argumentative essay on vaccines

• Type 2 Diabetes
• Heart Disease
• Digestive Health
• Multiple Sclerosis
• Diet & Nutrition
• Supplements
• Health Insurance
• Public Health
• Patient Rights
• Caregivers & Loved Ones
• End of Life Concerns
• Health News
• Thyroid Test Analyzer
• Doctor Discussion Guides
• Hemoglobin A1c Test Analyzer
• Lipid Test Analyzer
• Complete Blood Count (CBC) Analyzer
• What to Buy
• Editorial Process
• Meet Our Medical Expert Board

An Overview of the Vaccine Debate

Looking at Both Sides of the Argument

There is a wealth of research demonstrating the efficacy and safety of vaccines —including how some have virtually eradicated infectious diseases that once killed millions. However, this has done little to sway those who believe that untold harms are being hidden from the American public.

The vaccine debate—including the argument as to whether vaccines are safe, effective, or could cause conditions like autism —has received a lot of attention from the media in recent years. With so much conflicting information being publicized, it can be a challenge to discern what is true and what is not. Therefore, it is important to learn the facts before making health decisions.

Claims and Controversy

Those who are part of the anti-vaccination movement include not only non-medical professionals but several scientists and healthcare providers who hold alternative views about vaccines and vaccination in general.

Some notable examples include:

• British healthcare provider Andrew Wakefield, who in 1998 published research linking the MMR vaccine and autism . That study has since been retracted, and he was later removed from the medical registry in the United Kingdom for falsifying scientific data.
• Pediatrician Bob Sears, who wrote the bestseller "The Vaccine Book: Making the Right Decision for your Child ," which suggested that many essential childhood vaccines were "optional." However, he was subsequently put on probation by the Medical Review Board of California in 2018 for alleged medical negligence and the inappropriate writing of medical exemptions for vaccinations.
• Dr. Jane M. Orient, director of the Association of American Healthcare Providers and Surgeons, who was among the leading opponents of the COVID-19 vaccine and one of the leading proponents of using hydroxychloroquine to treat COVID-19 during the pandemic.

These opposing views and claims, along with other information promoted by the news and social media, have led some people to question whether they know everything they need to know about vaccines.

Common Concerns Regarding Vaccines

The arguments made against vaccines are not new and have been made well before the first vaccine was developed for smallpox back in the 18th century.

The following are some of the common arguments against vaccines:

• Vaccines contain "toxic" ingredients that can lead to an assortment of chronic health conditions such as autism.
• Vaccines are a tool of "Big Pharma," in which manufacturers are willing to profit off of harm to children.
• Governments are "pharma shills," meaning they are bought off by pharmaceutical companies to hide cures or approve drugs that are not safe.
• A child’s immune system is too immature to handle vaccines , leading the immune system to become overwhelmed and trigger an array of abnormal health conditions.
• Natural immunity is best , suggesting that a natural infection that causes disease is "better" than receiving a vaccine that may cause mild side effects.
• Vaccines are not tested properly , suggesting a (highly unethical) approach in which one group of people is given a vaccine, another group is not, and both are intentionally inoculated with the same virus or bacteria.
• Infectious diseases have declined due in part to improved hygiene and sanitation , suggesting that hand-washing and other sanitary interventions are all that are needed to prevent epidemics.
• Vaccines cause the body to "shed" virus , a claim that is medically true, although the amount of shed virus is rarely enough to cause infection.

The impact of anti-vaccination claims has been profound. For example, it has led to a resurgence of measles in the United States and Europe, despite the fact that the disease was declared eliminated in the U.S. back in 2000.

Studies have suggested that the anti-vaccination movement has cast doubt on the importance of childhood vaccinations among large sectors of the population. The added burden of the COVID-19 pandemic has led to further declines in vaccination rates.

There is also concern that the same repercussions may affect COVID-19 vaccination rates—both domestically and abroad. Ultimately, vaccine rates must be high for herd immunity to be effective.

According to a study from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), the rate of complete recommended vaccination among babies age 5 months has declined from 66.6% in 2016 to 49.7% by May 2020. Declines in vaccination coverage were seen in other age groups as well.

Benefits of Vaccination

Of the vaccines recommended by the CDC, the benefits of immunization are seen to overwhelmingly outweigh the potential risks. While there are some people who may need to avoid certain vaccines due to underlying health conditions, the vast majority can do so safely.

According to the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, there are five important reasons why your child should get the recommended vaccines:

• Immunizations can save your child’s life . Consider that polio once killed up to 30% of those who developed paralytic symptoms. Due to polio vaccination, the disease is no longer a public health concern in the United States.
• Vaccination is very safe and effective . Injection site pain and mild, flu-like symptoms may occur with vaccine shots. However, serious side effects , such as a severe allergic reaction, are very rare.
• Immunization protects others . Because respiratory viruses can spread easily among children, getting your child vaccinated not only protects your child but prevents the further spread of disease.
• Immunizations can save you time and money . According to the non-profit Borgen Project, the average cost of a measles vaccination around the world is roughly $1.76, whereas the average cost of treating measles is $307. In the end, the cost of prevention is invariably smaller than the cost of treatment.
• Immunization protects future generations . Smallpox vaccinations have led to the eradication of smallpox . Rubella (German measles) vaccinations have helped eliminate birth defects caused by infection of pregnant mothers in the developed world. With persistence and increased community uptake, measles could one day be declared eliminated (again) as well.

A Word From Verywell

If you have any questions or concerns about vaccinations, do not hesitate to speak with your healthcare provider or your child's pediatrician.

If a vaccine on the immunization schedule has been missed, speak to a healthcare provider before seeking the vaccination on your own (such as at a pharmacy or clinic). In some cases, additional doses may be needed.

Vaccines Healthcare Provider Discussion Guide

Get our printable guide for your next healthcare provider's appointment to help you ask the right questions.

Sign up for our Health Tip of the Day newsletter, and receive daily tips that will help you live your healthiest life.

Thank you, {{form.email}}, for signing up.

There was an error. Please try again.

Eggerton L.  Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines .  CMAJ . 2010 Mar 9; 182(4):e199-200. doi:10.1503/cmaj.109-3179

Park A. Doctor behind vaccine-autism link loses license . Time .

Offit PA, Moser CA.  The problem with Dr Bob's alternative vaccine schedule .  Pediatrics.  2009 Jan;123 (1):e164-e169. doi:10.1542/peds.2008-2189

Before the Medical Board of California, Department of Consumer Affairs, State of California. In the Matter of the Accusation Against Robert William Sears, M.D., Case No. 800-2015-012268 .

Stolberg SG. Anti-vaccine doctor has been invited to testify before Senate committee . The New York Times.

Wolfe RM, Sharp LK.  Anti-vaccinationists past and present . BMJ. 2002;325(7361):430-2. doi:10.1136/bmj.325.7361.430

Agley J, Xiao Y. Misinformation about COVID-19: Evidence for differential latent profiles and a strong association with trust in science . BMC Public Health. 2021;21:89. doi:10.1186/s12889-020-10103-x

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Measles history .

Hussain A, Ali S, Ahmed M, Hussain S. The anti-vaccination movement: a regression in modern medicine .  Cureus . 2018;10(7): e2919. doi:10.7759/cureus.2919

Bramer CA, Kimmins LM, Swanson R, et al. Decline in child vaccination coverage during the COVID-19 pandemic — Michigan Care Improvement Registry, May 2016–May 2020 . MMWR. 2020 May;69(20):630-1. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm6920e1

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Why vaccinate .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Poliomyelitis .

Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Making the vaccine decision .

Borgen Project. What is the cost of measles in the developed world? .

By Vincent Iannelli, MD  Vincent Iannelli, MD, is a board-certified pediatrician and fellow of the American Academy of Pediatrics. Dr. Iannelli has cared for children for more than 20 years. 

The Covid vaccine is safe, whatever anti-vaxxers say. Here's why we can trust it.

I've researched autism for more than a decade. Specifically, I've investigated how some antibodies in expecting mothers could complicate fetal development and lead to the condition. Through all my research and that of my colleagues, one thing is clear: Vaccines are not the cause of autism. And yet, that connection is on the tip of many tongues.

None of the claims have proven to be true when it comes to autism, and there's no reason to think they are any more valid with the Covid-19 vaccines.

Unfortunately, the fabricated link between autism and vaccines has made all vaccines suspect in the eyes of some skeptics. Now that Covid-19 vaccines are finally rolling out, the disinformation is clouding the science and adding fuel to the vaccine hesitancy fire.

