Anyone want to listen to an interesting academic debate on the pros and cons of the COVID vaccine Mandate?
FYI, in general, my posts either try to explain the law (lately, mostly about vaccine issues, but sometimes about stem cells) or relate information about my cases (lately, mostly involving my vaccine/medical exemption cases, but also about my stem cell cases that I can talk about). I try to keep my legal discussions narrow and focused on what the law is and how I think the courts will rule on specific issues.
I try to avoid the big philosophical and ethical issues, for many reasons, but mostly because I haven’t found them to be particularly persuasive with the courts, and I’m a pretty practical bottom-line guy. That doesn’t mean I don’t enjoy a good discussion of the big issues.
So I am happy to report that my friends and colleagues Greg Glaser and Ray Flores recently participated in a debate on the COVID mandate instituted by universities. The pro mandate side was represented by a couple of academic ethicists. There was also a very sharp physician who heads up a UC hospital ethics department.
There was much argument about what the data showed or didn’t show, what has to disclosed in terms of informed consent, of course, the issue of compelling a EUA “experimental” medical intervention, the justification (or lack thereof) for mandating a vaccine in the absence of evidence that it prevents transmission (and not there is evidence that it does not prevent transmission of the Delta variant), how children enter into the picture (and that discussion seemed a little dated as more children are being infected and being admitted to hospitals), and in general the ethics of mandating the vaccine for the so-called “greater good.”
In so many of my posts, I feel like a Debbie Downer, explaining why I think the courts will rule against your passionately held beliefs, and telling you why you don’t have the constitutional rights you think you have.
To make amends, here is the link to this one-hour debate. I promise that you will enjoy listening to it and will especially enjoy listening to your heroes Greg and Ray who expertly articulate exactly what you all think and believe. You will literally be cheering them on (out loud even if you are alone!) I see this UC physician, Aaron Kheriaty as the new bright star on the COVID mandate issue. He was absolutely terrific. (So good, that I hope he doesn’t lose his job).
I didn’t get the feeling that the pro mandate people had deep knowledge about the issues. I thought there were better arguments, counter facts and legal distinctions to be made, on the law, ethics, and data/medicine. In short, the pro side wasn’t exactly represented by the heavy hitters (the media talking heads or say Dorit Reiss or that UCLA law professor). I think having more knowledgeable folks on the pro side would have been more interesting. Or, maybe, Greg, Ray, and Aaron were just that good.
It is what it is, and as I said, you will really enjoy hearing your legal champions make their arguments.
Here it is:
Enjoy the W!
Hats off to Greg, Ray, and the new kid, Dr. Aaron.
Rick Jaffe, Esq.
4 thoughts on “Anyone want to listen to an interesting academic debate on the pros and cons of the COVID vaccine Mandate?”
I am so happy to see the UC system called out specifically. I really hope we have some level headed judges to hear these arguments. The flippant attitudes that this isn’t that big of a deal and just go elsewhere, if you don’t like this mandate, are at the core of the distrust from the public. I also think a good point is every other rule that a university has employees and students follow are for their safety. Not having extension cords in the dorms can keep you safe, that rule in no way puts your life in jeopardy like these mRNA’s shots could. To me that is apples and oranges. If they mandated students and employees to jump off of a building before entering the campus with a crash pad that works MOST of the time then that would be apples to apples. To me that argument is not valid.
You’re our hero too! That was so great. Thank you for sharing. The truth is so dang gratifying. My favorite was Greg Glaser explaining why we should not eradicate natural peoples. Such a reasonable suggestion.
thx. It took me a bit to figure out what he met. OK, I didn’t actually understand the point until I read your post.
yeah and did you catch the subtle point? The obvious was the need for the control group to do science but then he plants a seed using a seed analogy(!) Distinguishing between natural seeds and GMO seeds is a total appropriate analogy because gene therapy is exactly how GMOs are created. So later, when he uses the term ‘natural peoples’ it implies we now have two categories of peoples. One category is the natural human who has not had gene therapy and the other one is… for the seed in the back of your mind to slowly reveal to you. (Brilliant)