Coronavirus Covid 19 Case Study

CORONAVIRUS1
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course name: Course code
Due Date
CORONAVIRUS
2
Statement of Declaration
I hereby solemnly declare that the project report is my own work done through extensive
research during the sessions of our study under the supervision of my caring professor. I assert
the statements in the research and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research work. I
further certify that my work is original. Thus, has never been submitted to many other institution.
CORONAVIRUS
3
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Abstract
Coronavirus disease is a deadly pandemic caused by the newly discovered coronavirus
strains. Individuals having contracted the ailment develop mild symptoms entailing moderate
respiratory conditions and are entitled to recovery without specialized treatment. Aged
individuals and those having medical challenges such as having contracted cardiovascular
ailments, diabetes and cancer are more likely to develop serious coronavirus complications,
which may be fatal. The symptoms portrayed by infected individuals entail but are not restricted
to fever, persistent dry coughs, and tiredness, to mention a few. Measures have been incorporated
towards containing the disease and spreading the ailment further. The measures include
countrywide lockdowns, bans on gatherings, closure of schools and public institutions, resorts,
sports and enforcing the work from home policies. This paper develops insights into the vaccines
that proved effective for addressing the pandemic, the ethical implications associated with the
vaccines, and the existing state of the perceived mandatory vaccines. Additionally, the research
report aims at developing insights on the practical perspectives based on these coronavirus
vaccines.
CORONAVIRUS
4
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Introduction
Types of Vaccines Available and Their Importance
Most countries globally have adopted vaccines as an effective practice and response
towards containing coronavirus. Health experts and organizations emphasize the need for
wearing masks, maintaining social distancing and avoiding public gatherings as practices
necessary towards combating the spread of the virus. However, the healthcare organizations and
stakeholders advise that receiving the coronavirus vaccines serves as a general and proven
practical approach towards preventing individuals from acquiring the virus.
There are various types of vaccines that have proved effective for containing the
coronavirus. These entail but are not limited to Messenger RNA that helps body cells make
proteins that help trigger immune responses within individuals’ bodies. These vaccines include
the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus vaccines approved and authorized for use within
the United States (World Health Organization, 2021). The other vaccine types are the viral vector
ones that utilize the coronavirus’s modified forms different from the target ones to deliver
instructions to the body cells.
The coronavirus vaccines are also necessary for preventing complicated diseases to the
vaccinated individuals who may acquire the virus. According to statistics, most of the deaths
resulting from the virus are majorly reported amongst the individuals who fail to vaccinate.
Following the adverse effects brought forth by the pandemic, most business firms and health care
institutions are commencing to mandate the vaccination of their employees and, in some
incidences levying substantial healthcare premiums for individuals who are adamant about
getting vaccinated (World Health Organization, 2021). The concern thus forms a debate topic in
CORONAVIRUS
5
the United States currently. Still, vaccine requirements incorporate historical and legal precedent
that helps understand the pandemic’s current state, thus offering guidance to the United States
organizations’ responses. Coronavirus has however, caused detrimental impacts to most
industries at global settings thus significantly the behavior of the associated businesses and the
perceived consumers. The industries entitled to numerous disruptions entail but are not entitled
to; agricultural-related industries.
Individuals’ vaccination against coronavirus however, forms an ethical dilemma. The
vaccines are associated with negative outcomes on particular individuals such as the pregnant
women and the aged as they are bound to complications following vaccination that put their lives
at risk. The immunity duration following vaccination is likely to be lower with the effectiveness
likely to decline against emerging and new variants. The negative information is thus likely to
lower the acceptance of these vaccines in general. The lower effectiveness and the potential
detrimental impacts associated with these vaccines spurs hesitancy and implies that most of these
vaccine doses remain unused.
Historical Events Relating to Mandatory Vaccination
The incorporation of mandatory vaccination programs is not new to the Americans. The
practice dates back to the revolutionary wartime, following the smallpox outbreaks that
combated the continental army from winning the fights against the British soldiers. The
perceived public backlash and resistance for these vaccines are also evident within the country’s
history, with protests leading to countries exempting philosophical and religious groups from the
perceived vaccination practices. During George Washington’s era, American troops were more
susceptible to smallpox than their rivals, the British soldiers, who were immune to their
childhood exposure and vaccination at younger ages (Woods, 2020). The impacts of smallpox
CORONAVIRUS
6
were dire as it fueled the failure of the Continental Army’s primary military campaigns with
smallpox continued outbreak sweeping through its camps. The mandate to have all the soldiers
vaccinated against smallpox thus played crucial roles in the American forces’ subsequent
victories.
