[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Viewpoint
January 5, 2024

Is Vaccination Approaching a Dangerous Tipping Point?

Author Affiliations
  • 1US Food and Drug Administration, Silver Spring, Maryland
JAMA. 2024;331(4):283-284. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.27685

Vaccination is one of the most highly effective public health interventions, responsible for saving millions of lives each year. In the US, authorized or approved preventive vaccines must be manufactured with high quality, and the effectiveness and favorable safety profile of vaccines must be demonstrated. Their safety over time is also closely and continuously monitored through multiple overlapping passive and active safety surveillance systems, including the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, the Vaccine Safety Datalink, and the BEST Sentinel Initiative.1

Despite the care taken in the development and deployment of vaccines and their clear and compelling benefit of saving individual lives and improving population health outcomes, an increasing number of people in the US are now declining vaccination for a variety of reasons, ranging from safety concerns to religious beliefs. Setting aside for now the controversial issue of vaccine mandates at the federal, state, or local level in the US, which are not within the purview of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the situation has now deteriorated to the point that population immunity against some vaccine-preventable infectious diseases is at risk, and thousands of excess deaths are likely to occur this season due to illnesses amenable to prevention or reduction in severity of illness with vaccines.

To counter the current trend, we urge the clinical and biomedical community to redouble its efforts to provide accurate plain-language information regarding the individual and collective benefits and risks of vaccination. Such information is now needed because vaccines have been so successful in achieving their intended effects that many people no longer see the disturbing morbidity and mortality from infections amenable to vaccines. For example, smallpox has been eradicated, and polio has been eliminated from the US, through effective vaccination campaigns.

Measles was similarly eliminated, but imported cases remain a threat to those who are unvaccinated as well as to those who are immunocompromised. Regrettably, pediatric vaccine hesitancy now has been responsible for several measles outbreaks in the US, including a recent one in central Ohio involving local acquired cases in 85 children, 36 of whom (42%) had to be hospitalized for complications.2 It is sobering to note that vaccine hesitancy to childhood vaccines, such as the measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine, has been found to cluster in middle- to high-income areas among parents with at least a college degree who preferred social media narratives over evidence-based vaccine information delivered by clinicians.3 Anyone doubting the benefits of vaccination need only look to low-income parts of the world where measles vaccination is inaccessible, and many thousands of children continue to die each year due to preventable disease. Unfortunately, with the success of pediatric vaccination campaigns to date, increasing numbers of people have become complacent and underestimate the actual risk of forgoing vaccination.

In addition to making a difference regarding childhood immunization, communication regarding the potential benefits of vaccination can hopefully also improve the number of individuals accepting vaccination to protect against COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus disease. Vaccination rates against these respiratory pathogens are inadequate, and this is most distressing in older individuals in whom the benefits of vaccination in reducing hospitalization and death are eminently clear. In fact, uptake of the updated COVID-19 vaccine (XBB.1.5 monovalent) in the US is only about 35% in those older than 65 years, which is about half the rate in this age group in the UK.

What can we do to start tipping the scales in the direction of evidence-informed vaccine acceptance to reduce the risk of death and illness from diseases in which vaccines are effective? Evidence indicates that the most trusted source of information about health decisions remains clinicians who provide care. Broadly interpreted this also includes retail pharmacists, who may serve as the only source of medical advice for the many individuals in the US who lack a primary care clinician or who are uninsured. All those working in health care, while being straightforward about the risks, need to better educate people regarding the benefits of vaccination, so that individuals can make well-informed choices based on accurate scientific evidence. For example, contrary to a wealth of misinformation available on social media and the internet, data from various studies indicate that since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic tens of millions of lives were saved by vaccination (Figure).4 The benefits of these vaccines in prevention were largest in older individuals. However, studies show that people of all ages who are up to date on vaccination benefit and have a lower risk of developing long COVID.5

Figure.  Mortality per Million Individuals From COVID-19 in the US Depending on Vaccination Status
Mortality per Million Individuals From COVID-19 in the US Depending on Vaccination Status

