University of Chicago junior and provacateur Evita Duffy states her opposition to the mandate. Have to disagree with her. As an elderly college professor, I certainly do not want to teach to a nonvaccinated group of students when the vaccine so readily available, free and effective. https://www.instagram.com/p/CPRt85rgtfe/
3 Likes
UChicago is considering the vaccine mandate for the faculty and staff as well. It’s a different situation w/r/t workplace - union rules may prohibit the ability to mandate, for instance. However, a mandate across the board - students, faculty, staff and admin - will ensure maximum likelihood of full opening in the fall. That’s really is the main reason to mandate the vaccine in the first place (the other reason would be to protect those few who are vulnerable and can’t get vaccinated due to medical reasons). My guess is that most of the university faculty and staff at UChicago are already vaccinated. We know a lot of academics at other universities and 100% of them got vaccinated the moment they were eligible, and some travelled to other states in order to get it earlier. It’s been a high demand procedure in that profession, from what I’ve observed.
It is hard for me to understand how any informed individual would not willingly and eagerly accept the vaccine, but we always have among us those who are unmoved by and perhaps hostile to reason, information, and evidence, not to say morality. I doubt that many such people can be found among either the students or the faculty at the University of Chicago. If there are any, I say leave them alone. The only people they are putting at risk are the similarly unvaccinated. Even for these people a high level of vaccination in the population renders the odds vanishingly small that any unvaccinated person will come into contact with any other unvaccinated but infected person. I suppose that’s what is meant by herd immunity. The U of C herd will surely be near to utter invulnerability by fall. Thus if Ms. Duffy’s argument is simply that coersion is unnecessary, well, she might be right, and I could be persuaded to go along with her, much as I would also urge anyone reluctant on the subject of vaccination to take the jab. It should be possible to hold those two thoughts in the mind at the same time.
1 Like
Several of my more libertarian colleagues are resisting my institution’s requirement that all employees subject to valid health and religious exemptions be vaccinated. I personally agree with @marlowe1 and find this foolish.
I think Ms Duffy is saying that it’s immoral to tell someone what to do with their own bodies. She has a point; however, UChicago and other schools mandate a variety of vaccines before you can enter and this issue didn’t come up then so not sure why it is now, unless the point she’s making is that full authorization hasn’t happened yet (true) and perhaps - unlike the other vaccines - the state health department hasn’t mandated it yet for college entrants (also true).
The argument I don’t buy is “YOU have to be vaccinated to protect ME” - uh, no - go get yourself vaccinated if you are so concerned. Part of the big problem with the Covid vaccine is that older people want to make young people get vaccinated in order to protect their own generation. That isn’t an appropriate use of a medical procedure.
The complication is that if UChicago did NOT mandate the vaccine at least for students (again, I’ll put money on a large majority of faculty and staff having already been vaccinated) then they’d have to continue at least the mask mandate. No one wants that. The City of Chicago has removed the mask mandate for those who are fully vaccinated - including at events such as Lolapalooza this summer - and it was at that time that UChicago mandated the vaccine. So really, it’s not UChicago - it’s the CITY of Chicago forcing the hand here a bit. And governments have recognized (ie court-backed) authority to do so. Had the state of IL come out and mandated the vaccine for college entrants, same thing. UChicago is working lockstep with the health departments. Unlike other schools, they didn’t rush to mandate anything.
Yes, but again you are of a generation making the sort of rationale that you stated earlier. You want others to be vaccinated for your benefit. I disagree with your moral thinking there. I agree with Marlowe that many (most) people should choose to be vaccinated. But it should be a free choice, not one where you are compelled or under threat. There’s also the issue of the science (as Rand Paul has pointed out). For those who have already had Covid, such as Duffy and Sen. Paul, any such recommendation for their getting vaccinated should be backed by the scientific studies showing how they would be a danger to others w/o it. Paul has stated he’ll get vaccinated once those studies are made available to him. I think it’s a reasonable statement.
I think before we start condemning people for being “morally challenged”, we need to look at their reasons. Many healthcare providers who won’t get vaccinated are hesitating because they aren’t used to the expedited process for this vaccine (usually the FDA takes years, not months, before it approves a vaccine) and some - for example, a relative of mine in CA - are treating people with complications that arose in the wake of the vaccine. Unfortunately, myocarditis has just popped up as a side effect in young men around my son’s age who have received the vaccine and yes, that’s a source of concern for us (nb: Covid can also lead to myocarditis even in a young person; right now the research is suggesting that both are theoretical rather than verified side effects). While these complications aren’t common, they do seem to be happening. We are watching the vaccination process unfold in real time and despite assurances that EUA still means it’s safe, we know that the CDC is collecting data on potential side effects via V-Safe and reporting by healthcare providers. The vaccine triggers weird immune responses in some people - that much seems clear to me. My relative who is aware of earlier testing of mRNA processes says that they were shelved due to the FDA being uncomfortable with the “large” degree of problems. (Whether the FDA was being “over-cautious” at the time, I don’t know nor do I know how those problems might have been fixed for this large-scale vaccine effort). Looking at the VAERS data for the vaccines, it appears that Covid is still more risky at most if not all age groups but it really spikes with age (and both appear negligible for the young).
