Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.

vaccinations/health care and product promotions.

1…5681011

Replies

  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    edited May 2021
    I said this in some thread, maybe this one, already, but I think a lot of people aren't anti vax, but just see no reason it's worth the trouble (I'm comparing this to my former attitude toward the flu vaccine). Or perhaps they have a political view that getting vaxxed is admitting covid wasn't some big overblown thing. For them, getting a free drink (or maybe going with people and all getting the free drink together) might be sufficient motivation. Not a bribe, IMO, just an effort to create an incentive.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    But still:

    I know that there a people who object to this kind of promotion simply because they find it somehow unseemly, for reasons having nothing to do with supporting the vaccination or not.

    However, it amuses me to see some people, a subset of the anti-vaccine contingent, who oppose these promotions because it's *so unfair* that their choice not to be vaccinated has actual consequences, even when the consequences are so absolutely trivial as not getting a free donut quite as often.


    am quoting your post, really just to springboard my point than to disagree or agree with
    you in particular.

    There seems to have crept in, in last page or so, a presumption that people who are against this sort of promotion are anti vax.

    Not so at all.

    I am certainly not anti vax and anyone following my posts on other threads would I hope realise that


    Thinking it inappropriate for commercial companies to piggyback self promotions on to health messages (lets face it KK's main motivation is to increase their sales) is not being anti vax.

    Nor, from me individually, is their any unfairness about it - I am vaccianated and I wouldnt eat a KK donut every day even if it were free.
    I am not posting from personal perspective, in that sense.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Getting back to the OP's original question, Krispy Kreme giving away donuts is one thing, but if bars, pubs, and other drinking establishments said "Show your vax card, and the first one is on the house!"...I guarantee the line outside the health department waiting to get vaxxed would be quite a bit longer than it already is. And that's a good thing!

    In fact, I'm just fine with all the businesses, events, etc. that we've all been missing out on for the last year doing whatever they can to encourage the vaccine program! It still remains YOUR choice whether you partake or not.

    Totally disagree. A $3 or so drink, doughnut etc is not going to do one thing change anyone's mind about getting a vaccine.

    So somebody actually disagreed with this idea... that didn't age well. Just a sampling:

    Bud, beer, donuts, baseball, and savings bonds, Sam Adams, state, city, and county governments kicking in whatever, etc., etc.,

    Like the poster up-thread said... WE. WANT. THIS. OVER!

    And if anyone thinks these giveaways are the difference maker in someone getting vaxed I have some nice ocean view property in Iowa for sale cheap. They'd make a perfect buyer.

    Somebody "should" do surveys and an analysis comparing vaccination rates where these promotions exist against similar places where they don't.

    My guess is promotions like this will have a non zero effect, I'd be surprised if it was more than 1%. I know people are impulsive and make weird decisions sometimes. Most people either took or won't take the vaccine because theirs seems like the obvious choice to them, others are waiting and watching, some are teetering on the fence, some find shiny things very compelling.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Getting back to the OP's original question, Krispy Kreme giving away donuts is one thing, but if bars, pubs, and other drinking establishments said "Show your vax card, and the first one is on the house!"...I guarantee the line outside the health department waiting to get vaxxed would be quite a bit longer than it already is. And that's a good thing!

    In fact, I'm just fine with all the businesses, events, etc. that we've all been missing out on for the last year doing whatever they can to encourage the vaccine program! It still remains YOUR choice whether you partake or not.

    Totally disagree. A $3 or so drink, doughnut etc is not going to do one thing change anyone's mind about getting a vaccine.

    So somebody actually disagreed with this idea... that didn't age well. Just a sampling:

    Bud, beer, donuts, baseball, and savings bonds, Sam Adams, state, city, and county governments kicking in whatever, etc., etc.,

    Like the poster up-thread said... WE. WANT. THIS. OVER!

    And if anyone thinks these giveaways are the difference maker in someone getting vaxed I have some nice ocean view property in Iowa for sale cheap. They'd make a perfect buyer.

    Yeah, I didn't take it as a bribe or incentive to get a vaccine because ... it's a donut, but more of a "thank you" after.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Here's your incentive: Rowan University offers $1000 to students to get COVID vaccine;
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    If the purpose of the vaccine is to benefit individuals by making them immune, it's kind of dumb to pay them to take it.

    If the purpose is to benefit everyone by reducing the spread and the pressure on the medical system enough that we can go a long way back towards normal, it's probably a good idea to pay people to take the vaccine.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    But still:

    I know that there a people who object to this kind of promotion simply because they find it somehow unseemly, for reasons having nothing to do with supporting the vaccination or not.

