The New England Journal of Medicine just published a report providing a framework for mandatory coronavirus vaccinations.
The paper says the best way to increase “vaccine uptake is to require it.”
The framework states that if a state has not “adequately contained” the virus the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices would recommend which groups should be mandated for the vaccination.
One of the specifications of mandatory vaccines is if the committee feels there is a “troubling trend in cases.”
The report states that the vaccination wouldn’t be for everyone but only for those they deem to really “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 also states that the Constitution could get in the way of a vaccination mandate and states should find a way to get around it.
The framework suggests that those who refuse the vaccineshould face a penalty. They added that 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 would be put in place to help those that may experience negative effects to the vaccine in the event they are legally required to get it.
This will be our new America if Joe Biden wins in November.
