Scientist confirm the new version of monkey pox spreading is new and is from the vaccine itself! I said this from day 1. The insert on the astra zeneca vaccine literally says "latent chimpanzee adenovirus" as the delivery vehicle for the vaccine itself. THAT IS WHY ENGLAND IS THE MONKEYPOX EPICENTER! It's a fucking side effect of the AZ vaccine.
by: Rachel Ziegler, Sponsored Content by Pediatrics For All.
Posted: Sep 8, 2022 / 07:50 PM PDT
Updated: Sep 8, 2022 / 07:50 PM PDT
Sponsored Content by Pediatrics For All.
Studio 17s Guest Host, Kait Hill talks to Niranjan Dass, MD from Pediatrics For All aboutthe signs and symptoms of this Monkey Pox and how to differentiate this disease from other rashes.
Dr. Dass says, Unfortunately this disease is already here in our community with close to about couple of dozen cases.
For more information on treatments available at Pediatrics For All or to book an appointment call 661-631-2229, or visit theirwebsite.
Over the years, PolitiFact has debunked several death hoaxes about Queen Elizabeth II, but on Sept. 8, Buckingham Palace announced that she had died at age 96.
The royal family has not specified a cause of death, but on Twitter, unfounded claims that her passing is connected to the COVID-19 vaccine proliferated.
"The Covid vaccines target old people, look at the queen," one tweet said.
"The queen was poisoned with vaccine," another said.
Heres what we know.
The palace said "the queen died peacefully at Balmoral this afternoon." Elizabeth spent several weeks each summer at Balmoral Castle in Scotland and the palace announced hours before her death that she was under medical supervision there.
Her son, now King Charles III, said in a statement posted on Twitter that he and his family "mourn profoundly the passing of a cherished Sovereign and a much-loved Mother." He didnt mention the COVID-19 vaccine.
RELATED VIDEO
Elizabeth and her late husband, Prince Philip, were first vaccinated against COVID-19 in January 2021. She tested positive for COVID-19 about a year later. News reports then noted that she had been fully vaccinated and received a booster shot by the time of her diagnosis.
In the months since, media reported on health issues affecting the queen especially COVID-19 but there was nothing about a vaccine endangering her life.
Older adults are more likely to get severely sick from COVID-19, according to the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and people 65 and older who received both doses of either the Pfizer or Moderna COVID-19 vaccines showed a 94% reduced risk of being hospitalized because of the disease. Studies have shown that the vaccines are safe and that severe side effects, including death, are rare.
Claims that the queen died because of the COVID-19 vaccine lack evidence. We rate them False.
Politics | News
(PAP) mf/mrb September 09, 2022
Health Minister Adam Niedzielski announced on Twitter that the first batch of over 450,000 targeted vaccines against Covid-19 had arrived in Poland on Friday.
"The first shipment of #OmikronBA.1 targeted vaccines has just arrived at @RARS_GOV_PL warehouses - over 450,000 doses. Another, larger shipment in a week. Next week we will inform about the rules for taking the 4th dose in the 12 plus group," the health minister tweeted.
The European Commission on September 2 approved two vaccines adapted to provide wider protection against Covid-19 - Comirnaty Original/Omicron BA.1 and Spikevax Bivalent Original/Omicron BA.1, intended for use for people aged 12 years and older who have already received at least primary vaccination against Covid-19.
What happened
COVID-19 vaccine stocks came under enormous pressure last month. Over the course of August, Moderna's (MRNA 0.71%) shares dipped by a hefty 19.3%, Pfizer's (PFE 1.61%) stock ticked lower by a notable 10.4%, and Novavax's (NVAX 4.76%) equity lost an eye-catching 39.4% of its value, according to data fromS&P Global Market Intelligence.
What caused investors to hit the exits on these top three coronavirus vaccine stocks? The central theme across these three healthcare stocks is the potential for a major drop in COVID-19 vaccine sales heading into 2023 and beyond.
The U.S. government has already said that it will stop funding public programs covering the costs of coronavirus vaccines and therapies. What's more, U.S. health authorities recently stated that booster shots for healthy individuals will probably only be required once a year.
Previously, Wall Street believed that booster shots would be required every few months as new variants arose. As a result of these changing vaccine booster guidelines, this market might tumble in value over the next two years.
That's not great news for Pfizer, Moderna, or Novavax from a revenue standpoint. Almost all of Pfizer's recent growth has stemmed from the COVID-19 vaccine Comirnaty and therapy Paxlovid.
Moderna and Novavax's near-term fortunes are also closely linked to their COVID-19 vaccines, Spikevax and Nuvaxovid, respectively. Novavax, in fact, cut its 2022 annual revenue guidance in half during its recent second-quarter earnings report -- a strong sign that demand for these vaccines is indeed starting to wane.
On an important side note, Pfizer's stock was also stung last month by the ongoing litigation over the heartburn drug Zantac. That being said, the bigger threat to Pfizer's near-term outlook is clearly the future of its blockbuster COVID-19 product franchise.
Are any of these beaten-down biotech stocks worth buying right now? Among the three, Pfizer comes across as the most compelling buy. Pfizer sports a rock-solid balance sheet, tons of deep value via its recent acquisition frenzy, an above-average dividend yield, and a well-rounded product portfolio outside of COVID-19. Pfizer's shares are also attractively priced at under 10 times forward-looking earnings right now.
In addition, Novavax's stock might also be a worthwhile value play at these levels. After all, the biotech's shares are currently trading at less than twice Wall Street's most conservative estimate for 2023 sales. In other words, Novavax's dramatic sell-off this year might be a tad overdone at this point.
COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (KRDO) -- Mass, state-run vaccination sites have returned to Colorado, that includes in El Paso and Pueblo County. This time, the sites will distribute COVID-19 vaccines specific to the omicron sub-variant.
On opening day for two vaccine sites in Southern Colorado, 13 Investigates asked the state why these sites are necessary after they closed on March 31 and Colorado Governor Jared Polis announced his "Roadmap to Moving Forward" campaign on February 25.
"Our goal here is to increase access to the new Pfizer and Moderna omicron vaccine," Heather Roth, CDPHE Immunization Branch Chief, explained.
Roth said each of the ten sites will stay open throughout September and into October to help with a potential omicron surge in the winter months.
While there are currently more than 200 provider locations at local drug stores, Roth said the state wanted to streamline that approach by opening the mass vaccination sites again.
