3 ms·

It's economic coercion. Frankly, public health officials and the pharmaceutical industry do not deserve our trust about these vaccines. People would be much mor

It's economic coercion. Frankly, public health officials and the pharmaceutical industry do not deserve our trust about these vaccines. People would be much more confident about taking them under different circumstances. I'll continue to take a wait and see approach. It appears likely the majority of the rest of the country will as well, if current decreased vaccination rates hold steady.

Aunche 5y ago
What is more coercive? The taxpayers subsidizing your ER hospital stay or the state offering an incentive for something that you're free to reject.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  The only people subsidizing my ER visits are myself and my employer. I'm in my early 30's, in good health, with no comorbidities. The chances I end up in the ER for covid are about as likely as ending up there for a blood clot in my brain. This is my point: people are capable of making a cost/benefit analysis decision on their own. If you want to give them money, just give them money. Don't coerce them into making a healthcare decision that might not be right for them.
  - Aunche 5y ago
    I was using the generic form of "you". A good fraction of people who end up in the ER are subsidized by the taxpayers. How is offering someone an incentive to avoid this situation coercion? If you have a well-paying job with good health insurance, you are unlikely to be a burden to the taxpayers and should not feel "coerced" by this lottery.
    - chitowneats 5y ago
      Look at it from the perspective of a line cook. The government ends your ability to make a living by enacting unscientific and capricious restrictions around indoor dining. You're now out of work. All you need to do to secure a paycheck is take a couple injections of a drug that is not FDA approved for general use. If anything at all happens to you there's no one to sue because the manufacturers and health care providers have legal immunity. You've been working odd jobs, gig work, etc to try to make ends meet so you've contracted covid a time or two. You know you're immune; or at the very least, not at much risk. But you have a child support payment, and another son living with you. What's the worst thing that could happen taking the shot? It turns out the tail risk is quite high. But like a commenter said above: it's like the reverse lottery. High tail risk, but low risk overall and an immediate reward. Maybe "coercion" is a little hyperbolic. I'll retreat to my earlier characterization of "unethical".
encryptluks2 5y ago
Removing the liability shield on these corporations who have a history of acting in their best interest and not the public would be the best thing they could do to improve vaccine adoption.
- chitowneats 5y ago
  Bingo.
freeone3000 5y ago
Can't even give money away nowadays.

Aunche 5y ago

What is more coercive? The taxpayers subsidizing your ER hospital stay or the state offering an incentive for something that you're free to reject.

chitowneats 5y ago
The only people subsidizing my ER visits are myself and my employer. I'm in my early 30's, in good health, with no comorbidities. The chances I end up in the ER for covid are about as likely as ending up there for a blood clot in my brain. This is my point: people are capable of making a cost/benefit analysis decision on their own. If you want to give them money, just give them money. Don't coerce them into making a healthcare decision that might not be right for them.
- Aunche 5y ago
  I was using the generic form of "you". A good fraction of people who end up in the ER are subsidized by the taxpayers. How is offering someone an incentive to avoid this situation coercion? If you have a well-paying job with good health insurance, you are unlikely to be a burden to the taxpayers and should not feel "coerced" by this lottery.
  - chitowneats 5y ago
    Look at it from the perspective of a line cook. The government ends your ability to make a living by enacting unscientific and capricious restrictions around indoor dining. You're now out of work. All you need to do to secure a paycheck is take a couple injections of a drug that is not FDA approved for general use. If anything at all happens to you there's no one to sue because the manufacturers and health care providers have legal immunity. You've been working odd jobs, gig work, etc to try to make ends meet so you've contracted covid a time or two. You know you're immune; or at the very least, not at much risk. But you have a child support payment, and another son living with you. What's the worst thing that could happen taking the shot? It turns out the tail risk is quite high. But like a commenter said above: it's like the reverse lottery. High tail risk, but low risk overall and an immediate reward. Maybe "coercion" is a little hyperbolic. I'll retreat to my earlier characterization of "unethical".

encryptluks2 5y ago

Removing the liability shield on these corporations who have a history of acting in their best interest and not the public would be the best thing they could do to improve vaccine adoption.

chitowneats 5y ago
Bingo.

freeone3000 5y ago

Can't even give money away nowadays.