Vaccine Mandates for faculty, staff, and students?

[Caracal]

and don't want to get an unnecessary vaccine.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The protection given by prior infection and the protection given by natural immunity is additive and complementary. Natural immunity is pretty good, but people who were infected still appear to get substantial benefit from the vaccines. There's actually some evidence that people who were infected first and then vaccinated might have extremely broad and long lasting protection. So, there's every reason to think that vaccinated people who have been previously infected are less likely to spread covid than non vaccinated people who were previously infected.

The other faulty assumption imbedded in "unnecessary" is that vaccines are risky and therefore there's some case for avoiding them if you have some prior protection. The vaccines are all incredibly safe and the rates of dangerous side effects are extremely low. By any reasonable calculation, there isn't a downside to getting vaccinated, so there's no reason to have some exception for the previously infected.

[Stockmann]

Mandates also get rid of libertarians.

For the record, I would say that applying a mandate to students enrolled 100% online and not in dorms, etc, or people working 100% remotely is overreach. But if you want to set foot on campus, then a mandate is reasonable and at this point it is negligent not to have one.
About libertarians, while I suppose it's true, American libertarians have long proved in practice ineffectual. The War on Drugs, the drinking age of 21, the Patriot Act*, TSA searches, HOAs, cancel culture and wokeism, the Texas abortion law, etc - there's been a decades-long trend of increasing curtailing of personal freedoms in the US, with left and right disagreeing on which freedoms to curtail but both have been part of the trend (and some of these restrictions had broad bipartisan support).

*Of course, Covid has killed far more Americans than all terrorist attacks on American soil put together.

[Hibush]

Since the enormous social benefits of the polio and smallpox vaccines were realized, vaccination has really been a condition of participating in society. Most people have been part of that social contract their entire lives.

[downer]

and don't want to get an unnecessary vaccine.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The protection given by prior infection and the protection given by natural immunity is additive and complementary. Natural immunity is pretty good, but people who were infected still appear to get substantial benefit from the vaccines. There's actually some evidence that people who were infected first and then vaccinated might have extremely broad and long lasting protection. So, there's every reason to think that vaccinated people who have been previously infected are less likely to spread covid than non vaccinated people who were previously infected.

The other faulty assumption imbedded in "unnecessary" is that vaccines are risky and therefore there's some case for avoiding them if you have some prior protection. The vaccines are all incredibly safe and the rates of dangerous side effects are extremely low. By any reasonable calculation, there isn't a downside to getting vaccinated, so there's no reason to have some exception for the previously infected.

What level of protection is the state or an employer justified in mandating? Is there a justification for mandating boosters? For everyone, not just the most vulnerable?

I'd agree that the state is justified in mandating a basic level of protection, to avoid hospitals being overloaded, and prevent a major health crisis. But it is necessary to require that everyone has maximum possible levels of immunity? No.

People who have had COVID and have recovered (mostly) have a basic level of immunity at least. It would probably good for everyone if they got vaccinated. But should they lose their jobs if they refuse? I haven't seen a good argument for that.

[jimbogumbo]

and don't want to get an unnecessary vaccine.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The protection given by prior infection and the protection given by natural immunity is additive and complementary. Natural immunity is pretty good, but people who were infected still appear to get substantial benefit from the vaccines. There's actually some evidence that people who were infected first and then vaccinated might have extremely broad and long lasting protection. So, there's every reason to think that vaccinated people who have been previously infected are less likely to spread covid than non vaccinated people who were previously infected.

The other faulty assumption imbedded in "unnecessary" is that vaccines are risky and therefore there's some case for avoiding them if you have some prior protection. The vaccines are all incredibly safe and the rates of dangerous side effects are extremely low. By any reasonable calculation, there isn't a downside to getting vaccinated, so there's no reason to have some exception for the previously infected.

What level of protection is the state or an employer justified in mandating? Is there a justification for mandating boosters? For everyone, not just the most vulnerable?

I'd agree that the state is justified in mandating a basic level of protection, to avoid hospitals being overloaded, and prevent a major health crisis. But it is necessary to require that everyone has maximum possible levels of immunity? No.

People who have had COVID and have recovered (mostly) have a basic level of immunity at least. It would probably good for everyone if they got vaccinated. But should they lose their jobs if they refuse? I haven't seen a good argument for that.

In principle I agree, but I haven't seen any evidence of a good way to determine if an individual has  natural immunity. Tons of people say they have Covid, and for many I am, shall we say, highly dubious of their claims.

