The COVID-19 Vaccines Shouldn’t Have Been Free

Published

1 year ago

June 2, 2024

admin

In a recent essay in the journal Monash Bioethics Review, oncologist Vinay Prasad and health researcher Alyson Haslam provide a comprehensive after-the-fact assessment of the federal government’s rollout of the COVID-19 vaccines.

Their basic takeaway is that the vaccines were a “scientific success”tarnished by flawed federal vaccine policy.

The two argue the tremendous benefits of the COVID-19 vaccines for the elderly were undercut by government guidance and messaging that pushed vaccines on the young, healthy, and previously infected when data suggested that wasn’t worthwhile (and was in some cases counterproductive).

Worse still, the government even pushed vaccine mandates when it was increasingly clear the vaccines did not stop COVID-19 transmission, they argue.

To correct these errors for future pandemic responses, Prasad and Haslam recommend performing larger vaccine trials and collecting better data on vaccine performance in lower-risk populations. They also urge policy makers to be more willing to acknowledge the tradeoffs of vaccination.

That’s sound advice. We’ll have to wait and see if the government adopts it come the next pandemic.

There is one policy that they don’t mention and doesn’t totally depend on the government getting better at judging the risks of new vaccines: Charge people for them.

Had the government not provided COVID-19 vaccines for free and shielded vaccine makers and administrators from any liability for adverse reactions, prices could have better rationed vaccine supply and better informed people about their risks and benefits.

Without prices, people were instead left with flawed government recommendations, incentives, and rationing schemes.

Those who recall early 2021 will remember the complex, often transparently silly eligibility criteria state governments set up to ration scarce vaccine supplies. This often involved prioritizing younger, healthier, often politically connected “essential workers” over elderly people.

Prasad and Haslam criticize this as a government failure to prioritize groups at most risk of dying from COVID-19.

“While the UK prioritized nursing home residents and older individuals…the US included essential workers, including young, resident physicians,” write Prasad and Haslam. “Health care workers face higher risks of acquiring the virus due to occupation (though this was and is offset by available personal protective equipment), but this was less than the elevated risk of death faced by older individuals.”

Yet if the government hadn’t assigned itself the role of distributing vaccines for free, it wouldn’t have been forced into this position of rationing scarce vaccine supplies.

Demand for the vaccine is a function of the vaccine’s price. Since the vaccine’s price was $0, people who stood to gain comparatively less from vaccination and people for whom a vaccine would be lifesaving were equally incentivized to receive it.

Consequently, everyone rushed to get in line at the same time. The government then had to decide who got it first and predictably made flawed decisions.

Had vaccine makers been left to sell their product on an open market (instead of selling doses in bulk to the federal government to distribute for free), the elderly and those most at risk of COVID-19 would have been able to outbid people who could afford to wait longer. Perhaps more lives could have been saved.

Over the course of 2021, the supply of vaccines outgrew demand.

At the same time, as Prasad and Haslam recount, an increasing number of people (particularly young men) were developing myocarditis as a result of vaccination. Nevertheless, the government downplayed this risk, continued to urge younger populations to get vaccinated, and failed to collect data about the potential risks of vaccination.

That’s all a failure of the government policy. Even if the government was slow to adjust its recommendations, prices could have played a constructive role in informing people about their own risk-reward tradeoff of getting vaccinated.

If a 20-year-old man who’d already had COVID-19 had to spend something to get vaccinated, instead of nothing, fewer would have. Prasad and Haslam argue that would have been the right call healthwise.

Without prices, that hypothetical 20-year-old’s decision was informed mostly by government guidance, and, later, government mandates.

The government compounded this lack of prices by giving liability shields to vaccine makers. As it stands right now, no one is able to sue the maker of a COVID-19 vaccine should they have an adverse reaction. (Unlike standard, non-COVID vaccines, people are also not allowed to sue the government for compensation for the vaccine injuries.)

If pharmaceutical companies had to charge individual consumers to make money off their vaccines, and if those prices had to reflect the liability risks of the side effects some number of people would inevitably have, consumers would have been even better informed about the risks and rewards of vaccination.

One might counter that individual consumers aren’t in a position to perform this risk-reward calculation on their own.

That ignores the ways that other intermediaries in a better position to evaluate the costs and benefits of vaccination could contribute to the price signals individuals would use to make their own decisions.

One could imagine an insurance company declining to cover COVID-19 vaccines for the aforementioned healthy 20-year-old while subsidizing their elderly customers to get the shot. (This is, of course, illegal right now. The Affordable Care Act requiresmost insurance plansto cover the costs of vaccination for everyone.)

Instead, the financial incentives that were attached to vaccination were another part of the federally subsidized vaccination campaign.

