OPINION:
We just passed the first anniversary of the repeal of the District of Columbia’s indoor vaccine mandate. It’s worth taking a moment to ponder a basic question: Did it work?
Of the many public health measures, campaigns and behavioral nudges implemented during the pandemic to mitigate the impact of COVID-19, indoor vaccine mandates were arguably among the most restrictive and polarizing. The objectives — to encourage vaccination and curb the spread of COVID-19 — were important, of course. But the first comprehensive analysis of these policies, written by one of the authors of this article, finds no evidence these goals were met.
By early 2022, D.C. and eight other major U.S. cities had adopted such mandates, affecting the daily lives of millions of people. The mandates also threatened the viability of many small businesses by forcing them to fire any unvaccinated workers.
In the nation’s capital, a requirement to present proof of vaccination to access many indoor establishments — including restaurants, gyms and theaters — was in effect last year from Jan. 15 to Feb. 15, as the omicron wave filled the city’s hospitals. In her statement announcing the policy in December 2021, Mayor Muriel Bowser asserted, “vaccine requirements have resulted in more persons who were vaccine hesitant deciding to get vaccinated” and added that “we must implement a vaccine requirement to preserve life, health, and hospital capacity.” At the time, there was no evidence to support these specific assertions.
It’s true that in 2022, some scholars found that similar mandates adopted in Canadian provinces and European countries had been successful in increasing vaccination rates. Yet it was still unclear whether those findings would hold up for American cities.
One reason to question whether vaccine requirements imposed in Washington would be as effective as those in larger jurisdictions was that the costs of noncompliance were lower. In other words, one needed only travel to Maryland or Virginia to have a meal or hit the gym.
The new study, published by the Mercatus Center, is the first of its kind, addressing questions like these by drawing on health data from hundreds of cities. To determine what would have happened without the mandates, the authors applied a statistical technique that uses cities that never adopted one.
The study finds no evidence that the mandate had any effect on COVID-19 cases and deaths in D.C., as well as in all other cities that implemented the mandate. Moreover, the authors find no evidence that vaccination rates were affected at all, which was the primary objective of the mandate.
In short, Ms. Bowser’s belief that the policy would make the public measurably safer — shared by other big-city mayors — is simply not supported by the data. The claim was dubious at the time the mandate was announced, and we now know it wasn’t true in any major U.S. city.
More research is needed to understand why the mandates fell so far short. We’ve already noted a flaw in city-level mandates that residents can easily travel around. Another factor is moral hazard: the tendency to accept more risk when one has some level of protection. If people felt protected by vaccine mandates, they may have been more likely to visit crowded venues and less likely to adhere to social distancing and masking recommendations — partially, or perhaps entirely, offsetting the benefits of vaccination.
Of course, hindsight is a luxury that policymakers acting during health crises don’t have. They are compelled to make decisions with imperfect and incomplete information. At the time, it was possible to think that a vaccine mandate might have helped blunt the omicron wave. Looking forward, however, city officials’ willingness to adopt vaccine mandates and impose severe restrictions on the lives of citizens and business owners is a cautionary tale.
When the evidence behind an intervention is weak or uncertain, city leaders should remember that erring on the side of freedom and personal autonomy can be pragmatic. Putting aside the intense debates of the last several years, individuals are usually better positioned than public officials to balance competing interests. In this case, Washingtonians may have exercised more personal caution and judgment without what turned out to be a false sense of security.
Failing to anticipate these kinds of trade-offs is one of the most common governing errors. Now we have another example.
• Vitor Melo is a postdoctoral fellow with the Open Health Project at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, a fellow with the Initiative on Enabling Choice and Competition in Healthcare at the University of Chicago and the coauthor of a new study on indoor vaccine mandates. Liam Sigaud is a research assistant with the Mercatus’ Open Health Project.
For more information, visit The Washington Times COVID-19 resource page.
Please read our comment policy before commenting.