"We wanted to make it quick, easy, and convenient for people to find these omicron vaccine doses," Roth said.
13 Investigates asked if there has been a demand from the public to reopen the sites. Roth said there hasn't been, but she believes people prefer the accessibility of the vaccine sites compared to the local providers.
Roth said receiving the omicron shot is just as important as receiving the initial vaccine dose or any of the recommended boosters. She went on to say that vaccination remains the best way to protect yourself from COVID-19 infection.
Roth also stressed the importance of getting a flu shot in addition to COVID-19 as the coming months are usual high months for flu cases in our region.
In the last 14 days, El Paso County Public Health has recorded zero COVID-19 deaths and 29 hospitalizations. There have been 1,290 positive cases.
At the height of the pandemic, there were double that amount of cases in a single day.
The two vaccine clinics that opened Friday at the Citadel and Pueblo Mall both open at 8 a.m., Monday through Friday, and are free.
For more information, click here.
Hospital Corpsman 3rd Class Joseph Casassa, assigned to USS Gerald R. Fords (CVN 78) dental department, administers a COVID-19 vaccine at the McCormick Gym onboard Naval Station Norfolk, April 8, 2021. The Defense Department is now authorizing the use of Novavax COVID-19 vaccinations for service members. U.S. NAVY / Mass Communication Specialist Seaman Jackson Adkins
ARLINGTON, Va. Seven cadets at the U.S. Coast Guard Academy who refused to comply with the militarys COVID-19 vaccination mandate were disenrolled and ordered off the schools New London, Connecticut, campus in late August.
While the seven cadets have been disenrolled, they have not been separated from the Coast Guard Academy and are continuing to receive cadet pay and entitlements until their separation is processed, the Coast Guard said in a statement sent to Seapower Sept. 8.
Two days after Defense Secretary Lloyd Austins Aug. 24, 2021, mandate requiring COVID-19 vaccine for all service members to protect the force and maintain readiness, the Coast Guard announced a vaccination requirement.
Fifteen cadets filed medical exemption or religious accommodation requests in September 2021. They were evaluated on a case-by-case basis by the Coast Guards Office of Military Personnel Policy and denied. The 15 cadets were notified March 14, 2022, and given 10 business days to file an appeal. The appeals were denied by Coast Guard Headquarters and all 15 were directed to report to the Academy clinic for their first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. Four chose vaccination, four others resigned from the Academy, the Coast Guard said.
On June 13, the remaining seven cadets were told they were in violation of the Uniform Code of Military Justice Article 90, Willfully disobeying a superior commissioned officer, and Article 92, Failure to obey [an] order or regulation, according to the statement. They were given an additional five days to comply. On June 22, they were notified of their disenrollment and give a chance to appeal to Coast Guard Headquarters. The cadets were notified Aug. 15 their disenrollment appeals were denied and were directed to proceed to an alternate worksite status beginning on August 19th, 2022.
All seven departed the Academy at their own convenience on August 19based on their individual travel arrangements assisted by Academy staff. All seven cadets are currently residing at a safe location, having either returned to their families or are being hosted by the families of fellow cadets, according to the Coast Guard statement.
Several federal lawsuits are challenging the militarys process for granting religious exemptions from the vaccination mandate, including two in South Carolina and Texas involving some of the dismissed Coast Guard cadets.
Almost 5,000 Sailors and Marines have been separated from the sea services since late 2021 for vaccination refusal. The Navy has received 4,251 for religious accommodation, the Marines 3,733. Only a handful have been approved. However, a federal judge in Texas certified a class action by Sailors, including several Navy SEALS, seeking a religious exemption and issued a preliminary injunction March 30, halting separation for members of the class. A similar injunction was issued against the Marine Corps Aug. 18 by a federal judge in Florida.
A coalition of more than 20 state attorneys general has filed an amicus brief before the 5th U.S. Court of Appeals, supporting the religious liberty claims of Navy SEALs seeking exemptions from the mandatory vaccination requirement in the Texas case. While lower courts have blocked separation of vaccine refusers, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled the Navy could consider a Sailors vaccination status in making deployment and other operational decisions while court challenges move through the system.
As of Aug. 31, the latest Defense Department COVID-19 statistics, 1.99 million service members have been fully vaccinated, including 387,477 in the Navy and 200,435 in the Marine Corps.
Nevertheless, as of Aug. 24, 3,000 active duty Sailors and 3,376 in the Ready Reserve remain unvaccinated. The Marine Corps latest COVID update doesnt give specific figures, only stating that as of Aug. 4, just 5% of both the active duty and the reserve force were not vaccinated.
Novavax Arrives
In a related development, the Defense Department announced Aug. 29 a new COVID-19 vaccine, Novavax, will be available as an option at military clinics. Officials hope Novavax, which is approved by the Food and Drug Administration under an emergency use authorization for individuals 12 years of age and older, may be more acceptable to the thousands of troops who have refused the Pfizer, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson vaccines for religious or moral reasons.
Novavax uses technology that has been used in other vaccines required by the military, like hepatitis B vaccine. Novavax is not made with, or tested on, cells from fetal tissue. It does not use mRNA or DNA technology and does not enter the nucleus of cells, Pentagon officials said.
We now have a range of COVID-19 vaccines available at our military medical treatment facilities and they all provide strong protection against hospitalization, severe illness and death, Dr. Michael Malanoski, deputy director of the Defense Health Agency, said in a statement. However, as in the early days of the three other vaccines, the FDAs emergency use authorization approval means service members cannot be compelled to take Novavax.
PT Bio Farma, the holding company for state-owned pharmaceutical companies in Indonesia, announced a new milestone in the manufacturing of IndoVac, a Covid-19 vaccine brand it has developed since November 2021.
Honesti Baasyir, president director of PT BioFarma, said the company collaborated with the USAs Baylor College of Medicine, a private, independent health sciences center in Houston, Texas, to develop IndoVac, a recombinant protein subunit
This article is accessible to registered users, to continue reading please register for free. A free trial will give you access to exclusive features, interviews, round-ups and commentary from the sharpest minds in the pharmaceutical and biotechnology space for a week. If you are already a registered user pleaselogin. If your trial has come to an end, you cansubscribe here.
Try before you buy
All the news that moves the needle in pharma and biotech. Exclusive features, podcasts, interviews, data analyses and commentary from our global network of life sciences reporters. Receive The Pharma Letter daily news bulletin, free forever.
