The CardBoard
A proposal - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: Emergency (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=11)
+--- Forum: Covid-19 (https://thecardboard.org/board/forumdisplay.php?fid=12)
+--- Thread: A proposal (/showthread.php?tid=20939)



A proposal - BostonCard - 11-21-2020

Pay people $1500 to get vaccinated.

It is a stimulus and a vaccination campaign in one.

BC


RE: A proposal - Snorlax94 - 11-21-2020

My initial reaction is I love it — it’s out-of-the-box and is structured to solve two birds and create incentives for the social good — but then I realized it would lead to The Mother of All Lawsuits.

Also, vaccine hesitancy won’t be a bad thing for a while — I expect the problem will be inadequate supply for the first 140M people

For now — why throw gasoline on demand when we expect shortages in supply for a good while? By the time the shortages are over, the best window for economic stimulus may have passed.


RE: A proposal - Mick - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Pay people $1500 to get vaccinated.

It is a stimulus and a vaccination campaign in one.

BC

Good idea.  And let's add a third variable.  With Gov. Newsom's preference list in mind, offer more to those who are likely to die (very old, lots of comorbidities, etc.), or those who must get vaccinated out of the gate (health care professionals, first responders, then essential workers) all the way down to young, fit people who would likely survive it.


RE: A proposal - DocSavage87 - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Pay people $1500 to get vaccinated.

It is a stimulus and a vaccination campaign in one.

BC

Like it.  Just make sure nobody like Gates or Soros are involved with the financing or else it will really set off the conspiracy theorists :)


RE: A proposal - dabigv13 - 11-21-2020

The optics of paying people to take a still experimental vaccine....it seems a bit off and I'm certain some people will have problems with it. But I like it in theory.


RE: A proposal - BostonCard - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 07:26 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The optics of paying people to take a still experimental vaccine....it seems a bit off and I'm certain some people will have problems with it. But I like it in theory.

I would not deploy it until the vaccines are fully approved (not just the EUA), although I would retroactively give out the stimulus to anyone who got it under the EUA (or as part of a clinical trial).

Mick, I would not vary the amount based on risk for two reasons.  First, it's a stimulus on top of an incentive to vaccinate and I don't know that you would want to give the unemployed thirty-year old with no risk factors less than a well-payed doctor.  Second, remember that vaccines protect not just the recipient but also any people who could catch the virus from the vaccine recipient were the recipient to get sick.  So, we want to vaccinate young people without risk factors (eventually) so as to protect the 5% of individuals for whom the vaccine is not effective by reducing the prevalence of the virus (herd immunity).

Snorlax, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I shouldn't opine here, but I'm not sure what the basis for lawsuits would be (though just because there isn't a basis doesn't mean that there won't be a lawsuit).  No one is being forced to get a vaccine against their will, and we already have strong incentives for vaccination (such as requiring vaccines prior to entry into school).  I guess that there might be a select number of people who cannot get a vaccine for medical reasons (though the fact that there will be vaccines that are not from live viruses probably eliminates the most common medical reason not to get vaccinated).

I do agree that there will be limited supply until next spring at the earliest, so maybe don't put anything in place until then.

BC


RE: A proposal - chrisk - 11-21-2020

I read one version where you give $500 at time of vaccination and the rest when overall vaccination rate reaches 70% (or 80%).


RE: A proposal - dabigv13 - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 07:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  
(11-21-2020, 07:26 PM)dabigv13 Wrote:  The optics of paying people to take a still experimental vaccine....it seems a bit off and I'm certain some people will have problems with it. But I like it in theory.

I would not deploy it until the vaccines are fully approved (not just the EUA), although I would retroactively give out the stimulus to anyone who got it under the EUA (or as part of a clinical trial).

Mick, I would not vary the amount based on risk for two reasons.  First, it's a stimulus on top of an incentive to vaccinate and I don't know that you would want to give the unemployed thirty-year old with no risk factors less than a well-payed doctor.  Second, remember that vaccines protect not just the recipient but also any people who could catch the virus from the vaccine recipient were the recipient to get sick.  So, we want to vaccinate young people without risk factors (eventually) so as to protect the 5% of individuals for whom the vaccine is not effective by reducing the prevalence of the virus (herd immunity).

Snorlax, I'm not a lawyer, so maybe I shouldn't opine here, but I'm not sure what the basis for lawsuits would be (though just because there isn't a basis doesn't mean that there won't be a lawsuit).  No one is being forced to get a vaccine against their will, and we already have strong incentives for vaccination (such as requiring vaccines prior to entry into school).  I guess that there might be a select number of people who cannot get a vaccine for medical reasons (though the fact that there will be vaccines that are not from live viruses probably eliminates the most common medical reason not to get vaccinated).

