Pay people to get a covid vaccine?

[Lanny]

I am elderly (over 70, the most dangerous group for getting COVID-19) and if the MODERNA vaccine is eventually available here in Colombia, they won't need to pay me...   Why the MODERNA vaccine? Because I read many months ago that the initial results were surprisingly good, not just in younger adults, but also in the elderly, who are thousands of times more susceptible to getting COVID-19.  Also, because I have not read about any glitches in the testing, as I have with 2 or 3 of the other candidates.  Possibly the MODERNA vaccine also had issues and I didn't see the articles, which is another possibility.  

This blurb on the web site of the largest newspaper in the city of Cali this morning is in Spanish. It says they will initially give the vaccine to the elderly people. I don't pay so I don't have access to the full article:   

https://www.elpais.com.co/contenido-premium/adultos-mayores-serian-prioridad-en-aplicacion-de-vacuna-contra-covid-19.html

[Pam in CT]

rights vs obligations vs voluntary incentives

12 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

Except none of us have a right to a disease free anything. We may really want it, and it may be a really good and desirable thing, but we don't have a right to it.

 

12 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

We have a right to life. I would argue that filling schools with disease interferes with it. 

 

12 hours ago, Momto6inIN said:

I don't think the right to life means I have a right to a life free from exposure to disease or risk. You can feel free to disagree, of course 😁 but IMO that's not really a reasonable expectation to have of a government and thus probably not what the Constitution means.

Right -- clearly the Constitution does not specify that we have EITHER a right to life (see: capital punishment) OR a right to be free from disease or risk (which: how?).  So "rights" is probably not the right lens for this question.

 

I've been thinking a lot over the last few years about how language of "obligation" and "duty" has seemed to fade from public discourse. I grew up with a strong dose of "obligation" -- not just within marriage and nuclear and extended family, but also to local community and to nation.  That being a member of society is not merely a matter of the "rights" we have, but also of the incumbent "obligations" we have to our neighbors and fellow citizens. But that language seems to me to have receded.

The Bill of Rights obviously only emphasizes the rights side, thus the title. But that does not mean there is no other side. That divergence has really come clear on the great social divide on masking.

 

The idea of nudging incentives, like the Target gift cards and those described in the OP, is to figure out voluntary (that is: not mandated) mechanisms that leave people a choice, but nudge us in the direction of obligation.

[Bootsie]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

rights vs obligations vs voluntary incentives

 

 

Right -- clearly the Constitution does not specify that we have EITHER a right to life (see: capital punishment) OR a right to be free from disease or risk (which: how?).  So "rights" is probably not the right lens for this question.

 

I've been thinking a lot over the last few years about how language of "obligation" and "duty" has seemed to fade from public discourse. I grew up with a strong dose of "obligation" -- not just within marriage and nuclear and extended family, but also to local community and to nation.  That being a member of society is not merely a matter of the "rights" we have, but also of the incumbent "obligations" we have to our neighbors and fellow citizens. But that language seems to me to have receded.

The Bill of Rights obviously only emphasizes the rights side, thus the title. But that does not mean there is no other side. That divergence has really come clear on the great social divide on masking.

 

The idea of nudging incentives, like the Target gift cards and those described in the OP, is to figure out voluntary (that is: not mandated) mechanisms that leave people a choice, but nudge us in the direction of obligation.

Thinking about issues through a lens of "rights" versus a lens of "duty" was highlighted for me a few years ago as I talked to someone who was not from the US.  Much of the discourse in the US regarding marriage has been about "rights" of individuals;.  During a conversation that centered on the rights of individuals to marry who they would like and the government's role to protect their rights for equal access to workplace benefits, etc. someone asked the question why the government should be in the marriage business as all.   My friend immediately had an answer regarding the governments interest in marriage because it was a commitment to an obligation to take care of a person rather than having that obligation fall onto the government.  He immediately went to the obligations that someone was taking on when marrying not that rights of people to marry.  

I agree that incentives can be used to nudge people to particular behavior.  But, I have a problem with thinking of it as nudging them in the direction of obligation.  Who determines what the obligation is?  I am not comfortable with a government deciding what my obligations are and then incentivizing me to fulfill those. 

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

rights vs obligations vs voluntary incentives

 

 

Right -- clearly the Constitution does not specify that we have EITHER a right to life (see: capital punishment) OR a right to be free from disease or risk (which: how?).  So "rights" is probably not the right lens for this question.