On the other hand, while many healthcare workers are hesitant to get vaccinated, the number of physicians who have eagerly embraced the vaccine is overwhelming. Recently talking to one of my docs, I learned that her 13 year old just started the series. So doctors are getting vaccinated and getting their kids vaccinated. That’s pretty revealing as to the overall safety (IMO). Given the huge demand, most - practically all - believe it’s worth the risk, even if it hasn’t gone through the testing and retesting of other vaccines. But just because WE take the vaccine, that doesn’t mean we should make others take it as well. If the state mandates in the interests of public health, that’s obviously a different issue. But these universities have been rushing to mandate before their local or state health departments were doing anything of the kind or even allowing the removal of masks. Many were mandating before they’d even commit to returning to normal in the fall! I find that a bit desperate and definitely heavy-handed. UChicago’s announcement makes more sense to me, given that it’s completely within the context of current guidance from CDC and the city health department.
"[P]eople who were refusing to get a Covid-19 vaccine…often used an argument you’ve probably heard, too: I’m not especially vulnerable. I may have already gotten the virus. If I get it in the future it won’t be that bad. Why should I take a risk on an experimental vaccine?
They are reasoning mostly on a personal basis. They are thinking about what’s right for them as individuals more than what’s right for the nation and the most vulnerable people in it. It’s not that they are rebuking their responsibilities as citizens; it apparently never occurs to them that they might have any."
These are some of the words from your UChicago alum David Brooks’ recent column :
The country would be better off if we listen to more reasonable voices than idealogues like Ms. Duffy and Sen. Paul.
2 Likes
I usually avoid these types of discussions on a public forum because most of the time they lead us nowhere. Your statement compelled me to it and I will not extend beyond this post. This type of thinking is precisely what perpetuates division and hatred. My children’s (and my own) immunization statuses are my concern, and I certainly don’t feel the need to go on a public forum advertising my vaccination records. I don’t fear the mob one way or another and have incessantly tried to teach my children to think for themselves and not give in to peer
pressure. Perhaps that’s one of the reasons my son was able to develop his intellect and secure a spot at Chicago. Destitute of personal judgement - and purely based on your statement- I interpreted it to be condescending (questioning someone’s morality based on their no-vaccination prerogative?) and exclusionary (from insinuating that Chicago’s student/faculty population is one monolithic group that lack “many such people” to “leave them alone?”). What can be even inferred by that? Which “such people”? Wait, those uneducated/uninformed individuals who “are hostile to evidence and information readily available”? Certainly doesn’t reflect “unity” …ahh…the word of the day! Your initial statement contradicts your last, so I genuinely hope you meant what you said by “two thoughts” can inhabit the same mental space. I am thrilled my son will be starting at Chicago in the Fall and my hope is that it remains ‘the life of the mind’ school that welcomes diversity of thought, free expression and creates thinkers and leaders who don’t acquiesce to diverging opinions.
As a side note, I would love to keep this thread only about UChicago’s first year experience. I believe there’s a whole thread about vaccination on CC already.
4 Likes
The analysis of any given individual is going to be, well, individual and will consist of a weighing of risks and benefits idiosyncratically. Age and general susceptibility to adverse effects, either those of a vaccine or the infection itself, will have to be pondered. My own belief is that one ought generally to make an effort to rise above the purely personal, however, though I wouldn’t make it a matter of shaming anyone. The sort of case I have in mind is one in which the individual believes, rightly or wrongly, that he will incur some level of risk in taking the vaccine, whereas he also believes, again rightly or wrongly, that if he simply sits tight he will eventually get the benefit of a herd immunity generated in large part by most of the population having submitted to the slight risk he has himself foregone. In this analysis he is a free rider. That was the sort of calculus, or some version thereof, that inclined me to add considerations of morality to my list of the more strictly rational components of the calculus. Perhaps economists do not call free riding immoral, but I’m a poor humanist and can only think normatively.
Many cases can be found of vaccines doing occasional harm. One that I remember dates from my own era. Throughout the late forties and early fifties families lived in mortal fear of polio striking down their children. Suddenly almost overnight in or around 1957 that fear lifted with the coming of the Salk and then the Sabin vaccines. I remember family groups, including my own, arriving in masses at the local junior high to imbibe the magic elixir. I also remember a youngster my own age contracting polio following his draft of that elixir. Thankfully he recovered without lasting harm. I suppose the disease could have been worse without the vaccine, or perhaps he already had it in his system at the time he was vaccinated. It has always seemed more likely to me on the basis of simple probabilities that getting the disease very soon after being vaccinated for it could not have been a simple coincidence. Many thought so at the time. My own family shuddered but figured, rightly I believe, that this was just a rare and crazy effect of an otherwise life-saving and benevolent miracle drug delivering us from all those years of fearful waiting and watching. Still, it’s easy to see how an incident or two of this kind could overwhelm a purely statistical analysis of the pros and cons of vaccination. Some people will always see such incidents in that light.
