Evidence map›Paper›PMID 35927021›Full record

ArticleJournal of medical ethics2022

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

Jonathan Pugh, Julian Savulescu, Rebecca Ch Brown, Dominic Wilkinson

Abstract readComment
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Jonathan PughThe Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK jonathan.pugh@philosophy.ox.ac.uk.
Julian SavulescuThe Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-1691-6403
Rebecca Ch BrownThe Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0001-8023-1092
Dominic WilkinsonThe Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.ORCID 0000-0003-3958-8633

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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.

Indexed as

COVID-19COVID-19 VaccinesFemaleHumansImmunity, InnateCOVID-19 VaccinesCoercionEthicsPublic Policy

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.