COVID: Vaccine?

[Pete]

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.

[Bill Robertson]

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.

I agree. It with almost certainly be highly subsidized for uninsured people.

[king183]

I’ll just wait for the Doctors in my family to give me the Green Light. Definitely will not take Big Pharma’s word for it. Those dudes have an agenda, obviously.

Yeah, an agenda like producing a vaccine that works against the coronavirus.

[king183]

I would like to take it reasonably early, but I don't have health insurance at the moment, so it will depend on cost. I wonder how much of a barrier that will end up being for full immunization in the United States.

You will get it for free once it is available. The federal government is currently considering how to make it free to everyone. The only cost associated will likely be the cost to administer it, and insurers and government payers will pay that fee to the provider.

[bucktalk]

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/

[Bill Robertson]

An NPR report today stated there is a possibility COVID will never go away. That's reassuring :-/

Of course there’s a possibility. The flu never goes away but it is very well controlled. I listen to NPR a lot but sometimes I think I’m just a glutton for punishment. There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

[TheTravellers]

... There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

I think I see a correlation there.

[Rover]

Of course there’s a possibility. The flu never goes away but it is very well controlled. I listen to NPR a lot but sometimes I think I’m just a glutton for punishment. There isn’t a more negative media outlet on the planet. Mostly so when conservatives are in power.

That’s an interesting take. Most independent media watchdogs consider NPR as one of the most middle of the road unbiased news sources, along with the AP, Reuter’s and BBC News. However, it’s like going to a ballgame... have you ever noticed that the refs are always unfair to the team you are rooting for? It’s human nature. Reporting the news is different than making the news. Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like what they are saying.

[Bill Robertson]

That’s an interesting take. Most independent media watchdogs consider NPR as one of the most middle of the road unbiased news sources, along with the AP, Reuter’s and BBC News. However, it’s like going to a ballgame... have you ever noticed that the refs are always unfair to the team you are rooting for? It’s human nature. Reporting the news is different than making the news. Don’t shoot the messenger because you don’t like what they are saying.

I really don’t root for either side. I’m about as apolitical as can be. But listen to almost any NPR interview and if the person being interviewed says anything positive about the current administration the interviewer will interrupt and talk over the interviewee. That’s not unbiased.

[FighttheGoodFight]

Interesting discussion on 1A tomorrow. What would you be willing to pay for an effective vaccine? Demand will be extremely high and will pharma companies take advantage of that? Insurance companies willing to pay how much?

An interesting discussion for American healthcare.

[jdizzle]

^

I bet it will be similar to a flu shot...

Inexpensive and even free for many.

I still highly doubt this. If there is money to be made, it will be made. So I wonder if the doses won't be fairly expensive. And insurance companies can use the rush on vaccines, especially due to political pressures, to possibly not fully cover a vaccine.

We don't know, and I hope you are right. I could very much be wrong, of course. But I know that capitalism and healthcare don't mix. It hurts only the consumers, not the companies themselves.

[Pete]

Money can be made and the vaccination can still be free or close to it.

[mugofbeer]

Money can be made and the vaccination can still be free or close to it.

Make it free to those who need it to be free. If it works l'm willing to pay some so it can be.

[OU Adonis]

There is no way they could mandate it nationally. (My Body My Choice) I could see it be a condition of employment for healthcare or for public schools since that is voluntary.

[jedicurt]

There is no way they could mandate it nationally. (My Body My Choice) I could see it be a condition of employment for healthcare or for public schools since that is voluntary.

the US Supreme Court disagrees with that assessment in Jacobson V Massachusetts.

[OU Adonis]

the US Supreme Court disagrees with that assessment in Jacobson V Massachusetts.

Either you didn't read the ruling or totally disregarded the actual post I made.

Jacobson V Massachusetts said the states have the police powers to enforce public safety. The federal government does not. (National mandate)

Smallpox has a mortality rate 10 times COVID. I still stand by my assertion that you may need it for certain jobs or to put kids in public schools but there will not be a requirement nationally.

[jedicurt]

Either you didn't read the ruling or totally disregarded the actual post I made.

Jacobson V Massachusetts said the states have the police powers to enforce public safety. The federal government does not. (National mandate)

Smallpox has a mortality rate 10 times COVID. I still stand by my assertion that you may need it for certain jobs or to put kids in public schools but there will not be a requirement nationally.

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

[OU Adonis]

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

Actually its very relevant. The ruling was specific to the smallpox epidemic that was killing roughly 1 in 3 people who contracted it. Its much easier to get support for something like that publicly than forcing vaccinations on an unwilling population for a virus that has a low mortality rate.

