When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
Covid-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: A risk-benefit assessment and five ethical arguments against mandates at universities
Students at North American universities risk disenrollment due to third dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates. We present a risk-benefit assessment of boosters in this age group and provide five ethical arguments against mandates.
We estimate that 22,000 - 30,000 previously uninfected adults aged 18-29 must be boosted with an mRNA vaccine to prevent one Covid-19 hospitalisation.
Using CDC and sponsor-reported adverse event data, we find that booster mandates may cause a net expected harm: per Covid-19 hospitalisation prevented in previously uninfected young adults, we anticipate 18 to 98 serious adverse events, including 1.7 to 3.0 booster-associated myocarditis cases in males, and 1,373 to 3,234 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity which interferes with daily activities.
Given the high prevalence of post-infection immunity, this risk-benefit profile is even less favourable.
University booster mandates are unethical because:
no formal risk-benefit assessment exists for this age group;
vaccine mandates may result in a net expected harm to individual young people;
mandates are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given the modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission;
US mandates violate the reciprocity principle because rare serious vaccine-related harms will not be reliably compensated due to gaps in current vaccine injury schemes; and
mandates create wider social harms. We consider counter-arguments such as a desire for socialisation and safety and show that such arguments lack scientific and/or ethical support.
Finally, we discuss the relevance of our analysis for current 2-dose Covid-19 vaccine mandates in North America.
I saw this photo just a little bit ago, and it immediately struck me that many people will, in a sincere tone of voice, point out how much lower North Korea's environmental footprint is. They're not burning tons of fossil fuel, they're not cranking out plastics left and right, they're not eating tons of meat...
To them, N.K. isn't evidence of the failure of Communism, it's proof of the dangers of a free-market economy. From that point of view, N.K. is pretty much everything that Greenpeace and the enviro-panicked left wants the west to become.
All 10 mice boosted with the Ba.5 booster, got sick with Covid when challenged with Ba.5 variant virus.
I mean, I keep thinking I see peak clown world, and then you find **** like this.
The type of person that reads the actual data from these tests - not the propagandized data fed to the population by the ministry of truth - that type of person is dangerous. Too dangerous to make their own decisions.
I saw this photo just a little bit ago, and it immediately struck me that many people will, in a sincere tone of voice, point out how much lower North Korea's environmental footprint is. They're not burning tons of fossil fuel, they're not cranking out plastics left and right, they're not eating tons of meat...
To them, N.K. isn't evidence of the failure of Communism, it's proof of the dangers of a free-market economy. From that point of view, N.K. is pretty much everything that Greenpeace and the enviro-panicked left wants the west to become.
Not to mention that Type 2 diabetes and obesity are unheard of in N.K.(in the general population, anyway)!
So... Hillary has announced that she's not going to run for President. Ever again.
That is extremely interesting. Specifically, it makes me wonder whether:
1: She made this decision on her own,
2: She is reacting to or acting on the advice of, the DNC, or
3: She's going to miraculously "change her mind" at the last minute in 2024, right before the deadline to be on the primary ballots.
So... Hillary has announced that she's not going to run for President. Ever again.
That is extremely interesting. Specifically, it makes me wonder whether:
1: She made this decision on her own,
2: She is reacting to or acting on the advice of, the DNC, or
3: She's going to miraculously "change her mind" at the last minute in 2024, right before the deadline to be on the primary ballots.
why run when you can install a Manchurian was gets 95 million votes in the most secure election ever?
0