A recent Pew Research Center poll reports that 39 percent of people say they definitely or probably wouldn't get a coronavirus vaccination. This endangers more than the people who don't get shots; we need a large though as-yet-undetermined percentage of people to be vaccinated before we see a slowdown in the virus's spread and with it the indirect protection known as herd immunity. Meanwhile, vulnerable groups whose immune systems are too compromised to be vaccinated are unprotected.

"Vaccine scares" have existed ever since the first smallpox vaccine was developed. Religious beliefs and distrust in medicine dissuaded some from inoculations; others believed they violated their personal liberty. Legally mandating vaccines in the mid-19 century galvanized these objectors into anti-vaccine movements , members of which claimed the right to make their own decisions about their children's bodies and their own.

Opinion Toxic Christian ideology is infecting the Covid debate. And that's bad for everyone.

The autism variant of these historical conspiracy theories started in 1998 with a report in a prestigious medical journal suggesting that 12 children developed autism shortly after they received the measles, mumps and rubella, or MMR, vaccine. But the findings were plagued with problems : The research of the lead scientist was funded by a lawyer suing a vaccine manufacturer , while the researcher himself held a patent for a new MMR vaccine . He altered the children's medical histories to boot. Since then, scores of medical research findings have invalidated the report, and the researcher's license was revoked .

Yet anti-vaxxers continue to cling to this infamous mythology, resulting in U.S. outbreaks of life-threatening diseases, such as whooping cough and measles , thought to be well-controlled and even eradicated. Today, so-called vaccine truthers continue to claim that vaccines overwhelm the infant immune system, that natural immunization is better than vaccination and that vaccines themselves contain toxins or actually give you the disease.

None of the claims have proven to be true when it comes to autism, and there's no reason to think they are any more valid with the Covid-19 vaccines. With the stakes so high, it's important to understand just how and why vaccine doubters are wrong.

It's true that the Covid-19 vaccine went through an unprecedentedly rapid process — for which we should all be grateful, given the urgency. And while there's concern that the Covid-19 vaccines were rushed and that that means they haven't been properly vetted or that their safety is otherwise in question, it's simply not the case.

Opinion We want to hear what you THINK. Please submit a letter to the editor.

A chief reason for the speedy turnaround was a decision the federal government made to expedite delivery of the vaccine — which has nothing to do with the scientific validity of the drug itself. The government allowed the drugmakers to mass-produce the vaccine while still conducting clinical trials. This was a gamble: If the Food and Drug Administration deemed the vaccines not safe and effective, those doses would be no better than trash. But it's a bet that seems to have paid off.

Another concern stems from the talk that the medical technology involved is "novel." Other vaccines, like that for the flu, use forms of inactivated or weakened viruses. In contrast, the Covid-19 vaccines by Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna deliver a small snippet of messenger RNA into the body. Messenger RNA, or mRNA, is a genetic coding material the body uses as instructions to make specific proteins. Once a protein is made, it is displayed on the surface of the cell. The body then recognizes the foreign protein and develops an immune response to fend off future infection.

It's the first time such a vaccine technique has been authorized, but that doesn't mean it's unknown . In fact, RNA-based platforms to deliver vaccines have been researched since the 1990s . Having this technology and know-how in place allowed for speedy development during a pandemic and should be applauded.

The coronavirus vaccines do have side effects — but that doesn't mean they're harmful. It actually means they're working. We know from Pfizer's clinical trials that short-term side effects occurred within 24 to 48 hours, especially after the second dose. Sixteen percent of people ages 18 to 55 and 11 percent of people over 55 reported fevers after the second dose . Even more people reported having fatigue, headaches and joint pain. (The Covid-19 vaccine hasn't yet been approved for children under 16.)

While such symptoms can be unpleasant, they are transient and not dangerous. They don't mean you're sick with Covid-19; they mean the vaccine has triggered your immune response to create the "bodyguards" that fight future Covid-19 infection.

A very small number of people have suffered from allergic reactions after vaccination that require medical attention, such as rashes, shortness of breath, racing heart, puffy eyes and lightheadedness. These people received standard medical treatment for allergies and were released from the hospital within a short time. Although that may sound scary, clinics are equipped to deal with such reactions in real time .

In contrast to the hyped-up concerns about what the Covid-19 vaccine might do, we have incontrovertible evidence about the harm that the virus itself really does.

What about long-term effects? At this point, there's no reason to worry about those, either. While we don't have a full two years of safety data to confirm the lack of unexpected long-term side effects, severe or extreme side effects have appeared within weeks rather than years of previous vaccines' being given. It has been over 14 weeks since the completion of the second dose in Pfizer clinical trials , while the nation has been vaccinating for more than two weeks and we have not seen those responses, though monitoring systems are in place to follow up after vaccination.

I've also heard of concerns that the vaccine may cause cancer in the long term, particularly from anti-vaxxers worried about what other ingredients in the vaccines can do. First, unlike non-mRNA-based vaccines , Covid-19 vaccines don't contain other components. Second, mRNA-based vaccines can't make changes to the human genome and therefore are extremely unlikely to induce new genetic mutations in the cells of the kind that lead to cancer.

In contrast to the hyped-up concerns about what the Covid-19 vaccine might do, we have incontrovertible evidence about the harm that the virus itself really does. So far in the U.S., 345,000 people have died, while countless others are still suffering from health complications. Millions of people have lost their jobs and businesses and homes. It is our responsibility as a society not to believe misinformation so that we may leave 2020 behind us.

Lior Brimberg, PhD, is an assistant professor at the Feinstein Institutes for Medical Research. Her research focuses on the role of the in utero environment in autism.

Should COVID-19 vaccines be mandatory? Two experts discuss

Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow in Public Health Medicine, UCL

Disclosure statement

Alberto Giubilini receives funding from the Arts and Humanities Research Council/UK Research and Innovation (AHRC/UKRI) and has previously received funding from the Wellcome Trust.

Vageesh Jain is affiliated with Public Health England under an honorary contract as a speciality registrar.

University College London provides funding as a founding partner of The Conversation UK.

University of Oxford provides funding as a member of The Conversation UK.

View all partners

To be properly protective, COVID-19 vaccines need to be given to most people worldwide. Only through widespread vaccination will we reach herd immunity – where enough people are immune to stop the disease from spreading freely. To achieve this, some have suggested vaccines should be made compulsory , though the UK government has ruled this out . But with high rates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the UK and elsewhere , is this the right call? Here, two experts to make the case for and against mandatory COVID-19 vaccines.

Alberto Giubilini, Senior Research Fellow, Oxford Uehiro Centre for Practical Ethics, University of Oxford

COVID-19 vaccination should be mandatory – at least for certain groups. This means there would be penalties for failure to vaccinate, such as fines or limitations on freedom of movement.

The less burdensome it is for an individual to do something that prevents harm to others, and the greater the harm prevented, the stronger the ethical reason for mandating it.

Being vaccinated dramatically reduces the risk of seriously harming or killing others. Vaccines such as the Pfizer , AstraZeneca or Moderna ones with 90-95% efficacy at preventing people from getting sick are also likely to be effective at stopping the virus from spreading, though possibly to a lower degree. Such benefits would come at a very minimal cost to individuals.

Lockdown is mandatory. Exactly like mandatory vaccination, it protects vulnerable people from COVID-19. But, as I have argued in detail elsewhere, unlike mandatory vaccination, lockdown entails very large individual and societal costs. It is inconsistent to accept mandatory lockdown but reject mandatory vaccination. The latter can achieve a much greater good at a much smaller cost.

Also, mandatory vaccination ensures that the risks and burdens of reaching herd immunity are distributed evenly across the population. Because herd immunity benefits society collectively, it’s only fair that the responsibility of reaching it is shared evenly among society’s individual members.

Of course, we might achieve herd immunity through less restrictive alternatives than making vaccination mandatory – such as information campaigns to encourage people to be vaccinated. But even if we reach herd immunity, the higher the uptake of vaccines, the lower the risk of falling below the herd immunity threshold at a later time. We should do everything we can to prevent that emergency from happening – especially when the cost of doing so is low.

Fostering trust and driving uptake by making people more informed is a nice narrative, but it’s risky. Merely giving people information on vaccines does not always result in increased willingness to vaccinate and might actually lower confidence in vaccines. On the other hand, we’ve seen mandatory vaccination policies in Italy recently successfully boost vaccine uptake for other diseases.

Mandatory seatbelt policies have proven very successful in reducing deaths from car accidents, and are now widely endorsed despite the (very small) risks that seatbelts entail. We should see vaccines as seatbelts against COVID-19. In fact, as very special seatbelts, which protect ourselves and protect others.

