justice for vaccinated tour

Find anything you save across the site in your account

Justice Add Tour Dates, Share New Song Featuring Miguel: Listen

By Matthew Strauss

Justice have announced a handful of new tour dates in support of their forthcoming album, Hyperdrama . The new shows take place in Brooklyn, Washington, D.C., Philadelphia, and Boston in the summer. See all of Justice’s tour dates, including stops at California’s Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival , below.

Hyperdrama , the follow-up to 2016’s Woman , is out April 26. The album includes “ Generator ,” the Tame Impala collaboration “ One Night/All Night ,” “ Incognito ,” and a brand new song with Miguel , “ Saturnine .” Listen to the latter track below.

“We don’t think we’ve ever made anything that sounds remotely like this track before,” Justice said of “Saturnine” in a press statement. “It started with Gaspard [Augé] playing around with an E-mu synthesizer guitar sound, and he found the main riff. The rest came very quickly. We love Miguel’s voice when it’s raw. We wanted him to sound outrageously frontal, with no space around his voice. We felt confident we could make this work with a single mono take of his voice, and minimal processing. It also suited the theme of the song, that’s this sort of fear and loathing in Las Vegas sweaty, hallucinatory flow. Feeling well in feeling bad.”

All products featured on Pitchfork are independently selected by our editors. However, when you buy something through our retail links, we may earn an affiliate commission.

04-12 Indio, CA - Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival 04-19 Indio, CA - Coachella Valley Music and Arts Festival 04-23 Monterrey, Mexico - Auditorio Citibanamex 04-25 Guadalajara, Mexico - Explanada Estadio Akron 04-27 Tehuixtla, Mexico - Festival Vaivén 05-30 Barcelona, Spain - Primavera Sound Barcelona 06-01 Paris, France - We Love Green  06-07 Porto, Portugal - Primavera Sound Porto 06-09 Hilvarenbeek, Netherlands - Best Kept Secret 06-14 Lake Como, Italy - Nameless Festival 07-04 Hérouville-Saint-Clair, France - Beauregard Festival 07-06 Arras, France - Main Square Festival 07-11 Argelès-sur-Mer, France - Les Déferlantes Festival 07-13 Aix-les-Bains, France - Musilac Music Festival 07-14 Tours, France - Terres du Son Festival 07-19 Bern, Switzerland - Gurtenfestival 07-21 Dour, Belgium - Dour Festival 07-25 Brooklyn, NY - Brooklyn Navy Yard 07-28 Washington, D.C. - The Anthem 07-31 Philadelphia, PA - The Met 08-02 Boston, MA - MGM Music Hall at Fenway 08-04 Montreal, Quebec - Osheaga Music and Arts Festival 08-17 Charleville-Mézières, France - Festival Cabaret Vert 08-24 London, England - Field Day Festival 2024 09-04 Marseilles, France - Delta Festival 12-17 Paris, France - Accor Arena 12-18 Paris, France - Accor Arena

By signing up you agree to our User Agreement (including the class action waiver and arbitration provisions ), our Privacy Policy & Cookie Statement and to receive marketing and account-related emails from Pitchfork. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

By Nina Corcoran

By Jazz Monroe

Mobile Menu Overlay

The White House 1600 Pennsylvania Ave NW Washington, DC 20500

FACT SHEET: President   Biden to Announce National Month of Action to Mobilize an All-of-America Sprint to Get More People Vaccinated by July   4th

National Month of Action will mobilize national organizations, local government leaders, community-based and faith-based partners, businesses, employers, social media influencers, celebrities, athletes, colleges, young people, and thousands of volunteers

The President will highlight additional efforts by businesses and organizations across the country to advance equity and make it even easier to get vaccinated

The Vice President will lead a National Vaccination Tour to encourage vaccinations in key communities across the country

Today, President Biden will announce a National Month of Action to mobilize an all-of-America sprint to get 70% of U.S. adults at least one shot by July 4 th , so that more people can get the protection they need to be safe from a pandemic that has taken the lives of nearly 600,000 Americans.

Throughout the month, national organizations, local government leaders, community-based and faith-based partners, businesses, employers, social media influencers, celebrities, athletes, colleges, young people, and thousands of volunteers across the nation will work together to get their communities vaccinated.

Today, the President will announce actions that will make it even easier to get vaccinated, mobilize the country around vaccine outreach and education efforts, and incentivize vaccination. Additionally, organizations and businesses from across the country continue to step up and respond to the President’s call to action.

Thanks to the President’s whole-of-government response, the U.S. has made significant progress in its fight against the pandemic since the President took office less than 5 months ago. Already, 63% of adult Americans have gotten vaccinated, including 73% of Americans age 40 and over, and COVID-19 cases and deaths have plummeted as a result – cases are down over 90% and deaths are down over 85% since January 20 th .

Twelve states have already given at least one shot to 70% of adults and more than 28 states and D.C. have fully vaccinated 50% or more of their adult populations, but millions of Americans still need protection against the virus. The National Month of Action will include the following initiatives: MAKING IT EASIER TO GET VACCINATED AND ADVANCING EQUITY

• Free child care for individuals getting vaccinated: Four of the nation’s largest child care providers will offer free child care to all parents and caregivers getting vaccinated or recovering from vaccination from now until July 4 th . KinderCare and Learning Care Group locations across the country will offer free, drop-in appointments to any parent or caregiver who needs support to get vaccinated or recover from vaccination, and more than 500 YMCAs in nearly every state will offer drop-in care during vaccination appointments. Bright Horizons will also provide free child care to support the vaccination of over 10 million workers employed at participating organizations. The vaccine is free for everyone, however, many unvaccinated Americans report concern about the potential ripple expenses of getting vaccinated, such as having to pay for child care. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services is also issuing new guidance that encourages states to use child care funding from the American Rescue Plan to provide financial incentives to neighborhood- and home-based child care providers who join the President’s call to action and support their communities in getting vaccinated. Visit  Vaccines.gov/incentives .html to learn more.  
• Extended hours at pharmacies across the country in June to offer more flexible appointment availability:  Starting next week, thousands of pharmacies nationwide will stay open late every Friday in June, and offer services throughout the night to make sure Americans can get their shot. These extended hours will ensure that those with less flexible work hours have the opportunity to get vaccinated at times convenient to them. Participating pharmacy chains include Albertsons, CVS, Rite-Aid, and Walgreens.

MOBILIZING THE COUNTRY TO DO MORE VACCINATION EDUCATION AND OUTREACH:

• Community Canvassing, Phone Banking, Text Banking, and Vaccination Events: The Administration’s organizing efforts will focus on what we know works best to ensure everyone has equitable vaccine access: person-to-person action that connects people with key resources and information like Vaccines.gov, text 4-3-8-8-2-9, the National COVID-19 Vaccination Hotline (1-800-232-0233), and more. The Month of Action will include calls and texts to people in areas with low vaccination rates and canvasses in neighborhoods close to walk-in clinics where people can get vaccinated on the spot. More than 100 organizations have already committed to host over 1,000 events the first weekend alone, with thousands of additional events to take place over the course of the month. The President will call on Americans to take at least five actions to help their communities during the Month of Action, and some volunteers may be invited to visit the White House in July. Americans can visit  WeCanDoThis.hhs.gov  to learn more and sign up to help their communities get vaccinated.  
• “We Can Do This” National Vaccination Tour:  The President will announce that the Vice President will lead a nation-wide tour to reach millions of Americans who still need protection against the virus, to highlight the ease of getting vaccinated, encourage vaccinations, and energize and mobilize grassroots vaccine education and outreach efforts. The Vice President’s travel will be anchored in the South, and the First Lady, the Second Gentleman, and members of the Cabinet will also join the Administration’s tour to communities across the country. 
• Mayors Challenge to Increase Vaccination Rates in Cities Across America:  Mayors across the country are stepping up to help in this effort by launching the “Mayors Challenge,” a competition to see which city can grow its vaccination rate the most by July 4 th . Participating mayors commit to taking actions throughout the month to boost vaccinations, such as coordinated canvassing efforts, partnerships with local businesses, and incentives for local residents. The Administration has created a toolkit for mayors and local leaders, and will help recognize the winning cities later this year. More than 50 mayors of cities in Alabama, Arizona, California, Florida, Illinois, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nevada, New Jersey, New York, New Mexico, Ohio, Oregon, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, Washington, and Wisconsin, and, as well as D.C., have already signed up the challenge, which is being run in collaboration with the  U.S. Conference of Mayors .  
• Shots at the Shop – A New Initiative to Engage Black-Owned Barbershops and Beauty Salons:  The President will announce the Administration is teaming up with the Black Coalition Against COVID, the University of Maryland Center for Health Equity, and SheaMoisture to launch “Shots at the Shop,” an initiative that will engage Black-owned barbershops and beauty salons across the country to support local vaccine education and outreach efforts. Throughout the month of June, each participating shop will engage customers with information about the vaccines, display educational materials, and host on-site vaccination events in partnership with local providers. The “Shots at the Shop” initiative will invite participation from across the country, with a particular focus on supporting shops in some of the hardest-hit localities still experiencing significant gaps in vaccination rates.  
• Blanketing Local TV and Radio and Social Media to Get Americans the Facts and Answer Their Questions: The National Association of Broadcasters (NAB), representing more than 7,000 TV and radio stations across the country, will have local station members participate in the National Month of Action. NAB members will be airing vaccine education segments in their programming featuring trusted voices from the community, as well as medical professionals from leading medical associations across the country, including the American Medical Association, American Academy of Family Physicians, American Academy of Pediatrics, American College of Physicians, American Hospital Association, American Association of Nurse Practitioners, and Primary Care Collaborative. Medical experts will have the opportunity to share information on benefits of vaccination, address questions and concerns, and publicize where individuals in the community can get vaccinated. And, the Administration will continue deploying medical experts, public health leaders, and Cabinet officials through a whole-of-government approach to communicate directly with Americans, including by working with social media platforms and engaging celebrities and influencers to reach people where they are.  
• COVID-19 College Challenge:  The Administration is launching the COVID-19 College Challenge, where colleges and universities can take a pledge and commit to taking action to get their students and communities vaccinated by going to  WhiteHouse.gov/COVIDCollegeChallenge  and signing up. As part of the challenge, the Administration will provide resources like training sessions, toolkits, and educational material to assist colleges and universities in vaccination efforts; facilitate on-site vaccinations at schools; and launch a student corps within the COVID-19 Community Corps to recognize and activate students across the country who are taking extraordinary efforts to draw young people out to get vaccinated and engage the youth community. More than 200 colleges in 43 states have already taken the pledge and committed to the COVID-19 College Challenge. This challenge builds on the Administration’s work to facilitate partnerships between more than 60 community colleges and pharmacies in the Federal Retail Pharmacy Program to provide pop-up vaccination clinics at high-enrollment community colleges between now and July 4 th .

