Looking at the dismal performance of the FDA, CDC, and WHO, the obvious takeaway from the pandemic is that big government doesn’t work very well.
Indeed, that was the point of a five-part series (see here, here, here, here, and here) on the topic.
One implication of all this analysis is that it’s almost always a good idea to let the private sector take the lead.
Which is why businesses rather than governments should decide whether to impose vaccine requirements.
Today’s column is motivated by two stories, the first of which is from ABC News. It involves a Texas hospital that is getting sued because it requires employees to be vaccinated.
Over 100 employees have joined a lawsuit against Houston Methodist hospital in Texas for requiring all employees to get the COVID-19 vaccine. The network, which oversees eight hospitals and has more than 26,000 employees, gave workers a deadline of June 7 to get the vaccine. If not, staffers risk suspension and termination, according to the lawsuit. …The complaint cited that forcing employees to get the vaccine violates Nuremberg Code, a medical ethics code which bans forced medical experiments and mandates voluntary consent. …Houston Methodist…released a statement in response to the lawsuit Friday, saying 99% of the network’s employees have been vaccinated. “It is unfortunate that the few remaining employees who refuse to get vaccinated and put our patients first are responding in this way.”
Our second story is from Florida.
Here are some excerpts from a Washington Post column about whether cruise ships operating out of Florida can exclude non-vaccinated passengers.
Cruise lines see vaccine requirements as their quickest path back to sailing from the United States. But Florida, home to the largest operators and busiest cruise ports in the world, has passed a law saying those companies are not allowed to ask passengers for proof of vaccination status. …Jim Walker, a maritime attorney..called the vaccine law “singularly the greatest impediment to the resumption of cruising in the state of Florida.” …DeSantis told reporters that he wanted cruise lines to operate and be able to make decisions about how they want to handle health and safety rules — within certain parameters. …he said even if some people were okay with the idea of having to prove that they were vaccinated to take a cruise, “it will not stop at that.”
Simply stated, I believe in property rights. The hospital should have the liberty to require vaccinations as a condition of employment and cruise ship companies should have the liberty to require vaccinations as a condition of taking a cruise.
It doesn’t matter, buy the way, whether I think the hospital or the cruise ship companies are making wise choices. I’m not a shareholder, so my opinion is irrelevant.
I do have the right, of course, to decide whether to seek a job at the hospital, or to choose to be a patient there. Likewise, I also have the right to choose whether go on a cruise, or whether to seek a job on a cruise ship.
In both cases, I can make my choices based on whether I like their vaccine policy. Or for any other reason.
I’m a free person and the people running companies also have freedom. If we don’t mutually agree to a transaction, it doesn’t happen.
It’s called “freedom of association,” and it’s a principle of a free society.
The bottom line is that there should be no philosophical objection to “vaccine passports” in the private sector.
[…] a very libertarian reason. She doesn’t think the government has the right to tell a private company how to […]
[…] a very libertarian reason. She doesn’t think the government has the right to tell a private company how to […]
[…] should be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the role of politicians to interfere in that […]
[…] should be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the role of politicians to interfere in that […]
[…] be allowed to require “vaccine passports.” I’m not saying they should, but I believe in property rights so it’s not the role of politicians to interfere in that […]
This is – like big tech- simply the government’s way of passing the mandate to private companies because they cannot mandate it themselves. As per HIPAA, it is recognized that one’s health information is private and secure, and not the business of anybody except the individual, their doctor, and anybody the individual says can know that information. Have we forgotten the concept? Or does it no longer apply because – well. COVID.
You leave out the role that fear of lawsuits play in all this. Many decisions made by private corporations are governed by this fear. In a sense, this is simply another form of govt interference. While sometimes this is warranted, it seems that the pendulum has swung too far and needs to be re-balanced. Better to have govt interference via elected officials than through judicial interference.
Given that natural immunity of those recovered from COVID is as good as or better than “vaccine” immunity and the effects of vaccination on those already immune is unknown but trending bad, the companies are at best wasting resources and at worst endangering some. Those with antibodies should be exempt.
Hi Dan, good points. Re. your point “the obvious takeaway from the pandemic is that big government doesn’t work very well”, oddly the opposite conclusion has been reached over here in Australia. Commentators are now blaming our botched vaccination rollout on “neoliberalism” and small government (even though government spending and the public service have grown even larger)…
https://www.smh.com.au/business/the-economy/politicians-have-spent-decades-dismantling-almost-the-only-solution-to-the-pandemic-20210601-p57wzv.html
The problem with this assessment is that it doesn’t recognize the reality that the pro vaccine crowd will force companies to implement vaccine passports through intimidation and boycotts.
While I generally agree with Mitchell on many, if not most, topics in this realm, I must say the reality is MUCH more nuanced than is presented here.
In particular, a huge number of these companies mandating ( or considering mandating ) vaccination of employees or customers are nearly wholly compromised by leftist wokesters using this situation to position for inclusion in a Naziesque State Capitalism regime they think is inevitable. This is not “about the science” or even about “protecting workers & customers”.
While I support a company having the liberty to “go woke and go broke” ( or otherwise ) the current situation is one of overt collusion against market ( & civil ) liberty set in the thin disguise of market ( & civil ) liberty.
Because of that, I find Florida’s proscription acceptable. But, admittedly, it is a road fraught with peril and we need to be vigilant, nonetheless.
Very bad idea. Vaccine passports are the camel’s nose under the tent of a government techno surveillance state apparatus CCP style.
I can agree with the libertarian sentiment as regards cruise ships, but the hospital workers are already employed and were hired without stipulation of a covid vaccine. Now the employer is changing the rules… and it is requiring the the employees take a vaccine they perceive to be of high risk. The media paints a picture of irrational covid-vaccine avoiders but a friend in the hospital business, after seeing the side effects suffered by his coworkers, has decided not to get it. In his line of work, he can resign and find a new job very easily but that is not the case for everyone. The hospital employer is placing an undue burden on the hospital workers. If they decide to only hire vaccinated people well then, so be it, but it is unfair to change the rules on current employees.
“The bottom line is that there should be no philosophical objection to “vaccine passports” in the private sector.” Correct in the theoretical sense but practical experience says the public sector power junkies wont let it rest there. Bad idea.