 

I've been thinking a lot over the last few years about how language of "obligation" and "duty" has seemed to fade from public discourse. I grew up with a strong dose of "obligation" -- not just within marriage and nuclear and extended family, but also to local community and to nation.  That being a member of society is not merely a matter of the "rights" we have, but also of the incumbent "obligations" we have to our neighbors and fellow citizens. But that language seems to me to have receded.

The Bill of Rights obviously only emphasizes the rights side, thus the title. But that does not mean there is no other side. That divergence has really come clear on the great social divide on masking.

 

The idea of nudging incentives, like the Target gift cards and those described in the OP, is to figure out voluntary (that is: not mandated) mechanisms that leave people a choice, but nudge us in the direction of obligation.

I think you're right, it's a useful distinction.

I absolutely agree that I have an obligation to my fellow man, but that duty comes as a result of my religious beliefs and flows from them. So when I think about what my responsibilities are I think about religion and faith.

I don't think the government has anything to do with my obligations or my responsibilities. It has an obligation to me, not me to it. It is my servant, not the other way around, which is why I focus on rights when talking about the government. Its purpose is to secure its citizens' rights from each other and from itself, not nudge them towards one behavior or another.

If we're talking about my fellow man, then according to my faith I am supposed to be a servant, so a focus on my responsibilities is paramount. But if we're talking about government as an institution, I'm supposed to obey its rules but not let it be the master over me, hence my focus on rights.

To me, they are two different conversations.

[TravelingChris]

On 11/8/2020 at 8:22 AM, dmmetler said:

I just want it to be available for no out of pocket cost, whether you have insurance or not. 

In my state, it will be free

[TravelingChris]

On 11/9/2020 at 9:08 AM, Pen said:

Would paying people be a nudge to help get it done? Or might it have opposite psychological effect if people might equate a payment with thinking there might be a problem with it so that payment is needed?  

And does it add an incentive or take away from

the incentive of trying to get the individual getting it and the population as a whole safer? 

Or is it a relatively token payment amount like a little toy or lollipop that helps a child feel happier after a vaccination? 

 

On WTM it seems like a lot of people are lie low, wait and see, types. Irl, most people I know have to get out and work etc, and want it ASAP so long as they can afford it. Making it easy and low risk to access (like outdoor drive-through vaccination locations— not having to go into a pharmacy or office) and free (including not just free itself, but not having to pay for a medical visit) would go farther than a payment. 

 

I think that initially targeted to at risk groups, it might become a coveted item driving demand.

 I think it should be available for free. Or at least free for all who need it to be free. And easy, low risk access.  

 

My state has announced it will be free and what the priorities are and when you can expect to get the vaccine

[Pam in CT]

rights, obligations, "nudges" and proper role of

1 hour ago, Bootsie said:

Thinking about issues through a lens of "rights" versus a lens of "duty" was highlighted for me a few years ago as I talked to someone who was not from the US.  Much of the discourse in the US regarding marriage has been about "rights" of individuals;.  During a conversation that centered on the rights of individuals to marry who they would like and the government's role to protect their rights for equal access to workplace benefits, etc. someone asked the question why the government should be in the marriage business as all.   My friend immediately had an answer regarding the governments interest in marriage because it was a commitment to an obligation to take care of a person rather than having that obligation fall onto the government.  He immediately went to the obligations that someone was taking on when marrying not that rights of people to marry.  

I agree that incentives can be used to nudge people to particular behavior.  But, I have a problem with thinking of it as nudging them in the direction of obligation.  Who determines what the obligation is?  I am not comfortable with a government deciding what my obligations are and then incentivizing me to fulfill those. 

How does the argument your friend made -- that there's a societal interest that families take responsibility/obligation for one another -- resonate with you?

I'm interested in the distinction you seem to be making about who provides incentives. If a private actor provides the "nudge" -- say, a private insurer gives a vaccine rebate, or a private retailer gives a gift card, are you comfortable with that?  What if there is a tax incentive that is, in turn, "underneath" the insurer or retailer program to motivate them to do the "nudge"?

 

re origins of "rights" vs "obligations/responsibilities"

1 hour ago, Momto6inIN said:

I think you're right, it's a useful distinction.

I absolutely agree that I have an obligation to my fellow man, but that duty comes as a result of my religious beliefs and flows from them. So when I think about what my responsibilities are I think about religion and faith.

I don't think the government has anything to do with my obligations or my responsibilities. It has an obligation to me, not me to it. It is my servant, not the other way around, which is why I focus on rights when talking about the government. Its purpose is to secure its citizens' rights from each other and from itself, not nudge them towards one behavior or another.

If we're talking about my fellow man, then according to my faith I am supposed to be a servant, so a focus on my responsibilities is paramount. But if we're talking about government as an institution, I'm supposed to obey its rules but not let it be the master over me, hence my focus on rights.

