But while health care workers, who will be first to receive the vaccine, appear eager to get the shot, others are not so convinced. In fact, recent studies indicate that many Americans do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if one is available at no cost.

If levels of vaccination are not robust, it will take longer to reach herd immunity, or widespread protection within a population. In response to these concerns, several people have suggested that the government should provide a monetary incentive to COVID-19 vaccination.

We are health law professors and, in our view, it is important to understand how these monetary incentives work as COVID-19 vaccines become available, why payment for vaccination may exacerbate vaccine mistrust, and how this incentive fits into the broader history of monetary incentives in public health.

In summer and early fall of 2020, several surveys indicated that the number of Americans planning to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was lower than desirable. Experts estimate that achieving herd immunity require anywhere from 67% to 85% of Americans to be vaccinated. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 60% of American were considering getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

If vaccination rates are indeed low once vaccines become available on a large scale, it will take the U.S. longer to curb the pandemic. Moreover, many Americans expressing COVID-19 vaccine mistrust are part of are members of racial minorities, which are precisely among the groups hit the hardest by the pandemic.

The idea of monetary incentives seems straightforward: Pay people to get vaccinated. One of the earliest proponents, economist Robert Litan, called the idea an “adult version of the doctor handing out candy to children.”

Litan suggested that the government should pay US$1,000 to each person who receives a COVID-19 vaccine. He admitted in his proposal that he had not relied on any studies or data to get to this number, explaining that the proposed payment amount was a “hunch.”

His idea has since been endorsed by prominent commentators. These include economist Gregory Mankiw and politician John Delaney, who suggested that the incentive should be increased to $1,500.

Some lawmakers and economists are suggesting payments as high as $1,000 to $1,500 for a COVID-19 vaccination. Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images

Paying incentives to people who take on health risks to help others is not new. The most common example is clinical trials. Participants in these trials often receive set payments typically ranging from $25 to $1,000, to cover the costs of participation and perhaps to compensate for participants’ time.

Researchers don’t intend for these payments to induce subjects to take risks they would otherwise refuse. But there is a concern that, if clinical researchers pay potential subjects for risk-taking, their clinical trials will prey on poorer people for whom the payment would make the most difference. The law withholds authorization for clinical trials where there is reason to suspect that large payments were inducing people to take risks against their better judgment.

While a number of studies demonstrate that nominal payments rarely cause a person to consent to clinical research the person believes is risky, data show that payments as high as $1,000 cause potential participants to perceive the proposed research as highly risky. Those individuals seek out risk information and review it more closely than others who were offered significantly smaller payments.

Monetary compensation is also available in other cases. For instance, payments for the donation of plasma currently ranges from $30 to $60. Compensation for the donation of gametes is also possible, with $35-$125 being the range for sperm donations, and $5,000-$10,000 the range for egg donations.

There are also cases in which it’s been effective to nudge people to stop unhealthy behaviors. Studies have shown that paying people to stop smoking can be a powerful incentive. These studies offered smokers rewards that ranged from $45 to $700. People who received a reward were less likely to restart smoking, even after the monetary incentive ended.

Conversely, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act expressly prohibits payment for organ donations. Here, the concern is that allowing payments would undermine the altruism underlying the current system such that nobody would give their organs for free if there is a market for them. And where there is a market, it will exploit the poorest among us, who are the most vulnerable.

In countries that do not prohibit payment for human organs, there is anecdotal evidence of unscrupulous brokers and health care providers who profit from the desperation of wealthy recipients at the expense of impoverished and vulnerable donors.

With the FDA’s emergency use authorization, the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer will soon be in use across the U.S. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

In the medical context, monetary incentives are typically not available when participants take a health risk that nonetheless provides them with some likely personal benefit. Instead, payment is more likely for people who agree to participate in clinical trials where the participants are unlikely to benefit medically from their participation. This also applies to payments for donations of plasma and gametes given that donors do not benefit medically from their participation.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

A massive payment plan designed to promote COVID-19 vaccination would be very different from current monetary incentives. In addition to its novelty, our concern is that such a scheme would have unintended consequences.

First, we have no actual behavioral studies in this area – as opposed to the case of smoking cessation rewards. Similarly, as the proponents of vaccination rewards admit, there is no data on how to set the appropriate reward.