In 1809, Massachusetts instituted its first vaccine mandate that authorized the local health
boards to vaccinate all individuals aged twenty-one years and above. However, as the states
commenced enforcing the underlying laws. However, the vaccine mandates were repelled in
various forms, including Illinois, California, Minnesota, Indiana, West Virginia, Utah, and
Wisconsin (Woods, 2020). In 1905, the United States Supreme Court upheld the states’ authority
towards enforcing the vaccine requirements following the landmark case involving Jacobson v.
Massachusetts (Woods, 2020). Currently, most policies emphasize healthcare organizational
decisions calling for the need to have their employees entitled to influenza vaccines.
Theoretical Perspectives Regarding Coronavirus Vaccination
Most authorities emphasizing mandatory vaccination embrace the utilitarian perspectives
in justifying the coronavirus compulsory vaccine requirements. The practical perspectives
emphasize the need for keeping a significant population safe and protected, especially the
individuals at high risks or having comorbidities, as opposed to those opting not to get
vaccinated (Christie et al., 2021). The utilitarian opinion thus implies that the mandating of
universal vaccination remains morally justified due to its positive outcomes, including more
considerable population protection, and minimizing the risks of transmission, thus lowering
hospitalization, infection and death rates. However, individuals debating against the utilitarian
approach emphasize the need for vaccine distribution that encourages education, increased
CORONAVIRUS
7
availability and incentive practices towards promoting the unvaccinated individuals and
encouraging them on the need to vaccinate.
UAB Hospital Reaction to Coronavirus Vaccines
The perceived full approval of coronavirus vaccines has resulted in most healthcare
institutions and business organizations emphasizing vaccines for their workers. The practice aims
at ensuring the safety of the employees and the people they interact with within these settings.
However, UAB hospital no longer mandates its employees’ vaccination, emphasizing that they
are waiting for the government’s directives regarding potential federal mandate regarding
healthcare workers (Woods, 2020). The order came closely after the hospital announced last
August that the employees and workers within the hospital settings should be fully vaccinated
against the virus by the end of November. However, since the UAB healthcare follows federal
laws, it had to withdraw its perceived vaccine policy set into consideration.
Ethical Principles Regarding Coronavirus Vaccination
Healthcare organizations should embrace various ethical considerations and practices
before mandating coronavirus vaccines. The ethical practices help policymakers plan for the
effective response mechanisms to coronavirus and justify the directing of the perceived vaccines.
These practices entail beneficence, requiring healthcare institutions to incorporate ethical and
legal obligations meant to ensure a safe and desirable environment for patients and other
individuals wishing to be vaccinated. Additionally, embracing beneficence would help minimize
the viral transmission and thus enhance health, promote patient safety and offer a sense of
security. Justice, as an ethical consideration, should as well prevail while mandating the
vaccination (Persad & Emanuel, 2021). The practice would help in combating hospitalizations
while protecting the health system capacities. Mandatory vaccination should thus promote
CORONAVIRUS
8
distributive justice and help healthcare institutions fulfil the obligations of vulnerable individuals
and the sick.
The mandatory vaccination should further embrace necessity towards terming the
mandate as the final solution proved effective for protecting vulnerable communities and
promoting individuals’ immunity. There should also be evidence of vaccine safety. In incidences
where the vaccine’s insufficient safety information suggests that the vaccination risks outweigh
the vaccine’s potential for harm, a vaccination mandate is thus unethically justified (Persad &
Emanuel, 2021).
There should also be a significant supply of the vaccine towards ensuring that it meets the
needs of the general patient population within a given target area. The vaccination mandate
should also win the perceived public trust (Persad & Emanuel, 2021). In incidences where it
threatens towards undermining public confidence, the vaccine may have significant impacts on
its uptake and adversely impact various public health guidelines, a practice that may, in the long
run, bring forth implications in future to healthcare policymakers.
