We would like to thank each of the commentators on our feature article for their thoughtful engagement with our arguments. All the commentaries raise important questions about our proposed justification for natural immunity exemptions to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Thankfully, for some of the points raised, we can simply signal our agreement. For instance, Reiss is correct to highlight that our article did not address the important US-centric considerations she helpfully raises and fruitfully discusses. We also agree with Williams about the need to provide a clear rationale for mandates, and to obtain different kinds of data in support of possible policies.
Unfortunately, we lack the space to engage with every one of the more critical comments raised in this rich set of commentaries; as such, in this response, we shall focus on a discussion of hybrid immunity, which underlies a number of different arguments evident in the commentaries, before concluding with some reflections responding to Lipsitch’s concern about the appropriate standard of proof in this context.
- Public Policy
Statistics from Altmetric.com
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.
Twitter @Becky_Brown13, @Neonatalethics
Contributors JP drafted initial manuscript. JS. RCHB and DW all revised. All authors agreed to final version.
Funding This project is supported by Arts and Humanities Research Council (AH/V013947/1) and UK Research and Innovation (AH/V013947/1).
Competing interests JP, JS and DW are supported by the UKRI/ AHRC funded UK Ethics Accelerator project, grant number AH/V013947/1. JS receives funding from the Uehiro Foundation on Ethics and Education, NHMRC, Wellcome Trust, Australian Research Council and WHO. He is a Partner Investigator on an Australian Research Council Linkage award (LP190100841, October 2020-2023), which involves industry partnership from Illumina. He does not personally receive any funds from Illumina.
Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.
Read the full text or download the PDF:
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
- COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities
- 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
- Vaccine mandates for healthcare workers beyond COVID-19
- Elucidating mechanisms of antitumor immunity mediated by live oncolytic vaccinia and heat-inactivated vaccinia