This is worth your time.
Imagine you are a nurse who bravely cared for Covid patients for a year — before there was a vaccine. You got Covid. You recovered. You now have natural immunity.
Then the government says you have to get a vaccine in order to keep your job — despite very strong evidence that natural immunity is at least as good as the vaccine.
You might say, “so get the vaccine too, and you’ll be double protected.” (Like I am!)
But people have the right to make their own decisions. I think most of the reasons people are concerned about the vaccine are nonsense, but there may be situations where “hesitancy” (after talking to a doctor) is justified.
Sen. Paul is right to call the administration’s take on this arrogant and authoritarian.
“Shut up and do as you’re told, or we’ll ruin you.”
I want people to get one of the vaccines (with some possible exceptions). But I also want to live in a country where the government has more respect for people’s decisions, and seeks to persuade rather than cudgel.
Another way to put this: the virus is a real and serious threat, and most people should get with the program and get vaccinated. But an authoritarian government is a bigger threat than Covid.
Right. The government should always, ALWAYS use the least restrictive means (within the limits of practicality) of accomplishing whatever goals it has managed to justify, even when the goals are fully justified.
Allowing people to demonstrate immunity through antibody testing is a far less restrictive means than requiring them to be vaccinated, even though wanting everyone to have immunity to Covid is a highly justified goal. And there’s absolutely no practical downside to doing that way.
I need to add “government should always use the least restrictive means available to accomplish its goals” to the list of P&C political principles.