During the COVID-19 pandemic, vaccine effectiveness appeared to be higher against the original strain of SARS-CoV-2 than against later variants. Nonetheless, since the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines, in absolute terms vaccination has been associated with notably fewer deaths across the age range. A similar trend was seen in 2021 and 2023, even though the total number of deaths from COVID-19 have decreased more recently (note the order of magnitude difference on the scale). Those up to date on COVID-19 vaccination had notably lower numbers of deaths per million individuals than those who were unvaccinated, and their benefits were apparent across the entire age range early on and more recently following the exposure of a larger number of individuals to natural infection with one of the SARS-CoV-2 variants, with 16.5-fold and 3.6-fold reductions in death, respectively. Figure adapted from an analysis presented on United States: COVID-19 weekly death rate by vaccination status for all ages (ourworldindata.org) using data from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (https://bit.ly/41GVqLo).

And although the argument is sometimes made that COVID-19 is not a serious illness in younger individuals, those who received at least 1 dose of any COVID-19 vaccine had a notably reduced risk of dying from this disease compared with those who had never been vaccinated.6 Comparing 11.71 million unvaccinated individuals with 9.9 million individuals who had received at least 1 dose of a COVID-19 vaccine, the risk of death was 2.46-fold higher in the unvaccinated group. And this finding is not an outlier; other studies report equal or greater benefit. The message from the data on vaccination status and serious illness, subsequent hospitalization, and death is clear, and this can be communicated in verbal or visual terms to individuals contemplating vaccination.

It is often difficult for a person to take action when the individual risk of an outcome is relatively low, even when the consequences of complications are high, and the population effects are substantial. In situations such as with seat belts, however, the discussion ultimately has led to almost uniform use, and vaccination use had similarly been almost uniformly accepted. The current reversal of vaccine acceptance has already resulted in hundreds of thousands of excess deaths from COVID-19 and concern about the re-emergence of previously conquered infectious diseases.

We believe that the best way to counter the current large volume of vaccine misinformation is to dilute it with large amounts of truthful, accessible scientific evidence. To reduce deaths, hospitalization, and the burden on families and the health care system, all those directly interacting with individuals in a health care setting, ranging from front office staff to retail pharmacists to primary care physicians, need to focus at every appropriate opportunity on helping to ensure that individuals have the necessary information to make informed choices regarding vaccination, considering the benefits and risks. By doing so, we can both help prevent pediatric infectious diseases and dramatically reduce the harm from pathogens such as COVID-19, influenza, and respiratory syncytial virus disease before we have another large wave of any of these vaccine-preventable illnesses. We will do our part at FDA by continuing to provide health care clinicians and the general public with timely and accurate information in plain language to help explain the benefits and risks of vaccination.

Back to top
Article Information

Corresponding Author: Peter Marks, MD, PhD, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research, US Food and Drug Administration, 10903 New Hampshire Ave, WO71-7232, Silver Spring, MD 20993 (peter.marks@fda.hhs.gov).

Published Online: January 5, 2024. doi:10.1001/jama.2023.27685

Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Califf reported being formerly employed by Alphabet-Google-Verily Life Sciences and a board member for Cytokinetics and Centessa. No other disclosures were reported.

Additional Information: Dr Marks is director of the Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research and Dr Califf is commissioner at the US Food and Drug Administration.

