No, I'm not ranting against COVID-19 vaccine makers and the like; it's more about the creeping anti-vaxxer rubbish, even aggression I'm seeing, even by sports announcers appearing on FNC. (I watch on a limited basis now, not including its opinion prime time lineup which I find toxic. I had been watching CNN on a comparable basis until it started running pro-abort spots.)
To less familiar readers, I publish a weekly journal post segment recapping key pandemic statistics, including vaccine statistics and variant cross-breaks. In part, the scheduling is based on weekly CDC updates on vaccine data; I'll normally publish during the extended weekend.
Because I'm in an at risk category, I've actively sought my vaccines and boosters (until today, all Pfizer). I remember waiting forever on my county wait list until a past health provider sent an email I was eligible to apply for any available time slot at various local sites. Long story short, the nearest available slot as a good couple of counties away and a good hour's drive in the Baltimore area. By the time booster shots came around. my local Walmart pharmacy was booking appointments. Technically they'll do drop-in's but you can go through a lot of paperwork online while booking the appointment.
I had been tracking the new bivalent vaccines, which is a fusion of sorta of the original COVID-19 strain underlying the original vaccines and boosters and against newer (BA.4 and BA.5) omicron variants. What wasn't clear to me in posts around the recent rollout by Pfizer and Moderna post-approval was whether I was eligible and when; my second booster was 5 months back, and there were prior 6 month intervals. In recent posts, I had found sources saying FDA/CDC knew bivalent vaccines were under development and never intended for at risk groups to be excluded from their extended protection. The short answer was you needed to be fully vaxxed (the first 2-shot mRNA regimen) and at least 2 months since your last vaccine or booster shot--so in my case, yes. The remaining issue is whether the new boosters were in stock locally. I included a couple of links (Walmart and the federal government) in last weekend's post. I found my local Walmart pharmacy (for the last 5 years) showed no available slots: what did that mean? Were they booked solid, or was the bivalent vaccine not in stock yet? The government portal uncovered an even closer Walgreen's with the vaccine seemingly in inventory. My only hesitation was the paperwork in setting up a new pharmacy account. I didn't want to deal with my providers getting confused over pharmacies.Walmart has good prices on common generics.
So I had already told my RN sister, who got hers Monday, I would do it over the coming week when all of a sudden I got a text from the MD Dept. of Health (I guess they got my contact information from when I was on the county waiting list, and I think the vaccine providers also report to them) reminding me boosters were available and I would be risking protection if I didn't get a booster by the close of nest month. I took the opportunity to check the Walmart site and found slots available that afternoon. The only thing was it had the Moderna, not the Pfizer bivalent in stock. I already knew FDA/CDC had given a thumbs up on mix/matching vaccines and boosters. My sister originally had a "one and done" J&J and later got a Moderna booster.
So I did it this past afternoon, in addition to my annual flu shot. No big reaction so far, hours later. Maybe a bit of a headache and/or sore arm.
There are multiple talking points that annoy me to no end:
(Libertarians raise this one off first principles, noting that Pfizer and Moderna have profited enormously from a de facto duopoly in the government-funded/approved market.) Let me be clear: I would be getting the vaccines or boosters, even if the government or my insurance company didn't cover a penny, assuming a reasonable price (the government reportedly pays up to $50 or so for Pfizer's 2-shot regimen). I know Pfizer has griped it normally charges like $150 for one of its vaccines. Let's be clear: the proof is in the pudding. Infection/hospitalization/death rates are much lower in the vaccinated groups. Nearly two-thirds of Americans are vaccinated; One of the problems we have is standard data collection across on breakthrough cases (i.e., among the vaccinated). But the data repeatedly bear out the differences in counts, hospitalizations and deaths. Consider the following MN data:
Now of course the anti-vaxxers are going to point at weaker differences for infections and fairly low serious health issues among younger people. I get annoyed at these talking points. Unvaccinated younger adults get infected far higher over vaccinated groups, including older ones. They can spread the disease to more vulnerable groups. There is evidence that duration of shedding virus, infection is lower among vaccinated people.
I have 6 younger siblings, 21 nephews and nieces, and a growing number of grandnephews/nieces. I don't get status reports from my siblings, but 2 of my grandnephews (1, 7 yo, different families) caught it as well as at least 4 separate nephews and nieces. My oldest niece's in-laws, both unvaxxed, both died. I don't think you can draw conclusions from anecdotal incidents. but when libertarian historian Tom Woods ridicules vaccination among the young, I'll push back. (He responded by expunging me from his mail list. Not the first time I've encountered the thin-skinned creep.).
But anti-vaxxers won't remind you of the earlier days of the pandemic when hospitals were getting flooded with patients beyond capacity, when infected patients were getting placed in vulnerable nursing homes, when regular preventive health checks were deferred. How many cancer, diabetic patients went undiagnosed when early treatment is critical? And we aren't even talking about millions of Americans thrown out of work as "nonessential" workers, businesses. So, no, we didn't get to herd immunity given the voluntary nature of vaccinations (I'm not talking about nuances like some businesses enforcing vaccine mandates, some shops opening to people with vaccine cards, foreign visitors required to show vaccination, etc.)