Conclusion
The impacts brought forth by coronavirus are adverse, including the increased loss of
lives amongst the patients. The healthcare systems are currently struggling to save patients’ lives
working with the virus, thus becoming a more significant burden. However, most healthcare
institutions opt for the mandated vaccines that have effectively addressed relevant disease
concerns in the past. Individuals should thus take the initiative of getting vaccinated to escape the
detrimental impacts likely to be brought forth by the pandemic in the long run.
CORONAVIRUS
9
References
Christie, A., Brooks, J. T., Hicks, L. A., Sauber-Schatz, E. K., Yoder, J. S., Honein, M. A., … &
Team, R. (2021). Guidance for implementing COVID-19 prevention strategies in the
context of varying community transmission levels and vaccination coverage. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(30), 1044.
Dev, S. M. (2020). Addressing COVID-19 impacts on agriculture, food security, and livelihoods
in India. IFPRI book chapters, 33-35.
Persad, G., & Emanuel, E. J. (2021). Ethical considerations of offering benefits to COVID-19
vaccine recipients. JAMA, 326(3), 221-222.
Woods, T. P. (2020). Public Health Policing and the Case against Vaccine Mandates. Thomas L.
Rev., 33, 219.
World Health Organization. (2021). COVID-19 and mandatory vaccination: ethical
considerations and caveats: policy brief, 13 April 2021. In COVID-19 and mandatory
vaccination: ethical considerations and caveats: policy brief, 13 April 2021.
CORONAVIRUS
1
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Student’s Name
Institutional Affiliation
Course name: Course code
Due Date
CORONAVIRUS
2
Statement of Declaration
I hereby solemnly declare that the project report is my own work done through extensive
research during the sessions of our study under the supervision of my caring professor. I assert
the statements in the research and conclusions drawn are an outcome of my research work. I
further certify that my work is original. Thus, has never been submitted to many other institution.
CORONAVIRUS
3
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Abstract
Coronavirus disease is a deadly pandemic caused by the newly discovered coronavirus
strains. Individuals having contracted the ailment develop mild symptoms entailing moderate
respiratory conditions and are entitled to recovery without specialized treatment. Aged
individuals and those having medical challenges such as having contracted cardiovascular
ailments, diabetes and cancer are more likely to develop serious coronavirus complications,
which may be fatal. The symptoms portrayed by infected individuals entail but are not restricted
to fever, persistent dry coughs, and tiredness, to mention a few. Measures have been incorporated
towards containing the disease and spreading the ailment further. The measures include
countrywide lockdowns, bans on gatherings, closure of schools and public institutions, resorts,
sports and enforcing the work from home policies. This paper develops insights into the vaccines
that proved effective for addressing the pandemic, the ethical implications associated with the
vaccines, and the existing state of the perceived mandatory vaccines. Additionally, the research
report aims at developing insights on the practical perspectives based on these coronavirus
vaccines.
CORONAVIRUS
4
Coronavirus – Covid-19
Introduction
Types of Vaccines Available and Their Importance
Most countries globally have adopted vaccines as an effective practice and response
towards containing coronavirus. Health experts and organizations emphasize the need for
wearing masks, maintaining social distancing and avoiding public gatherings as practices
necessary towards combating the spread of the virus. However, the healthcare organizations and
stakeholders advise that receiving the coronavirus vaccines serves as a general and proven
practical approach towards preventing individuals from acquiring the virus.
There are various types of vaccines that have proved effective for containing the
coronavirus. These entail but are not limited to Messenger RNA that helps body cells make
proteins that help trigger immune responses within individuals’ bodies. These vaccines include
the Pfizer-BioNTech and Moderna coronavirus vaccines approved and authorized for use within
the United States (World Health Organization, 2021). The other vaccine types are the viral vector
ones that utilize the coronavirus’s modified forms different from the target ones to deliver
instructions to the body cells.
The coronavirus vaccines are also necessary for preventing complicated diseases to the
vaccinated individuals who may acquire the virus. According to statistics, most of the deaths
resulting from the virus are majorly reported amongst the individuals who fail to vaccinate.
