember that there aren't nearly enough of the former to do the job. There are only about 100,000 federal law enforcement officers in the United States (compared to about 700,000 state and local ones), and most of them can't simply be turned into full-time vaccination enforcers. Many of the federal law enforcement agencies we do have are notorious for their brutality and disdain for due process  and the kinds of abuses we recently saw  when they were deployed in Portland. A federally-enforced vaccination mandate might lead to the repetition of such events on a massive scale. Paying people to take the vaccine is likely to be more effective, more humane, and less dangerous than coercion.

Financial incentives probably won't persuade hard-core anti-vaxxers or people with strong religious objections to vaccination. But these groups are likely only a tiny fraction of the population. The goal should be to win over the much larger group of people who are on the fence or simply prefer to avoid the annoyance and inconvenience of getting vaccinated.

I do have a few reservations about Litan's analysis. First, as he recognizes, we don't have a good way to gauge the right amount of payment to incentivize a sufficient number of people to take the vaccine. I tend to agree, however, that $1000 per person should be sufficient, perhaps even more than enough.  To the extent that, as Litan notes, the incentive is stronger for the poor, that's a feature not a bug. For a number of reasons, poor people are more likely to get infected than the relatively affluent.

Finally, I am skeptical of Litan's idea that the government should only pay a small percentage of the money up front, and defer the rest until enough people have been vaccinated to reach herd immunity. Doing so might lead many people to hold off on getting vaccinated until it is clear that enough others have done so that herd immunity is likely to be reached. In order to incentivize the fastest and most widespread possible acceptance, it would be better to pay all or most of the money up front, as soon as the individual in question gets vaccinated.

There are likely to be aspects of this idea that need more detailed consideration, including angles that Litan and I may have overlooked. I hope experts in various relevant fields will begin to consider these issues. The sooner the better.

UPDATE: It's worth emphasizing that this is not the only way we can use financial incentives to speed up the vaccination process. In this post, I explained why it would also be right and just to pay volunteers to participate in "challenge trials" to speed up vaccine development.

UPDATE #2: I have made a few small additions to this post.


NEXT: "The Return of Roe v. Wade"

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. (as may well happen by sometime next year)

    May well happen. By sometime. We'll see. In the meantime, repeat after me: "14 months to slow the spread!!!"

  2. The significant downturn in new cases and deaths in Sweden, UK, France, Spain, NE corridor of the US, indicates that sufficient immunity in the population of those regions have been reached to render the need for a vaccine largely unnecessary.

    1. The downturn is largely due to social distancing and mask wearing (Sweden being an outlier). If you're content to spend the rest of your life staying home almost all the time and wearing a mask every time you go out, fine. Eschew the vaccine.

      For myself, I'd like to see thing get back to (the old) normal, and if a vaccine is available to facilitate that, great. Once it's been shown to be safe and effective, paying people to take it may be the most effective way to get as many people vaccinated as possible.

      Note that the vaccine does not need to be 100% effective nor does 100% of the population have to take it to slow the spread. But the higher percentage of either leads to better results.

      1. The downturn is largely due to social distancing and mask wearing (Sweden being an outlier)

        Ah, an "outlier." After months of mournful finger-wagging and apocalyptic bloodbath stories that all ultimately fell flat, I guess that's about the only way left to try to preserve what otherwise would have been a fully non-falsifiable worldview.

        1. The Maskers have taken this one like a religious belief. No amount of facts or counter evidence will move them off it.

          1. Masks -
            Does the exhaled air stay inside the mask - of course not
            So why would the maskers believe the viruses stay inside the mask?

            1. Viruses are bigger than air molecules.

              1. A ) most of the exhaled air along with the viruses are escaping the masks via the sides of the sides. - its not like the masks are hermetically sealed.

                B) even if the masks were properly fitted to prevent air from escaping out the sides along with the viruses, the majority of masks are too porous to filter out the viruses.

                1. B) even if the masks were properly fitted to prevent air from escaping out the sides along with the viruses, the majority of masks are too porous to filter out the viruses.

                  If the virus was free floating loose through the air, yes. But it's carried in droplets, and masks are not too porous to block droplets.