Vageesh Jain, NIHR Academic Clinical Fellow in Public Health Medicine, UCL

Mandatory vaccination does not automatically increase vaccine uptake. An EU-funded project on epidemics and pandemics, which took place several years before COVID-19, found no evidence to support this notion. Looking at Baltic and Scandinavian countries, the project’s report noted that countries “where a vaccination is mandatory do not usually reach better coverage than neighbour or similar countries where there is no legal obligation”.

According to the Nuffield Council of Bioethics, mandatory vaccination may be justified for highly contagious and serious diseases. But although contagious, Public Health England does not classify COVID-19 as a high-consequence infectious disease due to its relatively low case fatality rate.

COVID-19 severity is strongly linked with age, dividing individual perceptions of vulnerability within populations. The death rate is estimated at 7.8% in people aged over 80, but at just 0.0016% in children aged nine and under. In a liberal democracy, forcing the vaccination of millions of young and healthy citizens who perceive themselves to be at an acceptably low risk from COVID-19 will be ethically disputed and is politically risky.

Public apprehensions for a novel vaccine produced at breakneck speed are wholly legitimate. A UK survey of 70,000 people found 49% were “very likely” to get a COVID-19 vaccine once available. US surveys are similar . This is not because the majority are anti-vaxxers.

Despite promising headlines, the trials and pharmaceutical processes surrounding them have not yet been scrutinised. With the first trials only beginning in April , there is limited data on long-term safety and efficacy. We don’t know how long immunity lasts for. None of the trials were designed to tell us if the vaccine prevents serious disease or virus transmission.

To disregard these ubiquitous concerns would be counterproductive. As a tool for combating anti-vaxxers – estimated at around 58 million globally and making up a small minority of those not getting vaccinated – mandatory vaccines are also problematic. The forces driving scientific and political populism are the same . Anti-vaxxers do not trust experts, industry and especially not the government. A government mandate will not just be met with unshakeable defiance, but will also be weaponised to recruit others to the anti-vaxxer cause.

In the early 1990s, polio was endemic in India , with between 500 and 1,000 children getting paralysed daily. By 2011, the virus was eliminated. This was not achieved through legislation. It was down to a consolidated effort to involve communities, target high-need groups, understand concerns, inform, educate, remove barriers, invest in local delivery systems and link with political and religious leaders.

Mandatory vaccination is rarely justified. The successful roll-out of novel COVID-19 vaccines will require time, communication and trust. We have come too far, too fast, to lose our nerve now.

• Mandatory vaccination
• Coronavirus
• Vaccine hesitancy
• Coronavirus insights

Case Management Specialist

Lecturer / Senior Lecturer - Marketing

Assistant Editor - 1 year cadetship

Executive Dean, Faculty of Health

Lecturer/Senior Lecturer, Earth System Science (School of Science)

February 17, 2021

COVID Vaccines Are Safe and Effective—What the Research Says

As more coronavirus vaccines are rolled out, researchers are learning about the extent and nature of side effects

By Ariana Remmel & Nature magazine

A healthcare worker administers a dose of the Pfizer-BioNTech Covid-19 vaccine at the Sun City Anthem Community Center vaccination site in Henderson, Nevada, U.S., on Thursday, Feb. 11, 2021.

Roger Kisby Getty Images

As people around the world receive COVID-19 vaccines, reports of temporary side effects such as headaches and fevers are rolling in. Much of this was expected—clinical-trial data for the vaccines authorized so far suggested as much. But now that millions of people are vaccinated, compared with the thousands enrolled in early studies, reports of some rare, allergic reactions are surfacing, and questions are arising about whether any deaths are linked to the shots.

There is no question that the current vaccines are effective and safe. The risk of severe reaction to a COVID-19 jab, say researchers, is outweighed by the protection it offers against the deadly coronavirus.  Nature  looks at what scientists are learning about the frequency and nature of side effects as huge numbers of people report their reactions to physicians and through safety-monitoring systems, such as smartphone apps.

How many people experience common side effects from COVID-19 vaccines?

On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing . By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.

For the two available messenger RNA (mRNA) vaccines—one made by Moderna at Cambridge, Massachusetts, and the other developed through a collaboration between Pfizer in New York City and BioNTech in Mainz, Germany—a significant portion of people experience non-serious reactions, such as injection-site pain, headache and fatigue. These vaccines deliver bits of RNA that code for coronavirus proteins, which the body mounts a response against.

According to data  from the US Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS), about 372 out of every million administered doses of the mRNA vaccines lead to a non-serious reaction report. This number is lower than would be expected from clinical-trial data, which indicated that at least 80% of people would experience injection-site pain. Researchers running trials monitor patients closely and record every reaction. VAERS, meanwhile, relies on health-care workers and vaccinated individuals to self-report side effects.

So far, reactions to the mRNA vaccines are similar. These vaccines are administered in a two-dose regimen: the first shot triggers an immune reaction, and the second is a ‘booster’ that strengthens the body’s ability to fight the coronavirus. For the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, which has been in use longer than the Moderna vaccine and therefore has generated more data, side effects increase with the second dose.

In the United Kingdom, three million doses of another vaccine, developed by the University of Oxford and pharmaceutical firm AstraZeneca, have been doled out. This vaccine, which also requires a two-dose regimen, contains a inactivated cold-causing adenovirus with genetic instructions for making coronavirus proteins to trigger immunity.  According to UK safety-monitoring system  the Yellow Card Scheme, about 4,000 doses out of every million administered lead to adverse reactions. Again,  clinical-trial data suggest  that a higher frequency is more accurate: around 50% of participants had injection-site pain, headache or fatigue, according to data reported to the European Medicines Agency (EMA).

Few people have received a second dose of the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine because  the United Kingdom used its supplies  to administer a first dose to as many people as possible, but clinical-trial data presented to the EMA suggest that side effects of the second shot are milder than those caused by the first.

Safety data for shots rolling out in other parts of the world, such as the COVID-19 vaccines in China, are harder to come by. Preliminary data from clinical trials of the adenovirus-based Sputnik V vaccine in Russia suggest its most common side effects include flu-like symptoms and injection-site reactions.

How does that compare with side effects from an annual flu shot?

At least for the mRNA vaccines, physicians are seeing more side effects than for flu shots, says Helen Chu, an infectious-disease specialist at the University of Washington School of Medicine in Seattle, who directs the Seattle Flu Study. In clinical trials for the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, for instance, 75% of  participants reported  a ‘systemic reaction’, such as headache, fever or chills. In a clinical trial for the common influenza vaccine Flubok Quadravalent, around 34% of participants aged 18–49 had a systemic reaction. Side effects were even less frequent in study participants who were at least 50 years old.

Chu says the mRNA COVID-19 vaccines generate a particularly strong immune response that increases the risk of side effects, although this also means that the vaccines are working. She notes that her second dose of the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine made her ill. “I got the vaccine, and 6 hours later, I had chills, a high fever, muscle aches and I went to bed for 24 hours,” she says. “Then by 36 hours later, it was totally over and I was back to normal.” But Chu would rather be temporarily ill from a vaccine than deal with COVID-19, “a potentially mortal disease that could kill me”, she says.

Have investigations linked any deaths to a COVID-19 vaccine?

Although some have questioned whether the vaccines have led to deaths, none have been directly attributed to a COVID-19 jab. After 33 elderly care-home residents in Norway died within 6 days of receiving the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, investigations by both the Norwegian Medicines Agency and  the World Health Organization  concluded that these deaths were in line with normal death rates in this age group and that the vaccine is still safe for older people. India's Ministry of Health and Family Welfare  reported 27 deaths  in the country, but none of these have been linked directly to a COVID-19 vaccine either.

It is “extremely difficult” to definitively link a death to the vaccine itself, says Hilda Bastian, a writer and scientist who specializes in validating evidence-based health claims. That is partially because the deaths reported so far have occurred days or weeks after an injection, making it hard to rule out other circumstances. Another reason is that, right now, clinicians are prioritizing vaccines largely for a population of older people with underlying health conditions. Most of those who have died after vaccination have been in this group, according to reports from the  United Kingdom  and the  United States .

What do researchers know about the rare, but severe, allergic reactions to the vaccines?

The Moderna vaccine elicits about three anaphylactic reactions per million doses administered, and the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine triggers five reactions per million doses,  according to VAERS data . This is a higher rate than most other vaccines—including annual flu shots, which trigger anaphylaxis for only one out of every million doses administered. For the Oxford–AstraZeneca vaccine, 30 cases of anaphylaxis have been confirmed overall so far, out of a little more than 3 million administered doses. Vaccine specialists expect that these rates might change as more shots are administered.

Although some people have required hospitalization, all have fully recovered. Public-health officials advise people with a history of allergies to any of the vaccines’ ingredients not to get a COVID-19 jab.