INCENTIVIZING VACCINATION Business Incentives for Vaccinated Americans:  Thousands of employers and businesses have already stepped up to support vaccination efforts, including by offering incentives for vaccinations and providing their workers paid-leave for vaccinations. During the Month of Action, the Administration will continue working with employers to make it even easier to set up workplace vaccination clinics, and call on more businesses to encourage and incentivize vaccinations. Starting today, Americans will be able to find a list of these and other incentives on  Vaccines.gov/incentives.html . Examples of new private sector actions and incentives that recently launched include:

• Anheuser-Busch  will give away free beer to all adults over the age of 21 in America on July 4 th  to celebrate the country’s progress against COVID.  
• CVS  launched a sweepstakes for vaccinated people to win free cruises, tickets to Super Bowl LVI, and cash prizes.  
• Door Dash  will give $2 million in gift cards to the National Association of Community Health Centers to incentivize vaccinations.  
• Major League Baseball  teams will offer on-site vaccinations at games and give free tickets to those who get vaccinated.  
• Microsoft  will give away thousands of Xboxes to Boys and Girls Clubs in hard-hit areas who will run promotions and educational seminars about the importance of vaccinations in hard-hit and hard-to-reach communities.  
• Kroger  launched a “Community Immunity” program to give $1 million to a vaccinated person every week in June and give dozens of vaccinated Americans free groceries for a year.  
• United Airlines  launched the “Your Shot to Fly” Sweepstakes for Mileage Plus members to win a year of free flights or a roundtrip for two in any class of service.

Stay Connected

We'll be in touch with the latest information on how President Biden and his administration are working for the American people, as well as ways you can get involved and help our country build back better.

Opt in to send and receive text messages from President Biden.

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

MENU Coronavirus Response

• Combating COVID-19 Fraud
• Unemployment Insurance Fraud
• Keeping Children Safe Online
• DOJ Response

Coronavirus Response

The Department of Justice remains vigilant in detecting, investigating, and prosecuting wrongdoing related to the crisis. 

Combating Coronavirus Fraud

Fraud Alert : Be aware that criminals exploit COVID-19 worldwide through a variety of scams. 

• Be on the lookout for COVID-19 vaccine fraud schemes. Never share your personal or health information with anyone other than known and trusted medical professionals.   Learn more about what to avoid.  
• Be cautious of unsolicited healthcare fraud schemes of testing and treatment through emails, phone calls, or in person. The U.S. has medical professionals, and scientists working hard to find a cure, approved treatments, and vaccines for COVID-19.  Learn more about what to avoid .
• Be wary of unsolicited telephone calls and emails from individuals claiming to be IRS and Treasury employees. Remember IRS’s first form of communication is by mail - not by phone.  Learn more about fraudulent schemes related to the IRS .
• Be aware of unemployment insurance fraud and learn the steps to take if you suspect criminals have exploited your identity.  Learn more about unemployment insurance fraud.

Criminals will likely continue to use new methods to exploit COVID-19 worldwide. Stay alert and stay informed about common fraud schemes related to the COVID-19 pandemic.   Find out more about these types of scams .

If you think you are a victim of a scam or attempted fraud involving COVID-19, you can report it without leaving your home by calling the Department of Justice’s  National Center for Disaster Fraud  Hotline at 866-720-5721 or via the  NCDF Web Complaint Form .

Read More About Combating Coronavirus Fraud

National Unemployment Insurance Fraud Task Force

The scope of unemployment insurance fraud has become unprecedented. Find information about unemployment insurance fraud and what to do if you suspect criminals exploited your identity.

Consumers should be vigilant in light of these threats and take the appropriate steps to safeguard themselves.

Who is at risk of becoming a victim?

• Those who have already been a victim of identity theft
• Those who have had their personally identifiable information (PII) exposed in a past data breach, and
• Those who have given their PII to an individual who claims to facilitate filing unemployment insurance (UI) claims with state workforce agencies (SWAs) often for a fee.

Read More About Unemployment Insurance Fraud

Cares Act Fraud

The Fraud Section of the Criminal Division plays a leadership role in the Department of Justice’s prosecution of fraud schemes that exploit the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act relief programs. The CARES Act is a federal law enacted in March 2020, designed to provide emergency financial assistance to the millions of Americans suffering the economic effects caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. 

Two programs were developed through CARES Act:

• Paycheck Protection Program (PPP) provides funding to businesses through PPP loans for payroll costs, interest on mortgages, rent and utilities. PPP allows the interest and principal on loans to be forgiven if the business spends proceeds on certain expense items within a designated time and uses a certain percentage of the loan on payroll expenses. 
• Economic Injury Disaster Loan (EIDL) Program is directly administered through the U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA). EIDL is designed to provide economic relief to small businesses experiencing a temporary loss of revenue. Congress appropriated billions of dollars in funding for EIDL in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Read More About PPP and EIDL on the Cares Act Fraud Page 

Jason Toland, 43, of Wheatland, pleaded guilty today to one count of submitting false claims against the United States related to COVID-19 pandemic tax credits, U.S. Attorney Phillip...

Eric Clapton: Don’t expect to see me at venues that ask audiences to be vaccinated

• Show more sharing options
• Copy Link URL Copied!

Eric Clapton is staying the course with his beliefs about COVID-19 vaccines: He recently announced that he won’t be performing “where there is a discriminated audience present.”

That means the guitar hero won’t play concerts in venues that require ticket-holders to be vaccinated .

“Following the PM’s announcement on Monday the 19th of July 2021 I feel honour bound to make an announcement of my own: I wish to say that I will not perform on any stage where there is a discriminated audience present,” Clapton said in a statement released exclusively to Italian architect and vaccine skeptic Robin Monotti Graziadei, who posted it Tuesday on his Telegram feed and Wednesday on his unverified Instagram account.

“Unless there is provision made for all people to attend, I reserve the right to cancel the show.”

World & Nation

Nightclub operators elated, but doubts cloud England’s ‘Freedom Day’

On Monday, thousands of young people across England plan to dance the night away at ‘Freedom Day’ parties.

July 18, 2021

Clapton was talking about British Prime Minister Boris Johnson — now in the middle of 10 days of self-isolation after a positive COVID-19 contact — who made a statement about COVID-19 Monday, which was dubbed “Freedom Day” in England to mark the lifting of almost all pandemic-related restrictions .

“I would remind everybody that some of life’s most important pleasures and opportunities are likely to be increasingly dependent on vaccination,” Johnson said in his speech.