References
1.
US Food and Drug Administration. CBER Biologics Effectiveness and Safety (BEST) system. Accessed December 4, 2023. https://www.fda.gov/vaccines-blood-biologics/safety-availability-biologics/cber-biologics-effectiveness-and-safety-best-system
2.
Tiller  EC, Masters  NB, Raines  KL,  et al.  Notes from the field: measles outbreak—Central Ohio, 2022-2023.   MMWR Morb Mortal Wkly Rep. 2023;72(31):847-849. doi:10.15585/mmwr.mm7231a3PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Novilla  MLB, Goates  MC, Redelfs  AH,  et al.  Why parents say no to having their children vaccinated against measles: a systematic review of the social determinants of parental perceptions on MMR vaccine hesitancy.   Vaccines (Basel). 2023;11(5):926. doi:10.3390/vaccines11050926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Fitzpatrick  MC, Moghadas  SM, Pandey  A, Galvani  AP. Two years of US COVID-19 vaccines have prevented millions of hospitalizations and deaths. Commonwealth Fund. December 13, 2022. Accessed December 4, 2023. doi:10.26099/whsf-fp90
5.
Watanabe  A, Iwagami  M, Yasuhara  J, Takagi  H, Kuno  T.  Protective effect of COVID-19 vaccination against long COVID syndrome: a systematic review and meta-analysis.   Vaccine. 2023;41(11):1783-1790. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2023.02.008PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
6.
Ikeokwu  AE, Lawrence  R, Osieme  ED, Gidado  KM, Guy  C, Dolapo  O.  Unveiling the impact of COVID-19 vaccines: a meta-analysis of survival rates among patients in the United States based on vaccination status.   Cureus. 2023;15(8):e43282. doi:10.7759/cureus.43282PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
9 Comments for this article
EXPAND ALL
Insurance Incentives?
Kathleen Lohr, BA, MA, MS, PhD | Retired (formerly RAND Corporation and Research Triangle Institute)
I've always wondered why public or private insurance programs and companies do not specify that they will not cover vaccine-preventable illnesses in circumstances in which the parents of children, or the adults themselves, refuse to be vaccinated.

This antisocial behavior threatens not only to spread the diseases; it also pushes the costs of these illnesses, which are relatively predictable, onto the public at large.

Shouldn't insurance programs make it clear that, absent physician-documented reasons for not having been vaccinated or not vaccinating their children, people who choose for themselves or for
their children not to be vaccinated are then not to be covered for the costs of any hospitalizations or other medical care for such preventable ailments?
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Vaccination Against COVID-19
Johann Reisinger, MD | Ordensklinikum Linz, Austria

I am impressed by the declared reduction of COVID-19-associated mortality as reported in the article by Marks et al., obviously derived from observational data and simulation models.

However, all-cause mortality is even more important, and I would be most grateful to see the corresponding values, because randomized controlled trials of mRNA-vaccines were not designed to detect the outcome.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
SARS-CoV-2 Vaccine Not the Best Example for Growing Vaccine Confidence
Andrea De Maria, M.D. | University of Genoa, Italy, Department of Health Sciences
I found the Viewpoint by Peter Marks and Robert Califf to be particularly insightful and stimulating. They raise a significant point at a time when new, potentially groundbreaking vaccines are being introduced (e.g., RSV, dengue, malaria), each of which holds the potential to improve the health outcomes of millions of individuals worldwide. The successful implementation of these vaccines hinges on the collective acceptance of experts, physicians, and the general public.

Their choice of the SARS-CoV-2 vaccination as an example of successful protection falls short of reinforcing the bond of trust that needs to be fostered, however. While their
assertion that "all those working in healthcare, while being straightforward about the risks, need to better educate people regarding the benefits of vaccination, so that individuals can make well-informed choices based on accurate scientific evidence" is valid, the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic has been a highly politicized and divisive issue, often leading to mistrust between experts and the public. The authors' choice of this example risks reinforcing existing skepticism rather than building trust.

The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine is a prime example that could erode the bond of trust the authors aim to strengthen. While the data they cite are generally accurate, their assessment of the risks, particularly for young individuals is accurate for specific items (e.g. myocarditis, pericarditis), while for other items it appears to be incomplete or scientifically biased. The supporting information they provide does not stem from active monitoring of patients in the original trials, and no additional active monitoring has been initiated. The data they cite are derived from retrospective analyses of passive monitoring, which is inherently susceptible to underreporting and bias. There is ample documentation of a dismal record of reporting adverse events associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination in the original trals, with a wide spectrum of post-vaccine pathologies that have either been overlooked or deliberately excluded for various reasons. This uncharted realm of adverse events encompasses small fiber peripheral neuropathy, dysautonomia, sensory nerve symptoms, and immune-mediated side effects that are currently under scrutiny and overlap with long-COVID. These events are relevant life-changers for those who suffer them, but remain difficult to quantify due to their elusive nature and the requirement for specific procedures, which are often unavailable or unfamiliar to attending physicians

