COVID VACCINE - The Megathread

Would you get the Pfizer vaccine if it were available to you?


  • Total voters
    66

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,295
1,075
113
Now that's interesting.... they aren't mandating you get the vaccine, but there are individual financial consequences for not doing so. furthermore, the cost is not arbitrary, but rather a direct result of the increased costs of the person's actions should they be hospitalized. cause and effect. I like it.

Gonna charge for women of child bearing years to go without artificial contraception? Prolly a lot more out lay for that on balance. The cost of their employees covid hospitalization liabilities have to be disproportionally lower than maternal care/delivery, given the number of those needing to be hospitalized in the first place and the number of women having children.

Whatever reasons they could have given for this, the one they did was pretty dumb.
 

PotatoMedic

Has no idea what I'm doing.
2,539
1,359
113
Gonna charge for women of child bearing years to go without artificial contraception? Prolly a lot more out lay for that on balance. The cost of their employees covid hospitalization liabilities have to be disproportionally lower than maternal care/delivery, given the number of those needing to be hospitalized in the first place and the number of women having children.

Whatever reasons they could have given for this, the one they did was pretty dumb.
Those costs are already factored in to health insurance thanks to the ACA.
 

FiremanMike

EMS Coordinator
827
423
63
I would put my 3rd shot between #1 and #2 for side effects.

DAL will charge employees an extra $200 for health insurance per month if they choose to be unvaccinated:
Did either of you have covid?

my first shot wasn’t bad, covid for me sucked for a few days, then my second shot was as bad as covid hit but only lasted about 12 hours..
 

PotatoMedic

Has no idea what I'm doing.
2,539
1,359
113
Why would covid admissions be any different?
Because pregnancy is not a disease. Yes there are healthcare costs associated with being pregnant and those have been already addressed in the cost of insurance.

COVID is showing to be quite expensive to treat and manage and is new. The costs of the disease we're not planned into the cost of insurance. There is also a very obvious difference between the cost of treating a vaccinated population vs a non-vaccinated population. (98% of the hospitalizations for covid being non vaccinated). So to be unvaccinated it is more expensive, so a 200 dollar increase in insurance costs monthly seems a fair assessment for people who chose to not be vaccinated as they are more likely to be a burden on the insurance company if they become ill.
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,295
1,075
113
Not sure what you mean by "already addressed in the cost of insurance". Different insurers have different agreements with different hospital systems. My 60 year old colleagues have a greater risk for needing coronary artery stenting than my 30 year old ones do, but the 30 year old friends are more likely (but not necessarily) to have children. And cost of the PCI dwarfs delivery of a child from positive hcg to vaginal delivery. Everyone is distributing their potential financial liability across a broad beam of subscribers and possible medical costs.

Besides, that isn't even my point. Singling out a particular patient group sets a terrible precedent and the unintentional consequences to a decision like this are troubling to me. An increase of $2400 a year to healthy patients? Because of something that not only has not happened but is unlikely to happened to them? I don't trust that, once that line had been crossed, the stage could be set for other ways to coerce behavior by powerful institutions...call me paranoid but I used to think China's "one child policy" was a far removed reality/ideology that was not relevant to me or my descendants, but this kind of mentality has me wondering....

If people aren't getting vaccinated, deal with the reasons why. That might be a difficult prospect, but the perceived simplicity of going all totalitarian on them will not go well.
 

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,597
1,014
113
Besides, that isn't even my point. Singling out a particular patient group sets a terrible precedent and the unintentional consequences to a decision like this are troubling to me. An increase of $2400 a year to healthy patients? Because of something that not only has not happened but is unlikely to happened to them? I don't trust that, once that line had been crossed, the stage could be set for other ways to coerce behavior by powerful institutions...call me paranoid but I used to think China's "one child policy" was a far removed reality/ideology that was not relevant to me or my descendants, but this kind of mentality has me wondering....

If people aren't getting vaccinated, deal with the reasons why. That might be a difficult prospect, but the perceived simplicity of going all totalitarian on them will not go well.

How does that differ from the core concept of underwriting? What’s the difference between charging folks who refuse a vaccine and those who, say, use tobacco products?

I would argue charging people for preventable risks is the opposite of totalitarian - it is an incentive. Totalitarian would be forcing people to do something, this is a nudge.
 

