View source for COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-vax problem

{{DISPLAYTITLE:COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-vax problem}}{{#seo:
|title=COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-vax problem - Top Italian Scientists Journal
|description=We present a literature review of recent articles about the COVID-19 pandemic in view of the anti-vax arguments.
|keywords=anti-vaxxers; COVID-19 pandemic; green pass; vaccine.
|citation_author=Carcione, José M.
|citation_journal_title=Top Italian Scientists Journal 
|citation_publication_date=2025/03/03 
|citation_title=COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-vax problem
|citation_keywords=anti-vaxxers; COVID-19 pandemic; green pass; vaccine.
|citation_publisher=Top Italian Scientists
|citation_volume=2
|citation_issue=2
|citation_doi=10.62684/TEIN7749
|citation_issn=3033-5132
|}}
{| class="wikitable" style="float:right ;border:solid 1px #a2a9b1; background-color: #f8f9fa" cellpadding="5"
|+ <span style="font-size:18px;"></span>
|- 
| '''Published'''
|-
| March 3, 2025
|-
| '''Title''' 
|-
| style="width:200px;" | COVID-19 pandemic and the anti-vax problem
|- 
| '''Author'''
|-
|   José M. Carcione
|-
| '''DOI'''
|-
| [https://doi.org/10.62684/TEIN7749 10.62684/TEIN7749]
|-
| '''Keywords'''
|-
| anti-vaxxers; COVID-19 pandemic; green pass; vaccine.
|-
| '''Downloads'''
|-
|  style="text-align: center;" | [[File:PDF_file_icon.png|center|50px|'''Download PDF'''|link=https://journal.topitalianscientists.org/images/5/5e/COVID-19_pandemic_and_the_anti-vax_problem.pdf]]
|}
'''[https://www.topitalianscientists.org/tis/3743/Jos%C3%A9_Carcione_-_Top_Italian_Scientist_in_Natural_&_Environmental_Sciences José M. Carcione]'''

National Institute of Oceanography and Applied Geophysics – OGS, Trieste, Italy. Email: jcarcione@ogs.it


==Abstract==
We present a literature review of recent articles about the COVID-19 pandemic in view of the anti-vax arguments. In Italy, the (unvaccinated) anti-vax population, or anti-vaxxers, amounted to around six to seven million people, including 10% of physicians at the end of the pandemic. The main arguments were and still are: a) the vaccine did not prevent infection (contagion); b) the vaccine does more harm than good and even causes death; c) the defamation of the vaccine (such as serum, drugs, microchips, etc.); c) the virus was created by the health corporations to sell the vaccine, d) the so-called green or vaccination passport, protection masks and lockdown were a restriction of freedom and should be banned; e) the condemnation of science as it represents the interests of the pharmaceutical companies; etc. Ironically, some of these measures protected the anti-vaxxers and the entire population when unvaccinated people occupy the hospitals and prevent cures due to other causes. One could ban cures to anti-vaxxers, and that is an actual restriction of rights that the state cannot claim, otherwise one should apply the same criterion to tobacco smokers, people who do not wear seat belts and get injured, etc.

It is undisputed that vaccines, like any other medicine, have side effects. However, the benefit-risk ratio strongly favors vaccination in old people and patients with age-related or other underlying diseases. Mathematical modeling and statistics are essential for managing a pandemic. Decisions should not be made on the basis of single cases. Interrupting vaccination due to single events could cost the lives of millions of people to avoid adverse effects on a negligible number of people. The reviewed studies clearly show the efficacy of the vaccines, i.e. the high benefit-risk ratio, even if the adverse effects are taken into account, i.e. no-vaccine means orders of magnitude more deaths. The anti-vaccine stance was another problem within the pandemics, causing more deaths attributable to the virus and preventing the cure of other causes in intensive-care units. However, one aspect must be clear: COVID-19 is risky for people over 60 years old and for those with pre-existing conditions. These population groups should be prioritized for vaccination. Youngers (say, under 60) anti-vaxxers could have no harmful effects on society, apart from influencing old and fragile people to avoid vaccination, which is, however, a factor that should not be neglected.
The purpose of this paper is to refute all anti-vax arguments based on current data and evidence.

==Declarations==
=== Conflict of Interest ===
The Author declares that there is no conflict of interest.