Become a subscriber
Unfettered access to industry-leading news, commentary and analysis in pharma and biotech. Updates from clinical trials, conferences, M&A, licensing, financing, regulation, patents & legal, executive appointments, commercial strategy and financial results. Daily roundup of key events in pharma and biotech. Monthly in-depth briefings on Boardroom appointments and M&A news. Choose from a cost-effective annual package or a flexible monthly subscription.
A pediatric cardiologist says that its now clear from all of the available evidence that the spike proteins the COVID-19 vaccines tell the body to make are toxic to the heart, and that myocarditis in young people is not as rare as the CDC and FDA have led Americans to believe.
In a lecture on Aug. 26, Dr. Kirk Milhoan said the harm to the heart caused by the spike proteins is an inconvenient truth.
We know that the spike protein is cardio-toxic. [Its] very clear that it is cardio-toxic, he said.
Milhoan, a board-certified pediatric cardiologist, based his conclusion on data from the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) and several recently published studies on myocarditis.He believes thatmyocarditis caused by the COVID-19 vaccines is not as rare as the government has led Americans to believe.
Were seeing something that we havent seen before, he said on Aug. 26 at the Gateway to Freedom Conference in Collinsville, Ill. We havent seen a vaccine cause this level of myocarditis. Its not one here or one there. It is a large number of people getting myocarditis from this vaccine.
Myocarditis, defined as inflammation of the heart muscle, is one of the only serious vaccine side effects that has been recognized publicly by the FDA and CDC, with the most recent guidance from the CDC repeating what the agency has said since 2021, that there is only a rare risk of myocarditis and pericarditis that has been observed after one of the mRNA vaccines.
Pericarditis is inflammation of the lining of the heart.
Rare cases of myocarditis and pericarditis have occurred most frequently, although not exclusively, in adolescent and young adult males within the first week after receiving the second dose or a booster dose of an mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, a CDC advisory dating back to May 2021 states.
In his Aug. 26talk, Milhoan said the evidence shows that infection with SARS-CoV-2 likely results in the smallest exposure to the spike protein. In contrast, the mRNA vaccines cause the body to produce spike proteins for an unknown period, perhaps indefinitely.
The damage to the heart from myocarditis can be overlooked, he said, pointing toa studypublished in The Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). The study looked at Big Ten college athletes with a recent COVID-19 diagnosis and found that 37 out of 1,597 of the athletes studied were shown to have myocarditis when cardiovascular magnetic resonance (CMR) imaging was done. Only half showed any heart issues with other testing methods, including electrocardiograms and measuring troponin levels.
Looking at heart issues related to the vaccines, he cited a recentpeer-reviewed study of 301 adolescents aged 13-18 from two schools in Thailand who got a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
Baseline echocardiography and cardiac enzyme data were collected before the second dose of the vaccine was administered and collected again on the third, seventh, and 14th day after the teens received the second dose of the vaccine.
Of the 301 teenagers, almost 8 percent had tachycardia (rapid heartbeat) after the second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine; 7 percent had shortness of breath, 4 percent had heart palpitations, 4 percent had chest pains, and 4 percent had hypertension.
Altogether, cardiovascular issues were found in 29 percent of the teenagers. Two had suspected pericarditis, and four had suspected subclinical myocarditis. One had a confirmed case of myopericarditis.
In a third study Milhoan cited, from Denmark, a second dose of the Moderna vaccine appeared to result in a dramatically higher rate of myocarditis and pericarditis than the first doses of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines or a second dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine.
The study involved 4,931,771 people aged 12 and up who were monitored for 28 days after vaccination. During the follow-up, 269 participants developed myocarditis or myopericarditis, 73 percent of them males.
Of the 3,482,295 people who received the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine, 48 developed myocarditis or myopericarditis within 28 days, 1.4 per every 100,000 people, when compared to a baseline rate of unvaccinated people.
Of the 498,814 people who received the Moderna vaccine, 21 developed myocarditis or myopericarditis, a rate of 4.2 per every 100,000 people.
Thats a very interesting story because the Pfizer product has about one-third of the mRNA that the body uses to produce the spike protein, said Milhoan. The Moderna has about three times as much.
He said this suggests a causation, not just a correlation.
On Aug. 31, the FDA announced that it had authorized for emergency use the new bivalent booster vaccines (targeting the latest omicron subvariants and also the original virus) for people ages 12 and up for the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine and 18 and up for the Moderna vaccine.
The CDC approved the vaccines on Sept. 1 following a presentation reviewing safety data from VAERS, V-SAFE, a smartphone-based reporting tool, and the Vaccine Safety Data Link (VSD),which includes data from several large health maintenance organizations in the United States.
While the FDA and CDC have often referred to many myocarditis cases after vaccination as mild, Milhoan said this word is often taken out of context by government regulators.
Is there such a thing as mild myocarditis? Yes, there is, he said. When a patient gets admitted to the ICU, we do an echocardiogram, we look at labs, we look at additional studies, and we say, Does this look like a mild case, a moderate case, or a severe case?
The mild category, he said, is a term that doctors use for comparison with more severe cases where a heart transplant might be needed.
What I explain to families, though, he said, if your child needs to go to the pediatric ICU (intensive care unit), that does not seem mild to you, even though I might call it mild.
According to the website OpenVAERS, there were 8,756 reports from the United States of myocarditis and pericarditis following a COVID-19 vaccination as of Aug. 26.
At a Sept. 1 meeting of the CDCs Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices, CDC employee Tom Shimabukuro said that there have been 188.2 confirmed myocarditis cases per 1 million doses of the vaccines administered to males aged 12-39.
The age group with the highest number of cases confirmed by the CDC was males aged 16-17, with 78.7 cases of myocarditis per every 1 million doses of the Moderna and Pfizer-BioNTech vaccines.
Its not ethical to give a vaccine to a child and give them myocarditis if they may not have gotten myocarditis from a natural infection or if they have already been infected, Milhoan told the audience on Aug. 26, referring to the Hippocratic Oath: First, do no harm.
The question is, why would we be putting children at risk if their risk from COVID is very low? he asked.
Follow
People wait to receive a dose of Covishield at a hospital in Noida, August 30, 2021. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi
Since 2021, mandatory proof-of-vaccination policies have been implemented and justified by governments and the scientific community to control COVID-19. These policies, initiated across the political spectrum, including in most liberal democracies, have spread globally and have involved:
(See table.)