In light of this, alternative examples of successful vaccination should be presented to avoid inadvertently supporting those that fuel vaccine skepticism and misinformation. While SARS-CoV-2 vaccination is a notable example of successful vaccination for the elderly and frail, its efficacy in preventing severe outcomes has diminished with the emergence of lower-pathogenicity variants. This makes it a less compelling example for vaccination advocacy among younger individuals.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Public Health Literacy as Prevention
Stuart Stolp, MD | Retired, University of California Davis
I read with interest the article by Drs. Marks and Califf calling for "all those directly interacting with individuals in a health care setting" to inform individuals about the risks and benefits of vaccinations to facilitate informed decision making. I commend the authors' effort to advance public knowledge regarding vaccination strategies and the many historical success of vaccination campaigns. However, in a November 2023 article, Hotez et al highlight the extensive capacity of new technologies to propel disinformation campaigns by showering social media with literally endless amounts of AI-generated misinformation and disinformation (1). To overcome the influence of such enormous volumes of faulty information with even larger volumes of accurate information is comparable to attempting to halt a pandemic by treating infected individuals rather than immunizing a population with an effective vaccine. The most effective way to counter a literally "infinite" number of mis- and disinformation messages is to preemptively build public health literacy in the population as an essential component of primary and secondary education, on par with education in other STEM subject matter. Only through improved critical thinking skills can we "immunize" the population against the unavoidable advent of ever-increasing amounts of misinformation. Health and public health experts must partner with educational experts to update health education standards in K-12th grades to build a generation of Americans capable of filtering out non-evidence-based and nefarious information regarding personal and public health.

Reference

1. Hotez et al. Health Disinformation-Gaining Strength, Becoming Infinite. JAMA Int Med, November 13, 2023 https://doi.org/10.1001/jamainternmed.2023.5946.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Vaccine Pathophysiology
David Loiterman, MD | Board Chair Emeritus and Past President Chicago Medical Society
Thank you for publishing this timely article.

An important starting point in my opinion is to develop appropriate educational material which provides an overview of the different types of prophylactic interventions lumped together in the view of the general public under the label of “ vaccine.“

There are significant physiologic differences in the mechanisms of action across the different categories of vaccines. For example;, attenuated whole virus vaccines have different physiological mechanisms of effectiveness compared to targeted mRNA component vaccines.

These differences are not insignificant and may be association with whether a vaccine mitigates symptoms,
prevents transmission, reduces transmission, or is efficacious for health outcomes in the long term.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
A Wakeup Call On Immunizations
Pascal deCaprariis MD | Private Consultant, Infectious Diseases
Dr. Marks’ and Dr. Califf’s viewpoint is a wakeup call for the medical community and the news media. Immunization programs have faced skeptics in the medical community and general public since the 19th century. Erroneous information on vaccines have undermined public trust and have contributed to a waning of adherence. Dialogues have not adequately addressed the historical successes of immunization. Moreover, global conflicts disrupt public care systems and subsequently the administration of vaccines.

The world’s population has benefited from immunizations, notably that for diphtheria. Vaccination against this disease has resulted in only 1 case in the US and
8,128 cases worldwide in 2021 [1]. This differs from the 1920s when the US reported 13,000 to 15,000 Diphtheria deaths each year [2]. The US administration of diphtheria vaccine in the 1940s helped reduce the number of cases; 1,169 deaths were reported in 1943 [3], in contrast to Europe where WWII adversely impacted their health care systems; approximately one million diphtheria cases were seen with at least 50,000 deaths [4]. Unfortunately, recent global conflicts disrupt health care systems and the structured administration of vaccines. As migrants gravitate to more stable countries, many have not received adequate immunization. In 2022 the EU reported 92 diphtheria cases in migrants; the UK had 72 cases in asylum seekers [5,6].

Public health now faces multiple challenges: anti-vaccination propaganda, misinformation, public apathy, noncompliance, and multiple global conflicts. We agree with Dr. Mark’s and Dr. Califf’s call for the strategic dissemination of the benefits of vaccination re: vaccine-preventable illnesses. They have addressed the elephant in the room with their question “have we have reached a dangerous tipping point?"