== References ==
<ol class="references">
<li>Alessandria, M. et al. (2024). A reanalysis of an Italian study on the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination suggests that it might have unintended effects on total mortality. doi: 10.20944/preprints202406.0384.v1</li>
<li>Asch, D.A., Luo, C., and Chen, Y. (2024). Reports of COVID-19 vaccine adverse events in predominantly Republican vs Democratic states, JAMA Network Open, 7(3):e244177. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2024.4177</li>
<li>Capriano, R.M. et al. (2023). Confronting the evolution and expansion of anti-vaccine activism in the USA in the COVID-19 era, www.thelancet.com Vol. 401 March 18.</li>
<li>Carcione, J.M., and Ba, J. (2024). Policy lessons from the Italian pandemic of COVID-19. Top Italians Scientists Journal 1(4). https://doi.org/10.62684/NZFA6144</li> 
<li>Carcione, J.M., Santos, J.E., Bagaini, C., and Ba, J. (2020). A simulation of a COVID-19 epidemic based on a deterministic SEIR model, Frontiers in Public Health, 8, Article 230. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpubh.2020.00230. </li>
<li>Cucinotta, D., and Vanelli, M. (2020). WHO declares COVID-19 a pandemic, Acta Biomedica, Atenei Parmensis, 91(1), 157-160. </li>
<li>Eggertson, L. (2010). Lancet retracts 12-year-old article linking autism to MMR vaccines, CMAJ, 182(4), E199-E200.</li>
<li>Faranda, D., Alberti, T., Arutkin, M., Lembo, V., and Lucarini, V. (2021). Interrupting vaccination policies can greatly spread SARS-CoV-2 and enhance mortality from COVID-19 disease: The AstraZeneca case for France and Italy, Chaos 31, 041105 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1063/5.0050887. </li>
<li>Fasce, A. (2024). A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modeling, Nature Human Behaviour. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-023-01644-3. </li>
<li>Flacco, M.E. et al. (2022). COVID-19 vaccination did not increase the risk of potentially related serious adverse events: 18-Month cohort study in an Italian province. Vaccines (Basel), 11(1):31. doi: 10.3390/vaccines11010031.</li>
<li>Gallegos, M., de Castro Pecanha, V., and Caycho-Rodríguez, T. (2022). Anti-vax: The history of a scientific problem, Journal of Public Health, fdac048. https://doi.org/10.1093/pubmed/fdac048</li>
<li>Hartner, A.-M. et al. (2024). Estimating the health effects of COVID-19-related immunisation disruptions in 112 countries during 2020–30: a modelling study, Lancet Glob. Health, 12: e563-571. </li></li>
<li>Hulscher, N., Hodkinson, R., Makis, W., and McCullough, P.A. (2024). Autopsy findings in cases of fatal COVID-19 vaccine induced myocarditis, ESC Heart Failure, doi: 10.1002/ehf2.14680</li>
<li>Kournoutou, G.G., and Dinos, G. (2022). Azithromycin through the lens of the COVID-19 treatment. antibiotics, 11, 1063. https://doi.org/10.3390/antibiotics11081063</li>
<li>Lesschaeve, C., Glaurdié, J., and Mochtak, M. (2021). Health versus wealth during the COVID-19 pandemic: Saving lives or saving the economy? Public Opinion Quarterly, 85(3), 808-835.</li>
<li>Li, Y. et al. (2024). Adverse events of COVID-19 vaccines in the United States: Temporal and spatial analysis, JMIR Public Health Surveill. doi:10.2196/51007</li>
<li>Lighter, J., and Raabe, V. (2020). Azithromycin should not be used to treat COVID-19, Open Forum Infectious Diseases, vol. 7(6), https://doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofaa207</li>
<li>Liko, J., and Cieslak, P.R. (2024). Assessment of risk for sudden cardiac death among adolescents and young adults after receipt of COVID-19 vaccine, Weekly, 73(14), 317-320. </li>
<li>Mostert, S. et al. (2024). Excess mortality across countries in the Western World since the COVID-19 pandemic: ‘Our World in Data’ estimates of January 2020 to December 2022. BMJ Public Health;2:e000282. doi:10.1136/bmjph-2023-000282</li>
<li>Nafilyan, V. et al. (2023). Risk of death following COVID-19 vaccination or positive SARS-CoV-2 test in young people in England. Nat. Commun.,14(1):1541. </li>
<li>O'Driscoll, M. et al. (2021). Age-specific mortality and immunity patterns of SARS-CoV-2, Nature, 590, 140-145. </li>
<li>Østergaard, S. D. et al., 2021, Thromboembolism and the Oxford-AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine: side-effect or coincidence?,  The Lancet, 97 (Issue 10283), 1441--1443. </li>
<li>Polack, F.P. et al. (2020). Safety and efficacy of the BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine, N. Engl. J. Med., 383, 2603-2615.</li>
<li>Taquet, M., et al. (2021). Cerebral venous thrombosis and portal vein thrombosis: A retrospective cohort study of 537,913 COVID-19 cases. EClinicalMedicine. Sep, 39:101061. </li>
<li>Trougakos, I.P. et al. (2022). Adverse effects of COVID-19 mRNA vaccines: the spike hypothesis, Trends in Molecular Medicine, 28(7), 542-554. </li>
<li>Turner, S. et al. (2023). Benefit-cost Analysis of the HHS COVID-19 Campaign: April 2021-March 2022, AJPM, 67(2), 258-264. </li>
<li>Waheed, S.M., Kudaravalli, P., and Hotwagner, D. T. (2022). Deep vein thrombosis, StatPearls. </li>
<li>Ward, I.L. et al. (2024).  Risk of COVID-19 death in adults who received booster COVID-19 vaccinations in England, Nature Communications, 15:398. </li>
<li>Xu, S. et al. (2024). Mortality risk after COVID-19 vaccination: A self-controlled case series study, Vaccine, 42, 1731-1737. </li>
<li>Yandle, K. (2023). No evidence excess deaths linked to vaccines, contrary to claims online, SciCheck Digest, FactCheck.org. </li>
<li>Yanovskiy, M, and Socol, Y. (2022) Are lockdowns effective in managing pandemics? Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health., Jul 29;19(15):9295. </li>
</ol>

[[Category:Open Access]]

[[Category:Article]]

[[Category:Biomedical Sciences]]