Second, the proposal might backfire. People who already do not trust vaccines may consider the mere availability of payment as confirmation that vaccination is especially risky or undesirable. And people or organizations interested in promoting disinformation about vaccines may portray payment originating from the government as “proof” of deep-state or hidden agendas associated with vaccination. If people perceive the monetary incentive in this way, that could contribute to increased vaccine hesitancy – precisely the opposite of what it is intended to do.

Third, we worry about the socioeconomic underpinnings of this proposal. An amount close to $1,000 is supposed to prompt a person to change attitudes toward vaccination. In practice, this means that richer individuals, who might not be moved by $1,000, can just ignore the reward. Poorer people, however, are expected to change their behaviors in exchange for money. This is a paternalistic approach that does not help build trust in the government and public health authorities among poorer communities.

For these reasons, we urge caution to regulators and legislators in this area. We all want the pandemic to come to an end as soon as possible. But we need to get the incentives right, which entails relying on data, and not just on unstudied theories.

). Another source of evidence is getting vaccinated will help you live longer because compared to not getting vaccinated and getting a lot of health issues (https://www.nfid.org/immunization/10-reasons-to-get-vaccinated/

).  The counterclaim of getting your child vaccinated is that it causes autism. That claim is wrong because if your child isn't diagnosed with autism by the time they are 3 they don't have autism, even if they are diagnosed with autism because of vaccines Why would you have a child who would most likely die before 20 with severe health issues then have one who is considered different from others and live a long life of happiness.

Diseases that used to be common in this country and around the world, including polio, measles, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), rubella (German measles), mumps, tetanus, rotavirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) can now be prevented by vaccination. Thanks to a vaccine, one of the most terrible diseases in history – smallpox – no longer exists outside the laboratory. Over the years vaccines have prevented countless cases of disease and saved millions of lives." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm
They make a good point and I think that is a good reason why we vaccines should be mandatory

ethan sucks 🤬

Anonymous
5d

ethan sucks 🤬

favorite_border

0

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think vaccines should be mandatory for they would help with the pass of it. Although, it has side affects it goes away after time and makes you and the others around you safer.

favorite

1

The CDC reports that pne

Andrew Nichols
10d

 The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a “small possibility” exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune 

favorite_border

0

I don't think the vaccine should be mandatory because there are some bad side affects from the vaccine.Online it says side affects are muscle pain,fever,and they are also uncomfortable

London Anderson
10d

I don't think the vaccine should be mandatory because there are some bad side affects from the vaccine.Online it says side affects are muscle pain,fever,and they are also uncomfortable 

favorite

4

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think vaccines should be necessary because it would make the environment a lot safer and you'll no longer have to be wearing mask
 

favorite_border

0

pro

Anonymous
10d

pro 

The author said when you don't give someone a vaccine you can get sick and it is a higher risk for someone around you because you can spread even more illnesses 

favorite_border

0

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

More than 17 million deaths have been prevented just because of the measles vaccine since 2000.
https://www.who.int/news/item/12-11-2015-measles-vaccination-has-saved-an-estimated-17-1-million-lives-since-2000

favorite

1

I think people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated because people could have health issues and also I don't think anyone wants to be forced to get a shot in their body whether its good or bad and there have been people on the news that said they got bad doses of vaccines and that would make me not very comfortable to take the risk to get the vaccine

London Anderson
10d

I think people shouldn't be forced to be vaccinated because people could have health issues and also I don't think anyone wants to be forced to get a shot in their body whether its good or bad and there have been people on the news that said they got bad doses of vaccines and that would make me not very comfortable to take the risk to get the vaccine

favorite

2

pro

Anonymous
10d

pro

i think vaccines should be mandatory cause a lot of people die 

favorite

2

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

you would be safe and have a better chance at gettting through covid easier, but I don't think that they should force it on someone.

favorite

1

Con, I don't think vaccines should be mandatory because there are people that have health issues and potentially could do more harm than good.I think this because many deseAses have the effect that can change the way that some vaccines act especially with people that have deadly diseases."If you decide not to visit your dentist, choose to eat badly or refuse to wear a helmet while cycling, you put yourself at risk. The direct impact on other people’s health is (pretty much) zero."So what they are saying here is that most of the decisions you make like not eating dinner and or not eating wont hurt or effect anyone...But something like not getting a vaccine could effect a lot of people.But that doesnt mean people should still get the option to get a vaccine or not.

