ArticleMonash bioethics review2024
COVID-19 vaccines: history of the pandemic's great scientific success and flawed policy implementation.
Article in Monash bioethics review, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed, 10 citations in OpenAlex.
- Refining the role of behavioural and social sciences in pandemic response post-COVID-19.Nature human behaviour · 2026Review
- Article
- Time to death and its associated factors among tuberculosis patients undergoing directly observed therapy at Butajira General Hospital: using accelerated failure time model.BMC public health · 2025Article
- Analysis of the Political Viewpoint of Policy Statements From Professional Medical Organizations Using ChatGPT With GPT-4: Cross-Sectional Study.JMIR formative research · 2025Article
- Treatment and Outcomes of COVID-19 Infection in Pregnant Women: Systematic Review of Cases Reported in Europe.Journal of clinical medicine · 2025Review
- Article
- EXPERTISE, DISAGREEMENT, and TRUST IN VACCINE SCIENCE AND POLICY. The importance of transparency in a world of experts.Diametros : a journal of philosophy · 2025Article
- Time series analysis and seasonality trends of SARS-CoV-2 in Ecuador (2020-2024): a four-year study.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- The Ethical Obligation for Research During Public Health Emergencies: Insights From the COVID-19 Pandemic.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The COVID-19 vaccine has been a miraculous, life-saving advance, offering staggering efficacy in adults, and was developed with astonishing speed. The time from sequencing the virus to authorizing the first COVID-19 vaccine was so brisk even the optimists appear close-minded. Yet, simultaneously, United States' COVID-19 vaccination roll-out and related policies have contained missed opportunities, errors, run counter to evidence-based medicine, and revealed limitations in the judgment of public policymakers. Misplaced utilization, contradictory messaging, and poor deployment in those who would benefit most-the elderly and high-risk-alongside unrealistic messaging, exaggeration, and coercion in those who benefit least-young, healthy Americans-is at the heart. It is important to consider the history of COVID-19 vaccines to identify where we succeeded and where we failed, and the effects that these errors may have more broadly on vaccination hesitancy and routine childhood immunization programs in the decades to come.
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.