Ojačevalci cepiva proti COVID-19 za mlade odrasle: ocena tveganja in koristi ter etična analiza mandatnih politik na univerzah

(Prost dostop.)

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities

1. Kevin Bardosh1,2,
2. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-8912-264X
3. Allison Krug3,
4. Euzebiusz Jamrozik4,
5. Trudo Lemmens5,
6. Salmaan Keshavjee6,
7. Vinay Prasad7,
8. Marty A Makary8,
9. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5482-2419
10. Stefan Baral9,
11. http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2341-6573
12. Tracy Beth Høeg10,11
13. Correspondence to Dr Euzebiusz Jamrozik, University of Oxford Wellcome Centre for Ethics and Humanities, Oxford, OX3 7LF, UK; [email protected]

Povezava:

https://jme.bmj.com/content/early/2022/12/05/jme-2022-108449

Abstract:

In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207–42 836 young adults aged 18–29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5–4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430–4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

—

Povzetek:

Če cepimo z boosterjem (BNT162b2) en milijon ljudi (med 18-29 letom starosti), bojda preprečimo 32 hospitalizacij zaradi covid19.

Ko cepimo z boosterjem (BNT162b2) en milijon ljudi (med 18-29 letom starosti), pa je 596 ljudi hospitaliziranih zaradi cepiva.

—

Torej še naprej priporočajmo poživitvene odmerke za vse.

—

Na MZ in NIJZ tudi ta informacija “ne obstaja.”Ker to pač ni politični akt WHO.

Tisoče znanstvenikov, ki jih dr. A.I. bojda pozna, se menda tudi s tem ne strinja. Tako je zapisal za Delo: da trpi, ker ljudje dvomijo v znanost in znanstvena dognanja več tisoč znanstvenikov. A do danes se ni skliceval na enega renomiranega znanstvenika in na eno recenzirano znanstveno študijo. Mi pa se sklicujemo na tisoče znanstvenikov in stotine znanstvenih študij in analiz, dognanj. Od objav na spletnih straneh posameznih znanstvenikov do recenziranih objav v uglednih znanstvenih revijah.

Maligni patološki narcis.

AMN Masterclass: Dr. Paul Marik

Dr. Paul Marik leads a lecture on Post-Vaccine treatment. Presentation begins at 0.57.

Kovid? Pajade.

E ja.

https://igorchudov.substack.com/p/covid-vaccines-do-not-prevent-hospitalizations?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=441185&post_id=90271749&isFreemail=true&utm_medium=email

Ob tem gre poudariti – britanska znanstvena publikacija BMJ objavlja tudi znanstvene članke, študije in analize, ki “ne ustrezajo” uradni medicinsko-politični naraciji.