Following the adverse effects brought forth by the pandemic, most business firms and health care
institutions are commencing to mandate the vaccination of their employees and, in some
incidences levying substantial healthcare premiums for individuals who are adamant about
getting vaccinated (World Health Organization, 2021). The concern thus forms a debate topic in
CORONAVIRUS
5
the United States currently. Still, vaccine requirements incorporate historical and legal precedent
that helps understand the pandemic’s current state, thus offering guidance to the United States
organizations’ responses. Coronavirus has however, caused detrimental impacts to most
industries at global settings thus significantly the behavior of the associated businesses and the
perceived consumers. The industries entitled to numerous disruptions entail but are not entitled
to; agricultural-related industries.
Individuals’ vaccination against coronavirus however, forms an ethical dilemma. The
vaccines are associated with negative outcomes on particular individuals such as the pregnant
women and the aged as they are bound to complications following vaccination that put their lives
at risk. The immunity duration following vaccination is likely to be lower with the effectiveness
likely to decline against emerging and new variants. The negative information is thus likely to
lower the acceptance of these vaccines in general. The lower effectiveness and the potential
detrimental impacts associated with these vaccines spurs hesitancy and implies that most of these
vaccine doses remain unused.
Historical Events Relating to Mandatory Vaccination
The incorporation of mandatory vaccination programs is not new to the Americans. The
practice dates back to the revolutionary wartime, following the smallpox outbreaks that
combated the continental army from winning the fights against the British soldiers. The
perceived public backlash and resistance for these vaccines are also evident within the country’s
history, with protests leading to countries exempting philosophical and religious groups from the
perceived vaccination practices. During George Washington’s era, American troops were more
susceptible to smallpox than their rivals, the British soldiers, who were immune to their
childhood exposure and vaccination at younger ages (Woods, 2020). The impacts of smallpox
CORONAVIRUS
6
were dire as it fueled the failure of the Continental Army’s primary military campaigns with
smallpox continued outbreak sweeping through its camps. The mandate to have all the soldiers
vaccinated against smallpox thus played crucial roles in the American forces’ subsequent
victories.
In 1809, Massachusetts instituted its first vaccine mandate that authorized the local health
boards to vaccinate all individuals aged twenty-one years and above. However, as the states
commenced enforcing the underlying laws. However, the vaccine mandates were repelled in
various forms, including Illinois, California, Minnesota, Indiana, West Virginia, Utah, and
Wisconsin (Woods, 2020). In 1905, the United States Supreme Court upheld the states’ authority
towards enforcing the vaccine requirements following the landmark case involving Jacobson v.
Massachusetts (Woods, 2020). Currently, most policies emphasize healthcare organizational
decisions calling for the need to have their employees entitled to influenza vaccines.
Theoretical Perspectives Regarding Coronavirus Vaccination
Most authorities emphasizing mandatory vaccination embrace the utilitarian perspectives
in justifying the coronavirus compulsory vaccine requirements. The practical perspectives
emphasize the need for keeping a significant population safe and protected, especially the
individuals at high risks or having comorbidities, as opposed to those opting not to get
vaccinated (Christie et al., 2021). The utilitarian opinion thus implies that the mandating of
universal vaccination remains morally justified due to its positive outcomes, including more
considerable population protection, and minimizing the risks of transmission, thus lowering
hospitalization, infection and death rates. However, individuals debating against the utilitarian
approach emphasize the need for vaccine distribution that encourages education, increased
CORONAVIRUS
7
availability and incentive practices towards promoting the unvaccinated individuals and
encouraging them on the need to vaccinate.
UAB Hospital Reaction to Coronavirus Vaccines
The perceived full approval of coronavirus vaccines has resulted in most healthcare
institutions and business organizations emphasizing vaccines for their workers. The practice aims
at ensuring the safety of the employees and the people they interact with within these settings.
However, UAB hospital no longer mandates its employees’ vaccination, emphasizing that they
are waiting for the government’s directives regarding potential federal mandate regarding
healthcare workers (Woods, 2020). The order came closely after the hospital announced last
August that the employees and workers within the hospital settings should be fully vaccinated
against the virus by the end of November. However, since the UAB healthcare follows federal
laws, it had to withdraw its perceived vaccine policy set into consideration.
Ethical Principles Regarding Coronavirus Vaccination
Healthcare organizations should embrace various ethical considerations and practices
before mandating coronavirus vaccines. The ethical practices help policymakers plan for the
effective response mechanisms to coronavirus and justify the directing of the perceived vaccines.
