[BostonCard]

What about people that can't be vaccinated for whatever medical reason?  Then there's the whole freedom of religion issue.

I agree that if it is imposed, retroactively giving the payment to everyone who got a vaccine, even if it was before the program is rolled out, is important. Not only do you not want to misalign incentives (encouraging people to wait), but part of the goal of this is to give out a stimulus; thus you want to make it widely available.

There is no impingement on freedom of religion.  If people don't want to get the vaccine, they can still elect not to.

I think the proportion of people who will get vaccines abroad is small, and small enough that they can get revaccinated if they want the money.  Some legislators may indeed want to put a means test on the stimulus, but I think the fact that it is an incentive to get vaccinated would encourage allowing even wealthy people to get the incentive.  It's a little bit like the tax credit for solar installation or buying an electric car.

The issue of medical reasons is largely going to be moot.  People with certain diseases shouldn't be vaccinated with live, attenuated vaccines (for example, the inhaled FluMist vaccine, but not the injected ones, actually contain a live, but weakened virus).  The Oxford/AZ one, for example, uses a live (chimp) virus, which, theoretically, could infect someone who has a weakened immune system.  Thus people with immune deficiencies or getting drugs that weaken the immune system are advised not to get those sorts of vaccines.  But since we now have efficacy from mRNA vaccines, which are likely to be the first ones available, there really shouldn't be a reason not to get a vaccine.  At worst, people with very weakened immune systems won't develop immunity (that is, the vaccine won't work), but they are unlikely to be harmed by it.  Is it possible that it might be dangerous in a small category of people?  Maybe, but we are talking about very few people, low enough that you can probably get a special dispensation that can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

BC

[BostonCard]

What about people that can't be vaccinated for whatever medical reason?  Then there's the whole freedom of religion issue.

I agree that if it is imposed, retroactively giving the payment to everyone who got a vaccine, even if it was before the program is rolled out, is important. Not only do you not want to misalign incentives (encouraging people to wait), but part of the goal of this is to give out a stimulus; thus you want to make it widely available.

There is no impingement on freedom of religion.  If people don't want to get the vaccine, they can still elect not to.

I think the proportion of people who will get vaccines abroad is small, and small enough that they can get revaccinated if they want the money.  Some legislators may indeed want to put a means test on the stimulus, but I think the fact that it is an incentive to get vaccinated would encourage allowing even wealthy people to get the incentive.  It's a little bit like the tax credit for solar installation or buying an electric car.

The issue of medical reasons is largely going to be moot.  People with certain diseases shouldn't be vaccinated with live, attenuated vaccines (for example, the inhaled FluMist vaccine, but not the injected ones, actually contain a live, but weakened virus).  The Oxford/AZ one, for example, uses a live (chimp) virus, which, theoretically, could infect someone who has a weakened immune system.  Thus people with immune deficiencies or getting drugs that weaken the immune system are advised not to get those sorts of vaccines.  But since we now have efficacy from mRNA vaccines, which are likely to be the first ones available, there really shouldn't be a reason not to get a vaccine.  At worst, people with very weakened immune systems won't develop immunity (that is, the vaccine won't work), but they are unlikely to be harmed by it.  Is it possible that it might be dangerous in a small category of people?  Maybe, but we are talking about very few people, low enough that you can probably get a special dispensation that can be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis.

BC