If you’re going to tell people they need to be vaccinated in order to leave their house, it seems to me like that’s strictly worse than outright mandating vaccinations.
I notice I am confused by this viewpoint.
It seems to me that the Upper Austria route, as you describe it, is giving people more choice. They can either be vaccinated or they can stay home. An outright mandate gives people less choice: their only option is to be vaccinated. I am unsure why this approach is “strictly worse”.
Now, it may in practice be worse, depending on things like ease of distinguishing noncompliance, and on the relative effectiveness each intervention (and, of course, depending on what ‘worse’ means from your perspective). But if, say, we were taking a public health lens, and thinking about people’s chances of catching and then spreading the disease, and if ‘staying home’ and ‘being vaccinated’ dropped your probability of doing those things to similar low levels, then the option with more individual choice does not seem obviously worse.
Part of it is Choices are bad, especially false ones. You’re making people pretend you’re not forcing them to do it, which makes them feel bad about choosing to do it and agonize about the ‘decisions’ being made and what’s been lost.
Part of it is legitimate vs. illegitimate authority, and clarity of what is going on. You’re not taking ownership and responsibility, and you’re gaslighting everyone about what’s going on, and also you’re telling everyone implicitly that you lack the power to demand vaccinations (else why not demand them?) but you’re turning around and demanding them anyway by other convoluted means.
E.g. if you want to draft all the people into the army (e.g. you’re like Switzerland and need everyone to be ready to fight at all times), actually doing a draft means you’re kidnapping and enslaving them and forcing them to fight, but at least you’re owning that you’re doing that. If you make it impossible for those without military service to hold a job or go outside, you’re gaslighting those people and it’s not like you’re not kidnapping and enslaving them and forcing them to fight—only a very small portion of people can afford to accept those consequences.
I watched an interview of Austrians who are not dosed and stuck at home. One of the things it mentioned is that if the government forces you to get an injection, it would be responsible for any bad outcomes as a result. But since they are just putting you on house arrest, it’s still the citizen’s choice to get vaccinated and therefore the responsibility is shifted to them. If I believed the vaccines were likely to cause substantial harm this would look like a way for the government to mandate dangerous vaccines without actually doing it. So the increased choice is a net negative in that sense.
But since I don’t believe that, my main concern is that the not-technically-a-mandate-but-pretty-much-a-mandate policy will trade a lot of Austria’s public trust and social cohesion for the public health benefit. Knowing nothing about Austria in particular, and since predicting the future is hard, I refrain from passing any judgment on whether or not it will be a good trade. But hopefully the Austrian bureaucracy did its due diligence.
I’m quite certain that not getting vaccinated would result in a civil penalty (such as a fine) rather than a criminal one (prison) so practically people still have a choice (get vaccinated or pay a fine)
I notice I am confused by this viewpoint.
It seems to me that the Upper Austria route, as you describe it, is giving people more choice. They can either be vaccinated or they can stay home. An outright mandate gives people less choice: their only option is to be vaccinated. I am unsure why this approach is “strictly worse”.
Now, it may in practice be worse, depending on things like ease of distinguishing noncompliance, and on the relative effectiveness each intervention (and, of course, depending on what ‘worse’ means from your perspective). But if, say, we were taking a public health lens, and thinking about people’s chances of catching and then spreading the disease, and if ‘staying home’ and ‘being vaccinated’ dropped your probability of doing those things to similar low levels, then the option with more individual choice does not seem obviously worse.
Part of it is Choices are bad, especially false ones. You’re making people pretend you’re not forcing them to do it, which makes them feel bad about choosing to do it and agonize about the ‘decisions’ being made and what’s been lost.
Part of it is legitimate vs. illegitimate authority, and clarity of what is going on. You’re not taking ownership and responsibility, and you’re gaslighting everyone about what’s going on, and also you’re telling everyone implicitly that you lack the power to demand vaccinations (else why not demand them?) but you’re turning around and demanding them anyway by other convoluted means.
E.g. if you want to draft all the people into the army (e.g. you’re like Switzerland and need everyone to be ready to fight at all times), actually doing a draft means you’re kidnapping and enslaving them and forcing them to fight, but at least you’re owning that you’re doing that. If you make it impossible for those without military service to hold a job or go outside, you’re gaslighting those people and it’s not like you’re not kidnapping and enslaving them and forcing them to fight—only a very small portion of people can afford to accept those consequences.
I love this explanation. Thank you!!! Also, now that you’re back in NYC we should get lunch sometime.
Anyway, Austria must be reading your stuff—they’re doing a straight up mandate starting February 1
https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/19/world/europe/covid-austria-lockdown.html
On the other hand, those lockdowns may only last until the cases start going down again, but you can’t get unvaccinated.
I watched an interview of Austrians who are not dosed and stuck at home. One of the things it mentioned is that if the government forces you to get an injection, it would be responsible for any bad outcomes as a result. But since they are just putting you on house arrest, it’s still the citizen’s choice to get vaccinated and therefore the responsibility is shifted to them. If I believed the vaccines were likely to cause substantial harm this would look like a way for the government to mandate dangerous vaccines without actually doing it. So the increased choice is a net negative in that sense. But since I don’t believe that, my main concern is that the not-technically-a-mandate-but-pretty-much-a-mandate policy will trade a lot of Austria’s public trust and social cohesion for the public health benefit. Knowing nothing about Austria in particular, and since predicting the future is hard, I refrain from passing any judgment on whether or not it will be a good trade. But hopefully the Austrian bureaucracy did its due diligence.
I’m quite certain that not getting vaccinated would result in a civil penalty (such as a fine) rather than a criminal one (prison) so practically people still have a choice (get vaccinated or pay a fine)