“Our estimate shows that COVID-19 vaccine mandates are likely to cause net harm to healthy young adults, which is not offset by a commensurate public health benefit.” This is what a scientific article published in the Journal of Medical Ethics. The researchers are stark in their conclusions, stating that “the fact that such policies were implemented despite expert controversy and without updating the only publicly available risk-benefit analysis to current Omicron variants or subjecting the methods to public scrutiny suggests a profound lack of transparency in the scientific and regulatory decision-making process”, before concluding – referring to the vaccination obligations imposed on young people – that “these serious violations of individual freedom and human rights have proved to be ethically unjustifiable.
Based on data provided by the CDC (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention), the researchers estimated that to prevent a single Omicron variant-related hospital admission in a 6-month period, between 31,207 and 42,836 individuals in the age group 18-29 year olds should have received the third dose of an mRNA vaccine in autumn 2022. The estimates made show that to avoid a single hospitalization there would have been “at least 18.5 serious adverse events by mRNA vaccines,” including between 1.5 and 4.6 cases of “booster-associated myopericarditis in males (typically requiring hospitalization).” Furthermore, they would also occur between 1430 and 4626 “cases of reactogenicity grade greater than or equal to 3″, which “interfere with daily activities” although “generally do not require hospitalization”.
It is no coincidence, therefore, if the work reads that “it is probable that university vaccination obligations cause net damage to healthy young adults who are not offset by a proportional benefit to public health“. Moreover, the aforementioned estimate, which inevitably casts a bad light on the risk-benefit ratio in young adults, could lean even more in favor of risks: in fact – the researchers explain – “it does not take into account the protection conferred by a previous infection or a risk adjustment for the comorbidity status”, which is why the evaluation carried out by the researchers “should be considered conservative and optimistic from a benefit perspective”.
The “ethical analysis” carried out by the authors, which contains several notable scientific claims. In fact, the researchers, speaking of the obligations imposed on university students by hundreds of North American institutes, define them as “unethical” not only because “they are not based on a stratified risk-benefit assessment updated to the Omicron variant” and because they can “cause net damage to healthy young adults”, but also because “the expected damages are not compensated by the benefits for public health given the modest and transient efficacy of vaccines against transmission”.
In fact, within the work we read that “supporters of obligations have argued that current vaccines prevent transmission, which would support a standard ethical reason in favor of them: the protection of others”. However, this reason does not seem to exist by now, being “increasingly evident that current vaccines provide, at most, partial and transient protection against infection, which decreases precipitously after a few months, with limited effects on secondary transmission”. In the light of what has been described, the scholars are targeting the vaccination obligation for this segment of the population, underlining that “political leaders should repeal it immediately”.
[di Raffaele De Luca]