State Medicaid programs paid providers bonuses for the number of patients they vaccinated (regardless of how at risk of COVID-19 those patients were). State governments gave out gift cardsto those who got vaccinated and entered them in lotteries to win even bigger prizes.

Leaving it up to private companies to produce and charge for vaccines would have one added benefit: It would make it much more difficult for the government to mandate vaccines or otherwise coerce people into getting them.

One of the things that made it easy for local and state governments to bar the unvaccinated from restaurants and schools was that they also had a lot of free, federally subsidized doses to give away. People didn’t have a real “excuse” not to get a shot.

Had people been required to pay for vaccines, it would have been more awkward and much harder (politically and practically) to mandate that they do so.

Economist Alex Tabarrok likes to say that a “price is a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” They signal crucial information and then incentivize people to act on that information in a rational, efficient way.

By divorcing COVID-19 vaccines from real price signals, we were left with an earnest, government-led vaccination effort. That effort got a lot of lifesaving vaccines to a lot of people.

But it also encouraged and subsidized people to get vaccinated when it was probably not a necessary or even good idea. When not enough people got vaccinated, governments turned to coercive mandates.

Politics

China says it has ‘no interest’ in spying on UK following latest accusations

Published

3 hours ago

November 19, 2025

admin

China says it has 'no interest' in spying on UK following latest accusations

China’s foreign ministry has hit back at what it called “unfounded” accusations of spying in Westminster, saying it has “no interest” in gathering intelligence on the UK.

Yesterday, the security service MI5 sent a warning to MPs and peers about two recruitment headhunters who are working for Chinese security services.

Politics latest: ‘Are we safe?’ – Minister challenged repeatedly after damning report from MPs

They are Amanda Qiu of BR-YR Executive Search and Shirly Shen of the Internship Union.

But speaking in response to a question by Asia correspondent Helen-Ann Smith, Chinese foreign ministry spokesperson Mao Ning replied: “China has repeatedly made clear its solemn position on this matter.

“We firmly oppose such unfounded allegations and the exaggerated portrayal and sensationalism that project one’s own biases onto others.

“Judgements based on erroneous information will only lead astray.

Ms Mao added: “China never interferes in the internal affairs of other countries, nor does it have any interest in gathering so-called intelligence on the British parliament.”

Chinese spying accusations may signal thorny period ahead

It is China’s standard playbook to outright deny allegations of spying.

But given that it’s common knowledge countries spy on each other, and given the recent spate of allegations of this nature, it might feel a little far-fetched for China to stick so rigorously to the position that the UK is just making it all up.

Not so, says Mao Ning, the spokesperson for China’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

When I put it to her, she said that these allegations are, in fact, a “projection of one’s own biases on to others”, and that China doesn’t “have any interest in gathering so-called intelligence on the British parliament”.

That is almost certainly not true. China is commonly understood to run a highly sophisticated espionage operation.

But, in a way, the truth or untruth might be immaterial to the impact on the bilateral relationship.

While the UK government may seek to send strong signals amidst criticism that it’s being too soft, China really does not appreciate this type of laundry being aired in public.

It may well signal a thorny period ahead.

In a message seen by Sky News about parliamentary staff, MPs and peers were warned that the MI5 alert “highlights how the Chinese Ministry of State Security (MSS) is actively reaching out to individuals in our community”.

The message continued: “Their aim is to collect information and lay the groundwork for long-term relationships, using professional networking sites, recruitment agents and consultants acting on their behalf.”

Security minister Dan Jarvis later said in a statement to parliament that “China has a low threshold for what information is considered to be of value, and will gather individual pieces of information to build a wider picture”.

He added: “Let me speak plainly. This activity involves a covert and calculated attempt by a foreign power to interfere with our sovereign affairs in favour of its own interests, and this government will not tolerate it.”

The government made a statement in the House of Commons following the revelations, saying it would take all “necessary measures” to protect the UK.

Westminster employees were warned that two individuals were both known to be reaching out on LinkedIn to “conduct outreach at scale on behalf of MSS”.

This latest warning comes after the collapse of a prosecution of two people suspected of spying on behalf of China.

The previous spying allegations led to controversy over how the government under Labour responded to the Crown Prosecution Service’s requests for evidence.

Sir Keir Starmer sought to blame the previous Conservative government for the issues, which centred on whether China could be designated an “enemy” under First World War-era legislation.

Sir Keir has sought to keep relationships with Beijing somewhat warm, highlighting the value of China as a trading partner.

World

Russian spy ship on edge of UK waters, warns defence secretary

Published

3 hours ago

November 19, 2025

admin

Russian spy ship on edge of UK waters, warns defence secretary

A Russian spy ship is currently on the edge of UK waters, the defence secretary has announced.

