"What won't matter, at all, is a policy that keeps an unvaccinated 35-year-old Serbian athlete from entering the United States."
The policy is not directed at 35-year-old Serbian athletes -- it's aimed at everyone entering the US. It may seem especially ridiculous when applied to Djokovic, but we can't tailor every rule to every edge case. Everyone has to deal with rules that seem ridiculous sometimes, but the idea that we ought to change the rules for or exempt rich/famous/powerful people is not a good argument. Maybe you think the travel requirement has outlived its value, but then Djokovic's ability to play in the US Open is not exactly your best argument, as it's not a particularly representative example. And, in fact, travel requirements for athletes DO have some value -- Aaron Judge and other baseball players seem to have gotten vaccinated primarily so they could play in Canada. Even if the public health impact is small, it's positive, and it's certainly greater than the public health impact of Djokovic catching Nadal.
"Djokovic seems at peace with his decision. He confirmed on July 10th he won’t get vaccinated to play in New York City."
Doesn't seem like there is an issue here. Being a pro sportsball player doesn't make you any better than anyone else, and it doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules, just like the rest of us.
I am sick and tired of the rules only applying to the great unwashed.
"The virus will keep mutating on its own, eventually becoming endemic."
Drill down a bit and you'll find that "pandemic" and "endemic" don't have very useful definitions. It is well past time for us to let all of these rules and restrictions go.
1. So many topics to cover. Here’s an idea - let’s talk about why vaccines are useless! Great choice.
2. As you note, vaccines do reduce severity of disease and death. You acknowledge that they serve a purpose. (I also don’t think it’s completely clear that vaccines are irrelevant to transmission. That’s an overstatement.)
3. I accept that by this point most of those who choose to be unvaccinated are not likely to be persuaded by mandates. But there are still many people who choose vaccination and boosters on a daily basis, and we should be encouraging that.
4. And most importantly, because of 3 - we should still be encouraging vaccines in every way possible. OK for someone to choose for themselves and accept the consequences, but to validate/justify that affirmatively seems shockingly wrongheaded.
I have not heard any legitimate public health authority take this position. A weird and defining point of view.
Which is not even remotely articulated in the article.
We've been encouraging vaccination and boosters for two years and we should continue to do that. But at this point the measures against Djokovic are not serving any public health good. They are strictly punitive and wrong.
The measures are not "against Djokovic." They are against everyone, and for many people they DO serve a major public health good by encouraging vaccination and limiting the travel of those who are more likely to be infected. It is not in any way "punitive" because nobody designed the rule with Novak Djokovic in mind. We can't rewrite the rules for every recalcitrant tennis player.
Of course they are against Djokovic and everyone else who isn't vaccinated. That is obvious should not need to be stated. And yes, at this point they are punitive. With the new omicron variants we have seen that vaccination matters little or not at all to transmissibility. We should be encouraging vaccination without coercion and restrictions.
You have failed at mind-reading my emotional state, and your attempt at it does not reflect well on your argument. In any case, the "they" refers to the measures, not people. That is clear enough in context.
I think the comments about vaccination are a bit reckless and leave the impression that vaccination is not all that important. And the point about mandates is that they maintain a standard that is responsible and sends a positive message. Maintaining an expectation that people should be vaccinated is smart.
The comments about vaccination are entirely accurate. It is very important for some demographics, less important for others. At an earlier point in the evolution of the virus, the vaccination status of a given individual was thought to have serious implications for the health of other people. That was the basis for mandates, and it was reasonable. But that is much less the case now, and may no longer be true at all. Taking purely punitive action against individuals who make vaccine choices you don't approve of, simply because you disapprove, is completely inappropriate.
And I don’t really think it’s “punitive” - their argument would be that they are taking a responsible and defensible position. The relevance of the vaccine has possibly changed, but not enough that the rationale for a mandate is gone.
If the decision to get vaccinated or not has health implications only for oneself, and not others--as seems to be the case now--then the basis for the mandate absolutely is gone.
Even today - experts talk about the “higher risk” of vaccinated people getting COVID. That is much different than “vaccines don’t prevent transmission at all.” I don’t think any experts are saying that vaccines are totally irrelevant to transmission. There is a lot unknown in that area.
