COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

[ffemt8978]

Here is my solution to the vaccine hesitancy issue:
1. Fedgov stops paying for COVID-19 hospital costs in unvaccinated.
2. Insurance companies can charge based on vaccine status.
3. Employers are protected from liability related to vaccine mandates including against state or local government restriction.

Everyone will be vaccinated by the end of the year.

Be careful with overly simplistic solutions to problems...often times they can have unintended consequences because precedent will have been set.

 

[ffemt8978]

Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey

Objective To understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Methods January 6 through May 31, 2021, 5,121,436 US adults completed an online COVID-19 survey. Weighted data was used to evaluate change in vaccine intent and correlates of May vaccine hesitancy. Results COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased...

www.medrxiv.org

According to this study, people with PhD's are less likely to get the vaccine and less likely to change their minds about it.

 

[Summit]

Be careful with overly simplistic solutions to problems...often times they can have unintended consequences because precedent will have been set.

I think if you examine the situation you will find that the precedent is already very well-established but covid is the massive of exception. All I propose is that we removed the exception for covid and let the markets handle it.

 

[Summit]

Time trends and factors related to COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy from January-May 2021 among US adults: Findings from a large-scale national survey

Objective To understand COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. Methods January 6 through May 31, 2021, 5,121,436 US adults completed an online COVID-19 survey. Weighted data was used to evaluate change in vaccine intent and correlates of May vaccine hesitancy. Results COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy decreased...

www.medrxiv.org

According to this study, people with PhD's are less likely to get the vaccine and less likely to change their minds about it.

Yes this unreviewed study shows that if you look at people with doctoral degrees in the United States and you exclude all of those with doctorates in healthcare practice, which is the vast majority of doctoral degrees, then you find out that the vaccine rate for English PhD is lower than the 96% for MDs. But what's the takeaway here again?

It's just another damned statistic misused as a damned Lie by the antivaxxer blogs to imply that everyone would be on their side if they really know what's going on like apparently 25% of English PhDs do! What a bunch of BS.

 

[ffemt8978]

I think if you examine the situation you will find that the precedent is already very well-established but covid is the massive of exception. All I propose is that we removed the exception for covid and let the markets handle it.

And what happens when next year's disease hits? Covid is nasty, but it is by far the only disease people have screamed that exceptions must be made for...even in the past 20 years.

I think if you examine the situation you will find that the precedent is already very well-established but covid is the massive of exception. All I propose is that we removed the exception for covid and let the markets handle it.

While Covid is nasty, it is not the only pandemic we've faced...even in this century. Are you willing to apply those same rules to *every* pandemic?

 

[Summit]

And what happens when next year's disease hits? Covid is nasty, but it is by far the only disease people have screamed that exceptions must be made for...even in the past 20 years.

While Covid is nasty, it is not the only pandemic we've faced...even in this century. Are you willing to apply those same rules to *every* pandemic?

I think you are missing my meaning. Employers schools etc can mandate and do for other vaccines. In all other diseases government is not picking up the bill for illness. Insurance companies can adjust your corporate rate based on your employee usage and risk factors. I'm proposing treating COVID like Hep B or Measles in those respects.

We've spent well over $75,000,000,000+ solely on COVID-19 hospital stays in the US (this is probably a gross underestimate and doesn't Include all the prep training PPE and lost rev).

 

[ffemt8978]

I think you are missing my meaning. Employers schools etc can mandate and do for other vaccines. In all other diseases government is not picking up the bill for illness. Insurance companies can adjust your corporate rate based on your employee usage and risk factors. I'm proposing treating COVID like Hep B or Measles in those respects.

We've spent well over $75,000,000,000+ solely on COVID-19 hospital stays in the US (this is probably a gross underestimate and doesn't Include all the prep training PPE and lost rev).

Not missing it at all, not even saying I disagree with it. My question was are you willing to do the same for the next pandemic that you're willing to do for Covid because the next pandemic WILL come. The question becomes where do you draw the line?

 

[GMCmedic]

Here is my solution to the vaccine hesitancy issue:
1. Fedgov stops paying for COVID-19 hospital costs in unvaccinated.
2. Insurance companies can charge based on vaccine status.
3. Employers are protected from liability related to vaccine mandates including against state or local government restriction.

Everyone will be vaccinated by the end of the year.