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,416
1,110
113
How does that differ from the core concept of underwriting? What’s the difference between charging folks who refuse a vaccine and those who, say, use tobacco products?

I would argue charging people for preventable risks is the opposite of totalitarian - it is an incentive. Totalitarian would be forcing people to do something, this is a nudge.
Seems like the difference between a nudge and totalitarian depends greatly on which end of it you're on. Dismissing people's concerns about getting vaccinated by pressuring them in a variety of ways to get the vaccine does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of why they don't want the vaccine. This method may work if the results are all that matter to you, but it often times lays the groundwork for problems down the road.
 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,709
1,727
113
Besides, that isn't even my point. Singling out a particular patient group sets a terrible precedent and the unintentional consequences to a decision like this are troubling to me. An increase of $2400 a year to healthy patients? Because of something that not only has not happened but is unlikely to happened to them? I don't trust that, once that line had been crossed, the stage could be set for other ways to coerce behavior by powerful institutions...
Insurance companies are all about risk management. we can discuss how health insurance isn't really insurance another time, but as it stands right now it's risk management. Covid is a highly contagious illness that can be expensive to treat; the vaccine lowers the risk that the insurance company will need to pay for those expensive treatments.

Smokers often have higher insurance premiums, compared to non-smokers. this isn't much different, and if anyone wants to get the lower rates, they just need to get vaccinated (which reduces the insurance company's risk). and if they don't want the shot, no biggie, no one is being forced to get the shot; but there are consequences to their actions. This happens to be one of them.

but it's not like you are being FORCED to get the vaccine; no one is holding a person down and injecting it into them against their will. I'm 100% against that, but despite what people on social media are claiming, that isn't the case here.
 

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,416
1,110
113
Apparently Japan has found some contamination in their Moderna vaccine and have suspended it's use for now.

 

DrParasite

The fire extinguisher is not just for show
5,709
1,727
113
Apparently Japan has found some contamination in their Moderna vaccine and have suspended it's use for now.

how much contamination? what type of contamination? and what was the result to the patient of the contamination? is the contamination from production, storage, or administration? how was the contamination detected?

there are 1.63 million vials; what is the "acceptable" level of contamination for production? and I don't mean just for covid stuff, for all medications? Because the reality is, the answer isn't 0; there is always an acceptable margin of error in all manufacturing. if it's 1 vial out of 1.63 million, that means 1.62 million vials are perfectly fine... is that unacceptable?

More information is needed before the anti-vaxxers use this as justification not to get any vaccines.
 

ffemt8978

Forum Vice-Principal
Community Leader
10,416
1,110
113
how much contamination? what type of contamination? and what was the result to the patient of the contamination? is the contamination from production, storage, or administration? how was the contamination detected?

there are 1.63 million vials; what is the "acceptable" level of contamination for production? and I don't mean just for covid stuff, for all medications? Because the reality is, the answer isn't 0; there is always an acceptable margin of error in all manufacturing. if it's 1 vial out of 1.63 million, that means 1.62 million vials are perfectly fine... is that unacceptable?

More information is needed before the anti-vaxxers use this as justification not to get any vaccines.
Agreed, but Japan has not answered those questions yet.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,534
1,101
113
Seems like the difference between a nudge and totalitarian depends greatly on which end of it you're on. Dismissing people's concerns about quitting smoking by pressuring them in a variety of ways to quit smoking does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of why they don't want to quit smoking. This method may work if the results are all that matter to you, but it often times lays the groundwork for problems down the road.
You could describe it as above too, but really this is more about "OK if you don't want to, you don't have to, but don't ask everyone else to pay for the risks you needlessly but voluntarily accept."

Remember there are other negatives for the employer as smokers need smoke breaks, may smell bad to customers and colleagues, be out sick, have higher health costs etc.

So too with unvaccinated, they may be out sick, have higher healthcare costs, and get other customers and colleagues sick.

Many employers offer discounts on health rates if you get checkups, have blood pressure or BMI in the right ranges, because people who do those things head off problems earlier and utilize less healthcare in the long run.

Employers incentivizing preventative care and health promotion shouldn't be construable as totalitarian!

It's going to be necessary to incentivize in the face of our new social media informed world with severe malactor amplified misinformation from parties with foreign divisive motivations, domestic profit motivations, tribal identarian ideologies, or pure unadulterated attention whoring. What is a business owner, insurance company, or health promotion leader to do?
 