As for the core point of the post - there is enough uncertainty about transmission, but more importantly enough value in vaccinations preventing serious illness and death, that an entity can say they value protecting their athletes/employees from these risks, and they also value sending a smart message. I would say the practice is OK for questioning but still a very legitimate choice.
I believe that a virus won't go away until it can no longer find hosts. The more people that get covid, the better for all of us. That is what I am summarizing..
Because that is how viruses work. They go away when they run out of hosts. Which is kinda what Ross was saying. Masks are not going to stop a virus, just keep it at bay, till it finally gets you.
But it won't run out of hosts once people get it because they can get it multiple times. It's become similar to the flu in that way.
We don't encourage people to get the flu as as way to stop the flu. We encourage people to get vaccinated and to reduce their exposure. It's the same deal here.
We also don't force anyone to get a flu shot (even the elderly and high-risk who probably should get it), or disallow them to get into the country without it, and — most importantly — we don't try to permanently reorient the world's society for a virus that most people will get many times throughout their lives and easily survive.
John: Fair point. And for what's it worth, despite the fact that I'm a Nadal fan and really don't want Joker to win his 23rd, I agree with Ross that he should be allowed to play in the Open. While I'm undecided on whether we should prohibit the unvaccinated by choice (versus medical reason) from entering the country as a general matter of policy (I like giving encouragement for vaccination), we should make exceptions when we're hosting major international events.
In general John, I'm with you that we're reaching the point that we should be no longer be reorienting society around COVID or forcing people to do things they don't want to do. There are no signs that our medical centers are so overwhelmed that we need to flatten the curve, and while I'm guessing that vaccination does have some effect on reducing spread, the difference isn't enough that I think unvaccinated people put the vaccinated at significant extra risk.
Having said that, even setting aside the issue of long COVID, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that current COVID variants are still much more dangerous than the flu. Our current 300 deaths a day level means a 100,000 a year, which is much, much higher than the flu. And that's with very high vaccination rates among the elderly who are at much more risk.
So I think we still need to be doing a lot to encourage vaccination. Most importantly, we should either be charging much, much higher insurance rates to the unvaccinated by choice or deny them care for COVID related conditions. Ultimately, if people want to bad choices about vaccination, in the absence of a high public health risk, we shouldn't be forcing them to make better choices; but we shouldn't be subsidizing those bad choices either.
I agree with many things you said here; I myself am pro-vaccination, and I agree that Covid is still a danger. I really don't care about tennis one way or the other, and I'm more concerned about the well-being of people who aren't world famous tennis stars.
That said, I think many of the world's responses to Covid were and are much worse than the actual disease. We're seeing peace, prosperity, and food and energy security crumble throughout the world, and it should be obvious to anyone that wild overreactionary — and needlessly prolonged and mostly ineffectual — Covid measures lead to a lot of this coming apart at the seams.
I also simply can't get on board with punishing the unvaccinated with higher medical fees and insurance fees. Hospital fees, and private insurance, are already impossibly prohibitive for most people (and ironically may be one of the leading reasons that many have not gone to the doctor to get a vaccine). We should be focused on getting more people good, affordable insurance, not less. (And honestly, it still amazes me that during this whole episode, getting everyone insured was never even mentioned as a possible solution.) We don't charge people more at the hospital, nor should we, for being obese, or having a high-risk job or hobby, or drinking or smoking, or any other activity that could potentially lead to bad health outcomes. Again, more people should be covered, and be able to afford care, not less.
I said this elsewhere in these comments, but I'll say it again: if you really care about people's health and want to convince them to get vaccinated, understanding, empathy, kindness and persuasion are the tools you'd want to use, not ostracization, demonization, othering, and especially not using the brute force of the government and industry to restrict or punish them. Top-down censorship of opinions and theories about the disease that don't fit official narratives, have also done way more harm than good, especially when those opinions and theories, like the lab leak theory, became at least partially vindicated later.
"What won't matter, at all, is a policy that keeps an unvaccinated 35-year-old Serbian athlete from entering the United States."
