Proportionality, wrongs and equipoise for natural immunity exemptions: response to commentators

Journal of Medical Ethics 48 (11):881-883 (2022)
  Copy   BIBTEX

Abstract

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.

Other Versions

No versions found

Links

PhilArchive



    Upload a copy of this work     Papers currently archived: 106,148

External links

Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server

Through your library

Similar books and articles

Harming Children to Benefit Others: A Reply.Heidi Malm & Mark Christopher Navin - 2020 - American Journal of Bioethics 20 (12):W1-W6.

Analytics

Added to PP
2022-08-05

Downloads
41 (#609,635)

6 months
14 (#232,541)

Historical graph of downloads
How can I increase my downloads?

Author Profiles

Jonathan Pugh
University of Oxford
Rebecca C H Brown
University of Oxford
Dominic Wilkinson
Oxford University

Citations of this work

No citations found.

Add more citations