Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35618306›Full record

ReviewBMJ global health2022

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good.

Kevin Bardosh, Alex de Figueiredo, Rachel Gur-Arie, Euzebiusz Jamrozik, James Doidge, Trudo Lemmens, Salmaan Keshavjee, Janice E Graham, Stefan Baral

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in BMJ global health, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 138 papers, 3 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
138citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

138 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Scope and Spatio-Temporal Patterns of Workplace Vaccination Mandates During the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2025
    Article
  20. Article

78 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Kevin BardoshSchool of Public Health, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington, USA bardosh_kevin@hotmail.com.
Alex de FigueiredoDepartment of Infectious Disease Epidemiology, London School of Hygiene & Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
Rachel Gur-ArieBerman Institute of Bioethics, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Euzebiusz JamrozikOxford-Johns Hopkins Global Infectious Disease Collaborative (GLIDE), University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-5940-602X
James DoidgeIntensive Care National Audit and Research Centre (ICNARC), London, UK.
Trudo LemmensFaculty of Law and Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Salmaan KeshavjeeDepartment of Global Health and Social Medicine, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
Janice E GrahamDepartment of Pediatrics (Infectious Diseases), Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada.
Stefan BaralDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people's access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesHealth PolicyVaccinationHumansCOVID-19 VaccinesCOVID-19health policyinfections, diseases, disorders, injuriespublic healthvaccines

Identifiers

PMID35618306
PMCPMC9136690

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.