COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities
50 Pages Posted: 12 Sep 2022
University of Washington; University of Edinburgh – Edinburgh Medical School
Artemis Biomedical Communications LLC
University of Oxford
University of Toronto – Faculty of Law
Harvard University – Harvard Medical School
University of California, San Francisco (UCSF)
Martin A. Makary
Johns Hopkins University – Department of Surgery
John Hopkins University
Tracy Beth Høeg
Florida Department of Health; Sierra Nevada Memorial Hospital
Date Written: August 31, 2022
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.
Note: Funding: This paper was partially supported by a Wellcome Trust Society and Ethics fellowship awarded to KB (10892/B/15/ZE) and Wellcome Trust grants to EJ (216355, 221719, 203132).
Competing Interest Statement: We do not have any competing interests to declare.
Keywords: COVID-19 vaccines, mandates, ethics, young adults, risk-benefit analysis
Bardosh, Kevin and Krug, Allison and Jamrozik, Euzebiusz and Lemmens, Trudo and Keshavjee, Salmaan and Prasad, Vinay and Makary, Martin A. and Baral, Stefan and Høeg, Tracy Beth, COVID-19 Vaccine Boosters for Young Adults: A Risk-Benefit Assessment and Five Ethical Arguments against Mandates at Universities (August 31, 2022). Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=4206070 or http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4206070
Add Your Comment