And exactly how are they to verify if someone has taken a mandated vaccine when moving in public? Are you suggesting that people should carry papers proving this? Or maybe having people who refuse to vaccine wear bright yellow V stars on their shirts that have an X through the V? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

[jedicurt]

Actually its very relevant. The ruling was specific to the smallpox epidemic that was killing roughly 1 in 3 people who contracted it. Its much easier to get support for something like that publicly than forcing vaccinations on an unwilling population for a virus that has a low mortality rate.

And exactly how are they to verify if someone has taken a mandated vaccine when moving in public? Are you suggesting that people should carry papers proving this? Or maybe having people who refuse to vaccine wear bright yellow V stars on their shirts that have an X through the V? Sounds reasonable doesn't it?

actually it doesn't... the ruling stated that it was within the States police power to enact a compulsory vaccination law, and that it was for the legislature of the state to determine when and how.

as for how they will verify, yes, they probably will find a way for you to verify vaccination has taken place, whether that is something that is held in paper form, or kept electronically that can be quickly accessed by those enforcing, well that would be up to that state legislature to determine... which is exactly what Jacobson V Massachusetts deals with. while this case was specifically about a law involving smallpox... the opinion that comes out of it repeatedly talks about vaccinations and public health with respect to being a vested interest of the state... not specifically the smallpox vaccine alone.

if you actually go and read the opinion. the explanation of police powers by the state is two paragraphs long and doesn't mention smallpox once... smallpox is then mentioned in the next paragraph of the opinion that starts with this sentence.... "Applying these principles to the present case,"... meaning that they talked about the principles that allowed for the vaccination law are able to be determined regardless of the disease at hand. and they only mention smallpox with regards to how that opinion applied to the case that was specifically about smallpox.

as for your last part... we must have a photo id as proof that we can drive... is that also unreasonable? we need some form of photo id in order to enter most state and US office buildings.. yet these are publicly owned. is that unreasonable? so no, i don't think being required for a short time during a pandemic to have proof of vaccination as described by a state legislature under an order for mandatory vaccinations is unreasonable. and guess what... the US Supreme Court agreed with that.

[BoulderSooner]

sorry. i did miss the "nationally" part... but it can be mandated by the States and i have no clue what smallpox as anything to do with the current discussion. Jacobson v Massachusetts didn't limit giving this authority to the States only for things with a certain mortality rate. But i fully expect many states to institute state wide mandates.. and would be willing to bet that those mandates would apply to anyone passing through the borders of, not just citizens of said state.

they likely would not be able to require it for people from other states as that effects interstate commerce

[jedicurt]

they likely would not be able to require it for people from other states as that effects interstate commerce

they are currently able to limit or restrict travel into and out of the state. and even require quarantine in some cases of people coming into the state. they absolutely could make it a requirement that pertains to the state and is required for those entering it.

as for the current quarantines... that would be Oregon-Washington Railroad v Washington (1926) that establishes quarantines as being a states right under police powers and even allows to set conditions for ending said quarantines (i.e. in the case we are talking about would be a required vaccination in order to end quarantine, or you must leave the state).

if it would affect interstate commerce would have to be held against the Pike Test (the results of the opinion of Pike v Bruce Church (1970). this test is whether the negative effect on commerce is incidental to an evenhanded effort to address a legitimate public interest. thus under that test, travel restrictions placed on those who have yet to be vaccinated would stand up to scrutiny.

and also remember that Saenz v Roe (1999) stated that the right to guaranteed travel by the privileges and communities clause is not absolute. stating that travel restrictions only violate these protected rights if the law "unreasonably burden or restrict" travel. as the Supreme Court has already previously rules that the state has the ability for mandatory vaccines, quarantines, setting requirements to end those quarantines, and travel restrictions under the police powers reserved to the state in cases of public health. none of these would be unreasonable as stated in Saenz v Roe.

[Jersey Boss]

The mindset of Dixie and some outliers is no mask=freedom. So to think that a majority or even a significant number of states would employ this regardless of legality is wishful thinking. Some governors are anti vaxxers, not naming names.
Of course any employer could make this a condition of employment regardless of the sector.

[jedicurt]

The mindset of Dixie and some outliers is no mask=freedom. So to think that a majority or even a significant number of states would employ this regardless of legality is wishful thinking. Some governors are anti vaxxers, not naming names.
Of course any employer could make this a condition of employment regardless of the sector.

but a mandatory vaccine mandate might bring an end to mask mandates... so wouldn't that be helping their "freedom"? but yes, i think the south will continue to be the south and doing things against their own interests.

but as the Supreme Court has ruled time and time again... the legality of such a mandate isn't really in question.

[BDP]

Dawn is Breaking in Vaccine Race

[jn1780]

You will get it for free once it is available. The federal government is currently considering how to make it free to everyone. The only cost associated will likely be the cost to administer it, and insurers and government payers will pay that fee to the provider.

I thought the federal government already pre-bought millions of dozes of from various pharmaceuticals. The virus could go away tomorrow and they wouldn't have to worry about not making money.