OK... let's talk about this. Clicked through to find that the article is about Jacobson v. Massachusetts, to me one of the most interesting SCOTUS cases and something I think we should all be taught in public health school. https://twitter.com/abc15/status/1292635137960640512?s=20

Henning Jacobson was a Swedish pastor living in Massachusetts around the turn of the century. He'd been vaccinated against smallpox in Sweden and reported an adverse event--didn't want to be vaccinated again. But MA had a law that said everyone had to be vaccinated or fined.

Jacobson refused vaccine & was fined $5, which he also refused to pay, citing his 14th Amendment rights. Everyone remember that one? It's one of the Reconstruction Amendments. Section 1 says this (abridged for twitter):

"No State shall make/enforce any law which...abridges the privileges or immunities of citizens of the US; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person [in] its jurisdiction...equal protection of the laws"

Jacobson argued that mandatory vaccination abridged his privilege of liberty as a citizen of the US. The court did not agree, voting 7-2 in favor of the state. Justice Harlan wrote an opinion very important to public health law, stating in part:

"[SCOTUS] has distinctly recognized the authority of a State to enact quarantine laws and ‘health laws of every description;’ indeed, all laws that relate to matters completely within its territory and which do not, by their necessary operation, affect the people of other States.

He added: “…The liberty secured by the Constitution of the United States to every person within its jurisdiction does not import an absolute right in each person to be, at all times and in all circumstances, wholly freed from restraint. There are manifold restraints..."

"...to which every person is necessarily subject for the common good. On any other basis, organized society could not exist with safety to its members.” Harlan was invoking the principle of 'salus populi' here: the well-being of the people is the supreme law.

Harlan wasn't the first to talk about 'salus populi'--it's a principle probably first mentioned by Cicero, but then Hobbes, Spinoza, Locke, ...

And for many of us, 'salus populi' is what we are saying when we say "I wish y'all would wear a mask and take care of each other"

BUT. 'Salus populi' is also an argument for a strong centralized government with a paternalistic attitude towards its citizens. And it has been used to justify some truly horrible things. Around the same time Jacobson v. Massachusetts was being argued...

...a cordon sanitaire was drawn in San Francisco during a plague outbreak. It singled out SF's Chinatown. Weird how the cordon sanitaire coincidentally fell along those lines, isn't it? Even weirder: we're not done with this narrative >100 years later

That brings me to the last part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment: "nor deny to any person [in] its jurisdiction...equal protection of the laws" (on the basis of race, sex, etc.) This is why we DESPERATELY need to respond NOW to people's fears and concerns about vaccines...

Not only is it ethically & morally the right thing to do, but if we fail, the failure will (once again) be most deeply felt in Black and Brown communities and those who have been mistreated and are rightfully skeptical. Depending on who you are, a fine can = jail time. Not ok.

We want high vaccine uptake, yes, but let's not lose sight of *why* we want that: for the good of *everyone*, not just people who have the privilege of trust in the system.

14/steps off soapbox

Posted, deleted, and posted again because I don't know how to internet. Also, @subblaw, lmk if I missed anything good :)