To me, they are two different conversations.

That is interesting.  I think I'm more in a headspace of "it is a privilege to have been born here, there are incumbent responsibilities that go along with that privilege" .. I've never thought of the "government as servant" model.

Within your understanding of the responsibilities incumbent in your faith tradition, where you serve as "servant" to your fellow man...what is the mechanism through which those responsibilities are manifest?  Like -- to make the question concrete -- how do you come to know/work out/have communicated to you what your specific responsibilities are to serve others in the realms of (to give two examples, one evergreen and one current) hunger, and COVID pandemic?

[Bootsie]

32 minutes ago, Pam in CT said:

rights, obligations, "nudges" and proper role of

How does the argument your friend made -- that there's a societal interest that families take responsibility/obligation for one another -- resonate with you?

I'm interested in the distinction you seem to be making about who provides incentives. If a private actor provides the "nudge" -- say, a private insurer gives a vaccine rebate, or a private retailer gives a gift card, are you comfortable with that?  What if there is a tax incentive that is, in turn, "underneath" the insurer or retailer program to motivate them to do the "nudge"?

 

Personally, I view marriage from a religious perspective and think that it should be separate from a government institution.  If individuals want to enter into a contractual relationship regarding jointly owning property or other issues, they should be able to do so, but that should be separate from religious marriage.  

If a private actor provides me with a "nudge" to do something, it is clear that they are providing me that nudge because it is in their best interest to do so.  If a private insurer gives me a vaccine rebate, they are dong so to reduce their expenses.  If a private retailer gives me a gift card, it is to encourage me to spend in their store.  They are not doing so because they have decided what my duties are and how I should behave and are trying to nudge me to behave in that way.  

I prefer transparency on the part of the government.  So, I am not in favor of the government deciding what I SHOULD do and then trying to incentivize me to do so.  I am even less in favor of the government taxing me so that it can raise money to incentivize me to do what I would not choose to do on my own but that it has decided is my obligation to do.  And, then I am in even less favor of it being done through a tax incentive where it is less obvious of what the government is doing.  

[Momto6inIN]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Within your understanding of the responsibilities incumbent in your faith tradition, where you serve as "servant" to your fellow man...what is the mechanism through which those responsibilities are manifest?  Like -- to make the question concrete -- how do you come to know/work out/have communicated to you what your specific responsibilities are to serve others in the realms of (to give two examples, one evergreen and one current) hunger, and COVID pandemic?

In my faith tradition, the Bible is my yardstick for measuring my responsibilities to my fellow man. It tells me to give cheerfully, to be a good steward of the resources entrusted to me, to put others ahead of myself, to live peacefully with all men as far as I am able, to point others to God, to love my brothers and sisters as God loved the church, and to lay up treasures in heaven and not on earth, among other things.

So as far as hunger and poverty go, I give money and time and prayer to organizations that I have vetted that spend more than 95% of their donations to the people they claim to serve and I give til the point a little beyond where it hurts my budget. Most of the programs I support claim the philosophy that the true way to alleviate poverty is to give struggling men and women the means to pull themselves out of poverty, e.g. teach them a skill that they can turn into a job.  I volunteer at our local Food Pantry. And I help our church weekly during the winter to put together health/hygiene kits to send to underprivileged areas on medical missions trips.

As far as covid goes, my job is to love other people more than myself. So even though I hate the mask with the burning passion of a thousand suns and it has given me panic attacks, I wear it. Period. That's my responsibility and privilege as a Christian. But I don't think the government should be able to mandate that I do so, because even though I have a Christian responsibility to wear it, I have the American right not to.

[hopeallgoeswell]

19 hours ago, Not_a_Number said:

There are very few things that genuinely infringe on no one's rights, though. Like, your choice not to vaccinate your kid does infringe on my right to a disease-free school. I know you can argue that's not the same thing, but it's not like it's just a random decision to mandate this. 

ETA: the "you" is generic, not specific! 

So based on this, vaccines should be proven to prevent colonization and person-to-person spread to fulfill the right to go to a disease-free school and live in a disease-free society?  I think you would be surprised to find that not all mandated vaccines do that, but they are still mandated to "prevent the spread of disease".  And what about the 1000s of diseases that have no vaccine for them?  Are a person's rights to go to a disease-free school being infringed because scientists haven't gotten rid of *all* illnesses?

