Mandatory Influenza Vaccination: How Far to Go and Whom to Target Without Evidence?
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The American Journal of Bioethics confusion observed among U.S. parents, even those generally supportive of vaccination (Kennedy et al. 2011).The time and resources spent by the public health community debunking claims of the alleged risks and overstated benefits of vaccines may actually perpetuate these concerns, a variation of the "backfire effect" described by Nyhan and Reifler (2010).Likewise, time spent defending vaccines and vaccine policies, including mandatory vaccination requirements, is time not spent making the positive case for the clear benefits of vaccination for individuals and communities.Childhood vaccination requirements in the United States have been described as a "safety net" that, in tandem with comprehensive promotional and educational activities, helps to ensure high vaccination rates when substantial support for vaccination already exists (Abramson and Pickering 2002).Influenza vaccination requirements ought to be understood similarly, supplementing, but not replacing, concurrent efforts to build support for vaccines and confidence in their safety, necessity, and value among HCP.The more that mandatory vaccination becomes the public "face" of U.S. vaccination efforts, the greater the impediments are to preserving and growing this vital trust in vaccines and vaccine policy.Even if evidence, experience, and ethics justify the current use of mandatory influenza vaccination policies for health care personnel, the need to employ these measures may suggest that the time has come to dramatically reimagine U.S. vaccine promotion and education, seeking to establish a new vaccine narrative for a new era in medicine and public health.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".