Article info
Commentary
Proportionality, wrongs and equipoise for natural immunity exemptions: response to commentators
- Correspondence to Dr Jonathan Pugh, The Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK; jonathan.pugh{at}philosophy.ox.ac.uk
Citation
Proportionality, wrongs and equipoise for natural immunity exemptions: response to commentators
Publication history
- Received June 6, 2022
- Accepted July 26, 2022
- First published August 4, 2022.
Online issue publication
January 18, 2024
Article Versions
- Previous version (9 November 2022).
- You are viewing the most recent version of this article.
Request permissions
If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.
Copyright information
© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2022. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.
Other content recommended for you
- The unnaturalistic fallacy: COVID-19 vaccine mandates should not discriminate against natural immunity
- Who commits the unnaturalistic fallacy?
- Wrong question and the wrong standard of proof
- Vaccination against COVID-19 and society’s return to normality in England: a modelling study of impacts of different types of naturally acquired and vaccine-induced immunity
- Considerations for vaccinating children against COVID-19
- COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities
- Herd immunity, vaccination and moral obligation
- Ethics of selective restriction of liberty in a pandemic
- Vaccine mandates need a clear rationale to identify which exemptions are appropriate
- Demographic and clinical characteristics associated with variations in antibody response to BNT162b2 COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare workers at an academic medical centre: a longitudinal cohort analysis