The publicly communicated rationale for implementing such policies has shifted over time. Early messaging around COVID-19 vaccination as a public health response measure focused on protecting the most vulnerable. This quickly shifted to vaccination thresholds to reach herd immunity and end the pandemic and get back to normal once sufficient vaccine supply was available.1 2 In late summer of 2021, this pivoted again to a universal vaccination recommendation to reduce hospital/intensive care unit (ICU) burden in Europe and North America, to address the pandemic of the unvaccinated.
COVID-19 vaccines have represented a critical intervention during the pandemic given consistent data of vaccine effectiveness averting COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality.36 However, the scientific rationale for blanket mandatory vaccine policies has been increasingly challenged due to waning sterilising immunity and emerging variants of concern.7 A growing body of evidence shows significant waning effectiveness against infection (and transmission) at 1216 weeks, with both delta and omicron variants,813 including with third-dose shots.14 15
Since early reports of post-vaccination transmission in mid-2021, it has become clear that vaccinated and unvaccinated individuals, once infected, transmit to others at similar rates.16 Vaccine effectiveness may also be lower in younger age groups.17 While higher rates of hospitalisation and COVID-19-associated morbidity and mortality can indeed be observed among the unvaccinated across all age groups,36 broad-stroke passport and mandate policies do not seem to recognise the extreme risk differential across populations (benefits are greatest in older adults), are often justified on the basis of reducing transmission and, in many countries, ignore the protective role of prior infection.18 19
Mandate and passport policies have provoked community and political resistance including energetic mass street protests.20 21 Much of the media and civil debates in liberal democracies have framed this as a consequence of anti-science and right-wing forces, repeating simplistic narratives about complex public perceptions and responses. While vaccine mandates for other diseases exist in some settings (e.g., schools, travel (e.g., yellow fever) and, in some instances, for healthcare workers (HCWs)),22 population-wide adult mandates, passports, and segregated restrictions are unprecedented and have never before been implemented on this scale.
These vaccine policies have largely been framed as offering benefits (freedoms) for those with a full COVID-19 vaccination series,23 24 but a sizeable proportion of people view conditioning access to health, work, travel and social activities on COVID-19 vaccination status as inherently punitive, discriminatory and coercive.20 21 2528 There are also worrying signs that current vaccine policies, rather than being science-based, are being driven by sociopolitical attitudes that reinforce segregation, stigmatisation and polarisation, further eroding the social contract in many countries.
Evaluating the potential societal harms of COVID-19 pandemic restrictions is essential to ensuring that public health and pandemic policy is effective, proportionate, equitable and legally justified.29 30 The complexity of public responses to these new vaccine policies, implemented within the unique sociopolitical context of the pandemic, demands assessment.
In this paper, we reflect on current COVID-19 vaccine policies and outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why they may have far-reaching unintended consequences that prove to be both counterproductive and damaging to public health, especially within some sociodemographic groups. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health (see figure 1).
Our aim is not to provide a comprehensive overview or to fully recapitulate the broad ethical and legal arguments against (or for) COVID-19 vaccine mandates and passports. These have been comprehensively discussed by others.3133 A full review of the contribution of mandates and passports to COVID-19 morbidity and mortality reductions is not yet possible, although some existing studies on vaccine uptake are cited below.
Rather, our aim is to add to these existing arguments by outlining an interdisciplinary social science framework for how researchers, policymakers, civil society groups and public health authorities can approach the issue of unintended social harm from these policies, including on public trust, vaccine confidence, political polarisation, human rights, inequities and social well-being. We believe this perspective is urgently needed to inform current and future pandemic policies. Mandatory population-wide vaccine policies have become a normative part of pandemic governance and biosecurity response in many countries.
We question whether this has come at the expense of local community and risk group adaptations based on deliberative democratic engagement and non-discriminatory, trust-based public health approaches.
What can we learn from the behavioural sciences?
Reactance, entrenchment and vaccine uptake
Apart from mandatory vaccination of the elderly (planned in Czech Republic, Greece, Malaysia and Russia), most policies do not specify individuals at higher risk of severe COVID-19 outcomes among whom COVID-19 vaccine uptake rates, and vaccine confidence, are very high.34 35
Although studies suggest that current policies are likely to increase population-level vaccination rates to some degree,3639 gains were largest in those under 30 years old (a very low-risk group) and in countries with below average uptake.36 Moreover, insights from behavioural psychology suggest that these policies are likely to entrench distrust and provoke reactance a motivation to counter an unreasonable threat to ones freedom.
Literature reviewed by Drury et al,40 including a survey by Porat et al41 in the UK and Israel, found that compulsory COVID-19 vaccination would likely increase levels of anger, especially in those who are already mistrustful of authorities, and do little to persuade the already reluctant. Two experiments in Germany and the USA found that a new COVID-19 vaccine mandate would likely energise anti-vaccination activism, reduce compliance with other public health measures, and decrease acceptance to future voluntary influenza or varicella (chickenpox) vaccines.42 43
A third experiment found that selective mandates increased reactance when herd immunity targets were not clearly explained44 which most governments failed to communicate adequately and convincingly as they shifted their rationale from herd immunity to hospital/ICU admission metrics. De Figueiredo et al45 found that vaccine passports in the UK would induce a net decrease in inclination to get vaccinated among those who had not received a full vaccination dose, while Bell et al46 found that UK HCWs who felt pressured to get vaccinated were more likely to have declined the COVID-19 vaccine.
Jrgensen et al47 found that the reintroduction of vaccine passports in late 2021 in Denmark increased distrust among the unvaccinated. Finally, recent evidence from France suggests that the passe sanitaire was associated with increased vaccination but that it did so to a lower extent among the most vulnerable, may have contributed to increased nocebo effects and did not reduce vaccine hesitancy itself; the authors concluded: Mandatory vaccination for COVID-19 runs the risk of politicising vaccination further and reinforcing distrust of vaccines.48
Cognitive dissonance
The public interpretation of these policies has occurred within the context of the rapidly changing pandemic. Oftentimes, public announcements and media coverage have oversimplified, struggled to communicate potential adverse events (including a potentially higher risk in the convalescent)49 and overstated vaccine efficacy on transmission. Significant public concerns about safety signals and pharmacovigilance have been furthered by the lack of full transparency in COVID-19 clinical trial data50 51 as well as shifting data on adverse effects, such as blood-clotting events,52 myocarditis53 and altered menstrual periods.54
These changes have been associated with changes to vaccination guidelines in terms of eligibility for different vaccines in some countries. Mandates, passports and segregated restrictions create an environment where reactance effects are enhanced because people with low vaccine confidence see contradictory information as validating their suspicions and concerns. The pressure to vaccinate and the consequences of refusal heighten peoples scrutiny of information and demand for clarity and transparency. Current policies have likely facilitated various layers of cognitive dissonance a psychological stress precipitated by the perception of contradictory information.
