Bill Overview
Title: To nullify the order of the Mayor of the District of Columbia imposing a vaccine entry requirement for certain establishments and facilities, and for other purposes.
Description: This bill nullifies Order 2021-148 of the Mayor of the District of Columbia (December 22, 2021) and any successor or substantially similar order of the Mayor of the District of Columbia that imposes a COVID-19 vaccine requirement for entry to certain establishments and facilities in the District.
Sponsors: Rep. Gaetz, Matt [R-FL-1]
Target Audience
Population: People affected by D.C.'s vaccine entry policy
Estimated Size: 700000
- The bill pertains specifically to COVID-19 vaccine entry requirements within the District of Columbia.
- As it's a local order, the primary individuals affected are those living in or visiting Washington D.C.
- Anyone planning to enter certain establishments and facilities in D.C. that were subjected to the vaccine mandate could be impacted.
- Individuals who are not vaccinated or choose not to disclose their vaccination status will be affected, as they could previously have been restricted from entry under the mandate.
- Business owners and employees of such establishments in D.C. may experience changes in customer volumes and operations.
- No direct impact on citizens of other countries unless they are visiting D.C. and planning to enter affected establishments.
Reasoning
- The specified bill directly affects individuals in Washington D.C. due to its local scope on vaccine mandates for entry into public spaces.
- Considering Washington D.C.'s population is around 700,000, only a portion of this population is impacted, particularly those frequently attending establishments with the vaccine mandate.
- The budget constraints indicate that the impact of this policy cannot be substantial across a wide demographic but may have localized, meaningful effects in targeted groups.
- Businesses, particularly small ones, may experience an operational shift, providing data points influenced by varying perspectives and business scales.
- The assumption here is that those who were previously restricted due to the mandate and chose not to vaccinate would notice the most significant changes in access and therefore, in their perceived wellbeing.
Simulated Interviews
Restaurant Manager (Washington D.C.)
Age: 34 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 5.0 years
Commonness: 5/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy eases pressure on my business as it allows more customers regardless of their vaccination status.
- It could see traffic moving back to normal, but I worry about potential health risks.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 3 |
Office Worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 45 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 4/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Removing mandates might make me uncomfortable in crowded places.
- I think it reduces the collective safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Freelancer (Alexandria, VA)
Age: 28 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 5
Duration of Impact: 3.0 years
Commonness: 8/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It finally allows me to visit clients without hassle.
- I felt unfairly targeted by previous mandates.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Small Business Owner (Washington D.C.)
Age: 39 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 10.0 years
Commonness: 2/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I hope this brings back members who were hesitant due to the previous rules.
- We were struggling due to reduced foot traffic.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 4 |
Student (Washington D.C.)
Age: 22 | Gender: other
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 10/20
Statement of Opinion:
- The policy change is less about wellbeing for me and more about convenience.
- I worry it might impact my community's health initiatives negatively.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 4 | 4 |
Retired (Washington D.C.)
Age: 61 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 4
Duration of Impact: 0.5 years
Commonness: 6/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm concerned about attending events now. I appreciated the mandated safety.
- It could mean more exposure to potential illness.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 2 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 3 | 3 | 5 |
| Year 5 | 4 | 4 |
| Year 10 | 3 | 4 |
| Year 20 | 3 | 3 |
Healthcare Worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 52 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 2.0 years
Commonness: 7/20
Statement of Opinion:
- Without the mandate, I'm concerned about higher infection rates.
- It might put more pressure on our health services.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 5 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Retail Worker (Washington D.C.)
Age: 30 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 8
Duration of Impact: 1.0 years
Commonness: 15/20
Statement of Opinion:
- It brings mixed feelings; more customers are good but health risks might increase.
- I hope everyone continues to be cautious.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 3 | 7 | 8 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 7 |
| Year 10 | 6 | 7 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 6 |
Frequent Traveler to D.C. (Baltimore, MD)
Age: 40 | Gender: female
Wellbeing Before Policy: 6
Duration of Impact: 4.0 years
Commonness: 9/20
Statement of Opinion:
- I'm relieved; visiting D.C. for work will be less of a hassle now.
- Personal freedom feels restored, but I respect other's views on safety.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 2 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 3 | 6 | 6 |
| Year 5 | 6 | 5 |
| Year 10 | 5 | 5 |
| Year 20 | 5 | 5 |
Events Organizer (Washington D.C.)
Age: 27 | Gender: male
Wellbeing Before Policy: 7
Duration of Impact: 6.0 years
Commonness: 3/20
Statement of Opinion:
- This policy might increase attendance at events.
- Health can be a concern but ultimately more inclusive entry is good.
Wellbeing Over Time (With vs Without Policy)
| Year | With Policy | Without Policy |
|---|---|---|
| Year 1 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 2 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 3 | 8 | 7 |
| Year 5 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 10 | 7 | 6 |
| Year 20 | 6 | 5 |
Cost Estimates
Year 1: $500000 (Low: $100000, High: $1000000)
Year 2: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 3: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 5: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 10: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Year 100: $0 (Low: $0, High: $0)
Key Considerations
- Minimal direct financial impact due to the administrative nature of the policy change.
- Potential local economic effects if repealing the mandate alters consumer behavior in D.C. businesses.
- Healthcare implications if vaccination rates decrease following the repeal.
- Short-term monitoring costs to ensure compliance with the new legislation.