USE ATTACHED TO FUTHER INTO THIS ASSIGNTMENT Part II- Background and Literature Review- 5-7 pages on its own without including the reference/work cited page Contextualize the topic by describing the p
A Summary of COVID-19: Vaccinate the Young to Protect the Old? Name 08/31/2021 HSM 545 A Summary of COVID-19: Vaccinate the Young to Protect the Old? The article, “COVID-19 vaccine: vaccinate the young to protect the old?” by Giubilini et al., suggests that giving precedence to children and teenagers over the elderly during COVID-19 vaccine administration is the best course of action in protecting the latter. The article, published on June 26, 2020, in the Journal of Law and the Biosciences, agrees that healthcare workers should be prioritized because they care for the sick and therefore need to be safe to offer their services. Two, vaccinating healthcare workers greatly diminishes the infection rate since these individuals, who are directly exposed to COVID-19, will not be contagious. However, when it comes to age, the article insists on prioritizing the younger population, claiming it is the best way of protecting the aged. This essay summarizes the approach presented in the article, why the authors think it is efficacious and the limitations that they found. The breakthrough in developing a COVID-19 vaccine is the glimmer of hope that many have been awaiting. It is a promise that soon everything will go back to normalcy; schools will be reopened, the economy will be rebuilt, social connections that have been severed will be mended, etc. While Giubilini et al. do not dispute this belief, they claim that normalcy will only be achieved when the vaccine has reached most people in society and has been effectively distributed. Nevertheless, this is the root of the problem. There is no doubt that the vaccine will be limited. So, while vulnerable groups, in this case, the elderly, should be prioritized, it is not the most effective way of protecting them. The authors point out that vaccinating children is the best course of action in ensuring that the mortality rate among the elderly is mitigated. They compare COVID-19 to the flu virus, which kills around 650,000 people each year. Like the coronavirus disease of 2019, most people who succumb to flu are those aged at least 65 years old due to the weakening of the immune system as one grows old. Children, however, do not usually suffer severe consequences of the flu infection. Still, they are infected more often than the elderly. Additionally, the flu virus remains in children for a much more extended period, making them the perfect agents of infection. Consequently, vaccinating children builds up immunity in society, which eventually prevents infection among the aged. The efficacy of this approach is, however, dependent on the severity of the disease among children. This policy can only be effective if, as with flu, children are less likely to experience severe consequences or death due to COVID-19. Also, if the vaccine is more beneficial to the elderly than the younger population, Giubilini et al. insist that it will be best to administer it to older people. The article also addresses ethical issues that arise from using children to shield the older population from COVID-19. It posits that it is ethically acceptable to vaccinate children to prevent infections among the elderly, although it exposes children to risks that accompany vaccination. The article presents folic acid intake among expectant mothers and pediatric bone marrow donation to justify the suggested strategy. In the instance of pregnant women, folic acid is not beneficial. However, it can prevent unborn babies from developing complications such as spina bifida. The same goes for pediatric bone marrow donation, where children can donate their stem cells, although they are legally unable to make this decision. Similarly, vaccinating children to prevent COVID-19 infection among older adults means risking the younger population for the benefit of others. So long as the risks involved are reasonable, this strategy is efficient in curbing deaths caused by COVID-19 among the elderly and is morally acceptable. Besides, the vaccine is bound to benefit the children, reducing their risk of developing a severe COVID-19. Nevertheless, there are misgivings in using this approach. Firstly, as stated earlier, it is only beneficial if COVID-19 is not life-threatening for children, and the vaccine is effective in this population. Secondly, COVID-19 is the first of its kind. The risks involved and their severity are unknown. Consequently, it presents a problem since the effectiveness of vaccines developed against it may not be long-lasting. For instance, if the virus mutates, it will render the vaccine and the strategy useless. Thus, it will only be harmful to the children. In a nutshell, vaccinating children against COVID-19 to prevent infection among the elderly is a feasible strategy, which benefits both the elderly and the young. Due to the insufficient availability of the vaccine, this strategy is more effective as two groups of people are protected by the available vaccine. However, this approach may endanger children since the vaccines may fail to protect them in case of future mutation of the coronavirus. Also, it is worthwhile only if the vaccine is best suited for children. Reference Giubilini, A., Savulescu, J., & Wilkinson, D. (2020). COVID-19 vaccine: vaccinate the young to protect the old?. Journal of Law and the Biosciences, 7(1), lsaa050.