In the essay by Collins you linked to earlier he was quite blunt in stating that the mRNA vaccines provided much better protection against variants. That moves me way more toward the requirement regardless of a person's acquired immunity.

[Caracal]

and don't want to get an unnecessary vaccine.

There's a fundamental misunderstanding here. The protection given by prior infection and the protection given by natural immunity is additive and complementary. Natural immunity is pretty good, but people who were infected still appear to get substantial benefit from the vaccines. There's actually some evidence that people who were infected first and then vaccinated might have extremely broad and long lasting protection. So, there's every reason to think that vaccinated people who have been previously infected are less likely to spread covid than non vaccinated people who were previously infected.

The other faulty assumption imbedded in "unnecessary" is that vaccines are risky and therefore there's some case for avoiding them if you have some prior protection. The vaccines are all incredibly safe and the rates of dangerous side effects are extremely low. By any reasonable calculation, there isn't a downside to getting vaccinated, so there's no reason to have some exception for the previously infected.

What level of protection is the state or an employer justified in mandating? Is there a justification for mandating boosters? For everyone, not just the most vulnerable?

I'd agree that the state is justified in mandating a basic level of protection, to avoid hospitals being overloaded, and prevent a major health crisis. But it is necessary to require that everyone has maximum possible levels of immunity? No.

People who have had COVID and have recovered (mostly) have a basic level of immunity at least. It would probably good for everyone if they got vaccinated. But should they lose their jobs if they refuse? I haven't seen a good argument for that.

Well, right now, boosters aren't being recommended for everyone, so obviously it doesn't make sense to mandate them. There are still a lot of questions about the benefits of boosters and the timing. However, if it becomes clear that some particular schedule of booster shots will make it less likely for people to get and spread covid, it would be quite reasonable for them to be required in many contexts. This already happens for medical professionals with flu shots.

You are proposing a standard that doesn't exist for other vaccinations. People who get measles have some natural immunity but you can't send a kid to school without their measles vaccine because they already had measles. It wouldn't be a workable system.

[Puget]

97% vaccinated campus, no positive test for the last 8 days. I'll say it again: vaccine mandates work.

[Hibush]

97% vaccinated campus, no positive test for the last 8 days. I'll say it again: vaccine mandates work.

Congratulations!  We're running the same vacc rate and are masking indoors, but still getting several positives a day. That's from testing over 10,000 people a week.  I hope we see the positives drop like yours did.

[Caracal]

97% vaccinated campus, no positive test for the last 8 days. I'll say it again: vaccine mandates work.

Congratulations!  We're running the same vacc rate and are masking indoors, but still getting several positives a day. That's from testing over 10,000 people a week.  I hope we see the positives drop like yours did.

I assume you have a pretty large campus, so I'm not sure that's such a bad rate. I assume a lot of those positives are asymptomatic?

[Puget]

97% vaccinated campus, no positive test for the last 8 days. I'll say it again: vaccine mandates work.

Congratulations!  We're running the same vacc rate and are masking indoors, but still getting several positives a day. That's from testing over 10,000 people a week.  I hope we see the positives drop like yours did.

I assume you have a pretty large campus, so I'm not sure that's such a bad rate. I assume a lot of those positives are asymptomatic?

We're testing around 5500 people a week (most of them twice), so not as large as Hibush's campus. We've had 5 total positive tests in the last month, but it was a bit higher before then, though still in the single digits each week. The surrounding community is also pretty highly vaccinated (about 80%) so I'm sure that makes a big difference too. Its clear that although the vaccines aren't perfect, if you have no big pockets of unvaccinated people spread is minimal-- that is, you'll get a few breakthrough infections (many asymptomatic) but very little onward transmission.

[downer]

You are proposing a standard that doesn't exist for other vaccinations. People who get measles have some natural immunity but you can't send a kid to school without their measles vaccine because they already had measles. It wouldn't be a workable system.

That's a fair point. There is no very reliable test for COVID immunity. It also doesn't seem to be a priority of research.

The MMR vaccine has been used since the 1960s, so there's good research on its safety. But there is a test for MMR immunity, the MMR titer, so it is possible to test for immunity. Presumably it isn't allowed as an exemption in the US because of the safety of the MMR vaccine and there's very little call for it since it is now rare for kids to have measles or mumps. I had measles and mumps as a kid and then when I went to grad school I was meant to have a vaccination, but I was given a medical exemption because I'd had measles before. They didn't do a test: they just took my word for it.