Anonymous
10d

Con, I don't think vaccines should be mandatory because  there are people that have health issues and potentially could do more harm than good.I think this because many deseAses have the effect that can change the way that some vaccines act especially with people that have deadly diseases."If you decide not to visit your dentist, choose to eat badly or refuse to wear a helmet while cycling, you put yourself at risk. The direct impact on other people’s health is (pretty much) zero."So what they are saying here is that most of the decisions you make like not eating dinner and or not eating wont hurt or effect anyone...But something like not getting a vaccine could effect a lot of people.But that doesnt mean people should still get the option to get a vaccine or not.

favorite

1

`pro

Anonymous
10d

`pro 

They should be mandatory because you get something and it could spread to ur family/friends and they die and it would be you fault that they dies just because you didnt get a vaccine.

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

Vaccines should be mandatory. In order to protect yourself , your family ,your friends , and people around you people need to began to take it.  Based on data from the CDC the vaccine can help you from getting seriously ill even with COVID-19. 

favorite

1

pro

Anonymous
10d

pro

vaccines should be mandatory cause it would be safer with a vaccine and a lot of disease can only be cured with a vaccine. vaccines also help people build up their immune system to help fight disease and make them less deadly.   

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

Vaccines should be mandatory because they lower the spread and fatality rate of diseases such chickenpox,tetanus,and polio. 

favorite

1

con

Anonymous
10d

con 

i don't think vaccines should be mandatory  because  forcing someone to do something is wrong and if they are allergic to the vaccine that would be bad. 

favorite_border

0

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think Vaccines should be mandatory because he helps build up your immune system and helps fight virus/sicknesses.

favorite_border

0

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

I don't think they should be mandatory because some people can react differently to the vaccines and might get bad side effects.  If you get the vaccine it might not fully work. In a article it says some people are getting really sick from the vaccine.The effects from the vaccine are tiredness, headaches, muscle pain, chills, fever, and nausea. It will also leave your arm in pain, redness and swollen.  If everyone did get the vaccine it might lower the risk of every one getting covid, but getting the vaccine is not stopping you from getting it 100%. That is why it should not me mandatory. 

favorite

1

『𝙿𝚁𝙾』

Anonymous
10d

『𝙿𝚁𝙾』

ᴠᴀᴄᴄɪɴᴇꜱ ꜱʜᴏᴜʟᴅ ᴍᴏꜱᴛ ᴘᴏꜱɪᴛɪᴠᴇʟʏ ʙᴇ ᴍᴀɴᴅᴀᴛᴏʀʏ ʙᴇᴄᴀᴜꜱᴇ ᴍᴀɴʏ ᴘᴇᴏᴘʟᴇ ᴄᴀɴ ᴀɴᴅ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʙᴇᴇɴ ꜱᴀᴠᴇᴅ ʙʏ ᴠᴀᴄᴄɪɴᴇꜱ. ꜱᴛᴜᴅɪᴇꜱ ꜱʜᴏᴡ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ʙᴇꜰᴏʀᴇ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ ᴡᴀꜱ ᴀ ᴠᴀᴄᴄɪɴᴇ ɪɴ 1921, ᴏᴠᴇʀ 15,000 ᴀᴍᴇʀɪᴄᴀɴꜱ ᴅɪᴇᴅ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ᴅɪᴘʜᴛʜᴇʀɪᴀ. ʙᴜᴛ, ɴᴏᴡ ᴛʜᴀᴛ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ'ꜱ ᴠᴀᴄᴄɪɴᴇꜱ, ᴏɴʟʏ 56 ᴘᴇᴏᴘʟᴇ ʜᴀᴠᴇ ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴅɪᴀɢɴᴏꜱᴇᴅ ᴡɪᴛʜ ᴅɪᴘʜᴛʜᴇʀɪᴀ ᴀɴᴅ ᴛʜᴇʀᴇ'ꜱ ᴏɴʟʏ ʙᴇᴇɴ 16 ᴅᴇᴀᴛʜꜱ ꜰʀᴏᴍ ɪᴛ ɪɴ ᴛᴏᴛᴀʟ.
-𝕮𝖆𝖗𝖘𝖔𝖓
𝐋𝐢𝐧𝐤𝐬:
https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/whatifstop.htm
https://reliefweb.int/report/haiti/epidemiological-update-diphtheria-17-november-2020-0#:~:text=In 2020, as of 11,, Peru1 (4 confirmed cases,

favorite

1

0

Anonymous
10d

0

favorite

5

PRO

Abigail Biagi
10d

PRO

I think that vaccines should be mandatory because it helps build up the person immune system and some make people sick.

favorite

4

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think it should be mandatory. According to Why are child vaccines important, "It is always better to prevent a disease than to treat it after it occurs.

