New England Journal of Medicine Publishes Paper Calling for Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccine

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for mandating a coronavirus vaccine, and outlined strategies for how Americans could be forced to take it. The paper states that the vaccine should be voluntary at first, and then, if not enough people are willing to take it, “relatively substantial” penalties should put into place for those who refuse it. The paper suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders,” should be issued, but that fines should be discouraged because they can be legally challenged. The paper also recommends that government health authorities should avoid making public their close relationship with vaccine manufacturers, to quell public mistrust.

A paper published in the New England Journal of Medicine has called for mandating a coronavirus vaccine, and outlined strategies for how Americans could be FORCED to take it.

The paper warns that an immediate mandate for the vaccine would spark too much resistance and backlash, so the writers suggest that at first it should be voluntary.

However, it suggests that if not enough people are willing to get the vaccine within the first few weeks of it’s availability, it should be transformed into an obligation, with penalties put into place for refusal.

The paper outlines “six trigger criteria” that need to be met before the vaccine is made mandatory, and that it should be rolled out to specific demographics of the population first.

“Only recommended groups should be considered for a vaccination mandate,” initially, according to the paper, which cites “high risk groups” as the first set of people.

“[T]he elderly, health professionals working in high-risk situations or working with high-risk patients…persons with certain underlying medical conditions,” as well as those in “high-density settings such as prisons and dormitories” should be mandated to get the jab, the paper says.

It also suggests that active-duty military service members should be among the first that are forced into the vaccination.

The paper proclaims that “noncompliance should incur a penalty” and notes that it should be a “relatively substantial” one.

It suggests that “employment suspension or stay-at-home orders,” should be issued, but that fines should be discouraged because they can be legally challenged, and “may stoke distrust without improving uptake.”

The paper also suggests that government health authorities should avoid making public their close relationship with vaccine manufacturers, to quell public mistrust.

Read full article here…