Unlike COVID-19, anaphylaxis is treatable with drugs such as epinephrine if caught quickly, says Paul Offit, a vaccine and infectious-disease specialist at the Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, who participated in the US Food and Drug Administration advisory-committee meetings that led the agency to authorize both mRNA vaccines. “I wish that SARS-CoV-2 could be immediately treated with a shot of epinephrine!” he says.

Most of the people who experienced anaphylaxis had reacted to other substances before: about 80% of people who reacted to the Pfizer–BioNTech vaccine, and 86% to the Moderna vaccine, had a history of allergies, according to the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

The specific cause of the anaphylactic reactions remains unknown, but the US National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases told  Nature  in an e-mail that the agency has designed a clinical trial to determine the underlying mechanism, but did not specify when the trial would begin.

What could be causing the allergic reactions?

Some researchers have had their eye on polyethylene glycol (PEG) as the anaphylaxis-causing agent in the mRNA vaccines. The Moderna and Pfizer–BioNTech vaccines use hollow lipid nanoparticles to store and then deliver their mRNA payload to cells. PEG is linked to the lipids in these particles and, under normal circumstances, helps them to sneak by the immune system. Although PEG-linked molecules are found in a variety of products, such as laxatives and gout medicines, they have been known to cause allergic reactions.

Follow-up studies in people who experienced anaphylaxis could help to determine whether PEG is the culprit, says Samuel Lai, a pharmaco-engineer at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. If blood samples from these people contain anti-PEG antibodies, it could be an indicator, says Lai, but it is as yet unclear how long these proteins remain in the bloodstream after anaphylaxis.

Vaccines that don’t use PEG—such as the not-yet-authorized shot from Johnson & Johnson, which also uses an adenovirus to trigger immunity to the coronavirus—might be a way to vaccinate people with a sensitivity to the polymer, he adds.

Because mRNA vaccines have shown such promise, Ulrich Schubert, a polymer scientist at the University of Jena in Germany, thinks now is the time to invest in developing vaccine-compatible polymers that don’t cause allergic reactions. At the German Research Foundation-funded collaborative research center PolyTarget, where Schubert works, these studies are already in progress. “If we want to be ready for the next pandemic—which will come—we have to start now,” he says.

This article is reproduced with permission and was first published on February 16 2021.

Opinion: Why COVID-19 Vaccines Should Not Be Required for All Americans

• Previous: Intro: Is It Time to Require COVID-19 Vaccines?
• Next: Yes, Nobody Has the Right to Infect Others

Should the COVID-19 Vaccine Be Required for All Americans?

As covid-19 vaccine mandates spark controversy, two public health experts debate blanket requirements..

Editor’s note: This set of commentaries was originally published in 2021. It has been republished as part of The Forum, a U.S. News series that examines multiple viewpoints on key issues. The new versions include changes to headlines and some minor text updates.

Once again, coronavirus cases are climbing nationwide. Primarily among the unvaccinated. Some 90 million eligible Americans still haven't gotten their first dose. Fueled by the highly contagious delta variant coupled with factors like vaccine hesitancy, fresh viral surges are causing renewed concern.

Vaccine mandates are sparking fierce controversy around the world. Recently President Biden announced new vaccine requirements for federal civilian workers, comprising more than 2 million Americans. Because his plan relies on the honor system – not proof of vaccination – some experts fear these steps will not be enough to curb the spread. This week, New York City went further, becoming the first major city in the country to require proof of vaccination to enter many indoor public spaces, like gyms and restaurants.

Michael Ciaglo | Getty Images

A health worker holds a dose of the Johnson & Johnson COVID-19 vaccine in Aurora, Colorado.

In this edition of The Forum, a U.S. News series examining opinions about key issues, two prominent public health doctors explore the question of whether all Americans should now be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine.

America 2024

Dr. Marty Makary: I’m pro-vaccine but blanket requirements outside of health care go too far.

COVID-19 vaccine mandates have become a hotly contested issue, as coronavirus cases and hospitalizations rebound nationwide, driven by the highly contagious delta variant and unswerving vaccine hesitancy. New York City will soon be the first major U.S. city to require proof of vaccination to enter restaurants, gyms and other indoor public spaces. Dr. Marty Makary, a professor at Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and editor in chief of MedPage Today, argues that mandating vaccines for "every living, walking American" is, as of now, not well-supported by science. Moreover Makary, author of "The Price We Pay: What Broke American Health Care—and How to Fix It," has concerns about the two-dose vaccine regimen for young people.

As told to Lindsay Lyon as part of The Forum, a U.S. News series examining opinions about key issues. Responses have been edited for length and clarity.

U.S. News: Should all Americans be required to get the COVID-19 vaccine?

Dr. Marty Makary: No. As a physician with a lot of experience dealing with patients who don't follow what we ask them to do, I believe you win more bees with honey than fire.

The vaccines are so good at protecting against death from COVID-19 that those who are immune can feel good about living life without having to worry about becoming severely ill. Vaccines downgrade the infection to a mild seasonal virus – one we must learn to live with for years to come.

Scott Eisen | Getty Images

Anti-vaccine activists protest in front of the Massachusetts State House in Boston, Massachusetts.

Those who choose not to get vaccinated are making a poor health decision at their own individual risk. They pose no public health threat to those already immune. Would we be so stern toward people making similar or worse health choices to smoke, drink alcohol or not wear a helmet when riding a bike? Over 85,000 Americans die annually from alcohol, yet we don't have the same public health fervor or requirements to save those lives. Let's encourage vaccination rather than activate the personal liberty culture wars that result in people becoming more entrenched in their opposition.

The notion that we have to vaccinate every living, walking American – and eventually every newborn – in order to control the pandemic is based on the false assumption that the risk of dying from COVID-19 is equally distributed in the population. It's not. We have always known that it's very hard for the virus to hurt someone who is young and healthy. And that's still the case. While vaccine requirements for health care workers make sense, we would never extend those requirements outside of health care for, say, the flu shot. We'd simply state to the public: Those who avoid the flu shot do so at their own risk.

Also: Some people already have ' natural immunity ' – that is, immunity from prior COVID infection. During every month of this pandemic, I've had debates with other public researchers about the effectiveness and durability of natural immunity. I've been told that natural immunity could fall off a cliff, rendering people susceptible to infection. But here we are now, over a year and a half into the clinical experience of observing patients who were infected, and natural immunity is effective and going strong. And that's because with natural immunity, the body develops antibodies to the entire surface of the virus, not just a spike protein constructed from a vaccine. The power of natural immunity was recently affirmed in an Israeli study , which found a 6.7 times greater level of protection among those with natural immunity vs. those with vaccinated immunity.

Requiring the vaccine in people who are already immune with natural immunity has no scientific support. While vaccinating those people may be beneficial – and it's a reasonable hypothesis that vaccination may bolster the longevity of their immunity – to argue dogmatically that they must get vaccinated has zero clinical outcome data to back it. As a matter of fact, we have data to the contrary: A Cleveland Clinic study found that vaccinating people with natural immunity did not add to their level of protection.

So instead of talking about the vaccinated and the unvaccinated, we should be talking about the immune and the non-immune. Immunity is something people can test for with a simple antibody test. I would never recommend that anyone intentionally acquire the infection in order to get natural immunity, but vaccine passports and proof-of-vaccine documents should recognize it.

Now, if someone does not have natural immunity from prior infection, then they should immediately go out and get the vaccine. I'm pro-vaccine. But the issue of the appropriate clinical indication of the vaccine is not an all-or-nothing phenomenon, as we frequently see in American culture and politics.

I'm perplexed at the vitriol directed at folks who are reluctant to get vaccinated. For some, the biggest driver of their hesitancy is the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, which has failed to issue the long-overdue full approval of the COVID-19 vaccines due to stability testing which has nothing to do with safety.

The goal of our pandemic response should be to reduce death, illness and disability, but instead what you're seeing is a movement that has morphed from being pro-vaccine to vaccine fanaticism at all costs.

We have very strong population immunity in most parts of the U.S. – and these areas are resilient to the delta variant that's driving severe illness right now. This stems from a combination of natural immunity and vaccinated immunity. Roughly a third to half of Americans who are unvaccinated have natural immunity, based on an analysis of California residents. So it does change the outlook.

For example: One study conducted by the state of California this spring found that 38% of Californians and 45% of Los Angeles residents had natural immunity. And this was at a time when vaccine rollout was still too early to account for those numbers. So we're potentially talking about a large portion of the U.S. population who may be immune to COVID and not know it. They should be tested to find out, and we should concentrate our vaccination efforts on people who are not immune.

