One idea that has not been discussed much is the question of whether regulators have a special role to play in deciding when coercive measures can be used to increase uptake of vaccines.
In practice the hurdle for this has just been EUA, not even full approval.
1/
In practice the hurdle for this has just been EUA, not even full approval.
1/
I think it is worth thinking about what principles should guide the decision of when coercive measures are ethically appropriate and whether regulators should play a role in adjudicating when that bar is crossed.
2/
2/
The current situation is that we allow mandates even in cases where no clinical trial has weighed the direct individual risk/benefit (e.g., mandates for individuals with confirmed previous infection. This may also be the case soon for boosters).
This certainly seems flawed.
3/
This certainly seems flawed.
3/
In many cases the decisions about these mandates are made by administrators or politicians who may have a poor grasp of the difference between a clinical trial and a CDC MMWR report, let alone the latest talking points on Twitter.
Perhaps there is a role for regulators here.
4/4
Perhaps there is a role for regulators here.
4/4
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