Pascal J. de Caprariis MD, FAAFP, Private Consultant for Infectious Diseases, Brooklyn, New York.

Ann DiMaio MD, FAAP, Clinical Assistant Professor, Dept. of Pediatrics, College of Medicine, SUNY Downstate, Brooklyn, New York.

References

[1] The Changing Epidemiology of Diphtheria in the Vaccine Era, A. Galazka, S. Dittmann, The Journal of Infectious Diseases, Volume 181, Issue Supplement_1, February 2000, Pages S2–S9.

[2] Diphtheria, AM Acosta, P L Moro, S Hariri, TSP.Tiwari, CDC, link accessed Jan 17, 2024 https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/pubs/pinkbook/dip.html - Epidemiology.

[3] What is the history of Diphtheria in America and other countries? National Vaccine Information Center, link accessed Jan 17, 2024, https://www.nvic.org/disease-vaccine/diphtheria/history.

[4] Diphtheria reported cases and incidence, WHO, Accessed Jan 17, 2024 https://immunizationdata.who.int/pages/incidence/DIPHTHERIA.html?CODE=Global&YEAR=

[5] Increase of Reported Diphtheria cases among migrants in Europe due to Corynebacterium diphtheriae, 2022, ECDC, Accessed Jan17, 2024 https://www.ecdc.europa.eu/en/publications-data/increase-reported-diphtheria-cases-among-migrants-europe-due-corynebacterium.

[6] Diphtheria: cases among asylum seekers in England, health protection report (Data to 25 November 2022), UK Health Security Agency, Accessed Jan 17, 2024. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/diphtheria-cases-among-asylum-seekers-in-england-2022/diphtheria-cases-among-asylum-seekers-in-england-2022 .

CONFLICT OF INTEREST: Dr. de Caprariis, is retired from Lutheran Medical Center, and Pfizer Inc. He has shares in Pfizer, Merck, GSK. and Dr. Ann DiMaio has no conflicts of interest.
READ MORE
Behavioral Science Approaches to Increasing Vaccination Rates
Gael O'Sullivan, MBA | Georgetown University
Clinicians do play an important role as trusted voices for many consumers who are making decisions about their healthcare. However, the public health community needs to expand its suite of tools and approaches to embrace proven practices from the behavioral science field. Using evidence from marketing, psychology, behavioral economics, anthropology and other disciplines, we can devise more impactful strategies to boost vaccination rates. Human behavior is messy, and emphasizing educational approaches that focus solely on facts and information is not sufficient. These strategies are also very time-consuming, only reach one person at a time, and exclude people who do not access/do not have access to the formal health system. I would argue that doing rigorous audience research, creating audience segments that group people together by demographic/psychographic/behavioral variables, and then creating compelling individual behavior change and social norm change strategies/messages targeted to different segments using a suite of pertinent communication channels and trusted messengers, will yield a much bigger change in vaccination rates, and ultimately, improved health outcomes.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
Misleading Title?
Stephen Cummings, MD | Private
On reading the title of this Viewpoint I experienced cognitive dissonance: “Wait, are they saying vaccines are dangerous cumulatively? Or something like that? Have I missed something in the literature about small risks becoming large as the number or types of vaccines multiply? My wife’s first reaction was the same, when I showed her the title without any introduction. I worry the title, which may be all that someone sees, will reinforce rather than counter irrational fears of vaccination.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
And the risks?
Frederick Aronson, MD, MPH | Retired, Hematology-Oncology
In my admittedly limited personal experience, vaccine hesitancy derives as much from an overestimation of risk as it does from an underestimation of benefit. While this article provides an excellent overview of the benefits of vaccination, including critically important current COVID data, it only alludes to the need to share similar data on risk without providing the corresponding data. Failure to do so not only challenges health care workers to have ready access to such data, it also aids those opposed to vaccination by reporting an unbalanced view of the benefits and risks of getting vaccinated. I can already hear the hesitant making light of this excellent view of the benefits by pointing out this failure. Publications urging public education of the benefits of vaccination must give equal weight to providing data on risks as well as benefits if we hope to reach a skeptical public.
CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
READ MORE
×