[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Sign-in] [Mail] [Setup] [Help]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
|
Pious Perverts See other Pious Perverts Articles Title: Want herd immunity? Pay people to take the vaccine When I was a child, doctors giving vaccine shots used to hand out candy or a little toy to take the sting and fear out of the shot. A similar idea could rescue the U.S. economy when one or more COVID vaccines are approved by the FDA and widely available for mass uptake. [.........] The “adult” version of the doctor handing out candy to children, fortunately, points toward a solution: pay people who get the shot (or shots, since more than one may be required). How much? I know of no hard science that can answer that question, but my strong hunch is that anything less than $1,000 per person won’t do the trick. At that level, a family of four would get $4,000 (ideally not subject to income tax) – a lot of money to a lot of families in these difficult times, and thus enough to assure that the country crosses the 80 percent vaccination threshold. Economists will point out that any vaccine payment scheme will overcompensate, since most of those getting the shots and thus the money will take the vaccine in any event. Others will object that a vaccine payment scheme rewards people for being intransigent, for any number of reasons. Both those objections are valid, but also beside the point. If the nation doesn’t get to herd immunity once the vaccine becomes widely available and has been independently validated, we’re all out of luck: the economy will continue to struggle with a weight on its chest, and American society won’t get back to normal. Any overpayment is simply part of the price Americans would have to pay, given our deep political divisions, in order get all of our lives back. The alternative – living with the fear of a virus that has not been sufficiently tamped down – is much worse. Admittedly, the price tag of about $275 billion – $1,000 times 275 million, or about 80 percent of population – at first blush looks high. But the vaccine reward would be a one-time payment. Compare it to the trillions of dollars in financial rescue packages that already have or will be legislated until the virus is brought under the control, as well as the ongoing trillions of dollars in cumulative lost output and incomes the economy will suffer if herd immunity is not reached. By these yardsticks, the $275 billion price tag, even if it is deficit-financed, is a bargain. What if the $1,000 is not enough, getting us to, say, a take-up rate of 75 percent, but not 80 percent? We could live with that result and hope that enough other people wear masks and social distance in areas where the 80 percent threshold hasn’t been crossed, or ultimately that advances in therapeutics will be sufficient to reduce the mortality rate to or below the level of the seasonal flu, thus removing the fear of catching the virus by venturing outside. A potentially better idea is to hold back a substantial portion of the $1,000 – say $800 of it – until the 80 percent threshold is reached, ideally on a national basis, since people move around and can thus still spread the infection from the remaining hot spots. Because people who have taken the shot will get the balance, by check or wire, once the national vaccination threshold is crossed, they will have strong incentives to persuade their family members, neighbors, work colleagues, church members, and so on to get the shot so that everyone who does can collect the full $1,000 per person payment. One thing should be clear the outset: Congress should make clear that the payment will not be increased to get the nation across the finish line – which means it is better to start out high, rather than offering a lower payment and only later increasing it if needed. If the incremental strategy is followed, too many people could hold back, hoping to cash in and get even more if the payment in fact later is increased. Poster Comment: Earn money becoming a vaccine zombie. $$$$$$$$$$$$$ Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: hondo68 (#0)
I support this for all communicable respiratory illnesses for which effective vaccines exist, but I would place an emphasis on paying younger people to get vaccinated. Young people have a relatively low risk of death or serious illness while old people are high risk. Young people also have stronger immune responses than old people, which makes vaccines more effective in producing immunity. Since the primary beneficiaries of herd immunity are old people, it makes sense to tax the elderly and use the revenue to pay young people to get vaccinated.
The Boston Tea Party took place over a tax that amounted to two cents. Where do you think my screen name originates? ;) "When bad men combine, the good must associate; else they will fall, one by one." Edmund Burke
|
||
|
[Home]
[Headlines]
[Latest Articles]
[Latest Comments]
[Post]
[Sign-in]
[Mail]
[Setup]
[Help]
|
||