Citing the potential for backlash and resistance, in December 2020, the director of the WHOs immunisation department stated: I dont think we envision any countries creating a mandate for [COVID-19] vaccination.55 Many governments originally followed with similar public statements, only to shift positions, often suddenly, in mid- or late-2021 during the delta or omicron surge, including in Austria (the first country to announce a full population-wide mandate).56 57
Cognitive dissonance may have been compounded by the changing rationale provided for vaccine mandate policies, which originally focused on achieving herd immunity to stop viral transmission and included public messaging that vaccinated people could not get or spread COVID-19. Policies often lacked clear communication, justification and transparency, contributing to persistent ambiguities and public concerns about their rationale and proportionality.58 In late 2021, however, the re-introduction of onerous non-pharmaceutical interventions in countries with mandates and passports perpetuated cognitive dissonance, since governments had made promises that vaccination would ensure a return to normal and many people (especially younger people) had vaccinated based on these announcements.36 48
When mandate rules are perceived to lack a strong scientific basis, the likelihood for public scrutiny and long-term damage to trust in scientific institutions and regulatory bodies is much higher. A good example is the lack of recognition of infection-derived immunity in employer-based vaccine mandates and passports in North America, including most universities and colleges.59 Despite clear evidence that infection-derived immunity provides significant protection from severe disease on par with vaccination,18 31 prior infection status has consistently been underplayed.
Many individuals with post-infection immunity have been suspended or fired from their jobs (or pushed to leave) or been unable to travel or participate in society31 5659 while transmission continued among vaccinated individuals in the workplace. This inconsistency was widely covered in American conservative and libertarian-leaning media in ways that reinforced distrust not only about the scientific basis of vaccine policies but also the entire public health establishment, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
Stigma as a public health strategy
Since 2021, public and political discourse has normalised stigma against people who remain unvaccinated, often woven into the tone and framing of media articles.60 Political leaders singled out the unvaccinated, blaming them for: the continuation of the pandemic; stress on hospital capacity; the emergence of new variants; driving transmission to vaccinated individuals; and the necessity of ongoing lockdowns, masks, school closures and other restrictive measures (see table 2).
Political rhetoric descended into moralising, scapegoating, and blaming using pejorative terms and actively promoting stigma and discrimination as tools to increase vaccination. This became socially acceptable among pro-vaccine groups, the media and the public at large, who viewed full vaccination as a moral obligation and part of the social contract.61 The effect, however, has been to further polarise society physically and psychologically with limited discussion of specific strategies to increase uptake especially in communities where there would be disproportionately larger individual and societal benefits.
There is rarely a discussion of who and why people remain unvaccinated. Vaccine policy appears to have driven social attitudes towards an us/them dynamic rather than adaptive strategies for different communities and risk groups.
Leveraging stigma as a public health strategy, regardless of whether or not individuals are opposed to vaccines, is likely to be ineffective at promoting vaccine uptake.62 Unvaccinated or partially vaccinated individuals often have concerns that are based in some form of evidence (e.g., prior COVID-19 infection, data on age-based risk, historical/current trust issues with public health and governments, including structural racism), personal experiences (e.g., direct or indirect experience of adverse drug reactions or iatrogenic injuries, unrelated trauma, issues with access to care to address adverse events, etc) and concerns about the democratic process (e.g., belief that governments have abused their power by invoking a constant state of emergency, eschewing public consultation and over-relying on pharmaceutical company-produced data) that may prevent or delay vaccination.45 46 6366
Inflammatory rhetoric runs against the pre-pandemic societal consensus that health behaviours (including those linked to known risk factors for severe COVID-19, for example, smoking and obesity) do not impact the way medical, cultural or legal institutions treat individuals seeking care. Some governments discussed or imposed medical insurance fines or premiums on the unvaccinated, while hospital administrators considered using vaccination status as a triage protocol criterion. The American Medical Association released a statement decrying the refusal to treat unvaccinated patients67 but this has not prevented the ongoing narrative of shaming and scapegoating people choosing not to get vaccinated.
Trust, power and conspiracy theories
Trust is one of the most important predictors of vaccine acceptance globally68 69 including confidence in COVID-19 vaccines.63 70 71 Data show that being transparent about negative vaccine information increases trust and Petersen et al72 found that when health authorities are not transparent, it can increase receptivity to alternate explanations.
COVID-19 vaccine policies have the potential to erode vaccine confidence, trust and the social contract in the particular context of the pandemic, which has exacerbated social anxieties, frustrations, anger and uncertainty. By the time COVID-19 vaccine mandates were introduced, many communities had struggled under lockdowns and other severe public health restrictions, undergone a succession of pandemic waves with changing rules that stretched public confidence in government, had their economic security and livelihoods negatively impacted and been exposed to a media-induced culture of fear perpetuated by an abundance of conflicting and confusing information. All of this occurred within the broader global trend of increasing inequities between North and South, rich and poor, as well as the erosion of trust in institutions and experts.
It is likely that many of the alternative explanations of the pandemic, often called conspiracy theories, were further entrenched when vaccine policies were forcefully implemented in 2021, creating a strong confirmation bias that governments and corporate powers were acting in an authoritarian manner. Those who resist vaccine mandates and passports are more likely to have low trust in government and scientific institutions,2528 63 64 and these beliefs and distrust have likely grown due to the propensity of policies to justify social segregation, creating new forms of activism.