                  1. most of the transmission is via aerosols not droplets

          2. It is not a “religious belief”.

            Unless you think of The Journal of the American Medical Assn. (JAMA), The Mayo Clinic, Johns Hopkins Hospital, The Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), Standford Medicine, et. al. as somehow “religious” instead of based on factual, informed, scientific inquiry.

            As the AAMC succinctly puts it: “Mounting scientific research shows that widespread wearing of masks, along with practicing social distancing and frequent hand-washing, would greatly reduce community transmission of the virus. ”

            Where are you getting your “facts” from? Fox News? OAN? AM talk radio? Facebook memes?

            NB I tried posting links to the orgs cited above but the site's spam filter held it up. But they are easlily found with your favorite search engine.

      2. There's no proof it's because of mask wearing. Enough with this pseudo-science (it's predicated on the droplet and asymptomatic theory in which neither has been fully proven. The WHO have stated more research is needed on both fronts.(ie Asymptomatic people spread it but we don't know to what degree) non-pharma measure.

        I'm fine with voluntary masks. But reject mandating them because science DOES NOT back up coercive measures.

        Sweden isn't an outlier. They followed the virology 101 playbook. WE tried to reinvent the wheel. It's also worth noting they don't mandate masks in Denmark, Norway and Holland (except on public transit). So this idea 'masks work' was never supported by the vast majority of studies going back to the 1920s. All of sudden a couple of studies come up (including that ridiculous one from Duke) and it's science. More like a precautionary principle measure if you ask me.

        It may even delay reaching HI (as the lockdown may have done) or infect people more.

        There are other more realistic factors at play I think:

        1) In most places, the novel virus hit the most vulnerable demographic (where we allowed for infected elderly patients back nursing homes which distorted the figures to the point of being an anomaly) and represented as high as 80% of deaths. As the virus spread to other healthier demographics the death rate dropped significantly (this happened in Florida where despite having a high percentage of elderly population the median age of cases - note not necessarily infected from what I read) went for 65 to 37 hence the low death rate because the vast majority of healthy people survive it.

        Which lends some credence to the notion of locking down the vulnerable and letting the virus spread through the healthy population was probably a better strategy than the lockdown and its unintended consequences that followed. Now we're hooked on the suppression theory.

        2) Better treatment through RFL-100 and HCQ.

        3) Better understanding with T-cells and other factors within our immune system capable of fighting it off.

        There are spikes (spikes aren't necessarily a 'wave') in places like Spain, Germany and France but the death rate is very low.

        All these, to me, suggests indeed waiting around for a vaccine is not necessary in order to get our lives rolling again and getting back to our normal routines.

      3. Ah Chem

        You mask comment from a prior tread
        August.16.2020 at 1:02 pm
        Wow. Just wow. The amount of motivated reasoning here is simply staggering.

        See for just one example of why you’re delusional.

        In sum - you believe in the value of masks is based on cherrypicking and a poor understanding of how the virus is transmitted. Below is my prior response to your post on the value of masks

        Ah Chem – the third paragraph of the article shows the study is crap

        3rd paragraph – “Our results clearly show that airborne transmission via respiratory aerosols represents the dominant route for the spread of COVID-19,” Zhang said. “By analyzing the pandemic trends without face-covering using the statistical method and by projecting the trend, we calculated that over 66,000 infections were prevented by using a face mask in little over a month in New York City. We conclude that wearing a face mask in public corresponds to the most effective means to prevent inter-human transmission.”

        A) As noted in the study, the transmission is primarily via aerosols. The masks do little if nothing to slow the spread of the virus for aerosols, The masks are way too porous for aerosols as opposed to droplet transmission. Have you noticed your glasses fogging up when wearing a mask? That is the aerosols escaping. At best, the masks only reduce the risk of transmission by 5-10%.
        B) The last sentence of the paragraph claims masks are the most effective in preventing the spread of the virus. That is well known BS. Space & time are vastly more effective. Space as in social distancing and time reduction in the time of interaction with others. Masks are at best a distant 3rd in the ranking of effectiveness.

      4. "ah....Clem
        August.19.2020 at 3:16 pm
        The downturn is largely due to social distancing and mask wearing (Sweden being an outlier). If you’re content to spend the rest of your life staying home almost all the time and wearing a mask every time you go out, fine. Eschew the vaccine."

        Your response would seem to be valid - except the downturn has happened irrespective of compliance with social distancing and mask wearing in each country/region. Something else is an obvious factor - possibly increase in the populations immunity.

