Streetwise Professor

August 6, 2021

Dr. Walensky Blowed Up the Case For Vaccine Mandates Real Good

Filed under: CoronaCrisis,Politics,Regulation — cpirrong @ 6:29 pm

The whirling COVID dervishes have taken another spin:

Did you catch that? The “anymore” part?

The “anymore” sticks out like a sore thumb. That implies that once upon a time vax could prevent transmission, but now it can’t. So . . . . what has changed to make vax suddenly ineffective against transmission?

I’m guessing “nothing.” If it can’t prevent transmission now (although it can mitigate symptoms), it didn’t before now.

So why the lie? No doubt to try to explain away the turn in the CDC’s mask recommendation. Before: vax, no mask! Now, vax–mask! Because transmission!

Dr. Walensky apparently doesn’t realize that she has now just totally blown up the rationale for vaccine mandates, or any social coercion for vaccination. (Or maybe she does, but figures that she’ll just come up with another BS rationale later in order to spin her way out of this.)

Specifically, if vaccination does not affect transmission, there is no “externality” from not being vaxxed. Your impact on others is exactly the same, vaxxed or not. Which implies that the benefits of vaccination are fully internalized, specifically, by reducing the severity of symptoms and the risk of death that you incur. Your decision to get vaxxed, or not, has zero impact on anybody else: the risk you pose to others is independent of your decision. Which means that getting vaxxed should be a completely personal choice even under a strict utilitarian calculus.

It should also be noted that if the vax protects one against severe adverse consequences of infection, the externality argument is weak anyways. Under this hypothetical, you can protect yourself against others by getting vaccinated, so you shouldn’t care what they do. You decide to assume the risk, or not. Either way, others are not imposing an external cost on you, so (a) you shouldn’t care what they do, and (b) you have no business or right demanding that they get vaccinated.

The externality argument is also weak (of course) if the vaccine doesn’t work.

To emphasize: the CDC, before whom we are supposed to cower in unquestioning obeisance, has just decreed that there is no justification whatsoever to mandate, coerce, or even suggest that you get vaccinated in order to protect others. But, no doubt, Dr. Walensky, the rest of the CDC, and the administration, will continue to demand, shrilly, that you get vaccinated, and will inch–or lunge–towards imposing mandates. The only justification for this is absolute paternalism, or (similarly) a belief that your body and soul belong to the state, and not to you.

Arguendo ad externality should always be viewed with skepticism in any event (as any close student of Coase should recognize): the concept is frequently sloppily invoked to justify various coercive policies. But here, there is not even an externality fig leaf for a mandate–by the CDC’s own admission.

Too bad John Candy has passed on. Otherwise he could host another Farm Film Report Celebrity Blow Up, starring Rochelle Walensky. It would have been a good’n.

She did it! She blowed it up good! Real good!

Print Friendly, PDF & Email


  1. France’s long-time vaccine policy chief: Covid policy is “completely stupid” and “unethical”

    Professor Christian Perronne has been fired from his positions of authority for having spoken out.

    He objects to the use of “vaccine” to describe the mRNA jab. He also says that spike protein DNA is showing up in the genomes of the jabbed, because of retroviral reverse transcriptase.

    He further says that, contrary to propaganda, the mRNA jabbed, not the unjabbed, will be vulnerable to illness in the coming northern hemisphere flu season.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 17, 2021 @ 11:41 am

  2. Pat: compare to Australia.
    First there, then – everywhere

    Comment by Tatyana — August 19, 2021 @ 6:48 am

  3. @52 Tatyana, the CDC already has a proposal for “humanitarian isolation” of the so-called vulnerable. Their explanations shows they mean enforced and complete separation. Families not allowed to visit.

    One wonders how far it must go before resistance involves violence.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 19, 2021 @ 10:20 am

  4. What resistance? There isn’t any, apart from shooting air online.
    Separate cases of refusing to submit to enforced “vaccinations” result in immediate dismissals from work, – and that’s it. Buyden (yes, I know how to spell) mulling over suing some governors’ ban on mask mandates for “violating civil liberties”. The more outrageous, the better, it seems, for general public.

    Comment by Tatyana — August 19, 2021 @ 12:33 pm

  5. It’s not over yet, Tatyana. There is still room for hope.

    Comment by Pat Frank — August 19, 2021 @ 4:33 pm

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a comment

Powered by WordPress