The new Italian National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) and its commitment to endorse a new efficient National Immunization Plan in COVID-19 times.

Among the objectives of the WHO Global Vaccination Action Plan 2020-2025, there is the establishment, in all countries, of a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG), an independent body with the aim of supporting and harmonising vaccination policies. Italy firstly established a NITAG in 2017; it contributed to the nation's immunization policies but fell short of its goal of becoming a true reference group. The newly appointed NITAG, made up of 28 independent experts, has the ambitious goal to promote the new National Immunization Prevention Plan (PNPV), to harmonise the current vaccination schedule with the anti-COVID-19 campaign, and to recover the vaccination coverage decline that occurred during the pandemic. The contact with the ECDC EU/EEA, the WHO Global NITAG networks, and all the national stakeholders needs to be reinforced in order to accomplish these aims. This paper describes the structure, organisation, and strategy of the new Italian NITAG.

Prioritizing high-contact occupations raises effectiveness of vaccination campaigns.

A twenty-year-old idea from network science is that vaccination campaigns would be more effective if high-contact individuals were preferentially targeted. Implementation is impeded by the ethical and practical problem of differentiating vaccine access based on a personal characteristic that is hard-to-measure and private. Here, we propose the use of occupational category as a proxy for connectedness in a contact network. Using survey data on occupation-specific contact frequencies, we calibrate a model of disease propagation in populations undergoing varying vaccination campaigns. We find that vaccination campaigns that prioritize high-contact occupational groups achieve similar infection levels with half the number of vaccines, while also reducing and delaying peaks. The paper thus identifies a concrete, operational strategy for dramatically improving vaccination efficiency in ongoing pandemics.

COVID-19 vaccination for people with severe mental illness: why, what, and how?

Psychiatric disorders, and especially severe mental illness, are associated with an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. People with severe mental illness should therefore be prioritised in vaccine allocation strategies. Here, we discuss the risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable group, the effect of severe mental illness and psychotropic medications on vaccination response, the attitudes of people with severe mental illness towards vaccination, and, the potential barriers to, and possible solutions for, an efficient vaccination programme in this population.

How should we conduct pandemic vaccination?

Vaccination plays an important role in pandemic planning and response. The possibility of developing an effective vaccine for a novel pandemic virus is not assured. However, as we have seen with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, with sufficient resources and global focus, successful outcomes can be achieved in a relatively short period. However even when vaccine is available it will initially be scarce. When one becomes available, how should it be distributed? In this paper we explicate how ethical thinking that is carefully attuned to context is essential to decisions about how we should conduct vaccination in a pandemic where demand exceeds supply. We focus on two key issues. First, setting the aims for a pandemic vaccination programme. Second, thinking about the means of delivering a chosen aim. We outline how pandemic vaccine distribution strategies can be implemented with distinct aims, e.g. protecting groups at greater risk of harm, saving the most lives, or ensuring societal benefit. Each aim will result in a focus on a different priority population and each strategy will have a different benefit-harm profile. Once we have decided our aim, we still have choices to make about delivery. We may achieve at least some ends via direct or indirect strategies. Such policy decisions are not merely technical, but necessarily involve ethics. One important general issue is that such planning decisions about distribution will always be made under conditions of uncertainty about vaccine safety and effectiveness. However, planning how to distribute vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is even harder because we understand relatively little about the virus, transmission, and its immunological impact in the short and long term.

In the Wake of a Pandemic: Revisiting School Approaches to Nonmedical Exemptions to Mandatory Vaccination in the US.

Mandatory school vaccination policies with exclusion of unvaccinated students can be a powerful tool in ensuring high vaccination rates. Some parents may object to mandatory vaccination policies, claiming exemptions based on medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Individual schools, school systems, or local or regional governments have different policies with respect to whether, and what kind of, exemptions may be allowed. In the setting of the current pandemic, questions regarding the acceptability of exemptions have resurfaced, as schools and local governments struggle with how to safely return children to school. Anticipating that school attendance will be facilitated by the development of a vaccine, school systems will face decisions about whether to mandate vaccination and whether to permit exemptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics promulgates policy favoring the elimination of nonmedical exemptions generally in schools. This discussion considers whether schools should eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination as proposed in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy, ultimately concluding that broad elimination of exemptions is not justified and advocating a more nuanced approach that encourages school attendance while promoting vaccination and broader public health goals.

Combatting Covid-19. Or, "All Persons Are Equal but Some Persons Are More Equal than Others?"

Vaccines, when available, will prove to be crucial in the fight against Covid-19. All societies will face acute dilemmas in allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the form of vaccines for Covid-19. The author proposes The Value of Lives Principle as a just and workable plan for equitable and efficient access. After describing what the principle entails, the author contrasts the advantage of this approach with other current proposals such as the Fair Priority Model.

The ethical case for global measles eradication-justice and the Rule of Rescue.

Measles causes a substantial disease burden for all countries, while mortality is greatest in underserved, marginalized populations. Global measles eradication is feasible and the strategies critically rely upon well-functioning national immunisation programs and surveillance systems. All six regions of the World Health Organisation have adopted measles elimination targets. The Rule of Rescue and the principle of justice leave no ethical place for health programs, governments, global public health bodies or donors to hide if they impede efforts to eradicate measles globally by not taking all necessary actions to establish a global eradication target and committing the resources essential to achieve this goal.

How Should Vaccine Campaigns Balance Need for Clear Communication Against Need for Timely Administration of Large-Scale Programs?

Limited understanding of public health disease prevention programs often leads to resistance, which ultimately results in low vaccine uptake. This article suggests how public health practitioners can improve public understanding of cervical cancer and HPV vaccination programs, which is key to improving health literacy, using culturally appropriate materials and approaches to boost public acceptance of vaccine programs.

Vaccine mandates, value pluralism, and policy diversity.

Political communities across the world have recently sought to tackle rising rates of vaccine hesitancy and refusal, by implementing coercive immunization programs, or by making existing immunization programs more coercive. Many academics and advocates of public health have applauded these policy developments, and they have invoked ethical reasons for implementing or strengthening vaccine mandates. Others have criticized these policies on ethical grounds, for undermining liberty, and as symptoms of broader government overreach. But such arguments often obscure or abstract away from the diverse values that are relevant to the ethical justifications of particular political communities' vaccine-mandate policies. We argue for an expansive conception of the normative issues relevant to deciding whether and how to establish or reform vaccine mandates, and we propose a schema by which to organize our thoughts about the ways in which different kinds of vaccine-mandate policies implicate various values.