        1. Joe Dallas, yes, and thank you for your attention to detail.

          Herd immunity will happen despite the best of apparatchiks' imposed agenda.

      5. Not at all. Please review the case charts out of LA, Riverside, etc. There is absolutely zero correlation between mask mandates and case drop-offs. In fact, it actually shifts the other way.

        We've actually learned that interdiction has little to no effect on virus spread.

        Hope that helps.

      6. Recent studies out of Sweden and Germany strongly suggest that, due to T-Cell cross immunity with other Coronaviruses, herd immunity may be as low as 20%. Real world observations support this conclusion. The spread has slowed considerably in populations that are very close to 20%, including densely populated NYC. It is also demonstrated from the Diamond Princess cruise ship example, where only 19% of the passengers were infected despite the extremely closed quarters on cruise ships. I know you probably hate the idea that this may be true, but the underlying conclusion is independently supported by available data.

  3. This also results from taking self-ownership seriously. It is this kind of analysis, time after time duplicating the principle of self-ownership, which convinced me that self-ownership can easily replace analysis after analysis. I have yet to hear any rebuttal which doesn't involve "yes, but" or "this is different" or the at-least-it's-honest "I don't trust people to do what I think is the right thing". Everyone has excuses for minding everybody else's business. Few are willing to admit they are elitist snobs.

    1. This. "[S]elf-ownership can easily replace analysis after analysis."

      Where are the technocrat and media exhortations to practice good personal health for robust immune systems that are then bostered more by exposure, rather than by despair, masks, and novel vaccines and boosters?

      1. "Bolstered." Perhaps my typing has been adversely affected by the Covid virus.

  4. Is this nanny state socialism supposed to be libertarian?

    Covid-19 is likely to mostly die out before the vaccine is ready. If however the vaccine is still needed, those who are worried about the virus should take the vaccine, those who aren't should follow their inclinations without coming up with another socialist handout.

    1. And this is why I stopped being a libertarian in my early 20s. You may have the right to engage in behavior that increases the likelihood that you will contact an infectious disease and die. But you don't have the right to go around infecting others.

      Like driving while drunk, it's not just a "personal choice" that you're free to make.

      1. Don't you have that backwards? Your people should have the right to take the jab and assume they're immunized, because Big Pharma and Fauci assured them.

        Others can prosper or succumb per their own choices to not be injected with various chemicals, animal RNA, and preservatives in a novel vaccine that requires booster shots.

        1. No, I don't have it backwards. And the US Supreme court agrees.

          See Jacobson v. Massachusetts.

      2. But you don’t have the right to go around infecting others.

        I'd be interested to hear the details of what must be a truly magical limiting principle that permits that logic to apply to This One Thing and not the rest of the communicable respiratory diseases we've swapped around for eons.

        Like driving while drunk, it’s not just a “personal choice” that you’re free to make.

        The corollary being breathing while... um, alive?

        1. Good point.

        2. What do you mean "This One Thing"? We've had mandatory vaccinations for over a century.

          Where I live, children attending school mus be vaccinated for:
          * diphtheria,
          * tetanus,
          * acellular pertussis (DTaP)
          * polio.
          * measles,
          * mumps,
          * rubella

          Your state may have different requirements. And you may think the law is wrong; you're entitled to have that opinion. But a hypothetical Covid-19 vaccine is would not be "This One Thing".

          1. I'm not really sure why you think a laundry list of vaccinations for a plethora of other conditions is responsive to my point about "communicable respiratory diseases."

            Or why you think that a list of vaccinations of any sort for children attending public schools speaks to your point about what people in general "don't have the right" to do (which I presume, though I admit you didn't say, includes people no longer attending public schools).

      3. The current approach of hiding from the virus only delays and retards the continuing development to the human immune system. That failure will have a far more detrimental effect on the human race than any possible short term benefit.

    2. Yep. Why do you think they are so big on shutdowns and masks? They don't want it to die out too soon.

  5. If the medical fascists hadn't lost all their moral authority, none of this would be necessary.

    1. Yes, this is government authority medical fascism leading to other anti-individual choices. It's of a piece.

      Either be very scared of Covid, as we're told to be, or be considered guilty of wanting to hurt and kill others, if you're not. Your own health, personal choices, and physical autonomy will no longer matter.

