Familiar readers of my daily blog posts know that I generally have embedded SOHO Forum debates over the last few years Gene Epstein, an Austrian School economist, has been the long-term moderator.
I will leave it to the interested reader to listen to the debate clipped below. The reader doesn't have to listen long to get the anti-vaxxer twist in Epstein's opening argument. Basically Epstein is defending "real" capitalism his opponent (Joe Nocera) claims failed during the pandemic. In short, Epstein is arguing the example of COVID vaccine makers is one of "crony capitalism", an unholy alliance between government, which can mandate, and politically connected businesses which cannot impose conditions on its competitors. I'm generally with Epstein on the general topic, but I don't buy this opening argument
Some context for the unknowing reader: I am not an epidemiologist or a scientist, although I did very well in high school and college science and represented my Texas high school in science. I have done and published behavioral research in information systems. In the blog I have often followed related topics like the Fukushima plant accident and the pandemic. Nearly every week over most of the pandemic I've included a weekly update, gemerally in "journal posts" on Saturday. Spoiler: I'm a pro-vaxxer. Incidentally, that is a very libertarian position, one I share with Walter Block; spreading your disease like Typhoid Mary. is a violation of the NAP.
To be blunt, trained economist Epstein is incompetent and ill-informed on the disease much like his podcaster historian buddy Tom Woods
First, Epstein argues the governmrnt took a lot of money from mRNA vaccine vendor Moderna, arguing pay to play and government employees had a corrupt vested interest to push vaccine mandates, Several things to point out here. First, Moderna used USG IP; government employeee routinely sign over their royalties to the government. They signed an agreement before Moderna even knew the virus' sequence. The government has non-exclusive agreements on its licensed IP. Moreover.the FDA has approved multiple vaccines (including the former J&J vaccine):
Not to mention that Pfizer complained that the government was paying a mere fraction of what they normally charged for vaccines. Another salient point Epstein failed to consider is except for federal employyes, the Feds don't control vaccine mandates; the states/local government enforce health security. And there is no evidence approved a vaccine contrary to prespecified criteria and safety data requirements
Second, Epstein mocks the effectiveness of the vaccines ,arguing they did little to control retransmission of disease, which he argues should have been criteria, that the benefits are temporary . This is just so misleading, absurd and incompetent it tests my patience to respond to it. First of all, not all vaccines are sterilizing. In part, not all viruses are stable. Some mutate rapidly, like COVID-19. It's not like the current vaccines, for instance, covers recently dominant JN.1 variant. Second, recall the reality of the first year without a vaccine. It became one of the leading causes of death almost overnight. Hospitals were filled to overcapacity. Much of the economy was shut down. The vaccines were designed to minimize risk of hospitalization and death The proof is in the pudding. While people are still getting sick and dying, rates are trending lower and are more manageable; patients of other diseases are getting diagnosed and treated.
There are no good data I've seen on transmission and breakthrough infections (a lot of vaccinated people haven't had a recent booster) but it stands to reason that existing antibody support would weaken transmission and infections. Of course individual differences like age and health condition have an effect
Finally, Epstein makes an old libertarian talking point about government liability protection for vaccine makers. As usual, Epstein is ill-informed.. Let me quote a relevant excerpt:
Liability for injury resulting from vaccination is a matter of state law.... No vaccine-related product liability litigation resulting in a publicly available opinion has occurred in most jurisdictions. A manufacturer who produces and sells a defective vaccine that creates a risk of significant injury to the recipient is liable to any person injured by that defect under the principles stated in section 402A of the Restatement of Torts 2d. This is thought to be the law in every American jurisdiction. A manufacturer is not liable for harm caused by a nondefective product due to its inherent or unavoidable dangerousness. Thus, if a properly manufactured vaccine will cause harmful side effects in some portion of the recipient population, the manufacturer of the vaccine is not liable for those side effects. This principle is the subject of comment k to section 402A.
