The Abstract:
While COVID-19 vaccines have had a profound impact on decreasing global morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current population-wide mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable, ethically problematic, and misguided. Such policies may lead to detrimental long-term impacts on uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines themselves as well as routine immunizations. 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 polarization, and adversely affects health and wellbeing. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in scientific institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be reevaluated in light of negative consequences that may outweigh benefits. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation represent a more sustainable approach for protecting those at highest risk of COVID-19 morbidity and mortality and the health and wellbeing of the public. [my emphasis]
*Of course they are not “anti-vaxxers”. I gave this label of “The Road to Hell” because no-one suggests that proponents of mandates expect these outcomes. No, these are the unintended consequences. Hence “The Road to Hell is paved with Good Intentions".
ADDED: Johns Hopkins paper on effects of Lockdowns
More and more people are coming around the the “focussed protection” strategy of the Great Barrington Declaration.