This vaccine is being fast-tracked on hyper speed.  We haven't ever had an mRNA vaccine to get any idea on concomitant and long-term side effects.  It appears that the U.S. will either use Moderna or Pfizer, both mRNA vaccines.  If there are monetary incentives to take the vaccine, the poor end up being the guinea pigs.  If there is free and informed consent for the exchange, I have no issues with it, but I doubt that will be the case.

Edited November 10, 2020 by hopeallgoeswell

[Not_a_Number]

1 minute ago, hopeallgoeswell said:

So based on this, vaccines should be proven to prevent not only colonization and person-to-person spread to fulfill the right to go to a disease-free school and live in a disease-free society?  I think you would be surprised to find that not all mandated vaccines do that, but they are still mandated to "prevent the spread of disease".  And what about the 1000s of diseases that have no vaccine for them?  Are a person's rights to go to a disease-free school being infringed because scientists haven't gotten rid of *all* illnesses?

This vaccine is being fast-tracked on hyper speed.  We haven't ever had an mRNA vaccine to get any idea on concomitant and long-term side effects.  It appears that the U.S. will either use Moderna or Pfizer, both mRNA vaccines.  If there are monetary incentives to take the vaccine, the poor end up being the guinea pigs.  If there is free and informed consent for the exchange, I have no issues with it, but I doubt that will be the case.

Well, they’ve already been our guinea pigs for the virus 😕 . 

[Pam in CT]

@Momto6inIN and @Bootsie  -- I want to thank you both for taking the time to write out your thoughtful responses. I am turning over what Momto6 described about the "servant" model with respect to both God and fellow man... and where that model might be similar, and where different, from the "covenant" model that is central in Judaism...

...and how those similarities and differences might inform different perspectives on the role of government. And also, perhaps, how Judaism's position as a tiny fragment of a tiny minority under often-hostile governmental power might also frame how teachings within the tradition about government developed in a different direction than how Christianity informed the development of law and cultural norms in a context where it has always been the majority religion.

 I think I need to muddle / noodle a little more, and may come back. Thank you for your insights.

[katilac]

5 hours ago, Pam in CT said:

 

Right -- clearly the Constitution does not specify that we have EITHER a right to life (see: capital punishment) OR a right to be free from disease or risk (which: how?).  So "rights" is probably not the right lens for this question.

It pretty clearly DOES specify that we have a right to life, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's the most famous phrase in the entire document. 

[Pam in CT]

1 hour ago, katilac said:

It pretty clearly DOES specify that we have a right to life, along with liberty and the pursuit of happiness. That's the most famous phrase in the entire document. 

Those famous words are in the Declaration of Independence.  Tellingly, they are not in the Constitution.

 

(And it's easy to see why the founders realized, though it made for good rhetoric at the exuberant moment of independence, it could not be sustained as foundation for sober governance. Aside from capital punishment -- which plenty of nations do NOT sanction as a governmental action -- there are all kinds of other public policies that permit the taking of life for various reasons as a positive act of commision -- war, self defense... as well as all sorts of areas where, if "right to life" were entrenched constitutionally, cases could be brought that argued the government's omission, for example a failure to provide health care or food or shelter, resulted in the loss of life.)

 

The Fourteenth Amendment/ Sec 1 does contain this language

Quote

...nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law...

 but that is, obviously, substantially narrower, allowing even for the government to take life so long as there is due process... and allowing a great deal of scope for loss of life at the hands of other actors by both acts of commission (ie Stand Your Ground laws) and acts of omission (for example failure to support a disabled adult relative, who then dies).

If there were in fact a "right to life" our society would look immensely different.

 

[Not_a_Number]

1 hour ago, Pam in CT said:

Those famous words are in the Declaration of Independence.  Tellingly, they are not in the Constitution.

(And it's easy to see why the founders realized, though it made for good rhetoric at the exuberant moment of independence, it could not be sustained as foundation for sober governance. Aside from capital punishment -- which plenty of nations do NOT sanction as a governmental action -- there are all kinds of other public policies that permit the taking of life for various reasons as a positive act of commision -- war, self defense... as well as all sorts of areas where, if "right to life" were entrenched constitutionally, cases could be brought that argued the government's omission, for example a failure to provide health care or food or shelter, resulted in the loss of life.)

 

The Fourteenth Amendment/ Sec 1 does contain this language

 but that is, obviously, substantially narrower, allowing even for the government to take life so long as there is due process... and allowing a great deal of scope for loss of life at the hands of other actors by both acts of commission (ie Stand Your Ground laws) and acts of omission (for example failure to support a disabled adult relative, who then dies).

If there were in fact a "right to life" our society would look immensely different.

Hah. Thank you. You're right, I was thinking of the Declaration of the Independence... that's an excellent point.