Last edited:

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,597
1,014
113
Seems like the difference between a nudge and totalitarian depends greatly on which end of it you're on. Dismissing people's concerns about getting vaccinated by pressuring them in a variety of ways to get the vaccine does nothing to resolve the underlying issue of why they don't want the vaccine. This method may work if the results are all that matter to you, but it often times lays the groundwork for problems down the road.

I hardly count a financial penalty as totalitarian - particularly when there is a free vaccine available. We’re not talking about jail time or being unable to work or even a life changing financial penalty.

While I prefer a carrot approach to a stick approach from an ethical perspective, imposing a cost is also fully valid, particularly given that there is a social cost being imposed by those who refuse to get vaccinated.
 

EpiEMS

Forum Deputy Chief
3,597
1,014
113
there are 1.63 million vials; what is the "acceptable" level of contamination for production? and I don't mean just for covid stuff, for all medications? Because the reality is, the answer isn't 0; there is always an acceptable margin of error in all manufacturing. if it's 1 vial out of 1.63 million, that means 1.62 million vials are perfectly fine... is that unacceptable?

Could even be argued that, like with crime, there is an optimal level of error (from a marginal cost perspective).
 

mgr22

Forum Deputy Chief
1,401
593
113
Here's my dictionary's definition of "totalitarian": "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life..." From my perspective in rural Tennessee, we're pretty far from totalitarian, even with vaccine mandates.

Even if those mandates are more than a nudge, that doesn't put them at the opposite extreme.
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,295
1,075
113
Smokers often have higher insurance premiums, compared to non-smokers. this isn't much different, and if anyone wants to get the lower rates, they just need to get vaccinated (which reduces the insurance company's risk). and if they don't want the shot, no biggie, no one is being forced to get the shot; but there are consequences to their actions. This happens to be one of them.
You're describing pre-existing conditions/habits...things that exist. Coercing an action to be taken by healthy people is not that.
You could describe it as above too, but really this is more about "OK if you don't want to, you don't have to, but don't ask everyone else to pay for the risks you needlessly but voluntarily accept."
There is no end to the possible iterations of this thinking. For example, genetic testing is developed to indicate some type of devastating disease in your children. You decide to have children. Are you on the hook for every possible contingency now? As far as C 19 goes,
the odds of hospitalization let alone critical illness are low per infection.
Remember there are other negatives for the employer as smokers need smoke breaks, may smell bad to customers and colleagues, be out sick, have higher health costs etc.

So too with unvaccinated, they may be out sick, have higher healthcare costs, and get other customers and colleagues sick.

Many employers offer discounts on health rates if you get checkups, have blood pressure or BMI in the right ranges, because people who do those things head off problems earlier and utilize less healthcare in the long run.

Employers incentivizing preventative care and health promotion shouldn't be construable as totalitarian!

It's going to be necessary to incentivize in the face of our new social media informed world with severe malactor amplified misinformation from parties with foreign divisive motivations, domestic profit motivations, tribal identarian ideologies, or pure unadulterated attention whoring. What is a business owner, insurance company, or health promotion leader to do?

So you're making my argument for me. Why don't they incentivize it instead of using heavy handed, yes, totalitarian tactics?
 

E tank

Caution: Paralyzing Agent
1,295
1,075
113
Here's my dictionary's definition of "totalitarian": "Of, relating to, being, or imposing a form of government in which the political authority exercises absolute and centralized control over all aspects of life..." From my perspective in rural Tennessee, we're pretty far from totalitarian, even with vaccine mandates.

Even if those mandates are more than a nudge, that doesn't put them at the opposite extreme.
I'm totalitarian with my kids sometimes...doesn't make me Joseph Stalin.
 

Summit

Critical Crazy
2,534
1,101
113
I don't grant that extra fees from an employer for unvaccinated health premium sharing, or if you wish to recast them properly, discounts for the vaccinated, is anything like totalitarianism. That is incentivization.

I also do not grant that mandates are totalitarian by definition. They may be classifiable as medically paternalistic but ethically so. The counterargument when it comes to communicable diseases is the decision of those beholden to misinformation to impose risks on society and decide for a society whether a disease will be a larger threat than it must be, or even whether a disease must exist vs be eradicated.
 

Top