Right now, we do have a group of susceptible, non-immune Americans among whom the delta variant is raging. That's where we need to focus our attention. We have to work on making the vaccine more available – and easily available – to the non-immune in the U.S. That means going to them: Having walk-up vaccination appointments at routine points of American life.

When it comes to vaccinating healthy kids – and you could argue young people up to 25 – there is a case for vaccination but it's not strong. The COVID-19 death risk is clustered among kids with a comorbid condition, like obesity. Of the more than 330 COVID-19 deaths in kids under age 25, there's good preliminary data suggesting that most or nearly all appear to be in kids with a pre-existing condition. For kids with concurrent medical conditions, the case for vaccination is compelling. But for healthy kids?

The risk of hospitalization from COVID-19 in kids ages 5 to17 is 0.3 per million for the week ending July 24, 2021, according to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. We also know that the risk of hospitalization after the second vaccine dose due to myocarditis , or inflammation of the heart muscle, is about 50 per million in that same age group.

It may be that the standard two-dose regimen is a dose too high and is inducing a strong inflammatory response causing these complications. A single dose of the vaccine may be highly effective in kids, as reported by Tel Aviv University . Researchers there found that one dose was 100% effective in kids ages 12 to 15. For now, until we get better data, I recommend one dose for healthy kids who have not already had COVID-19 in the past.

I'm concerned the CDC hasn't considered whether one dose of the two-dose shots would be sufficient – and safer – for young people. The agency's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices has vigorously recommended the two-dose vaccine regimen for all children ages 12 and up regardless of whether kids already have immunity. I take issue with that. The data the CDC used on which to base its recommendation is incomplete at best. The agency is using the Yelp of vaccine complications as a data source: a self-reported database of vaccine complications, which haven't been fact-checked by authorities. So the agency may not be fully capturing the extent of vaccine complications from the second dose in some young people.

I wish the CDC would tell us more about the deaths of Simone Scott , 19, and Jacob Clynick , 13, both of whom died shortly after getting a second vaccine dose and developed heart inflammation. There have been 19 other deaths in youth under age 25, according to the CDC. Since the clinical trials were not powered sufficiently to detect rare events like these, I want to know more about those deaths before making blanket recommendations.

Researching these events is important when issuing broad guidance about vaccinating healthy kids, including students, who already have an infinitesimally small risk of dying from COVID-19.

An official website of the United States government

The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

• Publications
• Account settings

Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .

• Advanced Search
• Journal List
• Elsevier - PMC COVID-19 Collection
• PMC10127050

Learning from five bad arguments against mandatory vaccination

Maxwell j. smith.

a Faculty of Health Sciences and Rotman Institute of Philosophy, Western University, 1151, Richmond Street, London, Ontario N6A 5B9, Canada

Ezekiel J. Emanuel

b Perelman School of Medicine and The Wharton School, University of Pennsylvania, 423, Guardian Drive, Blockley Hall, Philadelphia, PA 19104-4884, USA

Associated Data

No data was used for the research described in the article.

1. Introduction

The suboptimal uptake of COVID-19 vaccines in many parts of the world has prompted unprecedented public debate concerning the ethics of mandatory vaccination [1] . It is imperative we learn lessons from this debate so we are better positioned to navigate policy proposals for mandatory vaccination in the future. Specifically, we should aim to dispense with unsophisticated ethical claims that distract from or otherwise parody more nuanced and forceful arguments and which overshadow other important ethical concerns that have by comparison received little attention. To this end, we identify five ethical objections to mandatory vaccination that are of poor quality but have been frequently raised during the COVID-19 pandemic, including that mandatory vaccination violates the Nuremberg Code, that it is coercive, that it violates informed consent, that it is discriminatory, and that it infringes civil liberties. We argue that, presented as such, each ought to be rejected, allowing future consideration of mandatory vaccination to be focused on concerns more worthy of ethical scrutiny.

2. Mandatory vaccination violates the Nuremberg code

The Nuremberg Code is a set of principles for the ethics of human experimentation delineated in the 1947 Nazi doctor case of United States v. Brandt et al. [2] . Principle one emphasizes that voluntary consent is essential for human participation in research. Vaccination mandates violate the Nuremberg Code because COVID-19 vaccines are ‘experimental’ and because mandates undermine the voluntariness of informed consent.

2.2. Response

COVID-19 vaccines used in practice and involved in vaccination mandates are either authorized or fully approved by national regulatory authorities. Hence, they are not experimental and not part of research, and thus not covered by the Nuremberg Code. Taking approved medicines prescribed or used as a matter of regular medical or public health practice does not constitute an experiment or research in any common understandings of the terms.

But what of the fact that COVID-19 vaccines are still being studied? All medicines undergo on-going study without being considered experimental. The study of medicines does not cease once evidence regarding their safety and efficacy has met the standards of regulatory approval and are used in regular clinical and public health practice. For instance, a drug’s effectiveness is often compared to other interventions. But this does not render those medicines ‘experimental’ and subject to regulations for human subjects research.

Ultimately, whether something is called ‘experimental’ is arguably irrelevant and unhelpful when evaluating the ethics of vaccination mandates because this is a term that could include everything from first-in-human use to off-label use to medicines authorized for emergency use. Each of these has different evidentiary standards, requiring different forms of ethical scrutiny, and so should be assessed accordingly. The mere charge of being ‘experimental’ is therefore of little or no moral importance; instead, what should matter from a moral perspective is whether there is sufficient causal evidence and a positive risk-benefit ratio to justify the use of the medicine in practice [3] . In practical terms, approval or authorization by a national regulatory authority indicate when this condition has been satisfied.

Finally, this objection seems to be confused because no country has in fact legally recognized the Nuremberg Code for the ethical conduct of research. Consequently, a ‘violation’ of the Nuremberg Code would represent a violation of principles of historical ethical importance, not a violation of a law or regulation (e.g., actual regulations governing research or laws concerning informed consent for vaccination).

3. Mandatory vaccination is coercive

Coercive policies use force or threats to compel individuals to do something they would not otherwise do [4] . Mandatory vaccination compels people to get vaccinated by, for instance, threatening them with job loss or a fine if they aren’t vaccinated, and are thus coercive, and hence, unethical.

3.2. Response

People are routinely compelled to do things they would not otherwise do under threat of punishment, including paying taxes, heeding speed limits, and showing up to work on time. If one considers these to be examples of coercion, then the power wielded by governments and employers is commonly ‘coercive’ power. Consequently, the mere charge of coercion is not enough to conclude that an activity is necessarily ethically wrong. Instead, opponents of vaccination mandates should explain why the use of coercion is unjustified, for example because it is not necessary or proportionate to achieve an important objective, because the ethical costs of coercion outweigh the goods that can be achieved through its use, or because its consequences would be so severe as to negate meaningful choice [5] .

Conversely, ethicists sometimes define coercion more narrowly as a state of affairs where people are made worse off no matter which choice they take (where ‘worse off’ may be understood both in terms of becoming materially worse off or becoming worse off by virtue of interference with one’s rights, but not simply disliking one’s choices) [4] , [5] . The classic example is the thief with a gun demanding “your money or your life.” If one believes people are not worse off for having obeyed tax policies, speed limits, and work requirements, or because such activities are justified by people’s consent to the overall scheme of society, one might conclude these cases do not actually constitute coercion. This is reflected in the claim that “if the mafia threatens to destroy your property if you fail to pay protection money, this threat will count as coercive; but if the just, well-regulated state threatens to confiscate your property unless you pay taxes, this threat is arguably not coercive.” [6] . Hence, on this account, mandatory vaccination would be coercive only if people were made worse off no matter which option they choose. Consequently, on this view, opponents of mandatory vaccination should show why all options they are presented with, including being vaccinated with all accommodations or exemptions for medical or religious reasons, makes people worse off (appreciating that no policies, e.g., tax policies, speed limits, etc., carry no burden at all). And as previously noted, even if one is successful in arguing that mandatory vaccination is coercive, one must still argue why that use of coercion is ethically objectionable, and hence, unjustified.

4. Mandatory vaccination violates informed consent

Vaccination is a medical intervention for which there is an ethical and legal requirement to obtain informed consent, which must be given voluntarily. Mandatory vaccination violates informed consent because the consent is not voluntary.

4.2. Response

Mandatory vaccination and laws requiring informed consent have co-existed for decades, strongly suggesting that mandatory vaccination does not, or at least need not, undermine legal requirements of informed consent. Mandatory vaccination would be involuntary if it were truly compulsory; that is, a forced injection. But typically, mandatory vaccination policies tend to require that one be vaccinated as a condition of work or to use a service. Do these conditions undermine the voluntariness of informed consent?

