A new analysis published in the British Medical Journal suggests that Covid-19 vaccine booster mandates are likely to cause more harm than good to young adults (18-29 years) as the total severe adverse events would outweigh the Covid hospitalizations averted.
One of the authors, Dr Kevin Bardosh, said the analysis “raised the alarming possibility” that Covid vaccine mandates “may result in a net expected harm to healthy young people”.
He said that the research has showed that vaccine booster mandates being implemented by universities were “unethical” and that the public health authorities in the U.S. had not conducted sufficient risk-benefit analysis for young people.
“Expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission,” the analysis found.
The research published in the peer-reviewed journal showed that, for every hospitalisation averted, at least 18.5 serious adverse events could be expected from mRNA vaccines, – and that 1.5 to 4.6 cases of myopericarditis in males could be expected which would typically require hospitalisation.
Some 1,430 – 4,626 cases of reactogenicity of Grade 3 or above (after effects typically manifesting as an inflammatory response to vaccination which are usually temporary but may interfere with daily activities) were also likely to be expected to avoid one hospitalisation.
Researchers were critical of policymakers who they said were “ignoring the protective effects of prior infection” – and also found that vaccine mandates being enforced by universities in the U.S. who refused to allow students to enrol in college courses without a third-dose COVID-19 vaccine were lacking a scientific or ethical basis.
They noted that: “by September 2022, the majority of young adults, both vaccinated and unvaccinated, are estimated to have been previously infected with COVID-19. Evidence increasingly shows that prior SARS-CoV-2 infection provides at least similar (and perhaps more durable) clinical protection to current vaccines, which current university policies fail to acknowledge.”
“CDC’s outdated risk-benefit analysis for adolescents and young adults does not distinguish important subgroups such as or those who have recovered from previous infection or healthy young people (as opposed to those with comorbidities or immunocompromised status),” they said.
The researchers concluded that “policymakers should repeal COVID-19 vaccine mandates for young adults immediately” – and also recommended that “pathways to compensation to those who have suffered negative consequences from these policies” should be established.
The researchers were a team of bioethicists, epidemiologists, legal scholars and clinicians, and included Director of Harvard’s Center for Global Health Delivery Prof Salmaan Keshavjee; Dr Kevin Bardosh of the University of Edinburgh; and epidemiologist Dr Allison Krug.
They outlined five ethical arguments against booster mandates at universities of higher education in North America, adding that “mandates are also associated with wider social harms.”
“The CDC has been negligent and it is incumbent on the agency to conduct an updated Omicron risk-benefit analysis for this age group,” researcher Kevin Bardosh observed.
“Our analysis shows the alarming possibility that mandates may result in a net expected harm to young people. This violates the ‘do no harm principle’.” he said. He also noted that in reality, outcomes might be even less favourable because their estimates took the cautious approach of assuming no-one had been infected with Covid-19.
“So: real-world benefits likely to be less favourable,” he tweeted.
The analysis also found that “vaccine mandates are not proportionate public policy” and that “the benefits are unlikely to outweigh the harms by any significant degree to justify liberty restrictions,” adding that it was now known that “current vaccines do not durably stop transmission”.
It was also noted that “US vaccine injury schemes are completely inadequate and have failed to provide support for rare but severe Covid-19 vaccine injuries”.
And the paper concluded that Covid-19 vaccine booster mandates “have wider social harms” because “students and faculty risk being dis-enrolled or fired” and “mandates have caused backlash, resistance & anger.”
“This has further damaged the trustworthiness & credibility of scientific institutions/universities,” Dr Bardosh said.
“Lastly, we make the point that although our risk-benefit analysis is focused on boosters in young adults, our analysis is relevant to other university, workplace & school Covid-19 vaccine mandates, especially given high prior infection rate among the US population,” he wrote.
“Regulatory agencies should facilitate independent scientific analysis through open access to participant-level clinical trial data to allow risk-stratified and age-stratified risk-benefit analyses of any new vaccines prior to issuing recommendations. This is needed to begin what will be a long process of rebuilding trust in public health,” the analysis concluded.