The policy is not directed at 35-year-old Serbian athletes -- it's aimed at everyone entering the US. It may seem especially ridiculous when applied to Djokovic, but we can't tailor every rule to every edge case. Everyone has to deal with rules that seem ridiculous sometimes, but the idea that we ought to change the rules for or exempt rich/famous/powerful people is not a good argument. Maybe you think the travel requirement has outlived its value, but then Djokovic's ability to play in the US Open is not exactly your best argument, as it's not a particularly representative example. And, in fact, travel requirements for athletes DO have some value -- Aaron Judge and other baseball players seem to have gotten vaccinated primarily so they could play in Canada. Even if the public health impact is small, it's positive, and it's certainly greater than the public health impact of Djokovic catching Nadal.
Great piece Ross, and kudos for banging this drum.
Fully agree with you, the mandates need to stop ASAP.
Thank you. I really like this piece. We need to come to grips that not all things people deem to be “good” needs to be mandated.
"Djokovic seems at peace with his decision. He confirmed on July 10th he won’t get vaccinated to play in New York City."
Doesn't seem like there is an issue here. Being a pro sportsball player doesn't make you any better than anyone else, and it doesn't mean you don't have to follow the rules, just like the rest of us.
I am sick and tired of the rules only applying to the great unwashed.
I agree. Let’s get rid of the rules that are stupid, and then we won’t have to worry about who they are applied to.
"The virus will keep mutating on its own, eventually becoming endemic."
Drill down a bit and you'll find that "pandemic" and "endemic" don't have very useful definitions. It is well past time for us to let all of these rules and restrictions go.
This strikes me as a solidly wrong take.
1. So many topics to cover. Here’s an idea - let’s talk about why vaccines are useless! Great choice.
2. As you note, vaccines do reduce severity of disease and death. You acknowledge that they serve a purpose. (I also don’t think it’s completely clear that vaccines are irrelevant to transmission. That’s an overstatement.)
3. I accept that by this point most of those who choose to be unvaccinated are not likely to be persuaded by mandates. But there are still many people who choose vaccination and boosters on a daily basis, and we should be encouraging that.
4. And most importantly, because of 3 - we should still be encouraging vaccines in every way possible. OK for someone to choose for themselves and accept the consequences, but to validate/justify that affirmatively seems shockingly wrongheaded.
I have not heard any legitimate public health authority take this position. A weird and defining point of view.
"let’s talk about why vaccines are useless!"
Which is not even remotely articulated in the article.
We've been encouraging vaccination and boosters for two years and we should continue to do that. But at this point the measures against Djokovic are not serving any public health good. They are strictly punitive and wrong.
The measures are not "against Djokovic." They are against everyone, and for many people they DO serve a major public health good by encouraging vaccination and limiting the travel of those who are more likely to be infected. It is not in any way "punitive" because nobody designed the rule with Novak Djokovic in mind. We can't rewrite the rules for every recalcitrant tennis player.
Of course they are against Djokovic and everyone else who isn't vaccinated. That is obvious should not need to be stated. And yes, at this point they are punitive. With the new omicron variants we have seen that vaccination matters little or not at all to transmissibility. We should be encouraging vaccination without coercion and restrictions.
You seem mad at some unspecified “they,” and perhaps this anger is closing your judgement.
You have failed at mind-reading my emotional state, and your attempt at it does not reflect well on your argument. In any case, the "they" refers to the measures, not people. That is clear enough in context.
I think the comments about vaccination are a bit reckless and leave the impression that vaccination is not all that important. And the point about mandates is that they maintain a standard that is responsible and sends a positive message. Maintaining an expectation that people should be vaccinated is smart.
The comments about vaccination are entirely accurate. It is very important for some demographics, less important for others. At an earlier point in the evolution of the virus, the vaccination status of a given individual was thought to have serious implications for the health of other people. That was the basis for mandates, and it was reasonable. But that is much less the case now, and may no longer be true at all. Taking purely punitive action against individuals who make vaccine choices you don't approve of, simply because you disapprove, is completely inappropriate.
And I don’t really think it’s “punitive” - their argument would be that they are taking a responsible and defensible position. The relevance of the vaccine has possibly changed, but not enough that the rationale for a mandate is gone.
If the decision to get vaccinated or not has health implications only for oneself, and not others--as seems to be the case now--then the basis for the mandate absolutely is gone.