Furthermore, multiple social perceptions and logics about science, technology and corporate and government power have been grafted onto the public discussion about COVID-19 vaccines, specifically related to authoritarian biosurveillance capabilities.73
These include concerns about the adoption of implantable tracking devices (including microchips), digital IDs, the rise of social credit systems and the censorship of online information by technology companies and state security agencies. The COVID-19 pandemic happens to coincide with far-reaching technological advances that do provide the capability for new forms of mass state surveillance.74 75
For example, emerging biocompatible intradermal devices can be used to hold vaccine records,76 while multifunction implantable microchips (that can regulate building access and financial payments, much like cellphones) are now available on the market.77 Aspects of vaccine passport policies (dependent on QR codes) combined with these innovations as well as censorship by social media companies of vaccine clinical trial and safety issues from reputable sources like the BMJ78 have likely reinforced and exacerbated suspicion and distrust about the impartiality of public health guidance and vaccines.79
It is highly likely that reactance effects generated by current vaccine policies have increased the view that public health is influenced by powerful sociopolitical forces acting in the private interest, which may damage future social trust in pandemic response.
The political and legal effects of vaccine mandates, passports and restrictions
The erosion of civil liberties
The COVID-19 vaccine policies that we have outlined represent a broad interference with the rights of unvaccinated people. While some governments introduced mandates and passports through the democratic process (e.g., Switzerland, Austria, France), many policies were imposed as regulations, decrees, orders or directions under states of emergency and implemented in ways that allowed ad hoc juridical decisions and irregular and overpermissive private sector rules, with limited accountability or legal recourse to address rights violations.58
Vaccine passports risk enshrining discrimination based on perceived health status into law, undermining many rights of healthy individuals: indeed, unvaccinated but previously infected people may generally be at less risk of infection (and severe outcomes) than doubly vaccinated but infection-nave individuals.80 A weekly negative SARS-CoV-2 test is often seen as a compromise in lieu of full vaccination status, but this places additional burdens (including financial) on the unvaccinated while also risking reputational damage.
Employer-imposed mandates that do not provide reasonable accommodation (e.g., testing, relocation or reassignment of duties) or that require people to be vaccinated following prior infection even where employees can work remotely, arguably constitute a disproportionate imposition of a health intervention without workplace-related justification.81 Many countries have also tightened the ability to seek religious, medical or philosophical exemptions, open to unclear decision-making and political interference.82
Perhaps the most high-profile case to date involves the deportation of the top-ranked mens tennis player, Novak Djokovic, at the Australian Open 2022, despite having been granted a medical exemption on the basis of documented prior infection.83 While media outlets were quick at hinting about problems in his official submission, the Minister of Immigration accepted that he had a valid test result and that he posed only a very low risk to the health of Australians.84 Yet, the court ruled that it was reasonable for the Minister to conclude that Mr Djokovics presence could foster anti-vaccination sentiment and thus have a negative impact on vaccination and boosters.84 It endorsed Mr Djokovic characterisation as a threat to Australian civil order and public health.83 84
The case underlines concerns of vaccine mandates and passports as a tool for disproportionate policy that circumvents normative civil liberties and process.
There are also significant privacy issues with passports, which involve sharing medical information with strangers. Having set these population-wide passport precedents, it is conceivable that they could be expanded in the near future to include other personal health data including genetic tests and mental health records, which would create additional rights violations and discrimination based on biological status for employers, law enforcement, insurance companies, governments and tech companies.
COVID-19 vaccine passports have normalised the use of QR codes as a regulated entry requirement into social life; in France and Israel, double-vaccinated citizens lost their status when passports required a booster dose in 2021/2022.85 86 Technology companies interested in biosurveillance using artificial intelligence and facial recognition technology have obtained large contracts to implement vaccine passports and now have a financial interest in maintaining and expanding them.87
Political polarisation
COVID-19 vaccine policies have generated intense political debate, mass street protests and energised new populist movements with varied political views.20 21 2528 56 Studies show that while many support these policies, others view them as inherently coercive, discriminatory, disproportionate and counter to liberal values of bodily autonomy, freedom of choice and informed consent.2528 It is clear that current policies are divisive and unpopular with many, even vaccinated people, and that they have become a source for collective rage and anger, notably for those who have been fired from their jobs or isolated and barred from social life.
COVID-19 vaccine policies may influence upcoming elections. For instance, right-wing and populist parties in Germany (the Alternative for Germany), Canada (Peoples Party) and Austria (Freedom Party) have come out strongly against medical segregation. After implementing the worlds first population-wide mandatory vaccine policy in February 2022, Austria suspended it sixdays before police would impose fines (max. 3600), partially due to legal concerns, mass street protests and the fact that the rate of vaccination had not significantly improved (20% of adults remain unvaccinated).56 88
In 2022, the US Supreme Court struck down the Biden administrations federal vaccine mandate as unconstitutional,89 just as it came into effect for 80million workers (although upholding the mandate for HCWs); republicans had long criticised the mandates.90 91 In Martinique and Guadalupe, vaccine passports have led to months of political unrest and violent protests that threaten the stability of the French government.48 Pottinger92 argued that mandates and passports could trigger insurrection and civil war in South Africa.
Just as the smallpox vaccination mandates in 1850s Britain created the first anti-vax movement,93 the backlash against COVID-19 policies is energising a global network connected by modern communication technology against these measures. These backlashes may contribute to increased distrust of other vaccines and foster new forms of radicalisation and protest.
While mainstream news outlets have voiced concern about the rising anti-vaccination fervour among the far-right, and potential for violence,94 centre and left politicians have also used this rhetoric for their own agenda. In Canada, Prime Minister Trudeau used majority support for mandatory vaccination and passports to divide the conservative opposition in the 2021 federal election. The end to exemptions for unvaccinated truckers crossing the US-Canadian border precipitated the trucker freedom convoy protests in early 2022 in Canada, which led to weeks of protesters occupying streets outside parliament. The protest ended with the unprecedented invoking of the Emergencies Act, equivalent to martial law, which was heavily criticised by civil liberty organisations and included the freezing of protester bank accounts.95 96
In the USA, California and New York (Democrat-controlled states) have implemented COVID-19 vaccine passports for children while Florida, Georgia and Texas (Republican-controlled) are introducing legislation to remove childhood school vaccine mandates in general. Some medical freedom and anti-vaccination groups have made increasingly false and inflammatory claims, and business owners and employees requiring QR codes for entry have been targeted for abuse, in some cases.
In turn, pro-vaccine advocates have equated anti-mandate social groups as anti-vaxxers and even domestic terrorists, calling for government agencies and social media companies to strengthen censorship laws. Echo chambers have skewed the reasonableness of risk assessment of some pro-mandate individuals, who now fear that unvaccinated people are unsafe physically but also culturally despite the scientific evidence. Political polarisation and radicalisation both anti-mandate and pro-mandate will increase if punitive vaccine policies continue.
