Pro
#1
Thank you, Leaning. Good luck in this round.
Framework
One of the most important duties of government is protection of the public. Thus the value premise that I want to present is that of protection of public health. The state has an obligation to prevent or minimize vaccine preventable diseases and to protect those who are vulnerable or are unable to obtain vaccinations for medical reasons. Thus my central thesis is that the protection of the vulnerable justify mandatory vaccinations.
C1: Vaccine mandates are constitutional
Vaccine mandates do not violate the US Constitution. This has been shown repeatedly.
The Court held that the law was a legitimate exercise of the state's police power to protect the public health and safety of its citizens. Local boards of health determined when mandatory vaccinations were needed, thus making the requirement neither unreasonable nor arbitrarily imposed.
The Department of Health and Human Services has the authority to enforce its rule requiring health care workers at facilities that participate in the Medicare and Medicaid programs to be fully vaccinated against COVID-19 unless they qualify for a medical or religious exemption. In a per curiam (unsigned) opinion, the Court granted the applications to stay the two injunctions barring the Secretary of Health and Human Services from enforcing the regulation.
The Court reasoned that a core function of HHS is to ensure that the healthcare providers who care for Medicare and Medicaid patients protect their patients’ health and safety, and the interim rule at issue here seeks to do precisely that.
Justice Clarence Thomas authored a dissenting opinion, in which Justices Samuel Alito, Neil Gorsuch, and Amy Coney Barrett joined. The dissenters found no statutory support for such an exercise of authority.
C2: Vaccine mandates increase vaccination rates
Repeated studies show that mandatory vaccine policies are an effective method of increasing the rates of vaccinations.
Erin Flanagan-Klygis, MD, 2003:
History shows that state mandates play a key role in maximizing immunization rates, enabling protection of both individuals and the general population. Successful vaccination programs to some degree shift the policy balance away from personal autonomy and toward social responsibility. Specific exemptions from vaccine requirements ensure peaceful coexistence between the two.
Legally mandated vaccination emerged in the US in the late 19th century during a smallpox epidemic in Massachusetts. The Supreme Court upheld a Massachusetts law in 1905, ruling that state police powers include the right to protect the public against infectious disease by enacting universal vaccination requirements, paving the way for all states to adopt immunization legislation.2 Laws requiring vaccination for school entry were upheld in 1922 by the Supreme Court. Modern childhood immunization initiatives began with efforts to eliminate indigenous transmission of measles in the US in the 1970s3 Schools were major sites of disease transmission, and evidence showed that states with school immunization laws had rates of measles 40-51 percent lower than states without such laws.4 As a result, school vaccination statutes were broadened in the late 1970s and more strictly enforced. Provision of free vaccines and threats of school exclusion without proof of vaccination proved highly successful in eradicating repeated, sustained measles outbreaks. Data from 6 states strictly enforcing comprehensive school laws were compared to data from states without enforcement.5 In the first year, strictly enforcing states had measles rates 50 percent lower than nonenforcers. By the second year, the measles rates in strictly enforcing states was 1/10 that of rates in other states.6 Today, although states clearly have the power and authority to require universal vaccination during disease outbreaks, it is less clear how aggressively they should use that power when disease burdens and risks of infection are low.6
In their preferred analytical model, the researchers estimate that there was a 3.4 percentage point differential decline in non-medical exemptions in California following the policy change. This decrease was substantially offset by a 2.1 percentage point increase in medical exemptions, which was concentrated in the counties with the highest initial rates of non-medical exemptions. On net, the researchers estimate that the policy change generated a 1.3 percentage point decline in overall immunization waivers.
The reason that medical exemptions offset non-medical exemptions is not clear. It could reflect underuse of valid medical waivers prior to 2016. However, it could also reflect physicians using their discretion to accommodate parental preferences, by providing medical exemptions for children who should be ineligible for them. The authors write that the geographic concentration of post-policy medical exemptions in certain counties suggests that “parents may be finding illegitimate ways of obtaining medical waivers for their children.”
Overall, the researchers report that the policy change was associated with a statistically significant increase in vaccination rates against all eight of the infectious diseases, with estimates ranging from 2 to 5 percentage points. Thus, in spite of the offsetting increase in medical exemptions, the repeal of non-medical exemptions was effective in increasing vaccination rates.
Adding well-accepted vaccines to an existing mandate, introducing a mandate in concert with reduction of structural barriers to vaccination or adding documentation requirements
Overall the studies show that mandatory vaccines are effetive tools to increase vaccination rates.
C3: Vaccines are safe and effective
Vaccines have repeatedly shown to be safe and have been the key player in reducing or eliminating vaccine preventable diseases like smallpox, polio, and measels. Just two exampless:
Smallpox was a deadly disease that was completely eradicated by vaccinations:
Indeed, smallpox has probably killed more people in the history of the world than all other infectious diseases combined! About 300 million people died from smallpox. However, because of the smallpox vaccine, first developed in the late 1700s, smallpox was eradicated. Eradication means that this virus was eliminated from the face of the earth. No one anywhere on earth is infected with smallpox virus. That has been the case since 1980 when the World Health Organization (WHO) declared smallpox eradicated. The last recorded case occurred in 1977 in Somalia.
Thanks to a coordinated and highly effective effort to deliver the measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) vaccine, it was declared eliminated from the U.S. in 2000.
But increasing numbers of measles infections — driven by misinformation about vaccines and reduced vaccination rates in some communities — have been reported over the last five years.
More than 97% of people who receive two doses of the MMR vaccine develop immunity to measles. The second dose of the vaccine protects those who fail to respond to their primary dose.
C4: High vaccination rates are needed for herd immunity
Because not everyone is able to be vaccinated, vaccination rates need to be high in order to proect those who are unable to get vaccines (ie newborn babies, immunocomprimised invidiuals etc).
Herd immunity is when enough people in an area have immunity to (protection from) a disease that it no longer spreads easily. It usually takes a large number of people getting vaccinated against or infected with the germ to achieve herd immunity. It can protect people from serious illness and potentially eliminate or eradicate a particular disease.
Conclusion
Vaccine mandates are constitutional and effective way to increase vaccination rates. Vaccines are safe and highly effective at driving down deadly infections.
The resolution is affirmed
