COVID-19 Compulsory Vaccination: Legal and Bioethical Controversies

Ethical and Legal Debates on Vaccine Infodemics

Over the course of three and a half years, the global toll of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has claimed the lives of millions of individuals. Scientific breakthroughs, exemplified by mRNA vaccines, have emerged as crucial tools in saving numerous lives and fortifying our defenses against future pandemics. However, the battle against the virus has been complicated by the dissemination of misleading political and ethical information, resulting in avoidable fatalities. Recognizing this phenomenon, the term 'infodemics' has been coined to denote the proliferation of false or misleading information that hinders effective social responses. Given the historical prevalence of infodemics surrounding vaccinations, this discussion delves into the ongoing ethical and legal deliberations concerning vaccination mandates, an indispensable health intervention in the face of pandemics. Governments bear the responsibility of safeguarding their citizens, acknowledging the social requirements imposed by the collective well-being. The protection of both citizens and healthcare workers becomes paramount, considering the potential risks of infection and mortality associated with individuals refusing vaccination. Historically, governments have played a pivotal role in eradicating pandemics through the implementation of vaccine mandates. However, the contemporary landscape is marked by the infusion of political and misleading misinformation, presenting new challenges. Governments are now confronted with an ethical duty to ensure that citizens possess the necessary information to make informed decisions and safeguard their well-being. While grappling with the realization that extraordinary circumstances demand extraordinary responses, the lessons from past pandemics underscore the imperative of prioritizing public health, especially in the context of the high numbers of casualties worldwide. This discourse explores the ethical and legal dimensions surrounding vaccine mandates, with particular emphasis on their relevance to healthcare workers.

Evidence-based policies in public health to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy

A fundamental basis for effective health-related policymaking of any democratic nation should be open and transparent communication between a government and its citizens, including scientists and healthcare professionals, to foster a climate of trust, especially during the ongoing COVID-19 mass vaccination campaign. Since misinformation is a leading cause of vaccine hesitancy, open data sharing through an evidence-based approach may render the communication of health strategies developed by policymakers with the public more effective, allowing misinformation and claims that are not backed by scientific evidence to be tackled. In this narrative review, we debate possible causes of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and links to the COVID-19 misinformation epidemic. We also put forward plausible solutions as recommended in the literature.

Temporal trends of COVID-19 antibodies in vaccinated healthcare workers undergoing repeated serological sampling: An individual-level analysis within 13 months in the ORCHESTRA cohort

Short summary

We investigated changes in serologic measurements after COVID-19 vaccination in 19,422 subjects. An individual-level analysis was performed on standardized measurements. Age, infection, vaccine doses, time between doses and serologies, and vaccine type were associated with changes in serologic levels within 13 months.

Background

Persistence of vaccine immunization is key for COVID-19 prevention.

Methods

We investigated the difference between two serologic measurements of anti-COVID-19 S1 antibodies in an individual-level analysis on 19,422 vaccinated healthcare workers (HCW) from Italy, Spain, Romania, and Slovakia, tested within 13 months from first dose. Differences in serologic levels were divided by the standard error of the cohort-specific distribution, obtaining standardized measurements. We fitted multivariate linear regression models to identify predictors of difference between two measurements.

Results

We observed a progressively decreasing difference in serologic levels from <30 days to 210-240 days. Age was associated with an increased difference in serologic levels. There was a greater difference between the two serologic measurements in infected HCW than in HCW who had never been infected; before the first measurement, infected HCW had a relative risk (RR) of 0.81 for one standard deviation in the difference [95% confidence interval (CI) 0.78-0.85]. The RRs for a 30-day increase in time between first dose and first serology, and between the two serologies, were 1.08 (95% CI 1.07-1.10) and 1.04 (95% CI 1.03-1.05), respectively. The first measurement was a strong predictor of subsequent antibody decrease (RR 1.60; 95% CI 1.56-1.64). Compared with Comirnaty, Spikevax (RR 0.83, 95% CI 0.75-0.92) and mixed vaccines (RR 0.61, 95% CI 0.51-0.74) were smaller decrease in serological level (RR 0.46; 95% CI 0.40-0.54).

Conclusions

Age, COVID-19 infection, number of doses, time between first dose and first serology, time between serologies, and type of vaccine were associated with differences between the two serologic measurements within a 13-month period.

COVID-19 Vaccinations: Medical, Ethical and Legal Aspects

Background

Following the consideration of COVID-19 as pandemic by the World Health Organization (WHO), developing new vaccinations against COVID-19 was the dream of humanity. Leading companies competed to achieve this task. Several vaccinations have been developed relatively quickly.

Objective

The aim of the present study was to review the literature regarding medical, ethical, and legal aspects of COVID-19 vaccination.

Methods

Literature was reviewed regarding various issues of COVID-19 vaccinations.

Results and Discussion

The main findings showed that a dilemma exists in literature regarding the ethics in general in keeping the rights of individuals to retain their rights to receive the vaccine and considering receiving the vaccination as compulsory.