“There are already countries that require you to be double jabbed as a condition of quarantine-free travel, and that list seems likely to grow. And we are also concerned — as they are in other countries — by the continuing risk posed by nightclubs.”

As COVID cases skyrocket with the Delta variant, it’s easier than ever to get a vaccine

It used to be hard to find a vaccine appointment. Not any more. Here’s how to get your COVID-19 shot.

July 20, 2021

Johnson said he didn’t want to have to close nightclubs again, after an 18-month shutdown that ended Monday, but encouraged those businesses to “do the socially responsible thing” and make use of the National Health Service’s COVID pass for admittance. The pass shows a person’s proof of vaccination, a recent negative test or natural immunity.

COVID-19 cases are on a rapid upswing in the U.K. thanks to highly infectious Delta variant first identified in India. On Tuesday, the country reported more than 46,000 infections, up more than 40% over the previous week.

What happened to Van Morrison? The fall from eccentric genius to conspiracy theorist

On his new album, ‘Latest Record Project, Vol. 1,’ Van Morrison shocked fans by espousing an array of conspiracy theories. The seeds were always there.

May 10, 2021

Clapton, along with fellow musician Van Morrison, has been a voice of resistance throughout the pandemic, putting out music in the last year or so that argues against lockdowns and the like. (Morrison has also been a vocal COVID-19 skeptic .) Clapton said he experienced “disastrous” side effects after both doses of the AstraZeneca/Oxford vaccine.

“I took the first jab of AZ and straight away had severe reactions which lasted ten days, I recovered eventually and was told it would be twelve weeks before the second one…,” Clapton wrote in a May note to Monotti Graziadei.

“About six weeks later I was offered and took the second AZ shot, but with a little more knowledge of the dangers. Needless to say the reactions were disastrous, my hands and feet were either frozen, numb or burning, and pretty much useless for two weeks, I feared I would never play again, (I suffer with peripheral neuropathy and should never have gone near the needle.) But the propaganda said the vaccine was safe for everyone....”

Eric Clapton feared he would ‘never play again’ after ‘disastrous’ time with vaccine

Legendary guitarist and anti-lockdown activist Eric Clapton writes a letter blaming vaccine ‘propaganda’ for his second-dose AstraZeneca side effects.

May 17, 2021

Clapton has a series of U.S. concert dates scheduled in September at locations in Texas, Louisiana, Tennessee, Georgia and Florida. He’s also scheduled to embark on a European tour next year.

Meanwhile, Foo Fighters has been subject to vaccine-skeptic protesters as the U.S. rock band returns to the live-music scene after playing the Vax Live concert at SoFi Stadium in Inglewood in May.

Dozens of protesters rallied outside a 600-person, vaccinated-only show in Agoura Hills in mid-June.

Anti-vaxxers protest sold-out Foo Fighters concert at Agoura Hills club

Dozens of protesters gathered outside Agoura Hills’ Canyon Club concert venue, where Foo Fighters held a full-capacity show only for vaccinated fans.

June 18, 2021

“Separating humans is not OK,” one protester told KCAL News while wielding a sign outside the Canyon Club condemning the vaccination policy as “modern segregation.” “Those of us who have healthy immune systems should be able to enjoy these freedoms just like anybody else.”

Last weekend, Foo Fighters were scheduled to play a full-capacity show to reopen the Forum in Inglewood, with ticket-holders asked to self-attest as to their vaccination status or negative COVID-19 test results within 72 hours of the performance.

Unfortunately, despite the band making “every effort to follow CDC Covid protocols and local laws,” that gig was postponed July 14 after “a member of the Foo Fighters organization” came down with COVID-19 .

More to Read

Weekends without Adele: Singer pauses Las Vegas residency on doctor’s orders

Feb. 28, 2024

The unmasking of the narcissistic, conspiracy-spreading baby-boomer rock star

Nov. 1, 2023

Matty Healy says the 1975 will take an ‘indefinite hiatus’ from performing after this tour

Sept. 27, 2023

The biggest entertainment stories

Get our big stories about Hollywood, film, television, music, arts, culture and more right in your inbox as soon as they publish.

You may occasionally receive promotional content from the Los Angeles Times.

Christie D’Zurilla is an assistant editor for entertainment news on the Fast Break team. A graduate of USC, she joined the Los Angeles Times in 2003 as a copy editor, started writing about celebrities in 2009 and has more than 34 years of journalism experience in Southern California.

More From the Los Angeles Times

David Sanborn, influential saxophonist whose work spanned genres, dies at 78

May 13, 2024

50 Cent trolls Diddy’s son King Combs for diss track that refers to feds’ raids of homes

Childish Gambino drops ‘Atavista,’ the ‘finished version’ of ‘3.15.20,’ and announces tour

From hitmaker to historian: Why Ernest is reviving the sound of classic country music

Log in using your username and password

• Search More Search for this keyword Advanced search
• Latest content
• Current issue
• JME Commentaries
• BMJ Journals More You are viewing from: Google Indexer

You are here

• Volume 47, Issue 9
• Justice in COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation: rethinking the approach
• Article Text
• Article info
• Citation Tools
• Rapid Responses
• Article metrics

• Rosamond Rhodes
• Medical Education , Mount Sinai School of Medicine , New York , New York , USA
• Correspondence to Dr Rosamond Rhodes, Medical Education, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, New York, New York, USA; Rosamond.Rhodes{at}mssm.edu

Policies for the allocation of COVID-19 vaccine were implemented in early 2021 as soon as vaccine became available. Those responsible for the planning and execution of COVID-19 vaccination had to make choices about who received vaccination first while numerous authors offered their own recommendations. This paper provides an account of how such decisions should be made by focusing on the specifics of the situation at hand. In that light, I offer an argument for prioritising those who are likely vectors of the disease and a criticism of the victim-focused priority proposals put forward by the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine, the UK National Health Service, and others. I also offer thoughts on how those authors may have gone astray.

• public policy
• resource allocation
• distributive justice

This article is made freely available for use in accordance with BMJ’s website terms and conditions for the duration of the covid-19 pandemic or until otherwise determined by BMJ. You may use, download and print the article for any lawful, non-commercial purpose (including text and data mining) provided that all copyright notices and trade marks are retained.

https://doi.org/10.1136/medethics-2020-107117

Statistics from Altmetric.com

Request permissions.

If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

COVID-19, also identified as SARS-CoV-2, is a new coronavirus that emerged first in China in late 2019. It quickly spread around the world, infecting and killing humans in its wake. Doctors were called to treat infected patients, but they knew almost nothing about the disease or treatments that might be effective. What they did know was that the disease appeared to be highly contagious and deadly. Public health officials identified the need for masking and physical distancing in order to ‘flatten the curve’ of the rising rate of infection and avoid overburdening the healthcare system. At the same time, scientists harnessed their knowledge of immunity and worked rapidly to develop vaccines for preventing serious disease.

Once vaccines were proven safe and effective, their availability introduced a new ethical issue, namely how should the initial limited supply be allocated. This is, primarily, a matter of distributive justice, determining who among the many who want it should receive vaccination before others.

What makes a decision right and just?

Martin Luther King maintained that ‘It is not possible to be in favor of justice for some people and not be in favor of justice for all people’. This statement captures the essence of Aristotle’s formal principle of justice, which requires equal treatment of everyone who is similarly situated. With prescient insight, Aristotle acknowledged the complexity and contextuality of justice. In his lengthy discussion of justice in Book 5 of the Nicomachean Ethics , 1 Aristotle equated justice to the entirety of interpersonal ethics and defined justice as giving each his due. He also recognised the difficulty in determining which features of a situation should be taken into account in deciding that individuals are similarly situated and which factors should be given priority in a particular situation. Justice requires moral discernment to identify the factors that are most significant in a particular kind of situation and judgment about how they should be compared.

A long tradition of moral and political philosophers, including Thomas Hobbes and Immanuel Kant, and contemporary contractarian constructivist philosophers, most prominently John Rawls, T.M. Scanlon and Onora O’Neill, follow Aristotle’s insights. 2 Each of them offers an account of justice that draws on an array of reasons, including both factual matters that should be considered and principles. Similarly minded philosophers recognise that when we have to decide which course to take, every choice may involve sacrificing some cherished principles.

