The New England Journal of Medicine just published a paper providing a framework for mandatory coronavirus vaccinations.
The paper suggests the best to increase “vaccine uptake is to require it.”
The framework states that if a state (like Florida) has not “adequately contained” the coronavirus the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices would recommend which groups should be mandated for the vaccination.
One of the criteria of mandatory vaccines is if the committee feels there is a “troubling trend in cases.”
The paper states that the vaccination wouldn’t be for every single person but only for those they deem to “need” the vaccine.
“The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices (ACIP), after reviewing the safety and efficacy evidence, has recommended vaccination for the persons who would be covered by a mandate. Currently available evidence suggests that the elderly, health professionals working in high-risk situations or working with high-risk patients (e.g., nursing home residents and patients with severe respiratory symptoms), and persons with certain underlying medical conditions may be high-priority groups for the ACIP’s consideration, along with other workers with frequent, close, on-the-job contacts and persons living in high-density settings such as prisons and dormitories. When a vaccine nears approval, the ACIP should review the updated evidence and develop recommendations. Only recommended groups should be considered for a vaccination mandate.”
The report mentions that the Constitution could pose a serious problem to a vaccination mandate and states should find a way to wiggle around it.
In the paper, the framework suggests that there should be penalties for those that refuse the vaccine. They did state the penalty shouldn’t be too severe because “fines disadvantage the poor, and criminal penalties invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds.”
“Nevertheless, because of the infectiousness and dangerousness of the virus, relatively substantive penalties could be justified, including employment suspension or stay-at-home orders for persons in designated high-priority groups who refuse vaccination. Neither fines nor criminal penalties should be used, however; fines disadvantage the poor, and criminal penalties invite legal challenges on procedural due-process grounds. Both are bad public health policy for a Covid-19 vaccine because they may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”
The paper did mention a compensation fund must be established to help those that may react negatively to the effects of the vaccine in the event they are legally forced to get it.
I shuttered to think what is going to happen if Joe Biden wins in November.
Written by October 1, 2020–