Even today - experts talk about the “higher risk” of vaccinated people getting COVID. That is much different than “vaccines don’t prevent transmission at all.” I don’t think any experts are saying that vaccines are totally irrelevant to transmission. There is a lot unknown in that area.
As for the core point of the post - there is enough uncertainty about transmission, but more importantly enough value in vaccinations preventing serious illness and death, that an entity can say they value protecting their athletes/employees from these risks, and they also value sending a smart message. I would say the practice is OK for questioning but still a very legitimate choice.
I believe that a virus won't go away until it can no longer find hosts. The more people that get covid, the better for all of us. That is what I am summarizing..
In a world where people are getting reinfected, why would you believe this?
Because that is how viruses work. They go away when they run out of hosts. Which is kinda what Ross was saying. Masks are not going to stop a virus, just keep it at bay, till it finally gets you.
But it won't run out of hosts once people get it because they can get it multiple times. It's become similar to the flu in that way.
We don't encourage people to get the flu as as way to stop the flu. We encourage people to get vaccinated and to reduce their exposure. It's the same deal here.
We also don't force anyone to get a flu shot (even the elderly and high-risk who probably should get it), or disallow them to get into the country without it, and — most importantly — we don't try to permanently reorient the world's society for a virus that most people will get many times throughout their lives and easily survive.
John: Fair point. And for what's it worth, despite the fact that I'm a Nadal fan and really don't want Joker to win his 23rd, I agree with Ross that he should be allowed to play in the Open. While I'm undecided on whether we should prohibit the unvaccinated by choice (versus medical reason) from entering the country as a general matter of policy (I like giving encouragement for vaccination), we should make exceptions when we're hosting major international events.
In general John, I'm with you that we're reaching the point that we should be no longer be reorienting society around COVID or forcing people to do things they don't want to do. There are no signs that our medical centers are so overwhelmed that we need to flatten the curve, and while I'm guessing that vaccination does have some effect on reducing spread, the difference isn't enough that I think unvaccinated people put the vaccinated at significant extra risk.
Having said that, even setting aside the issue of long COVID, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that current COVID variants are still much more dangerous than the flu. Our current 300 deaths a day level means a 100,000 a year, which is much, much higher than the flu. And that's with very high vaccination rates among the elderly who are at much more risk.
So I think we still need to be doing a lot to encourage vaccination. Most importantly, we should either be charging much, much higher insurance rates to the unvaccinated by choice or deny them care for COVID related conditions. Ultimately, if people want to bad choices about vaccination, in the absence of a high public health risk, we shouldn't be forcing them to make better choices; but we shouldn't be subsidizing those bad choices either.
I agree with many things you said here; I myself am pro-vaccination, and I agree that Covid is still a danger. I really don't care about tennis one way or the other, and I'm more concerned about the well-being of people who aren't world famous tennis stars.
That said, I think many of the world's responses to Covid were and are much worse than the actual disease. We're seeing peace, prosperity, and food and energy security crumble throughout the world, and it should be obvious to anyone that wild overreactionary — and needlessly prolonged and mostly ineffectual — Covid measures lead to a lot of this coming apart at the seams.
I also simply can't get on board with punishing the unvaccinated with higher medical fees and insurance fees. Hospital fees, and private insurance, are already impossibly prohibitive for most people (and ironically may be one of the leading reasons that many have not gone to the doctor to get a vaccine). We should be focused on getting more people good, affordable insurance, not less. (And honestly, it still amazes me that during this whole episode, getting everyone insured was never even mentioned as a possible solution.) We don't charge people more at the hospital, nor should we, for being obese, or having a high-risk job or hobby, or drinking or smoking, or any other activity that could potentially lead to bad health outcomes. Again, more people should be covered, and be able to afford care, not less.
I said this elsewhere in these comments, but I'll say it again: if you really care about people's health and want to convince them to get vaccinated, understanding, empathy, kindness and persuasion are the tools you'd want to use, not ostracization, demonization, othering, and especially not using the brute force of the government and industry to restrict or punish them. Top-down censorship of opinions and theories about the disease that don't fit official narratives, have also done way more harm than good, especially when those opinions and theories, like the lab leak theory, became at least partially vindicated later.