Population-wide Covid vaccine mandates and policies related to them, such as limiting unvaccinated people’s liberties, were not only scientifically questionable and unethical, but arguably caused considerable societal harm, found a new international study.
The paper, “The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good,” was authored by scientists from Johns Hopkins University, Oxford, Harvard, the University of Washington, the London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the University of Toronto, and Dalhousie University in Halifax, and published in the peer-reviewed BMJ Global Health.
The authors focus on the “counterproductive and harmful” outcomes of the vaccine mandates based on the analysis of four domains: “(1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health.”
Calling the vaccine mandates “the most powerful interventions in public health,” the scientists note,
Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations.
The so-called vaccine passports were introduced in 2021 across the globe, “including in most liberal democracies,” such as the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and most of the European countries, reads the paper. Only the holder of such a passport was granted access to the workplace “(eg, a ‘no jab, no job’ US federal mandate)”; social activities and travel; and education (university mandates). In Australia and New Zealand, the unvaccinated could be forcefully quarantined.
Two of those countries, along with Canada, used vaccine metrics in deciding to lift lockdowns and other restrictions. In Singapore, the unvaccinated are granted limited access to medical insurance and healthcare. The Philippines, Austria, and Greece all imposed different taxes, fines, and even imprisonment for the unvaccinated.
All of that supposedly was done in a bid to stop the spread of the virus and prevent hospitals from being overrun by Covid patients.
While the vaccines helped “avert COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality,” say the authors, forcing them on people was not helpful in preventing the spread of the disease. That happened because the vaccines showed a lack of production of the sterilizing immunity against Covid. Their presumable protection against the infection wanes within 12-16 weeks, “including with third-dose shots.” The doctors argue that the “growing body of evidence” presented in numerous studies means that the vaccinated could also transmit the virus as easily as the unvaccinated, yet another shortcoming of the mandates.
In addition to that, the broad mandates failed to account for “the extreme risk differential across populations,” as the “benefits are greatest in older adults” when compared to children and younger people.
Lastly, in many countries, “the protective role of prior infection,” or natural immunity, was completely disregarded, even though it provides equal or superior protection against the infection.
The policies and their representation in the media “have provoked considerable social and political resistance,” observe the authors, adding that the government and regulatory bodies added to the mistrust by not being transparent about the vaccines’ safety and efficacy.
“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,” notes the paper.
Indeed, the firing of unvaccinated Americans from their positions, suspensions of students, and stigmatization of the unvaccinated were unjustified and presented no benefit to public health.
Yet such policies have had negative consequences, which include the following.
- “Erosion of civil liberties” of those refusing the vaccine, especially since many countries have restricted the ability to seek religious, medical, or philosophical exemptions from the vaccination.
- “Political polarization” stemming from the intense debate over vaccines and associated mandates. Notably, a part of the vaccinated population views mandates as coercive and discriminatory in nature.
- “Disunity in global health governance.” The paper argues that global adoption of current COVID-19 vaccine policies “may also compromise national sovereignty” by skewing health priorities in low/middle-income countries, which constitutes “a new form of vaccine colonialism.”
- “Increasing disparity and inequality” based on vaccine trust and access, which hits the “disadvantaged” populations the hardest.
- “Reduced health system capacity,” exacerbated by layoffs of unvaccinated medical personnel.
- “Exclusion [of the unvaccinated] from work and social life.”
- The undermining of the “integrity of science and public health,” including “key principles of public health ethics and law” (such as proportionality and right of refusal) and “trust in regulatory oversight.”
The authors conclude that
Denying individuals education, livelihoods, medical care, or social life unless they get vaccinated — especially in light of the limitations of the current vaccines — is arguably in tension with constitutional and bioethical principles, especially in liberal democracies.
The paper adds that if the concerns are not addressed, then the restrictive policies will likely be employed in future “public health emergencies.” At the same time, the government will have to resort to harsher coercion “to address current and future resistance.”
It is worth mentioning that while the authors express their confidence in the vaccines, the growing body of evidence suggests they are not just ineffective in warding off infection, but are actually associated with elevated Covid rates. Moreover, it is becoming apparent that the vaccine manufacturers, such as Pfizer, and the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) were fully aware of this and anticipated seeing the sky-high number of adverse events caused by the vaccines.