I think this is a really good approach. Both sides of the political spectrum will be equally angered.

 

[UtahEmt33]

Here is my solution to the vaccine hesitancy issue:
1. Fedgov stops paying for COVID-19 hospital costs in unvaccinated.
2. Insurance companies can charge based on vaccine status.
3. Employers are protected from liability related to vaccine mandates including against state or local government restriction.

Everyone will be vaccinated by the end of the year.

I wont.

 

[Summit]

I wont.

No, maybe not, but the ultimate result of that market based solution is that employers will mandate when insurance companies are able to mitigate risk by charging appropriately for higher medical costs in the unvaccinated. This passes the responsibility to the employer and then to the employee, rather than socializing the consequences of individual choices. So, if your employer offers health insurance, they will probably mandate, or they will pass on much higher health premiums. In that scenario, you'd pay extra, get a shot, or be fired/quit. However, the availability of non-mandated jobs or affordable plans for unvaccinated would get extremely thin. The free choice would be yours.

 

[Fezman92]

so my dad is going to get his booster shot today.

 

[Carlos Danger]

Here is my solution to the vaccine hesitancy issue:
1. Fedgov stops paying for COVID-19 hospital costs in unvaccinated.
2. Insurance companies can charge based on vaccine status.
3. Employers are protected from liability related to vaccine mandates including against state or local government restriction.

Everyone will be vaccinated by the end of the year.

I think if you examine the situation you will find that the precedent is already very well-established but covid is the massive of exception. All I propose is that we removed the exception for covid and let the markets handle it.

Not sure what exceptions you are referring to. It isn't as if state or federal governments refuse to pay for the consequences of personal choices in any other example, or do insurance companies charge higher rates for the same.

I'm not disputing that your solution would be effective. We could probably engineer all sort of modifications to individual health choices with this approach. But it certainly would be a radical departure from current practice and related laws and regulations. So I don't know what you mean when you say "the precedent is well established but covid is a massive exception".

If you really want to "let the markets handle it" I am personally all for that, but that is a broad discussion and I guarantee that doing that for real will involve consequences that you are not at all fond of.

 

[Summit]

Not sure what exceptions you are referring to. It isn't as if state or federal governments refuse to pay for the consequences of personal choices in any other example, or do insurance companies charge higher rates for the same.

If you really want to "let the markets handle it" I am personally all for that, but that is a broad discussion and I guarantee that doing that for real will involve consequences that you are not at all fond of.

Not every market based solution requires a completely unregulated free hand with wild consequences as you seem to imply.
I believe there is room for balance between limited regulation and free market based on the situation and subject. Interventions should be targeted based on a rationale approach that balances ideology against reality. I'd wager you generally agree me with on that while we might disagree on the specifics.

 

[Bullets]

do insurance companies charge higher rates for the same.

My health insurance gives a discount for nonsmokers. I dont see why they couldnt, or shouldnt, do the same for vaccinated people

 

[ffemt8978]

My health insurance gives a discount for nonsmokers. I dont see why they couldnt, or shouldnt, do the same for vaccinated people

When was the last time an insurance company made a decision based on the best interests of anything other than their profit margin?

 

[akflightmedic]

I am unsure ANY insurance business of any type has ever acted in a way that was not directly related to their profit margin, which is why it is such a lucrative industry to be in.

I am unclear how your statement/question relates to what Bullets said. Because what he wrote indicates the insurance company has already set the precedent of a discount for non-smokers, so yes, it is a good question...maybe they also offer a discount for those who are vaccinated. Since employer provided insurance costs are borne by both the employer and employee, this would be a significant savings nationwide. And in theory, the insurance company does well due to potentially paying out less in healthcare costs for the vaccinated.

 

[Tigger]

When was the last time an insurance company made a decision based on the best interests of anything other than their profit margin?

You mean that insurance companies might like the idea of not paying for a hospital admission that is almost entirely preventable?

 

[EpiEMS]

When was the last time an insurance company made a decision based on the best interests of anything other than their profit margin?

That’s how underwriting works. Your price is reflective of risk plus a margin. This is not without precedent.

 

[Summit]

A healthcare system with a mandatory flu vaccine absolutely experiences a reduced group insurance rate.

Splitting it out? They can do that for tobacco and various other health factors.

 

[akflightmedic]

I am going today to get my booster.