      1. 99.6% 99.8% if <50.

  6. Paying people to take the vaccine is a solution to a problem that does not exist. The reason that people will not take the vaccine is a lack of faith and confidence that it will be safe and effective.

    As a Ph. D. in quantative methods I am fully aware of the time and methodology that is required to approve a vaccine. It takes years for a good reason, the period of testing has to be long enough to get a large diverse test group and long enough so that delayed side effects can be determined and long enough to know the dosage and frequency of the vaccine. The fact that these idiots want to shrink the process to months rather than years is downright scary and I for one, a dedicated supporter of vaccines will not be first in line.

    The second problem is the politicization of the technical areas of government. Really, does anyone have any faith that the senior managers of the FDA who want only to toady up to Trump and care more about getting a vaccine out quickly than care about getting it out safely? When or if the science takes back control of government as opposed to the idealogues and politicians those of us who want a vaccine will be on board. Until then, well good luck with those of you whose faith in the current administration outweighs your concern for the heath safety of you and your family.

    Credibility of the FDA, CDC, NIH etc, just another casualty of the Trumpers.

    1. Credibility of your comment just another casualty of TDS.

      Credibility of the FDA, CDC, NIH etc has been on the wane for years.

    2. No flu vaccine is identical to any previous year’s flu vaccine.

      Every year, a new flu vaccine is created, mixed, reproduced, and prepared in a few months, then testing is done on a representative population before shipping it out. From start to finish, about eight to ten months.

      A covid vaccine is based off the same formula. It will be just as safe and effective.

      There were coronavirus vaccines developed for SARS and MERS. The diseases died out before it could be used widely, but the lessons learned are easily transferred to Covid. There is no reinventing of the wheel here.

  7. And we should compensate all business firms that were lockdowned by our cowardly politicians...


  8. This analysis seems to ignore that studies have shown that roughly half of people who were never exposed to Covid 19 have a considerable degree of immunity to it, (Mediated by T cells.) due to prior exposure to either SARS or one of at least 4 "common cold" coronaviruses.

    Seriously, since those "common cold" viruses are already known to be relatively harmless unless you're seriously immune compromised, we could just about start vaccinating people next week with a live vaccine based off them, evolution having already handled the low virulence portion of live vaccine development.

    This common immunity also lowers the threshold for herd immunity, relative to the assumption that immunity is only gained by infection with Covid 19 or a vaccine.

    Mind, this does not seem to produce actual immunity, just enhanced immune response, resulting in a particularly mild case.

    1. This existing immune system "memory" may explain why some people have milder COVID-19 infections compared with others; however, the authors stress that this hypothesis is "highly speculative" and requires more research to confirm.

      That's still good news, but never trust a single study. Especially about COVID.

      1. never trust a single study. Especially about COVID.

        Not that Brett's study is even vaguely the first of its kind, but you must have been visiting a different galaxy back in March when we were in the process of digging this hole largely based on a string of scary-sounding one-offs.

        1. Oh, never trust a study about COVID from back in March. Come on, man.

          1. Much more recent.

            "The Common Cold Unit study found little sign of hope for sterilizing immunity for its common-cold coronavirus, but the results also suggested that immunity could be strong enough to reduce or even eliminate symptoms. Sterilizing immunity for COVID-19 would be ideal, because it would reduce the risk of people with minimal symptoms spreading the infection widely. But at this point, a vaccine that could reduce mortality would likely still be helpful, says Alessandro Sette, an immunologist also at the La Jolla Institute for Immunology."

            Basically, exposure to other coronaviruses seems to prime the immune system to respond so fast to Covid 19 that, even though you get infected, you never develop much in the way of symptoms.

            This may explain why most people who get Covid 19 get very mild or asymptomatic cases. If this is really the case, we could probably reduce Covid 19 to a mere annoyance for almost everybody who isn't immune compromised, by a program of deliberately inoculating people with mild coronaviruses.

            The advantage of this is that you could practically start tomorrow, since we already know that the common cold is no big deal; Nature has already done the safety trial.

            1. Being a libertarian, (If not a Libertarian anymore.) I'd suggest that we simply permit distribution of such a live vaccine, and leave it up to people whether to use it.

