ArticleJournal of medical ethics2022
The unnaturalistic fallacy: COVID-19 vaccine mandates should not discriminate against natural immunity.
Article in Journal of medical ethics, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 13 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
13 citing papers in PubMed, 32 citations in OpenAlex.
- Two Versus One COVID-19 Vaccine Dose After Prior SARS-CoV-2 Infection: A Nationwide Retrospective Cohort Study.Open forum infectious diseases · 2026Article
- Scope and Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Workplace Vaccination Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- A Global Index to Quantify Discrimination Resulting from COVID-19 Pandemic Response Policies.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025Article
- Rationing, Responsibility, and Vaccination during COVID-19: A Conceptual Map.The American journal of bioethics : AJOB · 2024Article
- Risk of SARS-CoV-2 infection and hospitalization in individuals with natural, vaccine-induced and hybrid immunity: a retrospective population-based cohort study from Estonia.Scientific reports · 2023Article
- American Singles' Attitudes Toward Future Romantic/Sexual Partners' COVID-19 Vaccination Status: Evidence for both Vigilance and Indifference in a National Sample.Sexuality & culture · 2023Article
- A scoping review on the decision-making dynamics for accepting or refusing the COVID-19 vaccination among adolescent and youth populations.BMC public health · 2023Article
- The mRNA Vaccine Technology Era and the Future Control of Parasitic Infections.Clinical microbiology reviews · 2023Review
- The Ethical Significance of Post-Vaccination COVID-19 Transmission Dynamics.Journal of bioethical inquiry · 2023Article
- COVID-19 News Exposure and Vaccinations: A Moderated Mediation of Digital News Literacy Behavior and Vaccine Misperceptions.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- COVID-19 Vaccines and the Virtues.Public health ethics · 2022Article
- Racial/Ethnic Variances in COVID-19 Inoculation among Southern California Healthcare Workers.Vaccines · 2022Article
- The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.BMJ global health · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
- Commented on by
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 2 countries.
Funding
Abstract
COVID-19 vaccine requirements have generated significant debate. Here, we argue that, on the evidence available, such policies should have recognised proof of natural immunity as a sufficient basis for exemption to vaccination requirements. We begin by distinguishing our argument from two implausible claims about natural immunity: (1) natural immunity is superior to 'artificial' vaccine-induced immunity simply because it is 'natural' and (2) it is better to acquire immunity through natural infection than via vaccination. We then briefly survey the evidence base for the comparison between naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. While we clearly cannot settle the scientific debates on this point, we suggest that we lack clear and convincing scientific evidence that vaccine-induced immunity has a significantly higher protective effect than natural immunity. Since vaccine requirements represent a substantial infringement of individual liberty, as well as imposing other significant costs, they can only be justified if they are necessary for achieving a proportionate public health benefit. Without compelling evidence for the superiority of vaccine-induced immunity, it cannot be deemed necessary to require vaccination for those with natural immunity. Subjecting them to vaccine mandates is therefore not justified. We conclude by defending the standard of proof that this argument from necessity invokes, and address other pragmatic and practical considerations that may speak against natural immunity exemptions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.