John Healey said it was the second time that the ship, the Yantar, had been deployed to UK waters.

Politics latest:’Budget leaks are not acceptable,’ says Rachel Reeves

Giving a news conference in Downing Street, he said: “A Russian spy ship, the Yantar, is on the edge of UK waters north of Scotland, having entered the UK’s wider waters over the last few weeks.

“This is a vessel designed for gathering intelligence and mapping our undersea cables.

“We deployed a Royal Navy frigate and RAF planes to monitor and track this vessel’s every move, during which the Yantar directed lasers at our pilots.

“That Russian action is deeply dangerous, and this is the second time this year that this ship, the Yantar, has deployed to UK waters.”

Mr Healey added: “So my message to Russia and to Putin is this: we see you, we know what you’re doing, and if the Yantar travels south this week, we are ready.”

His warning comes following a report from MPs that the UK lacks a plan to defend itself from a military attack, despite the government promising to boost readiness with new arms factories.

At least 13 sites across the UK have been identified for new factories to make munitions and military explosives, with Mr Healey expecting the arms industry to break ground at the first plant next year.

The report, by the Commons Defence Committee, said the UK “lacks a plan for defending the homeland and overseas territories” as it urged the government to launch a “co-ordinated effort to communicate with the public on the level of threat we face”.

Mr Healey acknowledged the dangers facing the UK, saying the country was in a “new era of threat” that “demands a new era for defence”.

Giving more details on the vessel, he said it was “part of a Russian fleet designed to put and hold our undersea infrastructure and those of our allies at risk”.

He said the Yantar wasn’t just part of a naval operation but part of a Russian programme driven by Moscow’s Main Directorate of Deep-Sea Research, or GUGI, which is “designed to have capabilities which can undertake surveillance in peacetime and sabotage in conflict”.

“That is why we’ve been determined, whenever the Yantar comes into British wider waters, we track it, we deter it and we say to Putin we are ready, and we do that alongside allies,” he added.

Asked by Sky News’ political correspondent Rob Powell whether this was the first time that lasers had been used by a Russian vessel against pilots, Mr Healey replied: “This is the first time we’ve had this action from Yantar directed against the British RAF.

“We take it extremely seriously. I’ve changed the Navy’s rules of engagement so that we can follow more closely, monitor more closely, the activities of the Yantar when it’s in our wider waters. We have military options ready.”

Mr Healey added that the last time the Yantar was in UK waters, the British military surfaced a nuclear-powered attack submarine close to the ship “that they did not know was there”.

The Russian embassy has been contacted for comment.

World

South Korea: All 267 passengers and crew rescued from ferry that ran aground, says coastguard

Published

3 hours ago

November 19, 2025

admin

South Korea: All 267 passengers and crew rescued from ferry that ran aground, says coastguard

More than 250 passengers on board a ferry that ran aground off the South Korean coast have been rescued, according to the coastguard.

It said the Queen Jenuvia 2, travelling from the southern island of Jeju to the southwestern port city of Mokpo, hit rocks near Jindo, off the country’s southwest coast, late on Wednesday.

A total of 267 people were on board, including 246 passengers and 21 crew. Three people had minor injuries.

Footage showed passengers wearing life vests waiting to be picked up by rescue boats, which were approaching the 26,000-tonne South Korean ferry.

Its bow seemed to have become stuck on the edge of a small island, but it appeared to be upright and the passengers seemed calm.

Weather conditions at the scene were reported to be fair with light winds.

South Korea’s Prime Minister Kim Min-seok ordered all available boats and equipment to be used to rescue those on board, his office said.

The coastguard received a report of the incident late on Wednesday, and immediately deployed 20 vessels and a plane to join the rescue effort.

It was not immediately clear what caused the vessel to run aground.

The vessel can carry up to 1,010 passengers and has multiple lower decks for large vehicles and passenger vehicles, according to its operator Seaworld Ferry.

Read more on Sky News:
Russian spy ship ‘near UK’
Warnings as heavy snow hits

In 2014, more than 300 people, mostly schoolchildren heading to Jeju on a school trip, died when the Sewol ferry sank.

It was one of the country’s worst disasters.

The ship went down 11 years ago near the site of Wednesday’s incident, though further off Jindo.

After taking a turn too fast, the overloaded and illegally-modified ferry began listing.

It then lay on its side as passengers waited for rescue, which was slow to come, before sinking as the country watched on live television.

Many of the victims were found in their cabins, where they had been told to wait by the crew while the captain and some crew members were taken aboard the first coastguard vessels to arrive at the scene.