4 Comments

Thanks for another excellent thought provoking podcast. Amidst the rapid spread of Omicron and further restrictions placed on all citizens, it seems clear that society as a whole is now having to bear a cost arising from those who refuse to get fully vaccinated. The latest restrictions appear to be aimed specifically at protecting the health service from becoming overburdened, which one might feasibly argue would not be the case with a theoretical 100% 3 dose vaccination coverage across the population. Leaving aside the failures of government in adequately funding the health service and rolling out boosters early enough, I'm keen to hear what you both think might be the most effective method of dealing with the clear negative externalities that arise from vaccine refusal? I understand there will be a moral and ethical consideration here, but thinking purely from an economic perspective. Is it an additional health levy as a form of offset? To refuse access to all state healthcare for unvaccinated? No jab / no job? Restrictions on social activities? Presumably there is an equilibrium 'price' (set of measures) that will offset the negative externalities, and if greater than this level, will then mean it becomes too penal for most citizens to refuse to be vaccinated? Keen to hear your thoughts.

Expand full comment

I found your conversation very interesting today.

I noticed you didn't mention the new anti-viral treatments that are being released. Over here (the US) there is a lot of publicity being given in particular to a Pfizer product (Paxlovid). There is hope that it will help to effectively end the pandemic. I believe President Biden has ordered ten million doses in advance.

Wondering if you did not mention it because you didn't have time, or if you are not as optimistic about its potential impact?

Expand full comment