Sunday, August 08, 2021

Against Mask Mandates

Even if--and it's a big "if"--you could justify mask mandates and lockdowns in the early days, I can't see how it's morally possible now that vaccines are available for the asking.  Let's look at the issue from the standpoint of economics:

The obvious implication is that widespread vaccine take-up massively lowers the value of any health benefits resulting from government-imposed measures, such as mask mandates.

In other words, the “benefits” of mask mandates in highly vaccinated areas such as DC have plunged, while the costs are as high or have potentially increased further (both because the imposition of the mandate reduces the perceived benefit of vaccination, potentially deterring further take-up, and because many businesses have engaged in extensive reopening investments that will now be disrupted). Crucially, as more people become vaccinated, the benefit-cost ratio of these mandates falls and the case for them becomes ever weaker.

The obvious retort to this is that, in other areas of the U.S., vaccine take-up has been much lower overall. In Mississippi, just 44 percent of the adult population are fully vaccinated and cases are surging. Does that make mask mandates there more economically justified?

Let’s leave aside that 77 percent of seniors (over-65s) are fully vaccinated even in Mississippi, again significantly reducing the value of any health benefits of mandates. There’s a second reason in the externality framework that weakens the case for government mask orders today, although it might sit less comfortably with those in the public health world.

As Paul Krugman outlined in his most recent newsletter, the strongest argument for any government measures to mitigate or suppress COVID-19 last year was that vaccines were coming, meaning lives saved now from COVID-19 were potentially deaths averted from it forever. Yet, as stated, vaccines have been freely available now for months for any adult who wants one. In that reality, the “right” re: who should bear the liability for facing the external costs of other’s behavior should arguably shift back to our cold/flu normality.

As the vast majority of the population can access something that mitigates their risk of getting and transmitting COVID-19 much more significantly than a mask, it is surely the case that we should now consider the majority of the external costs as “internalized.” Each individual now is the “lowest cost avoider” of harm. In non-economic speak: if people still want to roam unvaccinated, they should bear the elevated risk, and not expect others to be coerced into making sacrifices to (primarily) keep them safe.

In other words, after setting aside a period of time to allow people to get the vaccines, we should take the non-vaccinated folks’ decision not to be pricked as a willing acceptance to personally front up the infection dangers. Many will self-evidently change their minds if they see delta cases in their area surge. But burdening everyone in a territory with government-enforced mask wearing or even lockdowns again (as Krugman advocates) is unjustifiable when the vast majority of the benefits will go to those actively forgoing the most effective means of alleviating the virus’s effects...

An economic approach to the pandemic made the case for certain government-mandated social distancing and mitigation efforts relatively strong a year ago. With vaccines freely available, those same economic principles bolster the case now for more limited interventions for the most vulnerable groups, while leaving most COVID-19 risk management to individuals. Blanket masking rules that apply to all are now far more difficult to justify on the grounds of “externalities” than before. And the reason for that are the vaccines: our path back to normality.

Agreed.

And on a related note:

4 comments:

Ellen K said...

Full disclosure: I had COVID last November. We also got the shot so I could visit my Mom. That being said, I still think it's up to the individual and their doctor to decide, not a politician, not a county judge, not an activist. We have a dear friend who has many allergies that preclude her getting the shot. Yet this blanket treatment of non-vaxxers by government would essentially put her on house arrest in some areas and would certainly prevent travel and social events. It should be her choice to decide. What is also odd, at least in my DFW area, is that our largest city, Dallas put all the mass vaccination centers in the largely minority areas of south, west and east Dallas. North Dallas, which has some of the biggest groups of aging citizens, had no big centers and most of those folks ended up having to drive or get someone to drive them, far away and often out of county to get the vaccine. Dallas is reopening the vaccine centers at no small cost, but nobody's going there. Every CVS and Walgreen's has the COVID shots, but few are going there. When you look at the demographics the same groups who are supposed to be catching COVID more are the ones who are not taking advantage of free vaccinations. This attitude often bleeds over into paying bills, rent, student loans, car loans-things the Feds are trying to get taxpayers to pay off for them. At some point people have to take responsibility for their own behavior and the outcomes. You are not promised tomorrow-but you can certainly improve the odds by acting like an adult rather than expecting the rest of the world to bail you out.

Anonymous said...

Rights are only rights until they infringe on others' (life).

Darren said...

I say again: Even if--and it's a big "if"--you could justify mask mandates and lockdowns in the early days, I can't see how it's morally possible now that vaccines are available for the asking.

I'm not responsible for your irrational fears.

Darren said...

Headline from Reason:
Don't Surrender to the Pandemic Control Freaks
They'll never be satisfied in a world of balanced risks.
https://reason.com/2021/08/06/ignore-pandemic-panic-and-return-to-normal-life/