Scientists from top universities concluded vaccine mandates failed on many levels.
QUICK FACTS:
- A recent study showed that mandates requiring vaccine compliance had an overall negative impact on both health and confidence in vaccines, according to LifeSite News.
- The study was published in the BMJ (British Medical Journal) Global Health, and titled “The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.”
- The study was conducted by a prestigious group of scientists from Johns Hopkins University, Oxford, Harvard, the University of Washington, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, the University of Toronto, and Dalhousie University in Halifax.
- The group found that among other negative consequences there was an “erosion of civil liberties” for those who declined the shots, “political polarization” on a widespread scale, “disunity in global health governance,” and “increasing disparity and inequality” based on vaccine trust and access.
- They additionally cited a “reduced health system capacity”’ due to layoffs of unvaccinated medical personnel, “exclusion [of the unvaccinated] from work and social life,” and the erosion of “key principles of public health ethics and law” (such as proportionality and right of refusal) and of “trust in regulatory oversight,” as key downfalls of the vaccine mandates.
- Authors of the study did not address evidence against the vaccines, treating the shots as if it was a given that they had a positive impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity, but still argued that the policies requiring individuals to take the shots are “are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good.”
STUDY FINDINGS:
- “Governments have refused to disclose the details of contracts with manufacturers, including for additional doses or ‘next-generation’ vaccines,” the study notes. “Vaccines are typically not approved until 2 years of follow-up data are gathered, but given the urgency of the COVID-19 pandemic and international harmonization of new agile regulations, the novel mRNA COVID-19 vaccines were placed into emergency use in Europe and North America in late 2020. There is concern that, in the fog of crisis, vaccine policy is being driven by vaccine manufacturers rather than independent scientific and regulatory review.”
- The study proposes a “comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful” in relation to “four domains: (1) behavioral psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health.”
- “It is important to emphasize that these policies are not viewed as ‘incentives’ or ‘nudges’ by substantial proportions of populations especially in marginalized, underserved or low COVID-19-risk groups,” the authors conclude. “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. 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.”
BACKGROUND:
- Studies have continued, now focused on how to get the “vaccine-hesitant” to take the jab, with a recent report indicating that scientists have studied what messaging convinced holdouts to submit.
- According to findings by researchers at the University of Kansas, “conversion” messages were some of the most impactful in pushing people to receive the vaccine, using the story of someone who was allegedly previously also hesitant but took the leap and is now happy with their decision.