Diseases that used to be common in this country and around the world, including polio, measles, diphtheria, pertussis (whooping cough), rubella (German measles), mumps, tetanus, rotavirus and Haemophilus influenzae type b (Hib) can now be prevented by vaccination. Thanks to a vaccine, one of the most terrible diseases in history – smallpox – no longer exists outside the laboratory. Over the years vaccines have prevented countless cases of disease and saved millions of lives." https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/vac-gen/howvpd.htm
They make a good point and I think that is a good reason why we vaccines should be mandatory 

favorite

2

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think that vaccines should be mandatory because it helps build up the person immune system. A vaccine has a small piece of the virus in it do then when it goes into your body you can make some immunity to it. So when you get it your body is immune and can just fight it off. It is prepared for it.

favorite

2

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

Everyone thinks that a vaccine is a cure can just comes into your body and eliminates the disease or bacteria or virus, no. Vaccines are to train the immune system to recognize the disease and know how to destroy the invader. Even though you are having terrible side effects like fever or some sort, that's your body training for the upcoming disease. And the piece of the virus are the proteins, they are the gateway to invading the human body. Vaccines are a pro because they prepare the immune system for an upcoming disease, like COVID-19, then we can get back to our normal routines.

favorite

2

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con 

"When we encourage people to get the vaccines and nudging them to do the right choice there will be good results other than  punishing
 then for not."

favorite_border

0

CON

Anonymous
10d

CON

I think it should not be mandatory because some kids can have bad side effects and some people don't like shots unless the vaccine is 100%  save It can be mandatory but until then I think is CON.

favorite

2

Pro: Everything would go back to normal

Anonymous
10d

Pro: Everything would go back to normal

favorite_border

0

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I think it should be mandatory because then you keep people safe from harmful viruses like covid-19 and keep you and others safe. 

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

But, if you don't get a certain vaccine you can have very bad effects and very bad health risks coming for you

favorite

2

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

Vaccines should not be mandatory "When we encourage people to get the life saving vaccines nugging people 

favorite

2

con

Anonymous
10d

con

Con because people might have health issues and be allergic to the vaccine. 

favorite

1

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

Vaccines can give you serious health problems if something in the vaccine goes wrong or if it sits out for to long

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

The Vaccination should most certainly be mandatory. The vaccine would first of all, give immunization to people that get it. Anti-vaccine people simply don't understand that the vaccine helps... It gives a small dose of the virus, not enough to kill you, just enough to let your body know how to fight it. If you want to become immune to a virus, the best way is to get a vaccine. Some people think that something call "Herd Immunity" would work. Herd Immunity is when you pretend like nothing is wrong and the virus does not exist. This DOES NOT work... During the most recent COVID-19 virus, Sweden tried Herd Immunity, and it failed miserably. Many people died and they advised us not to try it. the best way to become immune is not Herd Immunity, It is getting the virus

favorite_border

0

pro and con

Anonymous
10d

pro and con

pro ( Vaccines help prevent dangerous diseases that have killed, and can sicken or kill, many people. Researchers thoroughly investigate each vaccine before presenting the data to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA). The FDA can approve or deny the vaccine. The overwhelming majority of research shows that vaccines are safe. Vaccines not only protect you. They protect people around you, especially people who are not well enough to be vaccinated.
con ( Each vaccine is made with different components, and each can affect you differently. People who have experienced allergic reactions to certain vaccines in the past may experience an allergic reaction again. You could still get sick, even if you’re vaccinated. Some people with weakened immune systems cannot be vaccinated or should be only under close supervision of a health care provider.)

favorite

1

Con

Anonymous
6d

Con

The vaccine has only been tested in children above 16 years of age. Therefore, at this time, WHO does not recommend vaccination of children below 16 years of age, even if they belong to a high-risk group.

favorite

2

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

"The government should not intervene in personal medical choices.Medical decisions for children should be left to the parents or caregivers." People 
should take vaccines but they shouldn't be forced to. Some people have medical reasons for not getting vaccinated and vaccines go against some people beliefs. 

favorite

2

con

Anonymous
10d

con 

vaccine should not be mandatory because there still is a chance they can still get it. even though it's a very low chance it doesn't mean ur fully immune to it. For example the covid vaccine my grandma got the vaccine but still got covid.

favorite

1

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death. They contend that numerous studies prove that vaccines may trigger problems like ADHD and diabetes. 

favorite

2

con

Anonymous
10d

con

Although the vaccine can has ingredients to fight off the diseases but it can give autism asthma and diabetes in the long run 

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

I am a pro of vaccination because i believe it is right for children. My claim is that getting your child vaccinated is the right thing to do. My reason is that getting your child vaccinated assists in building the immune system to fight against any agents such as bacteria, viruses, and fungi (https://www.losgatosdoc.com/2020/07/24/how-vaccines-help-improve-our-immune-system/

). Another source of evidence is getting vaccinated will help you live longer because compared to not getting vaccinated and getting a lot of health issues (https://www.nfid.org/immunization/10-reasons-to-get-vaccinated/

).  The counterclaim of getting your child vaccinated is that it causes autism. That claim is wrong because if your child isn't diagnosed with autism by the time they are 3 they don't have autism, even if they are diagnosed with autism because of vaccines Why would you have a child who would most likely die before 20 with severe health issues then have one who is considered different from others and live a long life of happiness.

favorite

1

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

Vaccinated mothers protect their unborn children from viruses that could potentially cause birth defects, and vaccinated communities can help eradicate diseases for future generations. Before the rubella vaccine was licensed in 1969, a global rubella (German measles) outbreak caused the deaths of 11,000 babies, and birth defects in 20,000 babies between 1963 and 1965 in the United States. [72] Women who were vaccinated as children against rubella have greatly decreased the chance of passing the virus to their unborn or newborn children, eliminating the birth defects, such as heart problems, hearing and vision loss, congenital cataracts, liver and spleen damage, and mental disabilities, associated with the disease.

favorite

2

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

From 1994 to 2014 it had saved over 750000 children's
 lives

favorite

3

con

Anonymous
10d

con

"The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization"

favorite

2

con

Anonymous
10d

con

according to CDC the covid shot can be fatal to young children under the age of 6 there little bodys can only hold so much 

favorite

2

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

"Thanks to a vaccine, one of the most terrible diseases in history – smallpox – no longer exists outside the laboratory."

favorite

2

Con

Anonymous
6d

Con

"According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children. [49] The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. [49] Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage may be associated with the DTaP (diphtheria, tetanus, and pertussis) and MMR vaccines, though the CDC notes the rarity of the reaction makes it difficult to determine causation. [49] The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a “small possibility” exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccinated. [49]."

favorite

2

con i think

Anonymous
10d

con i think

yes we should take vaccines but it shouldn't be mandatory. Because  you can have a allergic reaction. But if you dont it does help, but it shouldn't be forced it just not right.

favorite

3

Pro

Anonymous
10d

Pro

Paul Offit, MD, notes that children are exposed to more bacteria, viruses, toxins, and other harmful substances in one day of normal activity than are in vaccines. 

favorite

1

i guess pro

Anonymous
10d

i guess pro

 according to the CDC, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year.

favorite

1

pro

Anonymous
10d

pro

¨Unvaccinated kids are 6.5 times more likely to be hospitalized¨ 

favorite

1

con

Anonymous
10d

con

The first COVID-19 vaccine to gain emergency use authorization in the U.S. could roll out within days, as Pfizer and BioNTech’s candidate wa
s endorsed by an external advisory panel to the Food and Drug Administration on Dec. 10. Two days earlier, an internal FDA panel endorsed the vaccine. These were the last required steps before the FDA authorizes the vaccine, which will soon be administered to health care workers across the country.

But while health care workers, who will be first to receive the vaccine, appear eager to get the shot, others are not so convinced. In fact, recent studies indicate that many Americans do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine, even if one is available at no cost.

If levels of vaccination are not robust, it will take longer to reach herd immunity, or widespread protection within a population. In response to these concerns, several people have suggested that the government should provide a monetary incentive to COVID-19 vaccination.

We are health law professors and, in our view, it is important to understand how these monetary incentives work as COVID-19 vaccines become available, why payment for vaccination may exacerbate vaccine mistrust, and how this incentive fits into the broader history of monetary incentives in public health.

In summer and early fall of 2020, several surveys indicated that the number of Americans planning to get vaccinated against COVID-19 was lower than desirable. Experts estimate that achieving herd immunity require anywhere from 67% to 85% of Americans to be vaccinated. A recent survey by the Pew Research Center showed that only 60% of American were considering getting a COVID-19 vaccine.

If vaccination rates are indeed low once vaccines become available on a large scale, it will take the U.S. longer to curb the pandemic. Moreover, many Americans expressing COVID-19 vaccine mistrust are part of are members of racial minorities, which are precisely among the groups hit the hardest by the pandemic.

The idea of monetary incentives seems straightforward: Pay people to get vaccinated. One of the earliest proponents, economist Robert Litan, called the idea an “adult version of the doctor handing out candy to children.”

Litan suggested that the government should pay US$1,000 to each person who receives a COVID-19 vaccine. He admitted in his proposal that he had not relied on any studies or data to get to this number, explaining that the proposed payment amount was a “hunch.”

His idea has since been endorsed by prominent commentators. These include economist Gregory Mankiw and politician John Delaney, who suggested that the incentive should be increased to $1,500.

Some lawmakers and economists are suggesting payments as high as $1,000 to $1,500 for a COVID-19 vaccination. Chandan Khanna/AFP via Getty Images

Paying incentives to people who take on health risks to help others is not new. The most common example is clinical trials. Participants in these trials often receive set payments typically ranging from $25 to $1,000, to cover the costs of participation and perhaps to compensate for participants’ time.

Researchers don’t intend for these payments to induce subjects to take risks they would otherwise refuse. But there is a concern that, if clinical researchers pay potential subjects for risk-taking, their clinical trials will prey on poorer people for whom the payment would make the most difference. The law withholds authorization for clinical trials where there is reason to suspect that large payments were inducing people to take risks against their better judgment.

While a number of studies demonstrate that nominal payments rarely cause a person to consent to clinical research the person believes is risky, data show that payments as high as $1,000 cause potential participants to perceive the proposed research as highly risky. Those individuals seek out risk information and review it more closely than others who were offered significantly smaller payments.

Monetary compensation is also available in other cases. For instance, payments for the donation of plasma currently ranges from $30 to $60. Compensation for the donation of gametes is also possible, with $35-$125 being the range for sperm donations, and $5,000-$10,000 the range for egg donations.

There are also cases in which it’s been effective to nudge people to stop unhealthy behaviors. Studies have shown that paying people to stop smoking can be a powerful incentive. These studies offered smokers rewards that ranged from $45 to $700. People who received a reward were less likely to restart smoking, even after the monetary incentive ended.

Conversely, the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act expressly prohibits payment for organ donations. Here, the concern is that allowing payments would undermine the altruism underlying the current system such that nobody would give their organs for free if there is a market for them. And where there is a market, it will exploit the poorest among us, who are the most vulnerable.

In countries that do not prohibit payment for human organs, there is anecdotal evidence of unscrupulous brokers and health care providers who profit from the desperation of wealthy recipients at the expense of impoverished and vulnerable donors.

With the FDA’s emergency use authorization, the COVID-19 vaccine developed by Pfizer will soon be in use across the U.S. Kena Betancur/AFP via Getty Images

In the medical context, monetary incentives are typically not available when participants take a health risk that nonetheless provides them with some likely personal benefit. Instead, payment is more likely for people who agree to participate in clinical trials where the participants are unlikely to benefit medically from their participation. This also applies to payments for donations of plasma and gametes given that donors do not benefit medically from their participation.

[Get our best science, health and technology stories. Sign up for The Conversation’s science newsletter.]

A massive payment plan designed to promote COVID-19 vaccination would be very different from current monetary incentives. In addition to its novelty, our concern is that such a scheme would have unintended consequences.

First, we have no actual behavioral studies in this area – as opposed to the case of smoking cessation rewards. Similarly, as the proponents of vaccination rewards admit, there is no data on how to set the appropriate reward.

