“COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities”
(title of study published preprint in SSRN online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4206070)
Headline in Epoch News:
‘Unethical’ and Up to 98 Times Worse Than the Disease: Top Scientists Publish Paradigm-Shifting Study About COVID-19 Boosters for Young Adults
From the study itself, as written and published by nine authors:
Kevin Bardosh, University of Washington; University of Edinburgh – Edinburgh Medical School
Allison Krug, Artemis Biomedical Communications LLC
Euzebiusz Jamrozik, University of Oxford
Trudo Lemmens, University of Toronto – Faculty of Law
Salmaan Keshavjee, Harvard University – Harvard Medical School
Vinay Prasad, University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
Martin A. Makary, Johns Hopkins University – Department of Surgery
Stefan Baral, John Hopkins University
Tracy Beth Høeg, Florida Department of Health; Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital
Abstract
Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates. We estimate that 22,000 – 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation. Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities. Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable. University booster mandates are unethical because: 1) no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group; 2) vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people; 3) mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; 4) US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and 5) mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support. Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose CCOVIDovid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
(our emphasis added!)