I do agree that there will be limited supply until next spring at the earliest, so maybe don't put anything in place until then.

BC

I imagine these won't get full approval for many more months. Millions (including most of our healthcare workforce) will have received it before then. Hope there are no late complications!


RE: A proposal - M T - 11-21-2020

Were this to happen, it has to be absolutely clear that payments would be retroactive to anyone who took the vaccine earlier.  We don't want anyone waiting because they might not get a vaccine that qualifies, or got the vaccine before the approval of the payments.

Ah, there's another rub.  Suppose Adam gets a (foreign?) vaccine that isn't approved in the US.  Does he get the payment?  Maybe he was required to because he traveled to that country.

There's also the problem that the country wants people to get the vaccine even if they have a significant income.  Some legislators will say no to that.

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

Lots of details.  I think too many.  But messy, ugly details never stopped politicians from handy out money to Paul.


RE: A proposal - BostonCard - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 11:18 PM)M T Wrote:  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


RE: A proposal - oregontim - 11-21-2020

What do you do about people like me, in my seventies, anxious to get the vaccine, no need to pay me. Don’t let the bureaucracy around payments interfere with me getting vaccinated as soon as I can.


RE: A proposal - BostonCard - 11-21-2020

(11-21-2020, 11:45 PM)oregontim Wrote:  What do you do about people like me, in my seventies, anxious to get the vaccine, no need to pay me. Don’t let the bureaucracy around payments interfere with me getting vaccinated as soon as I can.

You get your vaccine as soon as you can (as you should be in a priority group).  The payment will come once the program is rolled out.  Even if you were going to get a vaccine anyway (and most people would have), consider it a stimulus payment.

BC


RE: A proposal - Mick - 11-22-2020

(11-21-2020, 11:45 PM)oregontim Wrote:  What do you do about people like me, in my seventies, anxious to get the vaccine, no need to pay me. Don’t let the bureaucracy around payments interfere with me getting vaccinated as soon as I can.

Your age dictates the priority. And the $$ can go to a charity of your choice, if you prefer.  Problem solved.


RE: A proposal - Snorlax94 - 11-22-2020

I still really like the use of this to incentivize universal vaccine adoption. Even if it costs say $380B (assuming $500 for minors), it’s definitely worth it for the economy.

My legal concerns were about people who cannot be vaccinated for health reasons, and people with religious objections (like Christian Scientists, who do not take any medicine). I think you can overcome legal objections but I worry it will lead to delays and conflict. (hopefully the q anon anti-vaxxers don’t start a civil war over it) 

But I’d point out that the US taking a leadership role helping the whole world have access to and afford vaccines would have an even greater benefit. We should be worried that if Covid runs rampant in other countries for years, it could reinfect America and it gives the virus more chances to mutate. Just imagine spending 390B getting every American vaccinated and then a mutation in Africa renders the past vaccines ineffective.

 I hope Joe Biden does a 180 from Trump’s assinine “America First” nationalist, isolationist, narrow-minded approach to a global pandemic. Spending a few billion to help the rest of the world get vaccinated, providing leadership, and collaborating with WHO and Covax would not only be a morally right thing to do, it would also be a great investment in our own safety.


RE: A proposal - 2006alum - 11-23-2020

(11-21-2020, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Pay people $1500 to get vaccinated.

It is a stimulus and a vaccination campaign in one.

BC

Former presidential candidate John Delaney already getting traction with this idea, at least on Twitter:




And it's a great idea!


RE: A proposal - Genuine Realist - 11-23-2020

(11-23-2020, 04:49 AM)2006alum Wrote:  
(11-21-2020, 05:47 PM)BostonCard Wrote:  Pay people $1500 to get vaccinated.

It is a stimulus and a vaccination campaign in one.

BC

Former presidential candidate John Delaney already getting traction with this idea, at least on Twitter:





And it's a great idea!
I would apply a means test, scaling down, though not to zero - maybe a hundred dollars.


RE: A proposal - oregontim - 11-23-2020

(11-23-2020, 12:28 PM)Genuine Realist Wrote:  I would apply a means test, scaling down, though not to zero - maybe a hundred dollars.

I agree completely with the sentiment here, but I still want a no-bureaucracy-no-money line where I forfeit the money but get the vaccine quickly. No money, but also no tax forms to submit, no approvals to wait for, just give me the damned shots.

I really miss the time with grandkids who live nearby.


RE: A proposal - fullmetal - 11-26-2020

Slight complicating factor: most vaccine candidates require two doses over a period of time (one seems to be a one-shot deal, pun intended).

(11-23-2020, 02:10 PM)oregontim Wrote:  I really miss the time with grandkids who live nearby.

I greatly sympathize.  Watching my little nieces over the summer, they really grow up quickly.  Time waits for no one.