Conclusion

As the disease has become pandemic with high mortality rates, keeping the safety of the community has received the priority on individual rights, and many countries considered compulsory vaccinations.

Medical Residents' Behaviours toward Compulsory COVID-19 Vaccination in a Tertiary Hospital in Italy

To maintain safety conditions in the provision of care and assistance, and to protect healthcare workers (HCWs) and patients, the Italian government required compulsory COVID-19 vaccination for HCWs, including medical residents (MRs). The aim of this study was to assess COVID-19 vaccination coverage in MRs in a large tertiary hospital in Italy, before and after the introduction of compulsory vaccination, according to demographic characteristics and specific residency. A database on COVID-19 vaccination status and infection of resident medical doctors was created. Descriptive statistics and logistic regressions were carried out on the data. A total of 1894 MRs were included in the study. Being vaccinated in the same hospital as the residency program was significantly related to the year of residency and being enrolled in a frontline residency. A significant association between compliance with the compulsory primary cycle vaccination and vaccination in the hospital residency was observed. Being enrolled in the second, third, and last years of residency, and in a frontline residency, were predictive of being vaccinated in the residency hospital. Almost 100% of the MRs participating in the study were vaccinated against COVID-19. Compulsory vaccination of HCWs, alongside greater and clearer information about the risks and benefits of vaccination, represents an important booster to ensure public health and to promote quality and safety of care.

"I Would Rather Take the Vaccine Than Undergo Weekly Testing": Correlates of Health Workers' Support for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

This study examined the support for vaccine mandates and uptake among clinical and non-clinical staff at a tertiary hospital in northern Nigeria, focusing on variation of survey responses based on job position, socio-demographic characteristics, and perceived risk of infection with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2). Using an explanatory, sequential, mixed-methods design and deploying a pragmatic paradigm, 370 healthcare workers were administered structured questionnaires. This was followed by in-depth interviews with a sub-sample of respondents to further clarify the responses regarding support for the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) vaccine mandate. Findings demonstrated that less than one-half of respondents supported the COVID-19 mandate, and only one in three had received the recommended COVID-19 vaccine doses. Support for the vaccine mandate and vaccine uptake were predicted by profession, work experience, number of children, health status, and risk perception. Support for the vaccine mandate was ascribed to ethical and professional duty, whereas opposition was associated with respect for autonomy and human rights. This study documents the need to enhance support for vaccine mandates and uptake among healthcare workers through sustainable strategies, as Nigeria's healthcare workers are considered a source of trust and role models for the rest of society.

Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) Pandemic across Africa: Current Status of Vaccinations and Implications for the Future

The introduction of effective vaccines in December 2020 marked a significant step forward in the global response to COVID-19. Given concerns with access, acceptability, and hesitancy across Africa, there is a need to describe the current status of vaccine uptake in the continent. An exploratory study was undertaken to investigate these aspects, current challenges, and lessons learnt across Africa to provide future direction. Senior personnel across 14 African countries completed a self-administered questionnaire, with a descriptive analysis of the data. Vaccine roll-out commenced in March 2021 in most countries. COVID-19 vaccination coverage varied from low in Cameroon and Tanzania and up to 39.85% full coverage in Botswana at the end of 2021; that is, all doses advocated by initial protocols versus the total population, with rates increasing to 58.4% in Botswana by the end of June 2022. The greatest increase in people being fully vaccinated was observed in Uganda (20.4% increase), Botswana (18.5% increase), and Zambia (17.9% increase). Most vaccines were obtained through WHO-COVAX agreements. Initially, vaccination was prioritised for healthcare workers (HCWs), the elderly, adults with co-morbidities, and other at-risk groups, with countries now commencing vaccination among children and administering booster doses. Challenges included irregular supply and considerable hesitancy arising from misinformation fuelled by social media activities. Overall, there was fair to reasonable access to vaccination across countries, enhanced by government initiatives. Vaccine hesitancy must be addressed with context-specific interventions, including proactive programmes among HCWs, medical journalists, and the public.

Pseudoscience and fraudulent products for COVID-19 management

As of now, the COVID-19 pandemic has become uncontrolled and is spreading widely throughout the world. Additionally, new variants of the mutated viral variants have been found in some countries that are more dangerous than the original strain. Even vaccines cannot produce complete protective immunity against the newer strains of SARS-CoV-2. Due to such a dreadful situation, lots of fear and depression have been created among the public. People are looking for the treatment of the disease at any cost and there is a race in the market to provide treatment and make money, whether it is effective or not! In such a condition, many fraud products, remedies, and myths have come into the market, which is falsely claimed to be effective for the disease and can harm the patients. Hence, FDA has banned such products and remedies. In this review, we have compiled all such fraudulent and pseudosciences identified for COVID-19. Currently, in the pandemic time, health agencies are approving the repurposed medicines based on the small-scale clinical data for emergency uses that become ineffective (most of the cases) after large randomized clinical studies. Proper vigilance strategies need to be defined by the regulatory agencies of the nation and routine awareness programs shall be arranged for educating the people and healthcare workers on routine updates.