    However, it amuses me to see some people, a subset of the anti-vaccine contingent, who oppose these promotions because it's *so unfair* that their choice not to be vaccinated has actual consequences, even when the consequences are so absolutely trivial as not getting a free donut quite as often.


    am quoting your post, really just to springboard my point than to disagree or agree with
    you in particular.

    There seems to have crept in, in last page or so, a presumption that people who are against this sort of promotion are anti vax.

    Not so at all.

    I am certainly not anti vax and anyone following my posts on other threads would I hope realise that


    Thinking it inappropriate for commercial companies to piggyback self promotions on to health messages (lets face it KK's main motivation is to increase their sales) is not being anti vax.

    Nor, from me individually, is their any unfairness about it - I am vaccianated and I wouldnt eat a KK donut every day even if it were free.
    I am not posting from personal perspective, in that sense.

    I'm sure no one thinks you are anti vax. The thread was bumped after it had been quiet for nearly a week by someone who appears to be anti vax (and was using another thread to make anti vax arguments). That's why the responses reflect that.
  • lemurcat2
    lemurcat2 Posts: 7,885 Member
    Psychgrrl wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    YellowD0gs wrote: »
    Getting back to the OP's original question, Krispy Kreme giving away donuts is one thing, but if bars, pubs, and other drinking establishments said "Show your vax card, and the first one is on the house!"...I guarantee the line outside the health department waiting to get vaxxed would be quite a bit longer than it already is. And that's a good thing!

    In fact, I'm just fine with all the businesses, events, etc. that we've all been missing out on for the last year doing whatever they can to encourage the vaccine program! It still remains YOUR choice whether you partake or not.

    Totally disagree. A $3 or so drink, doughnut etc is not going to do one thing change anyone's mind about getting a vaccine.

    So somebody actually disagreed with this idea... that didn't age well. Just a sampling:

    Bud, beer, donuts, baseball, and savings bonds, Sam Adams, state, city, and county governments kicking in whatever, etc., etc.,

    Like the poster up-thread said... WE. WANT. THIS. OVER!

    And if anyone thinks these giveaways are the difference maker in someone getting vaxed I have some nice ocean view property in Iowa for sale cheap. They'd make a perfect buyer.

    Yeah, I didn't take it as a bribe or incentive to get a vaccine because ... it's a donut, but more of a "thank you" after.

    Yeah, exactly this.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 34,225 Member
    Perhaps the answer isn't donuts.

    https://www.npr.org/2021/05/10/995340998/the-offer-of-free-beer-may-help-lagging-vaccination-rate
    (one minute audio).

    😆🤣

    FWIW.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    They are also doing a separate one for people under 18 years old that awards 4-year scholarships to an Ohio university, including room and board and books.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    Interesting.

    As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.

    Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.
  • SuzySunshine99
    SuzySunshine99 Posts: 2,989 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Interesting.

    As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.

    Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.

    I think that the US is the only large country where, in most areas, we have more vaccines than we have people who want them. That is the reason for government-sponsored promotions like the one in Ohio.

    Do you think when Australia reaches that point, the government might start some sort of campaign to convince people who are hesitant to get their jab? Maybe not to the point of lotteries, but more of a PR campaign? It's not needed now, but might be when supply surpasses demand.
  • YellowD0gs
    YellowD0gs Posts: 693 Member
    My 13 y.o. son is signed up for the Pfizer later in May . It's the first day it will be available for the younger group here, and he has the second time-slot reserved.
  • Theoldguy1
    Theoldguy1 Posts: 2,496 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.
  • paperpudding
    paperpudding Posts: 9,282 Member
    SuzySunshine99 wrote: »
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Interesting.

    As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.

    Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.

    I think that the US is the only large country where, in most areas, we have more vaccines than we have people who want them. That is the reason for government-sponsored promotions like the one in Ohio.

    Do you think when Australia reaches that point, the government might start some sort of campaign to convince people who are hesitant to get their jab? Maybe not to the point of lotteries, but more of a PR campaign? It's not needed now, but might be when supply surpasses demand.


    Oh absolutely the government will do such promotion campaigns - in fact they are doing them already

    But appealing to people's sense of family/ community responsibility and some minor selfish appeals - if we want to travel again we all need to vaccinate when it is our turn ( ie when we become eligible)

    But highly unlikely to be enticements like lotteries or scholarships.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    paperpudding wrote: »
    Interesting.

    As you can predict, I dont feel that is appropriate.

    Nor has any such thing taken place here in Australia.

    Yeah I am with you on that.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    edited May 2021
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    edited May 2021
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.

    Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.

    I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.

    I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.
  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

  • janejellyroll
    janejellyroll Posts: 25,763 Member
    33gail33 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.

    Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.

    I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.

    I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.

    Is someone who is disenfranchised and marginalized better off if they're unvaccinated AND don't have a chance of willing one million dollars?

    Or are they better off if they're vaccinated and have a chance to win a million dollars?

    I totally get the point you're making, but what's missing here is an actual harm.

    A lottery where you gave a kidney and had a chance to win a million dollars would be concerning ethically. This, I don't see it.

  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    Theoldguy1 wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    @paperpudding you are gonna love this one. Ohio is running a lottery for vaccinated citizens only to encourage people to get the shot. Five weeks with a 1 million dollar prize each week.

    https://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-lottery-covid-vaccine/

    The lottery is a tax on poor people. I've been vaxed but wouldn't do it if I hadn't been based on a lottery ticket.

    Yeah I don't think you have to pay for it. To me the issue would be more with blurring the line between "informed consent" VS "coercion".

    In my mind, coercion has something to do with force or threats, not the existence of incentives. What do you think is coercive about this versus, say, a regular lottery?

    I know lotteries are out there, they exist in my state. I don't feel coerced into buying a ticket, so why would the existence of a similar contest for those who choose to get a vaccine be more coercive than that?

    Or perhaps you think state lotteries are coercive in the same manner?

    I think there are instances where vaccine promotion could be seen as coercive. For example, if someone was told they needed a vaccine to keep their job, that would be coercive (this doesn't mean that it's necessarily inappropriate, but it's absolutely coercion).

    OK yes you are right I used the wrong word - it isn't coercion there is no force or threat involved.

    I do think that a monetary incentive for vaccination is problematic though for ethical reasons.

    What is the ethical problem involved with incenting someone to do something with a positive impact for society?

    Is the thought that mere moral/practical suasion should be sufficient to induce others to do something with a social benefit and that any additional incentive is inappropriate?

    Or is your argument that getting vaccinated isn't something that has a positive impact so we ought not to encourage people on the fence to do it?

    I think that the ethical problem is that it is generally accepted that medical procedures require voluntary informed consent - and a large monetary incentive blurs the line of "voluntary" a bit. That's all.

    If for example you are paying someone $1000 to get the vaccine then someone may get it because they need the money, not because they are 100% voluntarily consenting to get it. I am perceiving the million dollar lottery as being along those same blurred consent lines.
  • 33gail33
    33gail33 Posts: 1,155 Member
    edited May 2021
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.

    Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.

    I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.

    I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.

    Is someone who is disenfranchised and marginalized better off if they're unvaccinated AND don't have a chance of willing one million dollars?

    Or are they better off if they're vaccinated and have a chance to win a million dollars?

    I totally get the point you're making, but what's missing here is an actual harm.

    A lottery where you gave a kidney and had a chance to win a million dollars would be concerning ethically. This, I don't see it.
    janejellyroll wrote: »
    33gail33 wrote: »
    NorthCascades wrote: »
    Not using any easy, safe, and effective means of preventing a deadly and highly contagious virus is much more ethically fraught than encouraging people to.

    Laws mandating seat belts in cars and helmets on bike riders, those are actually coercive in the sense that not following those laws can get law enforcement involved in your life. Pretty much nobody disagrees with that.

    I guess there is an argument to be made either way. I wonder if someone can really give completely voluntary informed consent when there is a monetary incentive involved. And I imagine that would have more of an effect on disenfranchised and marginalized people. One could argue that the end justifies the means when touching on that kind of gray area.

    I personally don't think that seat belt and helmet laws are in the same category as (hypothetical) vaccination requirement laws - in that they don't infringe on one's bodily autonomy in the same way as an actual physical injection into one's person does.

    Is someone who is disenfranchised and marginalized better off if they're unvaccinated AND don't have a chance of willing one million dollars?

    Or are they better off if they're vaccinated and have a chance to win a million dollars?

    I totally get the point you're making, but what's missing here is an actual harm.

    A lottery where you gave a kidney and had a chance to win a million dollars would be concerning ethically. This, I don't see it.

    Ethically speaking I think they are better off if they can freely exercise their choices regarding their personal bodily autonomy without having to consider their financial situation in the equation.

    So idk - I guess the harm would be to the integrity of the principle of voluntary informed consent, which is fundamental to medical ethics. I would consider any erosion of that principle harmful.

    Of course the individual would be "better off", in my personal estimation, if they are vaccinated and won a million dollars.

Categories