Explaining what makes right acts right in his important book The Right and the Good , Sir William David Ross explicitly states what thoughtful people know. He writes, ‘It is obvious that any of the acts that we do has countless effects, directly or indirectly, on countless people, and the probability is that any act, however right it may be, will have adverse effects’ (p.41). 1 , 3 And as Philippa Foot explained, ‘For one for whom moral considerations are reasons to act there are better moral reasons for doing this action than for doing any other’ (p.385) 1 2 and that remains the case even when ‘[t]he situation may be such that no one can emerge with clean hands whatever he does’. 2 , 4 Some prima facie obligation may be violated even when, all things considered, the chosen action is the right thing to do (p.388). 4 , 5 To paraphrase philosopher John Gray, the actions or policy goals we determine to be right or wrong, just or unjust, are conclusions , not the dictate of a foundational principle, but ‘the end-products of long and complicated chains of reasoning’ (p. 84). 3 , 5 And as Scanlon puts it, ‘[j]udgments about what is good or valuable generally express practical conclusions about what would, at least under the right conditions, be reasons for acting or responding in a certain way’ (p.96). 3 , 6 (emphasis added)

In contrast to this constructivist approach to ethics, numerous authors who write on justice and healthcare appear to favour a more Platonic approach. Most typically, they articulate a singular principle as the meaning or essence of justice. Today, the most popular essentialist positions on justice in medicine and public health hold that justice is equality (ie, egalitarianism), 4 , 6 or that justice is utility (ie, utilitarianism; whatever produces maximum number of life years), 4–6 or that justice is priority for the worst off (ie, prioritarianism), 6 7 or that justice is fair equality of opportunity (ie, progressivism). 7 8 Even though there are particular situations in which a just allocation should accord with one or another of those principles, I regard these positions and other recently popular essentialist views (eg, justice is reciprocity; justice is correcting structural inequality) as problematic because they fail to recognise that different circumstances require prioritising different considerations and following different principles. By taking a singular idea of justice as the starting point for moral deliberation, well-intentioned people erroneously assume that ethical conclusions follow simply from it, and thereby reach conclusions that are incompatible with what should be done.

Other authors appear to understand justice as upholding several different principles without noticing when different principles point in opposing directions. Others who commit themselves to multiple principles at once fault decisions that violate one or another principle as being unjust even when the choice reflects better moral reasons than other options. Whereas several different principles of justice can direct the same action, there are times when different principles of justice point to inconsistent conclusions. When that occurs, we have to identify the principles that are most appropriate to the situation and have the courage to sacrifice other principles in order to achieve the most pressing goals. Often enough a moral conclusion dictates that we triage our principles to do what justice requires.

In sum, it is important to notice that we rightly employ different principles in making different decisions. We need to recognise that the rightness of an action or policy decision is determined by considering all of the relevant factors and setting aside factors that are irrelevant distractors. And when treasured principles of justice direct us in opposing directions, it is important to choose the course or goal that reasons support as being right under the circumstances. In those situations, we have to acknowledge that upholding some principle(s) of justice may be inappropriate for making the particular kind of decision at hand. In such circumstances, abiding by principles that are incompatible with a critical goal subverts justice. 8 , 7

Justice in COVID-19 vaccination prioritisation

As I understand the vaccination priority suggestions offered by policy makers and authors in preparation for vaccine distributions, both sorts of problems infected their thinking. On the one hand, essentialists presumed that their singular conceptions of justice (eg, ‘fair equality of opportunity’ or ‘priority for the worse off’) were the meaning of justice and that no other principles for vaccine distribution were legitimate. On the other hand, those who maintained that justice required simultaneously upholding several principles tried to do so without taking all of the relevant factors into account or noticing the incompatibility with critical aims. In what follows, I will explain how the recommendations that resulted from these misunderstandings led to unjust vaccine allocation proposals.

Foreseeing the advent of vaccines in the months that followed the emergence of the COVID-19 pandemic, numerous authors and institutions drafted prioritisation guidance. The policies and documents that were produced represent sincere efforts by individuals and groups to map out the difficult decisions that had to be made in the face of the threat to human life and civil society. The recommendations echoed advice from interdisciplinary groups that wrestled with understanding what justice required. The sincerity of those efforts did not, however, guarantee that they set out the right course.

As I reviewed the prioritising guidance from the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), 9 , 7 the National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (NASEM), 9 10 and the British National Health Service (NHS) interim advice, 10 11 I noted that they each identified several different goals, and their policies were inconsistent with the single goal that scientists identified as most critical, leaving their proposals without a coherent rationale. I shall proceed by first explaining what I take to be a defensible and coherent rationale for vaccine distributions. I will then raise concerns about the recommendations being offered.

Factors to consider

The starting point for offering a just allocation policy is identifying which factors are significant considerations for making vaccine allocation decisions. Those factors have to be identified, examined, understood and compared to determine how those different factors interact and discern which are the most compelling concerns that have to be addressed. In light of that analysis the appropriate principle(s) to guide the just allocations must be chosen. Whereas the solution may not be immediately obvious, the procedure for identifying guiding principles is relatively straightforward.

Without ranking, the relevant factors in this case include at least the following: (1) the degree of vaccine scarcity, (2) facts about disease prevalence and contagion, (3) exposure and transmission risks, (4) feasibility of populations maintaining isolation, (5) feasibility of implementing a distribution scheme, and (6) individual vulnerability. I will briefly discuss each in turn.

Degree of vaccine scarcity

In the autumn of 2020, manufacturers reported that they were producing vaccine as quickly as possible and stocking warehouses in advance of final approval. Nevertheless, production, distribution and storage issues made it impossible for everyone to receive vaccine at once. The expectation was that vaccine allocation would be handled nationally, 11 12 and that in the most economically developed nations eventually there would be enough for everyone who was willing to accept it. So those responsible for allocation decisions had to decide who to prioritise for vaccination. The more limited the supply relative to the demand, the more draconian and discriminating the allocation scheme would have to be.

Prevalence and contagion

COVID-19 is a highly contagious lethal airborne disease, and new variants (eg, B.1.1.7, B.1.617.2) may be significantly more transmissible than the original strains of the virus. For anyone who sustains any doubts, that truth was made irrefutable by superspreader events, including August’s motorcycle rally in Sturgis, South Dakota. In its aftermath, infection numbers climbed in the Dakotas, and cases spread to more than 20 states with more than 300 people infected shortly thereafter. 12 13 Similarly, the tremendous spike in the number of infected and hospitalised followed the year-end holidays when people celebrated at parties and family gatherings. Accumulating dramatic evidence tells us that victims of the disease become vectors of the disease. It also means that the more prevalent the disease becomes, the more likely it is that people become victims then vectors and radically increase disease spread. Therefore, disease prevalence should be the most critical consideration in determining a just policy for vaccine distribution.

When a disease becomes so widespread that testing and contact tracing are no longer feasible and effective containment options, community spread occurs. The principles for guiding vaccine distribution should be different in community spread situations than when and where the transmission level is low.

Furthermore, the virulence and transmissibility of the virus matter. Each new infection creates another opportunity for the virus to mutate and for more virulent and transmissible variants to evolve and defy our ability to contain the spread. And whether future COVID-19 disease outbreaks are more transmissible or virulent than COVID-19 wild-type should also make a difference in public health approaches. A future virus that is far more deadly than the original would require more draconian measures to protect the population.

Exposure and transmission risks

Because COVID-19 is an airborne disease, people who live, work or interact in close proximity to many others are more likely to become infected than those who live, work or interact with just a few others. Congested living coupled with interactions outside of the home increases the risk of contagion. Those combined factors increase the chance of contracting and spreading the disease for people who live in homes crowded with many others and people who live in large high-rise apartment buildings where residents crowd together waiting for elevators then squeeze in for the ride. Congregant housing facilities, such as hospitals and dormitories, present a high transmission risk because one person who becomes infected with COVID-19 in their coming and going can easily spread the disease to others. Those who work in close proximity to others (eg, in healthcare, factories, commercial kitchens) are at greater risk of transmission than people who keep themselves relatively isolated. Transmission hazards are also greater for people who rely on public transportation than for those who do not or who work from home.

The risk of transmission in nursing homes and prisons is somewhat different from other congregant living situations. Whereas residents of those facilities could spread the disease to one another, to the extent that their isolation from one another and the rest of society can protect them from contagion, their contracting the disease is unlikely. Excluding visitors eliminates one source of disease transmission. When workers who maintain facility operations are screened and required to follow personal and institutional protective procedures (eg, masking, quarantine), the risk of resident contagion is minimised. 13 14

Feasibility of maintaining isolation

Because those vulnerable to contracting COVID-19 will, if infected, expose many others, the feasibility of various populations maintaining isolation has to be taken into account. The spectrum ranges from those who are inevitably most likely to contract and spread the disease to those least likely to become infected and transmit the disease. The work circumstance of first responders and essential workers entails their being on-site; their activities cannot be performed remotely. By maintaining the social functions that they fulfil, their isolation is impossible. Using the CDC definitions, 14 15 this category comprises nearly 70% of the US workforce.

An intermediate group includes those who have no essential function outside of their home, but who are likely to be adversely affected by isolation, for example young children, adolescents and young adults who benefit significantly from social interaction and who suffer educational, social and psychological harm by being sequestered without inperson teaching, athletics and peer interaction. 15 16 The increasing incidence of deaths from youth suicide and multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children indicates that for them isolation is possible but costly. 16 17

The circumstances of people who can work from home and those not likely to be significantly harmed by continued isolation make their isolation feasible. It may not be pleasant, but it is unlikely to have serious long-term untoward effects.

Feasibility of implementing a distribution scheme

We have learnt that vaccination significantly reduces both the likelihood of contracting COVID-19 and the likelihood of spreading the disease. Also, as more people are quickly vaccinated, the fewer will become infected and the lower the risk of new more lethal and transmissible variants. The more people who can be quickly and efficiently vaccinated in one place in a short time frame the better. Efficient vaccination would, therefore, help control the spread of the virus and thereby save more lives than would be saved by an inefficient approach. An efficient vaccination system allows tracking and enables clinicians, scientists and manufacturers to learn about complication, duration of immunity and comparative effectiveness of different products.

Identifying large concentrations of people who are likely to be vectors of disease and likely to accept vaccination would contribute to making rapid vaccination feasible. It is time-consuming and often difficult to persuade those who are reluctant to accept vaccination. It is also time-consuming to reach those in remote locations and deliver two vaccination doses given the storage and viability limitations on some of the vaccines themselves.

In selecting institutions and facilities to perform vaccination, the feasibility of collecting data while performing vaccination is critical. Vaccination sites need to have sufficient numbers of personnel, people with relevant experience, staff with medical expertise and the ability to respond to medical emergencies, adequate facilities to allow for social distancing, and other patient needs. Their geographical location is also an important consideration. They should be distributed throughout the region and located where people can have easy access with public or private transportation.

Individual vulnerability

Although most people who develop COVID-19 recover at home from mild and moderate cases, some develop severe symptoms and require hospitalisation. The elderly and those with underlying medical conditions are more likely to develop serious cases than others. Overall, approximately 1%–2% of those hospitalised die from the disease, 17 18 and a recent CDC estimate has the US death rate down to 0.65% when asymptomatic cases are included. 18 19 People who have previously been infected with COVID-19 are likely to have antibodies that confer some level of immunity, with a recent study showing that more than 90% of people who had a mild or moderate case of COVID-19 develop immunity that lasts at least 5 months. 19 20

At the same time, people who are not elderly and who do not have underlying medical conditions also develop COVID-19 and some die. Some become ‘long-haulers’, that is, they develop long-lasting symptoms, some mild, some serious. At this point, we do not know if those complications will fade over time, or persist or progress.

Justice in vaccine distribution during community spread

Society trusts public health agencies and government officials to develop and implement policies for justly distributing the vaccine supply. Doing so requires taking all of the relevant facts into consideration and moral discernment for identifying appropriate goals and objective criteria for vaccine prioritisation. Once the standards are chosen, they have to be lucidly explained to the public so they may be acknowledged as the reasonable approach to vaccine allocation. The criteria must be applied equally to all who stand to benefit from vaccination and adhered to with rigorous criteria-based judgments.

In our current circumstance, the disease is still running rampant in many countries. Hospitals around the world are still running short of resources for patients who need treatment. Reducing the number of people who become infected reduces the number of people who they infect and thereby curtails the spread. As a study by Mélodie Monod 21 and colleagues, ‘Age groups that sustain resurging COVID-19 epidemics in the United States’, published in Science on 26 March 2021 showed, those aged 20–49 account for 72.2% of disease spread, and when you expand the age range to include those aged 20–64 they account for nearly 90% of infections. People in age groups most vulnerable to becoming infected are the source of most infections. Those 65 and over are estimated to be the source of less than 3% of infections, with almost all of those infections being in the age group 65–79. 20 21

A paper by Kate M Bubar and colleagues, 22 ‘Model-informed COVID-19 vaccine prioritization strategies by age and serostatus’, published on 26 February 2021 in Science , 21 22 focused on minimising mortality and years of life lost, and the authors recommended prioritising the elderly and others at risk of serious complications for vaccination. Their analysis addressed a point of time in October 2020 before vaccination was available. It failed, however, to take into account the accumulating deaths from allowing the pandemic to continue, or the activities of people in different age groups, or the resurgence of epidemics, or the development of more virulent and transmissible variants. When those factors are considered and given appropriate weight, it becomes clear that we should be focused on reducing the incidence of disease rather than reducing mortality among the most vulnerable. Vaccines administered to those circulating in the community would reduce the incidence, quickly cut mortality and thereby save the most lives.

Based on the existing evidence, it is reasonable to hypothesise that far more lives would be saved by prioritising potential disease vectors for vaccination than those who are most likely to die from the disease if infected. Given the situation of uncontrolled disease spread, efforts should focus on containment because, over time, a containment strategy can be expected to save the most lives. It is the appropriate principle for guiding vaccine prioritisation, the reason that people could not reasonably reject. These considerations direct the initial vaccine supply to those areas where community spread is happening and to the age groups that become disease vectors. Containing the spread in regions with community spread limits the spread of the disease to other areas. Containing the spread among the age groups that spread the disease cuts down on future infections and the possibility of more lethal and transmissible variants developing. These measures therefore lead to fewer deaths than would occur when the initial supply is allocated to the elderly, who are unlikely to either become infected or spread the disease. The principle for governing the limited supply of vaccine directs us to choose measures for containing the spread because doing so would save the most lives.

The first doses in regions with community spread should go first to those who are most likely to become vectors of the disease, that is, essential workers who have to circulate in the community. Healthcare workers should be first among them to receive vaccination because it is critically important to protect extremely scarce human medical resources where medical resources are severely overburdened with COVID-19 victims. Beyond the clear need for prioritising healthcare workers, the differences between those employed in different socially valuable inperson work are not significant enough to justify treating any group before another. In directing vaccination to essential workers, local vaccination strategies should be guided by feasibility. 22 While community spread situations persist, the next vaccinated group should be those harmed by isolation. They should be followed by those who could maintain isolation without being harmed as well as those with presumed immunity from having been previously infected (see box 1 ).

Vaccine allocation in community spread circumstances

Community spread situations: containment to save the most lives.

Essential workers: required to interact outside their residence.

Healthcare workers.

Other essential workers.

Non-essential workers: can isolate in their residence with some burden and risks.

Children and youth under age 20 for whom vaccine is safe and effective.

People aged 20–64.

People aged 64 and over and those with life expectancy of less than 1 year.

Taken together, these considerations point to a radically different set of priorities than what was suggested by officials. A prioritisation plan focused on containing the spread of the disease in order to avoid the most deaths involves vaccinating first those who are most likely to become infected and become disease vectors. It slows down the spread of the disease and reduces the opportunities for variants to evolve. Here, in ranked order, is my prioritisation list for places where the pandemic crisis and community spread persist.

Justice in vaccine distribution when contact tracing is feasible

As communities succeed in reducing the spread of SARS-CoV-2 and controlling its transmission, the urgent need for containment will have passed. When and where the disease is significantly contained and the level of transmission is relatively low, the change in circumstances justifies a different allocation plan, one focused on avoiding the most avoidable deaths. Again, healthcare workers, first responders and essential workers should be in the first group to receive the vaccine. We would still need healthcare workers to be functional so their efforts can help to avoid the most avoidable deaths, and we would still need other essential workers to maintain a functioning society. The second group should include those most likely to have serious cases if they contracted the disease, that is, those most vulnerable to significant complications and death. Because we have little information about how infected children and pregnant women 8 , 23 fare with COVID-19, and because differences in their physiology may be somehow relevant, and because young survivors who suffer untoward consequences would have to live with them for a long time, our uncertainty justifies extra caution. To the extent that vaccine is found to be safe and effective for them, it may be appropriate to prioritise them with the second group to receive the vaccine. The third group would include everyone else because differences between those outside of the first two groups are neither large enough to justify a distinction nor obvious at this point (see box 2 ).

Vaccine allocation in low transmission circumstances

Low transmission level situations: triage to avoid avoidable deaths.

Healthcare workers and essential workers.

Those most vulnerable to death.

People with underlying conditions.

The elderly.

Pregnant women?

Everyone else.

Justice and context

It is informative to compare box 1 and box 2 and notice how they differ. When containment is the goal, those most likely to spread the disease should be given priority over everyone else, including those most vulnerable to serious complications and death. When contagion is rampant, those most vulnerable to the effects of the disease are typically people who can keep themselves isolated. So long as they isolate, they are less likely than others to acquire and spread the disease. When the virus is significantly contained, people who are particularly vulnerable to serious complication of the disease should, however, be prioritised.

The comparison also reveals that a policy based on saving the most lives leads to different decisions than a policy based on avoiding the most avoidable deaths. To highlight the difference, recall the influenza vaccine shortage in the fall of 2004. When it became clear that there would not be enough influenza vaccine to meet the expected demand, people recognised that it was important to find a better way to allocate the limited supply of influenza vaccine than allowing it to go to the aggressive, the lucky and those with good connections. Communities around the country and finally the US CDC promulgated distribution policies that allotted vaccine to first responders and medical care providers who would be called on to treat influenza-infected individuals and those who were likely to die or suffer serious harm if they contracted the virus. The supply was therefore directed to the elderly, the immunocompromised, the very young and pregnant women.

The principle supporting influenza vaccine allocation was not utilitarian save the most life years or save the most lives . A utility principle would have disqualified the elderly and the immunocompromised because their vaccination could be expected to provide relatively few life years, a small quality adjusted years (QALY) pay-off. The principle inherent in the vaccine distribution policy was avoid the worst outcome, which, in that context, was taken to mean avoid the most serious illnesses and deaths.

As circumstances change the principles for achieving justice may change. Maximisation principles such as saving the most lives are often appropriate as public health measures when we need to consider the entire population at risk and treat everyone in the same way. During the COVID-19 pandemic, maximising principles justify masking and quarantining. They are justified even though they may impose the greatest burden on the least advantaged members of society. Avoiding the most deaths and similar triage policies are often invoked in clinical settings when the demand for scarce resources outstrips the supply. In such circumstances it is appropriate to pay attention to the relative differences in people’s situations.

That said, I recognise that most people have been comfortable with prioritising the elderly and vulnerable for vaccination. Few have voiced objections to prioritising in accordance with those policies. Anticipating resistance to my view, I will offer retorts to objections that I foresee.

An objection: flattening the curve

Early in our COVID-19 experience, public health experts argued for ‘flattening the curve’. They educated us about the importance of slowing the spread of the disease to prevent the rate of infection from overwhelming our resources for treating those with serious disease. When people in the most vulnerable groups contract COVID-19, their medical needs can be tremendous. It seems intuitive that we should, therefore, vaccinate the most vulnerable among the first to keep them from becoming seriously ill and overwhelming our hospital capacity. In other words, it may appear that flattening the curve should be our focus regardless of how widespread the disease becomes.

Most people in vulnerable groups are, however, able to isolate in their residence to prevent their becoming seriously ill. Because they would be at low risk of becoming victims and vectors of COVID-19 during isolation, vaccinating them is not as crucial as vaccinating those who are likely to spread it when the disease is widespread and spreading fast. Furthermore, after nearly a year of learning and practice, medical professionals became far better at making decisions about who required hospitalisation and caring for the seriously ill. They learnt about anticoagulation, proning, avoiding ventilation in favour of high-flow nasal cannulae and therapeutics including antibodies. By the end of October 2020, mortality rates in some New York City hospitals dropped by 75%, the average length of stay decreased from 11 days to 9, and the percentage of patients needing ventilators declined from 17% to 9.5%. 23 24 Those facts suggest that the need to protect those most vulnerable to serious illness became less critical to flattening the curve than it was at the start of the pandemic. Decisively, the best way to protect those vulnerable to serious complications and death and avoid overwhelming hospital capacity is by encouraging them to stay at home.

Another objection: priority for the elderly

The plight of the elderly and other vulnerable groups has monopolised the attention of policy makers and the bioethics community. They in turn have convinced the public that we should focus resources on saving the elderly and others who are worse off. There are times when such an agenda is appropriate, but there are also times when it is not. In recent decades, esteemed philosophers such as Daniel Callahan 24 25 and Norman Daniels 8 25 have mounted powerful arguments based on similarly lofty concepts such as ‘fair equality of opportunity’ and ‘fair innings’ that would actually support the opposite approach, giving elderly the lowest priority.

My conclusion that the elderly should not be prioritised for vaccination while the virus is rapidly spreading is based on two reasons. (1) The urgency of responding to a rapidly spreading and mutating deadly disease justifies measures that contain the spread of the disease. In the long run, whatever halts the spread of COVID-19 serves everyone’s interests, whereas diverting vaccinations to people who are not likely to spread the disease provides only the elderly with a limited short-term benefit. Taking a long view, they and everyone else would be harmed by the disease spreading and mutating and killing more of our loved ones as it keeps on infecting people in our communities.

(2) As I see it, policy makers have turned a blind eye to an obvious but uncomfortable social reality. The reality is that we have a responsibility to acknowledge the comparative harms and burdens produced by the disease. Some people who are not elderly develop COVID-19, and some of them die. Some become ‘long-haulers’, that is, they develop long-lasting symptoms, some mild, some serious, and no one knows if those complications will fade over time, or endure or be exacerbated. I regard the harm of losing many decades of future life as significantly worse than losing a few months or years of life, and the burden of persisting COVID-19-related disabilities over decades seems worse than enduring them for a brief period. If people open their eyes to those realities they may accept them as powerful reasons for younger people to receive vaccination before the elderly.

And another objection: addressing systemic bias

To the extent that the massive vaccination programmes require broad public support, it is critical to advance a clear, coherent message. People need to be able to comprehend the relevance and importance of the vaccination programme’s goal. On the one hand, a vaccination priority message framed as reparations for systemic bias can stoke the hostility of a wide swath of the population. On the other hand, as we have already seen, a message framed as an effort to address racial inequalities can promote fears of exploitation, experimentation and genocide in the group intended to benefit. 8 26 When irrelevant and highly controversial goals are introduced without advancing the critical aim, they needlessly undermine success of the vaccination programme. And when containment of the virus is the appropriate goal, policy should focus on the achievement of that end and eschew complications introduced by trying to simultaneously promote other aims that hamper achievement of the immediate, urgent goal.

Although long-standing, systemic health and social inequities are serious social problems, they are best addressed by programmes focused on ameliorating such disparities. Deviating from the goal of disease containment in the face of a run amok pandemic diverts resources to counterproductive agendas and leaves those who are socially and economically disadvantaged most at risk of exposure to the virus. Vaccine allocation is not the means for achieving that important, but different, goal. Furthermore, vaccination priority during the pandemic will hardly impact that issue.

People who have been socially disadvantaged and people in racial and minority groups are however among those who are most vulnerable to contagion. Therefore, they are among those most likely to benefit from disease containment and most likely to suffer when policies deviate from that critical goal.

Implications

I began this discussion by identifying different principles of justice that authors have suggested for making resource allocations during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, I mentioned reciprocity, fair equality of opportunity, utility and prioritising the worse off. You may have noticed that I later did not base my arguments on reciprocity, fair equality of opportunity or prioritising the worse off. Those principles were neither forgotten nor overlooked.

Although those principles are fine considerations in many circumstances, they are not appropriate for making vaccine allocation decisions during this pandemic. Box 1 allocations give priority to essential workers. Those groups are likely to include primarily people of colour and people who are among the least advantaged. The reason they are prioritised is, however, unrelated to their being victims of systemic racism or among the least advantaged, but the likelihood of their spreading COVID-19. In sum, box 1 directs us to place those who are likely disease vectors at the head of the vaccination queue.

Boxes 1 and 2 both prioritise healthcare workers. The reason they should be vaccinated first is not related to reciprocity, 26 27 but because of their crucial roles in saving the most lives ( box 1 ) or avoiding the most avoidable deaths ( box 2 ) and the fact that we do not have an abundance of them and therefore cannot afford to lose them during a health crisis. Medicine is committed to the non-judgmental regard of patients, which means that privileging any group, including their own (ie, healthcare workers), should be anathema to the profession. Furthermore, accepting reciprocity as a legitimate justification for medical allocations would imply that an injured hit-and-run driver or a person who has refused to wear a mask and practise social distancing should be ineligible for medical care or given lower priority than others with similar medical needs who demonstrate their social solidarity. I suggest that medical professionals should avoid making judgments as to patient worthiness for care and continue their long-standing commitment to base treatment decisions solely on medically relevant considerations. 27 28

Finally, a critical point about justice guiding the allocation of scarce medical resources is that policy-driven decisions direct medical practitioners and public health officials to treat similarly situated individuals in the same way. Once we identify the appropriate way to make a particular allocation, introducing additional considerations (eg, reciprocity, fair equality of opportunity, prioritising the worse off) is making exceptions to the rule we determined to be just. Doing so would be, and appear to be, irrational and unjust and thereby undermine the trust needed for broad social acceptance of the policy.

COVID-19 vaccine recommendations: why we got what we got

NASEM’s 5 October 2020, ‘A Framework for Equitable Allocation of Vaccine for the Novel Coronavirus’ states that its aim is ‘to achieve the primary goal of maximizing societal benefit by reducing morbidity and mortality caused by the transmission of novel coronavirus’. The guidance from the US CDC published on 23 November 2020, ‘The Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ Ethical Principles for Allocating Initial Supplies of COVID-19 Vaccine’, declares in its first sentence ‘To reduce the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and its associated impacts on health and society, COVID-19 vaccinations are essential’. In their full elaboration, these statements declare a commitment to several goals at once. Similarly, the NHS advice from the Joint Committee on Vaccination and Immunisation (JCVI) published on 3 December 2020, ‘JCVI: updated interim advice on priority groups for COVID-19 vaccination’, 28 29 pronounces that it aims ‘to reduce mortality, improve population health by reducing serious disease, and to protect the NHS and social care system’. These statements from the CDC, NASEM and NHS all point to disease containment as one of their several goals. Preventing disease spread should be the policy aim because, as numerous public health experts explained, until the disease is contained, other aims, such as providing societal benefits and reducing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality, cannot be achieved.

Although it is sometimes the case that we can achieve multiple goals at once when they direct us to the same actions, when principles aim us in opposing directions we have to engage in moral triage. In other words, we have to choose the goal that requires our attention and set aside other agendas, at least for the time being. Trying to achieve multiple aims at once can divert us from accomplishing what we judge most important.

In the case of COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation, I have argued that stopping the spread of the disease effectively and efficiently was our most urgent goal. 29 , 9 Yet the NASEM framework recommended ‘higher priority given to individuals who have a greater probability of severe disease or death if they acquire infection’. The CDC guidance prioritised long-term care facility residents (1a) and adults with high-risk medical conditions and adults 65+ (1c). And the NHS JCVI directed that prioritisation should be ‘primarily based on age’ and that vaccination should first be offered to the most elderly and their caregivers. These criteria have little to do with containing the virus, and prioritising those recommended groups is hardly effective in slowing the spread of the disease.

The authors of those policies primarily focused on those most at risk of death and ignored other important factors that should be considered (eg, prevalence, exposure and transmission risks, feasibility of isolation). As if no other principles merited consideration, and without offering a justification, they adopted an essentialist conception of justice, avoid the deaths of the most vulnerable. They therefore reached a conclusion that was inconsistent with disease containment which they, at the same time, acknowledged as the most pressing goal in the response to the pandemic. Each victim of the virus who was circulating in the community could spread the virus to multiple others, thereby increasing the spread geometrically. Ironically, the JCVI notes that ‘Individuals considered extremely clinically vulnerable have been shielding for much of the pandemic’. Those words tell us the authors recognised that the elderly and people with underlying medical condition avoided disease exposure, transmission and death by staying home. For that reason, they should have concluded prioritising them for vaccination would not contribute to COVID-19 containment.

In rethinking the approach to COVID-19 vaccine prioritisation, it is telling to recall the response to the US 2004 influenza vaccine shortage. Even though experts consistently emphasised that COVID-19 (~500 000 deaths in 1 year) was far more transmissible and lethal than influenza (62 000 deaths in 2019), surprisingly the comparison reveals that the prioritisation scheme in 2004 was essentially the same as the COVID-19 vaccine allocation proposals. 30 The similarity in response is particularly surprising in light of the fact that in 2004 doctors knew a great deal about influenza, they had multiple effective treatments for influenza victims, and they were not particularly concerned about having adequate resources for dealing with cases. In the fall of 2019, however, they still knew very little about COVID-19, they had no treatments to offer, and they were fully aware of how case load demands had overwhelmed healthcare resources. Doctors were also aware that influenza typically runs its course by spring. In contrast, they learnt that COVID-19 infections diminished somewhat in the summer of 2019, but it certainly did not disappear. It just kept chugging along, mutating rapidly, presumably becoming ever more contagious and less susceptible to existing vaccines. Public health officials argued convincingly that the disease spreads exponentially, yet they astoundingly advocated for the same plan that was followed in response to the 2004 influenza vaccine shortage.

Many of the elderly became ill and died early on in the pandemic. By the time vaccines became available, public health leaders had learnt that isolation, masking and sanitation procedures protect the elderly from becoming infected. Where those measures were implemented the rate of nursing home deaths declined dramatically. Asking the elderly to wait a few more months for vaccination would have been a reasonable cost in light of the critical need to contain the spread of the virus.

The available evidence should not have pointed policy makers to prioritise those with the highest chance of dying from the virus. The only rationale that I have seen for their nearly unanimous decision to first vaccinate the elderly and those with underlying medical conditions was offered by Alberto Giubilini, Julian Savulescu and Dominic Wilkinson. They suggested that it was ‘taken for granted that the criterion for prioritizing access to COVID-19 vaccines is vulnerability to COVID-19’. 30 31 But an assumption is not a justification. And, as Giubilini, Savulescu and Wilkinson also note, the presumption was not based on science 31 , 10 but taking for granted that justice entailed priority for the elderly.

The tail wagging the dog

Policy makers were not alone in reaching problematic conclusions on how COVID-19 vaccination should proceed. Philosophers and bioethicists also missed the call. 32 Numerous authors, including some of the most esteemed people in their fields, weighed in on vaccination prioritisation before and during the pandemic, but without acknowledging that a policy focused on containment would save the most lives. 32–38 Instead of starting off by considering the details of the situation, they focused their analyses almost exclusively on abstract principles. In sum, they allowed the tail to wag the dog.

As Giubilini, Savulescu and Wilkinson noted, many accepted the assumption that protecting the most vulnerable should be their priority. But instead of challenging the assumption, they turned their attention to sorting out what protecting the most vulnerable could mean in this instance.

A good many others took a different but similarly problematic turn. They presumed that the solution to the dilemma lay in constructing an amalgam of their favourite principles. 11 In other words, they allowed an assortment of principles, rather than the facts, to set the course.

These authors might have avoided their missteps by heeding the advice bioethicists offer in the clinical arena. Good ethics begin by understanding the facts involved in the decisions being considered. Good bioethicists do not offer opinions until they have understood the circumstances, identified the most significant factors involved, compared the likely outcomes of alternative decisions and discerned the appropriate principle(s) to guide the actions to be taken.

Taken together, the NHS and CDC advice and the NASEM framework all missed the mark. The advice of philosophers and bioethicists who wrestled with principles without engaging with the facts also failed to provide the guidance that was needed. Neither the authors of the NHS, CDC and NASEM guidance, nor the philosophers and bioethicists who offered recommendations on vaccination prioritisation, paid sufficient attention to critical pandemic-related factors during the period of rampant COVID-19 spread. Almost all of them offered advice that prioritised those most at risk for serious disease, an approach which was likely to have been counterproductive. Their recommendations diverted the initial limited initial vaccine supply to people who could have been protected by isolation and failed to advance the critical goal of saving the most lives by containing the virus spread.

In this discussion I explained why I found the vaccine prioritisation goals set during the COVID-19 pandemic inappropriate and lacking a compelling justification. I also sketched the kinds of factors that need to be considered in making appropriate vaccine allocation decisions. With still months to go in battling the COVID-19 pandemic, and facing a future that is predicted to bring more outbreaks of novel viral disease, we need to learn from the mistakes that were made in confronting COVID-19 vaccination. Policy makers have to hold the line of justice and resist the influences of both political correctness and politics in their effort to identify the appropriate goal(s) for health policy during a crisis. Public health leaders need to stay focused on the facts before them and eschew the flawed path of presuming that science can dictate choices that evidence alone cannot determine.

Society deserves a coherent explanation of public health policy. Providing a rationale that can be comprehended and endorsed by the population is critical for the success of any public health policy. Therefore, communicating a message that gains public trust and support is closely tied to achieving urgent policy goals. The justification for choosing a plan of action must be carefully thought through and clearly explained to increase the likelihood that allocation procedures will be widely accepted. When a vaccine prioritisation rationale is understood as being clear and compelling, the public can trust that justice is being done.

Ethics statements

Patient consent for publication.

Not required.

• Anderson ES
• National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine
• Ferguson K ,
• Laventhal N ,
• Dell ML , et al
• Bonfiglio N
• Wajnberg A ,
• Firpo A , et al
• Blenkinsop A ,
• Xi X , et al
• Reinholt K ,
• Kissler SM , et al
• Goldkind SF ,
• Gallauresi B
• Goodman JD ,
• Goldstein J
• Oxford University Press
• Gillespie C
• Giubilini A ,
• Savulescu J ,
• Wilkinson D
• Wertheimer A ,
• Jecker NS ,
• Wightman AG ,
• The Johns Hopkins center for health security
• Weaver MS ,
• Geppert CMA ,
• Alfandre DJ

Presented at The material for this paper was presented on the following panels: ASBH, 'Justice at Stake: Distributing a COVID-19 Vaccine', 18 October 2020; 'What Did Bioethics Contribute to the COVID-19 Pandemic Response? A Retrospective', Wiley Press Symposium, 17 March 2021; and 'Equity and Justice in the COVID-19 Emergency', Fondazione Bruno Kessler, Trento, Italy, 18 May 2021.