These practices entail beneficence, requiring healthcare institutions to incorporate ethical and
legal obligations meant to ensure a safe and desirable environment for patients and other
individuals wishing to be vaccinated. Additionally, embracing beneficence would help minimize
the viral transmission and thus enhance health, promote patient safety and offer a sense of
security. Justice, as an ethical consideration, should as well prevail while mandating the
vaccination (Persad & Emanuel, 2021). The practice would help in combating hospitalizations
while protecting the health system capacities. Mandatory vaccination should thus promote
CORONAVIRUS
8
distributive justice and help healthcare institutions fulfil the obligations of vulnerable individuals
and the sick.
The mandatory vaccination should further embrace necessity towards terming the
mandate as the final solution proved effective for protecting vulnerable communities and
promoting individuals’ immunity. There should also be evidence of vaccine safety. In incidences
where the vaccine’s insufficient safety information suggests that the vaccination risks outweigh
the vaccine’s potential for harm, a vaccination mandate is thus unethically justified (Persad &
Emanuel, 2021).
There should also be a significant supply of the vaccine towards ensuring that it meets the
needs of the general patient population within a given target area. The vaccination mandate
should also win the perceived public trust (Persad & Emanuel, 2021). In incidences where it
threatens towards undermining public confidence, the vaccine may have significant impacts on
its uptake and adversely impact various public health guidelines, a practice that may, in the long
run, bring forth implications in future to healthcare policymakers.
Conclusion
The impacts brought forth by coronavirus are adverse, including the increased loss of
lives amongst the patients. The healthcare systems are currently struggling to save patients’ lives
working with the virus, thus becoming a more significant burden. However, most healthcare
institutions opt for the mandated vaccines that have effectively addressed relevant disease
concerns in the past. Individuals should thus take the initiative of getting vaccinated to escape the
detrimental impacts likely to be brought forth by the pandemic in the long run.
CORONAVIRUS
9
References
Christie, A., Brooks, J. T., Hicks, L. A., Sauber-Schatz, E. K., Yoder, J. S., Honein, M. A., … &
Team, R. (2021). Guidance for implementing COVID-19 prevention strategies in the
context of varying community transmission levels and vaccination coverage. Morbidity
and Mortality Weekly Report, 70(30), 1044.
Dev, S. M. (2020). Addressing COVID-19 impacts on agriculture, food security, and livelihoods
in India. IFPRI book chapters, 33-35.
Persad, G., & Emanuel, E. J. (2021). Ethical considerations of offering benefits to COVID-19
vaccine recipients. JAMA, 326(3), 221-222.
Woods, T. P. (2020). Public Health Policing and the Case against Vaccine Mandates. Thomas L.
Rev., 33, 219.
World Health Organization. (2021). COVID-19 and mandatory vaccination: ethical
considerations and caveats: policy brief, 13 April 2021. In COVID-19 and mandatory
vaccination: ethical considerations and caveats: policy brief, 13 April 2021.
From student 1
Strengths:
– Great topic – definitely one the biggest ethical concerns of today
– Sections are well organized
Things to Consider:
– The abstract should contain the topic of your paper. I thought you were going to speak about
just coronavirus as a virus, but I kept reading and it was about vaccines.
– Maybe consider writing about the other side of the debate to make the paper even and more
neutral
From student 2
I think your strong points are:
Introduction – providing a global viewpoint will help further develop your point around vaccines
History of vaccine mandates – this provides a good level of context for the issue and sets a
precedent
I think some points that could use some further development are:
Utilitarian theory – this could be a very strong point in the paper, but I think there needs to be
additional support with examples of how this is taking place
UAB Hospital reaction – what was the hospital reaction? It will be important to illustrate what the
reaction was and what drove the negative or positive reactions from stakeholders
From student 3
It looks pretty good. I view the strong points as:
An overview of the history of mandatory vaccine
Including ethical principles of coronavirus
PRoviding a “local” reaction to it, e.g. UAB
The three points I would suggest would improve the paper are:
Changing guidelines, e.g. that cloth masks provide little protection, can or can’t reopen if
vaccinated, etc.
Your abstract mentions mild symptoms, I believe that the severity of the symptoms has ranged
from undetectable to severe
In the ethical arguments, I would include more than one framework aside from utilitarian, and
include an analysis of taking rights away vs public safety