≡ Menu

A Weak Hypothetical In Support of Tyranny

Here’s a letter to the Washington Post:


Leana Wen proposes that people’s freedom to go about the ordinary affairs of life continue to be restricted until and unless there’s a “requirement for proof of vaccination” (“The CDC shouldn’t have removed restrictions without requiring proof of vaccination,” May 14).

Why? Given the now-widespread availability of effective vaccines, why compel proof of vaccination given that anyone who chooses to forego vaccination voluntarily incurs the risk of contracting Covid?

Among the hypotheticals posed by Wen as an alleged reason nevertheless to require proof of vaccination is this: “What if you don’t have child care, so you had to bring your kids along? They didn’t choose to remain unvaccinated – the shots aren’t available for them. Surely, it’s not fair to put them at risk.”

What risk? We’ve long known that, as acknowledged by the CDC, “Young children are at higher risk of severe illness from flu” than from Covid. Covid poses no real risk to children. As of May 9, 2021, the percentage of Covid deaths of people 24 and younger is 0.19.

It’s telling that, to press her tyrannical proposal, Wen must concoct a hypothetical about potential harm to a group whose members are at virtually no risk from Covid.

Donald J. Boudreaux
Professor of Economics
Martha and Nelson Getchell Chair for the Study of Free Market Capitalism at the Mercatus Center
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA 22030


Next post:

Previous post: