Persuasive Essay on Should COVID-19 Vaccines Be Mandatory

On March 13 of 2020, the former President of the United States declared an outbreak of COVID-19: schools shut down, business slowed to a halt if they had not already closed, medical visits spiked, no industry was safe from the appearance of the disease. After a year and a half, case numbers decrease but still exist, and despite mandates, there is the population that fights against the idea and the effectiveness of mandatory prevention attempts. I pull from multiple sources, and perspectives, to argue that vaccine mandates are useful for fighting against COVID-19, but that there will also be opposition will exist despite this: The United States is an individualistic country after all.

Mandatory vaccinations have prompted change and pushed people to get vaccinated fully to fight coronavirus bodies. Tommy Beer celebrates in his Forbes article “Covid-19 Vaccine Mandates Are Working – Here's the Proof” that more than half of the US adult population is vaccinated due to mandates and nearly every fully vaccinated American has not had a lethal case of COVID, or any case of COVID. Beer suggests that mandates bring promise and progress for battling COVID-19 and that mandates are extremely effective compared to other methods. 

In spite of the progress mandatory vaccinations bring, several opponents voice their concerns and disdain for mandates and even the vaccinations themselves. Americans, no matter the demographic or reason, express fears or even fury about COVID policies. In his article “George Washington's Lesson for Covid-19 Vaccine Skeptics” from Time Magazine, author Robert Toplin notes that nearly half of Republicans are wary to get COVID-19 shots, and higher numbers of resistance come usually from rural areas and southernmost states. Toplin acknowledges that while science saves lives ultimately, considering opposing viewpoints is important and false claims or personal preferences can play a part in the argument. Of course, mandates can have no ill or detrimental intentions, but their impact and repercussions can sour people’s perspectives on them. Joel Kotkin reports that unemployment soared for minority communities from lockdowns and some states threaten to make mask mandates permanent in his opinion piece “The COVID Class War: The Obedient Online Educated vs. the IRL Resistance: Opinion” from Newsweek. He argues that certain restrictions have also seemed farfetched and unnecessary, and the older generations agree, therefore they protest the younger generations as well as supporters of the mandates. However, most agree that the vaccinations that older citizens see as useless, at the end of it all, help to lessen COVID-19 and the impact it has made on society.

Healthcare personnel and patients alike agree that vaccinations bring progress in this age of COVID-19. However, a majority of Americans may not see from the perspective of the frontlines, the healthcare personnel perspective. The journal by Rachel Gur-Arie, et. al, “No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel” from BMJ Global Health discusses COVID mandates from this perspective, one that most American citizens do not see firsthand. She confirms that making vaccination an obligation in dire situations is usually accepted, and yields good results from healthcare workers. However, Gur-Arie asserts that healthcare workers may not trust employers due to already existing problems for safety, and mandates may not be readily accepted by the workers. 

We may question the effectiveness or importance of mandates, but mandates have proven their worth for centuries. They can date back to the Revolutionary War, despite the between smallpox and coronavirus. In his article “George Washington's Lesson for Covid-19 Vaccine Skeptics” from Time Magazine, Toplin writes that despite immense opposition, George Washington ordered a mass vaccination against smallpox and only a small number of soldiers died to the illness during the war. He admires that Washington endorsed medical opinion compared to popular opinion, and believes that modern day civilization can learn from Washington’s example. 

I agree with Beer’s notion that mandates do work effectively to get people to get inoculated against COVID-19, but he overlooks that there will be opposition regardless of science or progress made in other states. Yes, Beer mentions that there was a basketball player that refused a vaccine for religious reasons (that ended up getting the vaccine solely to keep his salary), but any other evidence that he lays out only focuses on California and New York which both happen to be Democratic states. Ironically, Beer overlooks New York’s downfalls despite using the state as evidence: in Joel Kotkin’s Newsweek article, he notes that New York has higher fatality rates despite the mandates put in place. This does not mean I completely stand with Kotkin as his argument is flawed and inconsiderate towards other perspectives on the matter.

Although I agree with Kotkin’s argument that mandates being extremely imposing in this age, I cannot accept his conclusion fully because he generalizes most of the younger generations to make them sound submissive and passive. Kotkin fails to take into account that some supporters of the mandates recognized they do not know about pandemics firsthand and just want to get back to normal, or a new sense of it, as soon as possible. While the supporters probably do not like mask and vaccine mandates as much as the next person, they recognize that there are experts that know more about things like COVID, and if getting a COVID shot or wearing masks will help slow the spread to none, they will do it regardless of peers or public opposers.

A preface to this argument: I am not a healthcare worker, nor am I exposed to that perspective of the virus besides any news coverage I may hear. However, Gur-Arie makes a strong case that mandates do bring up a conflict in ethics because of the fact that there may be discord between healthcare workers and systems. In her BMJ Global Health article ““No Jab, No Job? Ethical Issues in Mandatory Covid-19 Vaccination of Healthcare Personnel”, she reminds us that while the frontline workers do wish to keep patients safe from COVID and other illnesses, the workers themselves also have a right to that safety as well in the hospitals: however the system they work in does not give them accommodations for it, so receiving a mandate from the workplace would widen the trust gap between the two sides, making them hesitant to follow through. I would assume this would especially fit if the workers are minorities (being a racial minority myself) where there is already a rift since systems tend to work against them economically and in other aspects. However, Gur-Arie acknowledges that healthcare workers do accept the mandates and get vaccinated: the argument is that there would be more uptake if the workers felt they were supported by their jobs as well.

While Toplin is shortsighted with his comparison of smallpox and COVID-19, he does address there is opposition to mandates now and even during the Revolutionary War. However, his argument is that if mandates worked in the past, then learning from that should help combat COVID-19 and inspire more Americans to get vaccinated, which is a point I do ultimately agree with. Granted, I did not know that George Washington had implemented a mass mandate, and I disagree with Toplin’s assumption that smallpox and COVID-19 are the same (but I have not contracted smallpox, so I have no experience in that and cannot really compare the two). Plus, Washington’s mandate solely pertained to his militia and their way of inoculation was different compared to modern times: nonetheless, the mandate worked and saved many lives during the war. If that mandate helped soldiers on a large scale, then I find it understandable as to why, in this case, we should follow our predecessors in this way compared to how we do in terms of racism or other forms of discrimination.

Overall, there is collective agreement that COVID-19 mandates work, from historical precedents to modern day statistics, and that enforcing them will help slow and eventually stop the spread. However, even with the progress or scientific support for mandates, there is resistance and hesitation from different demographics and perspectives: that is a given with any argument, hence why I see from both sides when it comes to COVID. Regardless, it is up to the person whether they listen to mandates and live to see another day: if they elect to ignore it, they risk endangering others and have no guarantee of seeing another sunrise. In the end, everyone has a right, however, to their beliefs and morals: they can stay true to themselves, right?