              1. I agree.

                This is a bit like the whole market for organs thing Prof. Somin sometimes posts.

            2. May explain.

              That's fine.

              But don't quote it for truth like that; that's a very bad idea particularly with medical science.

  9. $1,000 per person to take a vaccine is on the order of the stimulus payments being handed out anyway for nothing in return. Rather than have another round of stimulus, just pay $1,000 per vaccine.

  10. "Imposing mandatory vaccination on some 300 million (mostly adult) Americans is a far dicier proposition.

    Moreover, using law enforcement to coerce so many people is likely to lead to serious abuses."

    I'm not against vaccines. Nor do I subscribe to much of the conspiracy around it. My daughter has all the important vaccinations.

    The majority of people are more likely to take one voluntarily. I draw the line at mandatory anything.

    I think it's foolish but such is our species.

  11. Professor Somin mentioned financial remuneration to voluntary participants in challenge trials. I firmly believe it is the choice of the autonomous individual to decide whether or not to participate in a challenge trial.

    So as a business guy, I have to ask the lawyers something. How do you even structure an agreement to participate in something like that? Do you contract short-term life insurance for voluntary participants in case the vaccine failed and they died? Lifetime payments to the family if they die because the vaccine failed? Is that even legal? I mean, just the underwriting of that kind of risk by an insurer would be monumental.

    1. Yes. But, in the US, vaccine makers are indemnified from adverse outcomes. It's difficult to nigh impossible to get doctors and the medical establishment to document vaccine deleterious health effects that are at odds with the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program (VICP) since 1988.

  12. What does US libertarianism stand for these days? For opening all borders to the world and countries that don't open theirs to us? For using either force or monetary inducement to be injected by Big Pharma and our federal government overseers?

    Doesn't feel right in any respect.

  13. Welp, another VC Covid thread.

    You guys enjoy funding the real death toll, discussing the latest cures the government suppressed, and yelling about the vaccine conspiracy to sap out precious bodily fluids.

  14. Fascinating to hear from so many epidemiologists on these issues.

  15. Kind of a moot point, isn't it?

    This is a "fix" for a partisanship problem. That partisanship isn't going away in November, no matter who wins. So unless Covid-19 suddenly becomes a non-partisan issue sometime in the next few months, any incentive, mandate, or even simple guidance, is going to be a partisan issue, and subject to the same opposition as all other action has up to this point.

    It'll be a state-by-state thing, because, due to the malfeasance of the Republican Party, public health is partisan, and that partisanship is going to continue to paralyze the federal government here.

  16. You think $1000 is going to convince me to allow you to inject poison into my body?
    I have received ZERO vaccines in my life. None of my kids received any vaccinations.
    I'm almost 70 and I along with 99.99% of the population of this great country survived: polio, diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, chicken pox, measles, mumps, the silent spring, the great flu epidemic of 1957, the Asian flu of 1964, the Hong Kong flu of 1968, the coming ice age, the swine flu of 1976, the end of oil, second hand smoke, global warming, Ebola, SARS, MERS, H1N1, climate change, climate catastrophe, and now we are surviving the dreaded Covid-19.
    And we all survived these diseases WITHOUT any vaccinations.
    Can you do math? The demigod Dr. Fauci claimed that 2 million would die due to this virus.
    Well, if 2 million die that would be LESS THAN six one-hundredths of ONE percent of our population.
    A measly $1000? Multiply that by a million and I MIGHT consider it.

    1. Poe's Law in the house!

  17. If the vaccine is safe and effective why do people need to be paid to take it?

  18. Why do we need a vaccine for anyone other than the elderly or other comorbidity?

    On average, Americans believe that people aged 55 and older account for just over half of total COVID-19 deaths; the actual figure is 92%. Americans believe that people aged 44 and younger account for about 30% of total deaths; the actual figure is 2.7%. Americans overestimate the risk of death from COVID-19 for people aged 24 and younger by a factor of 50; and they think the risk for people aged 65 and older is half of what it actually is (40% vs 80%).

  19. I am making $165 an hour working from home. i was greatly surprised at the same time as my neighbour advised me she changed into averaging $ninety five however I see the way it works now. I experience masses freedom now that i’m my non-public boss. that is what I do.......... CLICK HERE FOR MORE DETAILS

Please to post comments