Disunity in global health governance
Current vaccine policies risk furthering disunity in global health governance. Despite the WHO stating in early 2022 that boosters would prolong the pandemic by contributing to vaccine hoarding and low supply,97 universities (including some global health departments) in wealthy countries have mandated boosters for low-risk healthy students and faculty,59 when vaccination rates remained low in many low/middle-income countries (LMICs).98
Efforts to pressure pharmaceutical companies (who developed vaccines with the support of publicly funded research money) to remove patent protections have proven unsuccessful.99 100 Pharmaceutical companies have ensured that the costs of adverse effects are borne by governments101 ; in turn, the worlds tens of millions of migrants and asylum-seekers may be denied COVID-19 vaccines because of legal liability issues.102
Simultaneously, some scientists are calling the unvaccinated (as a homogeneous group) the source of future variants (variant factories) fuelling inflammatory rhetoric103 that may have contributed to the heavily criticised reaction to close international borders to southern Africa during the spread of Omicron in late 2021. International travellers, especially from the global south, have been barred from travelling to high-income countries based on the type of received vaccine.
The rollout of vaccine passports and mandates is financially costly and diverts resources and focus away from other interventions. In Canada, $1 billion was pledged by the Trudeau government for vaccine passports104 and in New York State, the Excelsior Pass App-system developed by IBM will cost more than $27million.87
Importantly, focus on the unvaccinated as the cause of health system collapse diverts public attention away from global equity failures and deep structural challenges facing public health capacity in many countries. It absolves governments of attending to other strategies for opening schools and keeping public spaces safe, including improved ventilation and paid sick leave. The indiscriminate global adoption of current COVID-19 vaccine policies may also compromise national sovereignty by skewing health priorities in LMICs, taking budgets away from other important health priorities and disregarding public opinion a new form of vaccine colonialism.
Perhaps more significantly, it is possible that vaccination metrics become tied to international financial agreements and development loans and that pharmaceutical and technology companies influence the global adoption of passport systems and mandate policies for the current but also future pandemics.
Socioeconomic impacts
Increasing disparity and inequality
Historically, marginalised groups those facing economic challenges and racial and minority groups tend to have less confidence in vaccination programmes and are more likely to be distrustful.6366 6871 This raises the possibility that current vaccine policies may fuel existing inequity.105 A rapid policy briefing by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics106 emphasised that immunity passports could create coercive and stigmatising work environments and are more likely to compound than redress structural disadvantages and social stigmatisation.106
It is highly likely that mandates and passports have been implemented in ways that discriminate against disadvantaged groups including immigrants, the homeless, isolated elderly people, those with mental illness, specific cultural and religious groups, those in precarious living circumstances, and people with certain political views and values.
Moreover, communities who have historically been subject to state surveillance, segregation, structural racism, trauma or violence may be more likely to resist medical mandates. In Israel, reports suggest that Bedouin and Palestinian communities in the Occupied Palestinian Territory have faced major barriers to vaccine access, with more distrust of vaccination and bureaucratic barriers to accessing and using green passes even when vaccinated.58
Similar challenges have been raised among Europes Roma and in black communities in the UK and the USA.45 66 107 Altogether, rather than enhancing human agency and strengthening communities and social cohesion, many current vaccine policies including monthly fines for non-compliance (e.g., Greece and Austria) may work to disempower individuals and contribute to long-term psychosocial stress and disharmony.
Reduced health system capacity
The pandemic has created immense strain on health systems, contributing to disruptions in global immunisation programmes108 and burnout in healthcare and social care workers that risk worsening clinical outcomes for all patients. These trends may be exaggerated by the current policy push towards mandatory COVID-19 vaccination of healthcare/social care workers and firing of unvaccinated staff. The ethical arguments against these policies have been outlined by others.31 33 109
Despite these considerations, many countries may lose frontline staff due to mandates. By December 2021, despite the forthcoming imposition of a (later rescinded) vaccine mandate for patient-facing National Health Service (NHS) workers, 8% of medical practitioners in the UK (73000 people) remained unvaccinated.110 In late 2021, Quebec (Canada) dropped its proposed mandate for HCWs, citing the devastating labour shortage it would cause in hospital systems (3% of staff, or 14 000, were unvaccinated).111 Both cases created immense stress on already overburdened health staff and administrators, and were decried for their lack of clarity and clumpy policy process.112
Exclusion from work and social life
COVID-19 vaccination policies that disproportionately restrict peoples access to work, education, public transport and social life can be considered a violation of constitutional and human rights.113 The economic effects of restricting access to work may also have indirect implications for dependents of the unvaccinated. A survey in October 2021 in the USA found that 37% of unvaccinated participants (5% of participants overall) would leave their job if their employer required them to get a vaccine or get tested weekly; this rose to 70% of unvaccinated participants (9% of all participants) if weekly testing was not an option.114
Economic deprivation and parental stress resulting from restricted access to work and exclusion from social life may have long-term psychological and livelihood consequences on individuals, families and especially children.30 Commentators have also highlighted the potential impact of mandates in creating supply chain bottlenecks in certain commodities and with cross-border trade and argued that changing vaccine rules and regulations threaten to negatively impact overall economic recovery in some sectors of the economy including tourism.115
The integrity of science and public health
Erosion of key principles of public health ethics and law
Current vaccine policies may erode core principles of public health ethics. As some of those supporting mandates recognise,113 116 and contrary to the media portrayal that the unvaccinated are entirely free to decline, many COVID-19 vaccine policies clearly limit choice and the normal operation of informed consent. This has placed medical professionals in an awkward position, blurring the lines between voluntary and involuntary vaccination.
It is clear that many who are vaccinated did so because of the serious consequences of refusal, such as loss of employment and livelihood or access to social events and travel. We should pause to consider the extent to which current policies, and how they are implemented in clinical settings, sets a precedent for the erosion of informed consent into the future and impact the attitude of the medical profession to those who are reticent to undergo a specific medical procedure.