Requirements to get a medical intervention exist in many situations without violating informed consent. As an extreme example, doctors staying the winter at an Australian Antarctic station are required to prophylactically have their appendix removed [7] . In some instances, organ transplant patients are required to have various vaccines, such as the hepatitis B vaccine. While these examples share few features with vaccination employment conditions, they are analogous insofar as they illustrate how requirements to get a medical intervention as a condition to do something else, like work in a particular setting, need not vitiate the voluntariness of informed consent. By making a voluntary decision to stay the winter at an Australian Antarctic station or get a transplant, a person has made a choice to accept the associated required medical intervention. There is no requirement to get an organ transplant or stay at an Australian Antarctic station. While there may be compelling reasons to do so, a patient remains free to refuse consent to those conditions.

The important moral sense in which informed consent to be vaccinated is voluntary is if one is able to visit a vaccination clinic, experience no pressure to be vaccinated, and be free to walk away at any point without getting vaccinated. That one has a compelling reason to visit the vaccination clinic and get vaccinated does not necessarily mean the voluntariness of their consent has been undermined.

5. Mandatory vaccination is discriminatory

Mandatory vaccination imposes restrictions or sanctions on individuals who are unwilling to be vaccinated. This discriminates against people just because they are unvaccinated.

5.2. Response

Differential treatment is not inherently discriminatory in the important moral sense of the term. For example, employment conditions routinely impose requirements of education, skills, or medical procedures. These lead to the unequal treatment of people who belong to different groups. But this does not necessarily constitute discrimination that is morally objectionable, and hence, prohibited by law—that is, wrongfully imposed disadvantageous treatment—because the distinction is not arbitrarily related to a characteristic the person does not control or that is unrelated to job performance, such as sex, race, sexual orientation, or religion. Employment conditions become discriminatory when they make distinctions between people on grounds that are unrelated to job performance or occupational health and safety. Vaccination status on its own is not considered discriminatory because it is modifiable and can reflect a bona fide requirement of occupational health and safety.

Where vaccination status could be construed as discriminatory in the important moral and legal senses is when it is meaningfully connected to grounds otherwise protected from discrimination, such as disability or religion [8] . Consequently, vaccination mandates typically provide reasonable accommodations to avoid discrimination on these protected grounds. But this obligation is not absolute. If the accommodation puts others at risk of harm, the duty to accommodate may be limited. This is why some jurisdictions, like the state of Mississippi, maintain that “exemption from required immunizations for religious, philosophical, or conscientious reasons is not allowed.” [9] . Moreover, some human rights agencies have noted that while discrimination based on religious beliefs (i.e., ‘creed’) is prohibited on human rights grounds, personal preferences or singular beliefs about vaccination do not amount to a creed and thus do not constitute a protected ground upon which discrimination is prohibited [8] .

6. Mandatory vaccination infringes civil liberties

The imposition of direct or indirect restrictions or sanctions via vaccination mandates interferes with civil liberties, including the right to liberty, privacy, and bodily integrity, which renders them unethical.

6.2. Response

Civil liberties are not absolute and can be justifiably limited. This is reflected in the adage “my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.” This idea is also commonly enshrined in law and constitutions, where a balance is effected between the rights of the individual and the interests of society by permitting limits to be placed on guaranteed civil liberties. Consequently, the mere charge that vaccination mandates infringe civil liberties is not enough to conclude they are necessarily ethically wrong. In fact, mandatory vaccination could in some cases advance civil liberties. As the American Civil Liberties Union argues: “Far from compromising civil liberties, vaccine mandates actually further civil liberties. They protect the most vulnerable among us, including people with disabilities and fragile immune systems, children too young to be vaccinated and communities of color hit hard by the disease.” [10] . Opponents of vaccination mandates should instead argue how vaccination mandates are more than minimally impairing of rights and that the overall impact on a person’s rights is unnecessary or disproportionate to achieve the stated objectives of the mandate [11] .

7. Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has taught the world many lessons, including about the ethics of mandatory vaccination. Many of the arguments frequently raised against mandatory vaccination represent unsophisticated claims that, if not significantly modified to engage the ethical contours related to the approval of medicines, coercion, informed consent, discrimination, and civil liberties, should not be taken seriously. Moreover, we should not accept these unsophisticated claims as ‘shorthands’ for more sophisticated ones, whereby we are expected to ‘fill in the blanks’ about how, for example, one’s mere charge of coercion or discrimination entails the sorts of arguments that may give that charge greater moral force. Such arguments must be made explicit. To be clear, the five arguments against mandatory vaccination presented in this paper are bad arguments (but are nonetheless common). They can be improved to become more forceful. But as presented, they do not supply the necessary elements to be convincing, and thereby distract from more nuanced arguments that carry greater force and overshadow other important ethical concerns that have by comparison received little attention, such as concerns related to the potential negative impacts vaccination mandates may have on equity and public trust and how those impacts might be mitigated. [1] It would be a shame if when the next pandemic occurs the world rejects the possibility of vaccination mandates on the basis of the superficial claims identified in this paper rather than engaging with more sophisticated arguments for and against their use.

8. Author statement

All authors attest they meet the ICMJE criteria for authorship.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare the following financial interests/personal relationships which may be considered as potential competing interests: MJS is an uncompensated Expert Advisory Member of the World Health Organization (WHO) COVID-19 Ethics & Governance Working Group, WHO Expert Group on Ethical Considerations of Social Listening and Infodemic Management, Public Health Agency of Canada Public Health Ethics Consultative Group, and Ontario Public Health Emergencies Science Advisory Committee, and from 2020-2021 served as a compensated member of Ontario’s COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution Task Force. EJE reports the following: UNESCO Global Conference uncompensated speaker; School of Pharmaceutical & Biotech Business uncompensated speaker; NIH Demystifying Medicine Series uncompensated speaker; ASPO 45th Annual Meeting uncompensated speaker; Blue Cross Blue Shield uncompensated speaker; National Health Equity Summit uncompensated speaker; The Galien Foundation uncompensated speaker; Temple Shalom Chicago speaker series uncompensated speaker; AIFA Italian Medical Agency uncompensated speaker; Rainbow Push Coalition/CEF uncompensated speaker; IDSA uncompensated speaker, personal fees from Rise Health, travel fees from The Galien Foundation; Vin Future uncompensated speaker;  personal fees from Well Sky; personal fees from Rightway; Brown University uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Signature Healthcare Foundation; Organisation for Economic Cooperation & Development uncompensated speaker, personal fees from Healthcare Leaders of New York; 21st Population Health Colloquium uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Medimpact; American Academy of Arts & Sciences uncompensated speaker; Village MD uncompensated speaker; The Galien Foundation uncompensated speaker; University of Sydney Australia uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Massachusetts Association of Health Plans; Virtahealth uncompensated speaker; Tel Aviv University uncompensated speaker; American Philosophical Society uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Princeton University; personal fees from Philadelphia Committee on Foreign Relations; Health Action Alliance uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Yale University Grand Rounds; personal fees from Hartford Medical Society; UCSF uncompensated speaker; Ichan School of Medicine uncompensated speaker; University of Minnesota uncompensated speaker; IPHS Addis Conference uncompensated speaker; personal fees from AAHC Global Innovation Forum; personal fees from HMSA & Queens Health System; Faith Health Alliance Project uncompensated speaker; travel fees from Macalester College; CDC Learning event uncompensated speaker; travel fees from Oak CEO Summit; American Academy of Political & Social Science uncompensated speaker; Primary Care Transformation Summit uncompensated speaker; 16th World Congress of Bioethics uncompensated speaker; Blue Cross Blue Shield Research Health Alliance uncompensated speaker; personal fees from Advocate Aurora Health Summit, travel fees from DPharm Conference; personal fees from UPMC Shadyside Medical Center; ASCO Quality Care Symposium uncompensated speaker;  travel fees from UCSF Department of Urology Grand Rounds; personal fees from Advocate Aurora Health; personal fees from Cain Brothers Conference; personal fees from Bowdoin College; Brookings Institution uncompensated moderator;  travel fees from Galien Jerusalem Ethics Forum; non-financial support from HLTH 2022 Las Vegas; National Academies Forum on Microbial Threats uncompensated speaker; National University of Singapore uncompensated speaker; Williams College uncompensated speaker; NIH Grand Rounds uncompensated discussant, travel fees from HMSA; Stanford Graduate School of Business uncompensated speaker; World Bank uncompensated panelist; travel fees from Tel Aviv University; Serving on the following boards: Board of Advisors Cellares; Advisor Clarify Health; Unpaid External Advisory Board Member Village MD; Occasional Advisor Notable; Advisory Board Member JSL Health; Advisory Board Member Peterson Center on Healthcare; Special Advisor to Director General WHO; Expert Advisory Member WHO COVID-19 Ethics & Governance Working Group; Advisory Board Member Biden's Transition COVID-19 Committee; Advisory Board Member HIEx Health Innovation Exchange Partnership sponsored by the UN Geneva.