The point is that vaccinations have transformed where we were in 2020. We are back to near record low unemployment numbers, even reaching pre-pandemic highs. Masking is largely optional outside of healthcare facilities. I've been able to resume regularly scheduled healthcare appointments. We are back to in-person classes at schools. And this is DESPITE the emergence of much more contagious COVID-19 variants, like Delta and Omicron, which were not targeted by the original mRNA vaccines. When you look at a near return of normalcy, a reversal of shutdown policies, we are talking about a modest cost of hundreds of millions to benefits in the hundreds of billions, even trillions. So the charges of crony capitalism are overplayed. I do think the vaccines should have been released earlier, and mutual recognition of approved vaccines globally would have improved more competitive.
A second, related talking point is the vaccines aren't "effective". I can say, look at the Minnesota data above and extrapolate the unvaccinated number to the general population; the hospitalization and death costs would have been catastrophic, including spillover effects of people with other serious health issues unable to get timely treatment..
The anti-vaxxers are confounding the idea of effectiveness with sterilizing immunity. The latter stops an infection in its tracks; most vaccines don't for a variety of technical issues, including a rapidly evolving virus like COVID-19. So most vaccines are aimed at stopping DISEASE vs. INFECTION. For example. a 2006 vaccine against rotavirus has reduced hospitalization for severe diarrhea in infants by some 90%. That's why we've been focused on comparable hospitalizations and deaths.
The anti-vaxxers want to emphasize the fact that vaccines did not seem to stop breakthrough infections in Delta and omicron. They also want to argue that natural immunity from a COVID-19 infection is "superior". A few points here: (1) both natural and acquired (by vaccine) immunity tends to erode over time, particularly for at risk groups like the elderly; (2) CDC data shows natural infection, plus vaccine, is better than natural infection alone at stopping the disease. I suspect a number of fully vaccinated may have not been boosted recently.
Finally, the anti-vaxxers are playing the victim card for those who decided to quit public service rather than get vaccinated, demanding reinstatement and backpay. They've also promoted anti-vaxer entertainers like Novak Djokovic as "heroic". Let me make myself clear. I am in the libertatian side that goes beyond the fact I own my body and have the right to decide what happens to it, including restrictions on my right to travel. I see the propagation of disease as a violation of the non-aggression principle. Walter Block is in this camp, although he tends to be more nuanced that this excerpt might suggest.
A while ago (11/30/12), Bob Brenton in a letter asked me about compulsory vaccinations, and what I thought the libertarian position on them should be. My thought immediately went to Typhoid Mary an asymptomatic carrier of this dread disease. She was not a criminal, even though she spread typhoid to others. She lacked mens rea or a guilty conscience. She didn't even realize she was doing so; she didn't think she even had the disease since she was asymptomatic. But, she had to be stopped, by compulsion if necessary, because she was infecting innocent people. So when asked for my view on compulsory vaccinations against diseases of this sort, my answer was in the positive: they were justified.I did oppose on constitutional grounds Biden's attempt to impose vaccine mandates on large private employers, which SCOTUS later set aside.
But in terms of military personnel and civil service, I thought that Biden had a right to enforce workplace safety. I was a military brat and a veteran myself. The military has the concept of "fitness for duty". The military requires, especially for foreign assignments, lists of required vaccinations. COVID-19 is a natural extension of this concept. In the notorious case of the USS Theodore Roosevelt early in the pandemic: "As of 5 May, 1,156 crew members have tested positive. The Navy stopped publicly reporting tallies of new coronavirus cases on USS Theodore Roosevelt. "As of 14 May, 2,900 sailors have returned to the ship." Testing was constrained, and the need to quarantine caused a logistics problem. Not to mention whatever the ship's mission was had been interrupted. This kind of incident seriously impairs the ability to respond to defense contingencies.
A 2-shot vaccine regimen is a modest intrusion in military or civilian life. Few people have health issues tolerating vaccines, and policy dealt with these exceptions. Asking the American taxpayer to pay the high costs of chronic disease because an employee opted out of a vaccine for personal risk impacted the health of one's colleagues and their families. In a country where two-thirds have voluntarily fully vaccinated, deciding to chose one's preference over his livelihood is not "heroic" but indulgent. Wanting reinstatement and back pay is unfair to the people who played by the rules and had to cover in his absence.
I've been more tolerant of the Djokovic incident, but his issue has more to do with foreign traveler policy from the State Department. He made a decision. There could be any number of personal reasons not to compete: a nagging injury; a family special occasion; etc. Just because he made a judgment not to vaccinate over playing a Grand Slam event doesn't make him a "hero", but prioritizing his convenience over his own health, his family's health, and that of his opponents shows poor judgment.