According to public health ethics, the principle of proportionality requires that the benefits of a public health intervention must be expected to outweigh the liberty restrictions and associated burdens.32 It would violate the proportionality principle to impose significant liberty restrictions (and/or harms) in exchange for trivial public health benefits, particularly when other options are available. Evidence shows that the efficacy of current COVID-19 vaccines on reducing transmission is limited and temporary,716 likely lower in younger age groups targeted for vaccine mandates and passports36 and that prior infection provides, roughly speaking, comparable benefit.18 31 80
The effectiveness of vaccine mandates in reducing transmission is likely to be smaller than many might have expected or have hoped for, and decrease over time. These issues have been widely discussed in the public arena, raising the idea that many current vaccine policies are no longer being guided by the best science but are rather being used to punish individuals who remain unvaccinated and to shape public opinion and compliance. Some governments have publicly admitted this much; in the words of French President Emmanuel Macron, the aim is to piss off [the unvaccinated] to the end. This is the strategy.117
Mandating a third dose for young boys to attend college or university in America has been widely discussed in the US media despite the lack of evidence for substantial clinical benefit,59 118 and with evidence of small but still significant risk of myocarditis that compounds with each dose.119121 Scandinavian countries have taken a precautionary and voluntary approach in their recommendations to the vaccination of children, with Swedish authorities stating that [because of] a low risk for serious disease for kids, we dont see any clear benefit with vaccinating them.122 This furthers the perception that current COVID-19 school vaccine mandates (e.g., in California) are disproportionate, especially as safety studies in young children remain relatively sparse.123
Proportionality is also a key condition from a constitutional and human rights perspective.113 124 125 The formal requirements of legal proportionality tests, which differ slightly depending on jurisdiction and context, generally reflect a balancing similar to the one in public health ethics. In part because of legally required restraint when it comes to assessing the reasonableness of complex policy interventions, several courts, human rights tribunals and committees, and labour arbitrators have upheld mandates as proportionate or made statements as to their legitimacy.113
This appears to have led to a broad presumption that mandates are legally unproblematic. But a common requirement of legal proportionality is that no other, less rights-restricting measures are available that can reasonably achieve the key public health goal. Accommodation of the workplace, or alternatives to vaccination such as testing, should be and have often been identified by courts, tribunals and arbitrators, as being a core element of the legality of mandates.81 113 124 126 Mandates imposing unconditional vaccination, those ignoring the role of prior infection, and those ignoring a shifting risk/benefit balance depending on specific populations, should be considered suspect from a legal proportionality perspective.
When members of the public perceive mandates to be ethically and legally problematic and in violation of established norms of informed consent and proportionality, this will erode trust in public health and scientific institutions and even courts that endorsed or actively promoted such policies. This presents a challenging paradox for experts and authorities: will pro-mandate scientists and organisations come to acknowledge that mandates and passports were disproportionate policy responses?
One key aspect of building trust in science and public health involves the open acknowledgement of when experts are wrong and when policies were misguided; however, it appears that many officials have doubled down in their narratives. This may undermine key ethical and legal criteria for policy and have damaging effects on the integrity of public health itself.
Erosion of trust in regulatory oversight
COVID-19 vaccines were developed in record time to meet an urgent public health need and have been accepted by billions of people, preventing deaths, severe hospitalisation and long-term sequelae from SARS-CoV-2.36 COVID-19 vaccines have also generated at least $100billion profit for pharmaceutical companies, especially Pfizer.127 Has the acceptance of mandates and passports and the rhetoric around anti-vaxxers contributed to a cultural shift in norms of scientific and corporate transparency and accountability?
Governments have refused to disclose the details of contracts with manufacturers, including for additional doses or next-generation vaccines.99 Vaccines are typically not approved until 2years of follow-up data are gathered,2 but given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic and international harmonisation of new agile regulations, the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were placed into emergency use in Europe and North America in late 2020.128
There is concern that, in the fog of crisis, vaccine policy is being driven by vaccine manufacturers rather than independent scientific and regulatory review. For example, in April 2021, Moderna informed their investors that they were expecting a robust variant booster market as a source of profits. Similarly, Pfizer CEO Albert Bourla suggested that a fourth dose of vaccine would be necessary, without any clinical trial data or independent evaluation that the benefits of subsequent doses outweigh any risks, nor consideration of the changing clinical dynamics with the Omicron variant.118 This only adds to distrust over decision-making around vaccine use and ensuing mandates.
The public is aware of the history of corporate pharmaceutical malfeasance and criminal and civil settlements in the billions of dollars, including with Pfizer, in part resulting from marketing practices and misrepresentation of safety and efficacy of medicines.50 51 129
The nature of mandates, passports and restrictions has increased public demands for scientific accountability and transparency shown to be fundamental to building long-term confidence in vaccination.130 This has increased the need to diligently track all safety signals for adverse effects in specific demographics131 and explore trends in overall population mortality and potential non-specific effects.132 However, the original clinical trial data remain unavailable for independent scientific scrutiny50 51; a whistleblower raised important concerns about data integrity and regulatory oversight practices at a contract company helping with Pfizers clinical trials in the USA.133
After a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by a civil society group, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) requested (ultimately denied by a federal judge) 75 years to fully release internal documents and communications related to the regulatory process between FDA and Pfizer. In September 2021, an FDA advisory committee voted 16-2 against boosting healthy young adults in the USA but was over-ridden by the White House and CDC, leading to the resignation of two top FDA vaccine experts.118
Such efforts have only increased the perception that regulatory agencies are captured by industry and would conveniently ignore a higher than usual adverse effect ratio to control the pandemic. Concerns have been raised about the lack of due process in vaccine injury compensation claims for the COVID-19 vaccines,100 which are to be borne by governments and not pharmaceutical companies. A video of a US congressional roundtable on COVID-19 vaccine adverse events with medically confirmed vaccine-injured individuals from the original clinical trials, a US military clinician and Peter Doshi (senior editor of the BMJ) was permanently removed by YouTube.134
These practices do not reinforce confidence that authorities are being transparent or applying optimal standards for regulatory safety, efficacy and quality for these novel vaccines standards which should arguably be more stringent given the legal precedent for mandates and passports.
Conclusion
The adoption of new vaccination policies has provoked backlash, resistance and polarisation. It is important to emphasise that these policies are not viewed as incentives or nudges by substantial proportions of populations2528 41 45 especially in marginalised, underserved or low COVID-19-risk groups. Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care or social life unless they get vaccinated especially in light of the limitations with the current vaccines is arguably in tension with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies.3033
While public support consolidated behind these policies in many countries, we should acknowledge that ethical frameworks were designed to ensure that rights and liberties are respected even during public health emergencies.