1 Like
An important part of a UChicago student’s “first year experience” is learning that others might disagree with him/her and that the debate can get lively. Same for the parent threads 
Totally agree. And I - for one- love to debate…when it’s worth it. Problem is that, most of the time, I don’t think it is…lol…partly my own fault since my tongue can’t seem to catch up with my mind! Ha. True story. 
“I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it”
1 Like
Another important part of a UChicago student’s “first year experience” is to learn to back up what you say. Resorting to labels doesn’t pass for rigorous argument. Nor do uncritical (and outdated) quotations from supposedly erudite authors who, as it turns out, didn’t seem to read their own sources closely enough to get beyond their confirmation bias at the time. No doubt Brooks was frustrated that some people don’t see things his way, although tying it to the prospective longevity of the virus is a bit sloppy. And of course, that was back in early May - things have moved rapidly since then. For example, UChicago was able to open up their vaccination accessibility to all students. For another, case rates in the US have halved. Is Brooks as despondent now as he was nearly a month ago, or is he more optimistic? Perhaps @1NJParent can update us - assuming of course that they are interested enough in doing so.
Idealogues don’t like to be called idealogues, but they’re idealogues because their positions on anything, including COVID vaccination, are so predictable based on their ideologies.
COVID cases are dropping because of a) half of adults in the US have been fully vaccinated; and b) cases always drop when people spend more time outdoors as weather gets warmer (this happened last year too even without any vaccination). Just like last year, the problem will come in the late fall if an insufficient number of people are vaccinated by then. Herd immunity is a mathematical concept and its threshold is a function of the virus transmissivity (which is made more uncertain because of the new variants and what mitigation actions people will continue to practice, etc). However, even the most optimistic estimate puts that threshold at nearly 70% of the entire population, which we will never reach if some of us reject the vaccines because of ideologies.
Paul is saying simply that having had the disease he believes until he is shown evidence to the contrary that he has thereby, as with all other infectious diseases that we know about, acquired immunity to this one. Vaccination is superfluous and unnecessary in such a case, says a guy who is himself a doctor. This doesn’t sound like ideology in the bad sense you intend. It sounds like a rational argument if not actual common sense, and it comes with a promise to change his position if evidence should arise suggesting that previously infected people are significantly at risk of reacquiring the virus. Someone who says that such a person must under these circumstances be vaccinated looks to me very much like the ideologue (check spelling) of your definition, @1NJParent .
2 Likes
For some reason you are confusing “herd immunity” with “vaccinated.” Add (adjusting with some overlap) the CDC’s own disease burden estimates and you have a whole lot of Americans who are not posing a threat to anyone. This is why the CDC has changed its guidelines and city and state health departments are dropping mask mandates and returning to full capacity everything. What do you know that all these disease and infection experts don’t? It’s quite easy to be an “ideologue” - all you have to do is ignore the data and make pronouncements that are unsupported by the current science 
I prefer UChicago’s approach: no strong-arming, no shaming, all policies in tandem with city, state and national authorities and experts. Thoughtful and well-reasoned explanations invoke a lot more confidence and very likely a lot more agreement than divisive name-calling. You attract more flies with honey than vinegar.
2 Likes
There’re plenty of studies worldwide that have shown that there’s much less protection and less durable immuntiy from natural infection than from vaccination. Every health organization everywhere recommends vaccination even if one had infection. Being a doctor (or an ophthalmologist in Sen. Paul’s case) doesn’t make him more qualified.
You’re the one who seems to be confused about vaccination and the requirement to wear masks, which I never mentioned in my post. As for the sciences, I’m not sure you have the background to understand them.
1 Like
Note that Ms. Duffy is also pro-life, so for some topics she has no problem telling people what to do with their bodies.
1 Like
Ms. Duffy isn’t backing up her pro-life position with the threat of expulsion for those who disagree with her, so big difference there. She’s also pointing out what she sees as hypocrisy.
Duffy might also argue that the pro-life issue involves more than one human body. One can make the same argument with vaccines too; for instance, the US Catholic bishops have stated that the J&J is problematic but that vaccines are pro-life as well, so one is advised to choose the best path (for instance, if J&J is your only alternative, then choosing to get vaccinated isn’t a moral wrong; but if you have a choice, then it might be). But notice that no one is “telling” another what to do; the advice is backed up with expertise in moral theology but not much else. One is free to accept or reject as one sees it; you aren’t kicked out of the Catholic Church or denied entrance to the mass or denied communion, even if you publicly disagree with the bishops. The vaccine mandate is a different issue. You are being directed to do something to your body if you want to continue your studies at UChicago. If you don’t, you are kicked out. That’s a pretty heavy hammer, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with it. (nb: the very recent announcement of some remote classes in the fall for those who can’t get to campus might alter this policy a bit).
I see Duffy’s inconsistency w/r/t other vaccine mandates as the biggest weakness in her argument, unless as I said she’s carved out exceptions such as FDA approval and/or a mandate by the state health department.
2 Likes