Second, the proposal might backfire. People who already do not trust vaccines may consider the mere availability of payment as confirmation that vaccination is especially risky or undesirable. And people or organizations interested in promoting disinformation about vaccines may portray payment originating from the government as “proof” of deep-state or hidden agendas associated with vaccination. If people perceive the monetary incentive in this way, that could contribute to increased vaccine hesitancy – precisely the opposite of what it is intended to do.

Third, we worry about the socioeconomic underpinnings of this proposal. An amount close to $1,000 is supposed to prompt a person to change attitudes toward vaccination. In practice, this means that richer individuals, who might not be moved by $1,000, can just ignore the reward. Poorer people, however, are expected to change their behaviors in exchange for money. This is a paternalistic approach that does not help build trust in the government and public health authorities among poorer communities.

For these reasons, we urge caution to regulators and legislators in this area. We all want the pandemic to come to an end as soon as possible. But we need to get the incentives right, which entails relying on data, and not just on unstudied theories.

favorite

4

more_vert

con

Anonymous
10d

con

Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. [85] Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, “changes in higher cognitive functions,” coma, convulsions, and death. [86] Glutaraldehyde, a compound used to disinfect medical and dental equipment, is used in some DTaP vaccinations and exposure can cause asthma and other respiratory issues. [86] Some flu vaccines contain cetyltrimethylammonium bromide (CTMB), a compound used as an antiseptic, which can be a skin, eye, and respiratory irritant. Some polio, TD, and DTaP vaccines contain 2-phenoxyethanol, an antibacterial that is a skin and eye irritant that can cause headache, shock, convulsions, kidney damage, cardiac and kidney failure, and death. [86] Some vaccines for the flu contain chicken egg protein, which can be harmful to children who are allergic to eggs. [87] Some vaccines for PCV, HPV, DTaP, Hep A, Hep B, and Hib contain yeast proteins which, according to VaxTruth and Joseph Mercola, MD, an alternative medicine proponent, contain MSG that can cause migraines, irritable bowel syndrome (IBS), asthma, diabetes, Alzheimer’s, Lou Gehrig’s disease, ADD, seizure, and stroke. [86][88]

favorite

2

con idk

Anonymous
10d

con idk

According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction (anaphylaxis) in about one per million children

favorite

6

pro

Anonymous
10d

pro

“most childhood vaccines are 90%-99% effective in preventing disease.” 🕺

favorite

3

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

Opponents say that children’s immune systems can deal with most infections naturally, and that injecting questionable vaccine ingredients into a child may cause side effects, including seizures, paralysis, and death.                                  

favorite

2

Con

Anonymous
10d

Con

vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States. Long-term seizures, coma, lowered consciousness, and permanent brain damage

favorite

1

con

Anonymous
10d

con

"Aluminum is used in some vaccines and excess aluminum in human bodies can cause neurological harm. [85] Formaldehyde, also found in some vaccines, is a carcinogen, and, according to VaxTruth.org, exposure can cause side effects such as cardiac impairment, central nervous system depression, “changes in higher cognitive functions,” coma, convulsions, and death"

favorite

1

The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a “small possibility” exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccines

Anonymous
10d

The CDC reports that pneumonia can be caused by the chickenpox vaccine, and a “small possibility” exists that the flu vaccine could be associated with Guillain-Barré Syndrome, a disorder in which the person’s immune system attacks parts of the peripheral nervous system, in about one or two per million people vaccines

favorite

2

con

Anonymous
10d

con

According to the CDC, all vaccines carry a risk of a life-threatening allergic reaction in about one per million children. The rotavirus vaccination can cause intussusception, a type of bowel blockage that may require hospitalization, in about one per 20,000 babies in the United States.

favorite

1

the vaccine should not be a requirement

Anonymous
10d

the vaccine should not be a requirement 

i don't think that vaccines should be mandatory because there are many vaccines and we don't know what are in them and also there are people out there that are against getting vaccinated because of there religious beliefs.“Jehovah's Witnesses banned their members from receiving vaccinations in 1931 but reversed that policy in 1952. The decision of whether to vaccinate themselves or their family is left to individuals. Some more recent Jehovah's Witness publications have mentioned the success of vaccination programs.” 

favorite

4

PRO

Anonymous
10d

PRO

According to Shot@Life, a United Nations Foundation partner organization, vaccines save 2.5 million children from preventable diseases every year

favorite

6