Data availability

Persuasive Essay Guide

Persuasive Essay About Covid19

How to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid19 | Examples & Tips

11 min read

People also read

A Comprehensive Guide to Writing an Effective Persuasive Essay

200+ Persuasive Essay Topics to Help You Out

Learn How to Create a Persuasive Essay Outline

30+ Persuasive Essay Examples To Get You Started

Read Excellent Examples of Persuasive Essay About Gun Control

Crafting a Convincing Persuasive Essay About Abortion

Learn to Write Persuasive Essay About Business With Examples and Tips

Check Out 12 Persuasive Essay About Online Education Examples

Persuasive Essay About Smoking - Making a Powerful Argument with Examples

Are you looking to write a persuasive essay about the Covid-19 pandemic?

Writing a compelling and informative essay about this global crisis can be challenging. It requires researching the latest information, understanding the facts, and presenting your argument persuasively.

But don’t worry! with some guidance from experts, you’ll be able to write an effective and persuasive essay about Covid-19.

In this blog post, we’ll outline the basics of writing a persuasive essay . We’ll provide clear examples, helpful tips, and essential information for crafting your own persuasive piece on Covid-19.

Read on to get started on your essay.

• 1. Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
• 2. Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19
• 3. Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine
• 4. Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration
• 5. Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19
• 6. Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19
• 7. Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19
• 8. Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19 

Steps to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Here are the steps to help you write a persuasive essay on this topic, along with an example essay:

Step 1: Choose a Specific Thesis Statement

Your thesis statement should clearly state your position on a specific aspect of COVID-19. It should be debatable and clear. For example:

Step 2: Research and Gather Information

Collect reliable and up-to-date information from reputable sources to support your thesis statement. This may include statistics, expert opinions, and scientific studies. For instance:

• COVID-19 vaccination effectiveness data
• Information on vaccine mandates in different countries
• Expert statements from health organizations like the WHO or CDC

Step 3: Outline Your Essay

Create a clear and organized outline to structure your essay. A persuasive essay typically follows this structure:

• Introduction
• Background Information
• Body Paragraphs (with supporting evidence)
• Counterarguments (addressing opposing views)

Step 4: Write the Introduction

In the introduction, grab your reader's attention and present your thesis statement. For example:

Step 5: Provide Background Information

Offer context and background information to help your readers understand the issue better. For instance:

Step 6: Develop Body Paragraphs

Each body paragraph should present a single point or piece of evidence that supports your thesis statement. Use clear topic sentences, evidence, and analysis. Here's an example:

Step 7: Address Counterarguments

Acknowledge opposing viewpoints and refute them with strong counterarguments. This demonstrates that you've considered different perspectives. For example:

Step 8: Write the Conclusion

Summarize your main points and restate your thesis statement in the conclusion. End with a strong call to action or thought-provoking statement. For instance:

Step 9: Revise and Proofread

Edit your essay for clarity, coherence, grammar, and spelling errors. Ensure that your argument flows logically.

Step 10: Cite Your Sources

Include proper citations and a bibliography page to give credit to your sources.

Remember to adjust your approach and arguments based on your target audience and the specific angle you want to take in your persuasive essay about COVID-19.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That's our Job!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid19

When writing a persuasive essay about the Covid-19 pandemic, it’s important to consider how you want to present your argument. To help you get started, here are some example essays for you to read:

Check out some more PDF examples below:

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Pandemic

Sample Of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 In The Philippines - Example

If you're in search of a compelling persuasive essay on business, don't miss out on our “ persuasive essay about business ” blog!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Vaccine

Covid19 vaccines are one of the ways to prevent the spread of Covid-19, but they have been a source of controversy. Different sides argue about the benefits or dangers of the new vaccines. Whatever your point of view is, writing a persuasive essay about it is a good way of organizing your thoughts and persuading others.

A persuasive essay about the Covid-19 vaccine could consider the benefits of getting vaccinated as well as the potential side effects.

Below are some examples of persuasive essays on getting vaccinated for Covid-19.

Covid19 Vaccine Persuasive Essay

Persuasive Essay on Covid Vaccines

Interested in thought-provoking discussions on abortion? Read our persuasive essay about abortion blog to eplore arguments!

Examples of Persuasive Essay About Covid-19 Integration

Covid19 has drastically changed the way people interact in schools, markets, and workplaces. In short, it has affected all aspects of life. However, people have started to learn to live with Covid19.

Writing a persuasive essay about it shouldn't be stressful. Read the sample essay below to get idea for your own essay about Covid19 integration.

Persuasive Essay About Working From Home During Covid19

Searching for the topic of Online Education? Our persuasive essay about online education is a must-read.

Examples of Argumentative Essay About Covid 19

Covid-19 has been an ever-evolving issue, with new developments and discoveries being made on a daily basis.

Writing an argumentative essay about such an issue is both interesting and challenging. It allows you to evaluate different aspects of the pandemic, as well as consider potential solutions.

Here are some examples of argumentative essays on Covid19.

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 Sample

Argumentative Essay About Covid19 With Introduction Body and Conclusion

Looking for a persuasive take on the topic of smoking? You'll find it all related arguments in out Persuasive Essay About Smoking blog!

Examples of Persuasive Speeches About Covid-19

Do you need to prepare a speech about Covid19 and need examples? We have them for you!

Persuasive speeches about Covid-19 can provide the audience with valuable insights on how to best handle the pandemic. They can be used to advocate for specific changes in policies or simply raise awareness about the virus.

Check out some examples of persuasive speeches on Covid-19:

Persuasive Speech About Covid-19 Example

Persuasive Speech About Vaccine For Covid-19

You can also read persuasive essay examples on other topics to master your persuasive techniques!

Tips to Write a Persuasive Essay About Covid-19

Writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19 requires a thoughtful approach to present your arguments effectively. 

Here are some tips to help you craft a compelling persuasive essay on this topic:

Choose a Specific Angle

Start by narrowing down your focus. COVID-19 is a broad topic, so selecting a specific aspect or issue related to it will make your essay more persuasive and manageable. For example, you could focus on vaccination, public health measures, the economic impact, or misinformation.

Provide Credible Sources 

Support your arguments with credible sources such as scientific studies, government reports, and reputable news outlets. Reliable sources enhance the credibility of your essay.

Use Persuasive Language

Employ persuasive techniques, such as ethos (establishing credibility), pathos (appealing to emotions), and logos (using logic and evidence). Use vivid examples and anecdotes to make your points relatable.

Organize Your Essay

Structure your essay involves creating a persuasive essay outline and establishing a logical flow from one point to the next. Each paragraph should focus on a single point, and transitions between paragraphs should be smooth and logical.

Emphasize Benefits

Highlight the benefits of your proposed actions or viewpoints. Explain how your suggestions can improve public health, safety, or well-being. Make it clear why your audience should support your position.

Use Visuals -H3

Incorporate graphs, charts, and statistics when applicable. Visual aids can reinforce your arguments and make complex data more accessible to your readers.

Call to Action

End your essay with a strong call to action. Encourage your readers to take a specific step or consider your viewpoint. Make it clear what you want them to do or think after reading your essay.

Revise and Edit

Proofread your essay for grammar, spelling, and clarity. Make sure your arguments are well-structured and that your writing flows smoothly.

Seek Feedback 

Have someone else read your essay to get feedback. They may offer valuable insights and help you identify areas where your persuasive techniques can be improved.

Tough Essay Due? Hire Tough Writers!

Common Topics for a Persuasive Essay on COVID-19 

Here are some persuasive essay topics on COVID-19:

• The Importance of Vaccination Mandates for COVID-19 Control
• Balancing Public Health and Personal Freedom During a Pandemic
• The Economic Impact of Lockdowns vs. Public Health Benefits
• The Role of Misinformation in Fueling Vaccine Hesitancy
• Remote Learning vs. In-Person Education: What's Best for Students?
• The Ethics of Vaccine Distribution: Prioritizing Vulnerable Populations
• The Mental Health Crisis Amidst the COVID-19 Pandemic
• The Long-Term Effects of COVID-19 on Healthcare Systems
• Global Cooperation vs. Vaccine Nationalism in Fighting the Pandemic
• The Future of Telemedicine: Expanding Healthcare Access Post-COVID-19

In search of more inspiring topics for your next persuasive essay? Our persuasive essay topics blog has plenty of ideas!