If there were a reliable COVID immunity test it would be easy to argue that it should be used to give a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate. There is testing for COVID antibodies. It is more complicated to say who should have the burden of proof for immunity or lack of immunity, if someone can show they have COVID antibodies. But I'd favor a medical exemption for the vaccine mandate in that case.

[Caracal]

If there were a reliable COVID immunity test it would be easy to argue that it should be used to give a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate. There is testing for COVID antibodies. It is more complicated to say who should have the burden of proof for immunity or lack of immunity, if someone can show they have COVID antibodies. But I'd favor a medical exemption for the vaccine mandate in that case.

I think that would only make sense if vaccines weren't being recommended for people who have previously been infected. This is what the CDC says:
"Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
Vaccination helps protect you even if you've already had COVID-19.
Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again."

So, I can't see how a medical exemption would be justified.

[downer]

If there were a reliable COVID immunity test it would be easy to argue that it should be used to give a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate. There is testing for COVID antibodies. It is more complicated to say who should have the burden of proof for immunity or lack of immunity, if someone can show they have COVID antibodies. But I'd favor a medical exemption for the vaccine mandate in that case.

I think that would only make sense if vaccines weren't being recommended for people who have previously been infected. This is what the CDC says:
"Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
Vaccination helps protect you even if you've already had COVID-19.
Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again."

So, I can't see how a medical exemption would be justified.

You are right about that  -- if you assume the CDC always makes the best recommendations. As I've indicated, I have my doubts.

[Caracal]

If there were a reliable COVID immunity test it would be easy to argue that it should be used to give a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate. There is testing for COVID antibodies. It is more complicated to say who should have the burden of proof for immunity or lack of immunity, if someone can show they have COVID antibodies. But I'd favor a medical exemption for the vaccine mandate in that case.

I think that would only make sense if vaccines weren't being recommended for people who have previously been infected. This is what the CDC says:
"Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
Vaccination helps protect you even if you've already had COVID-19.
Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again."

So, I can't see how a medical exemption would be justified.

You are right about that  -- if you assume the CDC always makes the best recommendations. As I've indicated, I have my doubts.

Its obviously something where more evidence will come in over time and I'm obviously not an expert, but my impression is that this isn't a controversial assessment. I would think that to justify an exemption there would, at a minimum, need to be evidence that prior infection conferred similar protection against infection as the vaccines. Right now, the evidence doesn't seem to be point that way. In fact, it seems to argue that vaccinating the already infected might give them very strong protection. Given that, it seems like it would be good public policy to encourage those people to get vaccinated.

[downer]

If there were a reliable COVID immunity test it would be easy to argue that it should be used to give a medical exemption for the COVID vaccine mandate. There is testing for COVID antibodies. It is more complicated to say who should have the burden of proof for immunity or lack of immunity, if someone can show they have COVID antibodies. But I'd favor a medical exemption for the vaccine mandate in that case.

I think that would only make sense if vaccines weren't being recommended for people who have previously been infected. This is what the CDC says:
"Yes, you should be vaccinated regardless of whether you already had COVID-19 because:
Research has not yet shown how long you are protected from getting COVID-19 again after you recover from COVID-19.
Vaccination helps protect you even if you've already had COVID-19.
Evidence is emerging that people get better protection by being fully vaccinated compared with having had COVID-19. One study showed that unvaccinated people who already had COVID-19 are more than 2 times as likely than fully vaccinated people to get COVID-19 again."

So, I can't see how a medical exemption would be justified.

You are right about that  -- if you assume the CDC always makes the best recommendations. As I've indicated, I have my doubts.

Its obviously something where more evidence will come in over time and I'm obviously not an expert, but my impression is that this isn't a controversial assessment. I would think that to justify an exemption there would, at a minimum, need to be evidence that prior infection conferred similar protection against infection as the vaccines. Right now, the evidence doesn't seem to be point that way. In fact, it seems to argue that vaccinating the already infected might give them very strong protection. Given that, it seems like it would be good public policy to encourage those people to get vaccinated.

I'm not an expert in the science either. I agree that it seems like good advice to get a vaccine, even for those who have previously had COVID. But the bar of need has to be much higher for a government to be entitled to impose a mandate. As seems to be established, employers in the US can require any vaccines they want for employees, though I wonder if some lawsuits might have legs given the significant shift to the right of the judiciary. And of course, not in states where they have been forbidden from doing so by order of the governor or by new state laws.

Now that the FDA has approved the Moderna and Pfizer boosters, when will they be mandated by some states or employers?