To sum it up,

You have read good sample essays and got some helpful tips. You now have the tools you needed to write a persuasive essay about Covid-19. So don't let the doubts stop you, start writing!

If you need professional writing help, don't worry! We've got that for you as well.

MyPerfectWords.com is a professional persuasive essay writing service that can help you craft an excellent persuasive essay on Covid-19. Our experienced essay writer will create a well-structured, insightful paper in no time!

So don't hesitate and place your ' write my essay online ' request today!

Frequently Asked Questions

Are there any ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about covid-19.

Yes, there are ethical considerations when writing a persuasive essay about COVID-19. It's essential to ensure the information is accurate, not contribute to misinformation, and be sensitive to the pandemic's impact on individuals and communities. Additionally, respecting diverse viewpoints and emphasizing public health benefits can promote ethical communication.

What impact does COVID-19 have on society?

The impact of COVID-19 on society is far-reaching. It has led to job and economic losses, an increase in stress and mental health disorders, and changes in education systems. It has also had a negative effect on social interactions, as people have been asked to limit their contact with others.

Write Essay Within 60 Seconds!

Caleb S. has been providing writing services for over five years and has a Masters degree from Oxford University. He is an expert in his craft and takes great pride in helping students achieve their academic goals. Caleb is a dedicated professional who always puts his clients first.

Paper Due? Why Suffer? That’s our Job!

Keep reading

• Share full article

Advertisement

Supported by

Guest Essay

As Bird Flu Looms, the Lessons of Past Pandemics Take On New Urgency

By John M. Barry

Mr. Barry, a scholar at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.”

In 1918, an influenza virus jumped from birds to humans and killed an estimated 50 million to 100 million people in a world with less than a quarter of today’s population. Dozens of mammals also became infected.

Now we are seeing another onslaught of avian influenza. For years it has been devastating bird populations worldwide and more recently has begun infecting mammals , including cattle, a transmission never seen before. In another first, the virus almost certainly jumped recently from a cow to at least one human — fortunately, a mild case.

While much would still have to happen for this virus to ignite another human pandemic, these events provide another reason — as if one were needed — for governments and public health authorities to prepare for the next pandemic. As they do, they must be cautious about the lessons they might think Covid-19 left behind. We need to be prepared to fight the next war, not the last one.

Two assumptions based on our Covid experience would be especially dangerous and could cause tremendous damage, even if policymakers realized their mistake and adjusted quickly.

The first involves who is most likely to die from a pandemic virus. Covid primarily killed people 65 years and older , but Covid was an anomaly. The five previous pandemics we have reliable data about all killed much younger populations.

The 1889 pandemic most resembles Covid (and some scientists believe a coronavirus caused it). Young children escaped almost untouched and it killed mostly older people, but people ages 15 to 24 suffered the most excess mortality , or deaths above normal. Influenza caused the other pandemics, but unlike deaths from seasonal influenza, which usually kills older adults, in the 1957, 1968 and 2009 outbreaks, half or more deaths occurred in people younger than 65. The catastrophic 1918 pandemic was the complete reverse of Covid: Well over 90 percent of the excess mortality occurred in people younger than 65. Children under 10 were the most vulnerable, and those ages 25 to 29 followed.

Any presumption that older people would be the chief victims of the next pandemic — as they were in Covid — is wrong, and any policy so premised could leave healthy young adults and children exposed to a lethal virus.

The second dangerous assumption is that public health measures like school and business closings and masking had little impact. That is incorrect.

Australia, Germany and Switzerland are among the countries that demonstrated those interventions can succeed. Even the experience of the United States provides overwhelming, if indirect, evidence of the success of those public health measures.

The evidence comes from influenza, which transmits like Covid, with nearly one-third of cases transmitted by asymptomatic people. The winter before Covid, influenza killed an estimated 25,000 here ; in that first pandemic winter, influenza deaths were under 800. The public health steps taken to slow Covid contributed significantly to this decline, and those same measures no doubt affected Covid as well.

So the question isn’t whether those measures work. They do. It’s whether their benefits outweigh their social and economic costs. This will be a continuing calculation.

Such measures can moderate transmission, but they cannot be sustained indefinitely. And even the most extreme interventions cannot eliminate a pathogen that escapes initial containment if, like influenza or the virus that causes Covid-19, it is both airborne and transmitted by people showing no symptoms. Yet such interventions can achieve two important goals.

The first is preventing hospitals from being overrun. Achieving this outcome could require a cycle of imposing, lifting and reimposing public health measures to slow the spread of the virus. But the public should accept that because the goal is understandable, narrow and well defined.

The second objective is to slow transmission to buy time for identifying, manufacturing and distributing therapeutics and vaccines and for clinicians to learn how to manage care with the resources at hand. Artificial intelligence will perhaps be able to extrapolate from mountains of data which restrictions deliver the most benefits — whether, for example, just closing bars would be enough to significantly dampen spread — and which impose the greatest cost. A.I. should also speed drug development. And wastewater monitoring can track the pathogen’s movements and may make it possible to limit the locations where interventions are needed.

Still, what’s achievable will depend on the pathogen’s severity and transmissibility, and, as we sadly learned in the United States, how well — or poorly — leaders communicate the goals and the reasons behind them.

Specifically, officials will confront whether to impose the two most contentious interventions, school closings and mask mandates. What should they do?

Children are generally superspreaders of respiratory disease and can have disproportionate impact. Indeed, vaccinating children against pneumococcal pneumonia can cut the disease by 87 percent in people 50 and older. And schools were central to spreading the pandemics of 1957, 1968 and 2009. So there was good reason to think closing schools during Covid would save many lives.

In fact, closing schools did reduce Covid’s spread, yet the consensus view is that any gain was not worth the societal disruption and damage to children’s social and educational development. But that tells us nothing about the future. What if the next pandemic is deadlier than 1957’s but as in 1957, 48 percent of excess deaths are among those younger than 15 and schools are central to spread? Would it make sense to close schools then?

Masks present a much simpler question. They work. We’ve known they work since 1917, when they helped protect soldiers from a measles epidemic. A century later, all the data on Covid have actually demonstrated significant benefits from masks.

But whether to mandate masks is a difficult call. Too many people wear poorly fitted masks or wear them incorrectly. So even without adding in the complexities of politics, compliance is a problem. Whether government mask mandates will be worth the resistance they foment will depend on the severity of the virus.

That does not mean that institutions and businesses can’t or shouldn’t require masks. Nor does it mean we can’t increase the use of masks with better messaging. People accept smoking bans because they understand long-term exposure to secondhand smoke can cause cancer. A few minutes of exposure to Covid can kill. Messaging that combines self-protection with communitarian values could dent resistance significantly.

Individuals should want to protect themselves, given the long-term threat to their health. An estimated 7 percent of Americans have been affected by long Covid of varying severity, and a re-infection can still set it off in those who have so far avoided it. The 1918 pandemic also caused neurological and cardiovascular problems lasting decades, and children exposed in utero suffered worse health and higher mortality than their siblings. We can expect the same from the next pandemic.

What should we learn from the past? Every pandemic we have good information about was unique. That makes information itself the most valuable commodity. We must gather it, analyze it, act upon it and communicate it.

Epidemiological information can answer the biggest question: whether to deploy society-wide public health interventions at all. But the epidemiology of the virus is hardly the only information that matters. Before Covid vaccines were available, the single drug that saved the most lives was dexamethasone. Health officials in Britain discovered its effectiveness because the country has a shared data system that enabled them to analyze the efficacy of treatments being tried around the country. We have no comparable system in the United States. We need one.

Perhaps most important, government officials and health care experts must communicate to the public effectively. The United States failed dismally at this. There was no organized effort to counter social media disinformation, and experts damaged their own credibility by reversing their advice several times. They could have avoided these self-inflicted wounds by setting public expectations properly. The public should have been told that scientists had never seen this virus before, that they were giving their best advice based on their knowledge at the time and that their advice could — and probably would — change as more information came in. Had they done this, they probably would have retained more of the public’s confidence.

Trust matters. A pre-Covid analysis of the pandemic readiness of countries around the world rated the United States first because of its resources. Yet America had the second-worst rate of infections of any high-income country.

A pandemic analysis of 177 countries published in 2022 found that resources did not correlate with infections. Trust in government and fellow citizens did. That’s the lesson we really need to remember for the next time.

John M. Barry, a scholar at the Tulane University School of Public Health and Tropical Medicine, is the author of “The Great Influenza: The Story of the Deadliest Pandemic in History.”

The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips . And here’s our email: [email protected] .

Follow the New York Times Opinion section on Facebook , Instagram , TikTok , WhatsApp , X and Threads .