Correction notice This paper has been updated since first published to correct author details in footnote xi.

Contributors RR is the sole author of this paper.

Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

Competing interests None declared.

Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

↵ Aristotle enumerated three types of justice: distributive, retributive and equity. The discussion of justice in this paper concerns primarily distributive justice, that is, how the limited supply of vaccine should be distributed. Aristotle, The Nicomachean Ethics of Aristotle , translated by WD Ross. London: Oxford University Press, 1971.

↵ For example: Rawls J, A theory of justice (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1971); Rawls J, Political liberalism (New York: Columbia University Press, 1993); Scanlon TM, What we owe to each other (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1998); Onora O'Neill. Towards justice and virtue: A constructive account of practical reasoning. (Cambridge University Press, 1996);Acting on principle:an essay on Kantian ethics (New York: Columbia University Press, 1975);

Onora O'Neill. Constructivism vs contractualism. Ratio 2003; 16 (4):319–331.

↵ In the summary chapter at the end of his second book on moral philosophy, Foundations of Ethics, (p. 318) Ross makes the same point. There he explains that, ‘in deciding what I ought to do, it is evident that I must consider equally all the elements, so far as I can foresee them, in the state of affairs I shall be bringing about. If I see that my act is likely to help M, for instance, and to hurt N, I am not justified in ignoring the bad effect, or even treating it as less important than the good effect, merely because it is the good effect and not the bad one that I wish to bring about. It is the whole nature of that which I set myself to bring about, not that part of it which I happen to desire, that makes my act right or wrong.’ (italics in original).

↵ Foot 1983.

↵ In 20th century moral philosophy, this plain fact was observed and discussed at length by Isaiah Berlin, H.A. Prichard, Bas van Fraassen, Bernard Williams, Ruth Barcan Marcus, and Bernard Baumrin and Peter Lupu, among others. Their point is that the justness or rightness of any particular action will turn on the reasons supporting it, the reasons that count against it, and their saliency.

↵ Scanlon (1998), p.96.

↵ What makes achieving justice difficult is that often enough it is not easy to identify which principle(s) to employ in making a particular kind of allocation. That difficulty is why contractarian constructivist philosophers offer models for assessing decisions about what to do. Aristotle suggested that we think of what “Pericles and men like him” would do because “they can see what is good … for men in general.” Hobbes offers that we can know what justice requires by considering our decisions in light of the negative Golden Rule, “ Do not that to another, which thou wouldest not have done to thy selfe .” (italics in the original) Kant directs us to test our maxims with any of his four formulations of the categorical imperative. Recognizing “the burdens of judgment,” Rawls instructs us to think in terms of what an “overlapping consensus” of reasonable and rational representatives of family lines would endorse in the original position behind the veil of ignorance. And Scanlon teaches us to check whether our reason(s) for acting in the particular circumstances “could reasonably be rejected.”

↵ As other vaccination prioritization plans have done, I painted my recommendations with a broad brush. Equity, however, may require exceptions for particular local circumstances, including, for example, prioritization for people residing in high-occupancy high-rise apartment buildings with crowded multi-generation families, or dormitories, or crowded homeless shelters.

↵ The CDC Advisory Committee actually notes that, “[a]llocation of limited vaccine supplies iscomplicated by efforts to address the multiple goals of a vaccine program.” The fail to recognize thattheir “multiple goals” direct them to conflicting responses.

↵ I’m not an epidemiologist and I don’t have the ability to generate the numbers. Yet, with nearly 600,000 deaths and over 33,000,000 cases in the US by prioritizing the elderly, it would be instructive to have experts estimate the number of lives that could have been saved by prioritizing essential workers instead of the elderly and people with underlying conditions.

↵ For example, Persad et al . (2009) advocated for “an amalgam of principles,” and again in Emanuel et al . (2020); Guppta and Morain (2021) advocated for “a combination” of prioritization strategies; Liu, Walwi, and Drolet (2020) support a “multivalue ethical framework”; Jecker, Wightman and Diekema (2021) advocate for an assortment of “ethical values.”

Read the full text or download the PDF:

Other content recommended for you.

• Vaccine ethics: an ethical framework for global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines Nancy S Jecker et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• WHO’s allocation framework for COVAX: is it fair? Siddhanth Sharma et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• Global, regional, and national estimates of target population sizes for covid-19 vaccination: descriptive study Wei Wang et al., BMJ, 2020
• Ethical allocation of future COVID-19 vaccines Rohit Gupta et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020
• Love thy neighbour? Allocating vaccines in a world of competing obligations Kyle Ferguson et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2020
• Who will receive the last ventilator: why COVID-19 policies should not prioritise healthcare workers Donna T Chen et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2021
• An intersectional human rights approach to prioritising access to COVID-19 vaccines Sharifah Sekalala et al., BMJ Global Health, 2021
• Implementation of covid-19 vaccination in the United Kingdom Azeem Majeed et al., BMJ, 2022
• Justice and procedure: how does “accountability for reasonableness” result in fair limit-setting decisions? A Rid, Journal of Medical Ethics, 2008
• Public attitudes about equitable COVID-19 vaccine allocation: a randomised experiment of race-based versus novel place-based frames Harald Schmidt et al., Journal of Medical Ethics, 2022

Global public health security and justice for vaccines and therapeutics in the COVID-19 pandemic

Affiliations.

• 1 Texas Children's Center for Vaccine Development, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
• 2 Médecins Sans Frontières, Rio de Janeiro, Brazil.
• 3 Center for Sustainable Development, Columbia University, New York, NY, USA.
• 4 Koc University Research Center for Infectious Diseases, Istanbul, Turkey.
• 5 University of the West Indies, Mona, Kingston, Jamaica.
• 6 Nuffield Department of Medicine, Jenner Institute, Oxford University, Oxford, UK.
• 7 Middle East Technical University, Ankara, Turkey.
• 8 College of Medicine, King Saud University, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia.
• 9 Christian Medical College, Vellore, India.
• 10 PATH Essential Medicines, PATH, WA, USA.
• 11 International Vaccine Institute, Seoul, South Korea.
• 12 University of Houston College of Medicine, Houston, TX, USA.
• 13 London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, UK.
• 14 ISGlobal-Barcelona Institute for Global Health-Hospital Clinic-University of Barcelona, Spain.
• 15 University of North Carolina, Gillings School of Global Public Health, Chapel Hill, NC, USA.
• 16 Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD, USA.
• 17 Institute of Social and Preventive Medicine, University of Bern, Switzerland.
• 18 Heidelberg Institute of Global Health, University of Heidelberg, Heidelberg, Germany.
• 19 Center for Vaccine Development, Bamako, Mali.
• 20 University of Maryland, MD, USA.
• 21 Drugs for Neglected Diseases Initiative, Geneva, Switzerland.
• 22 Center for Global Development, Washington, DC, USA.
• 23 Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA, USA.
• 24 Affiliate Professor, Technology and Operations Management, INSEAD, France.
• PMID: 34368661
• PMCID: PMC8330385
• DOI: 10.1016/j.eclinm.2021.101053

A Lancet Commission for COVID-19 task force is shaping recommendations to achieve vaccine and therapeutics access, justice, and equity. This includes ensuring safety and effectiveness harmonized through robust systems of global pharmacovigilance and surveillance. G lobal production requires expanding support for development, manufacture, testing, and distribution of vaccines and therapeutics to low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). Global intellectual property rules must not stand in the way of research, production, technology transfer, or equitable access to essential health tools, and in context of pandemics to achieve increased manufacturing without discouraging innovation. Global governance around product quality requires channelling widely distributed vaccines through WHO prequalification (PQ)/emergency use listing (EUL) mechanisms and greater use of national regulatory authorities. A World Health Assembly (WHA) resolution would facilitate improvements and consistency in quality control and assurances. Global health systems require implementing steps to strengthen national systems for controlling COVID-19 and for influenza vaccinations for adults including pregnant and lactating women. A collaborative research network should strive to establish open access databases for bioinformatic analyses, together with programs directed at human capacity utilization and strengthening. Combating anti-science recognizes the urgency for countermeasures to address a global-wide disinformation movement dominating the internet and infiltrating parliaments and local governments.

Keywords: COVID-19; Health equity; Vaccine distribution; global governance; public health justice; public health security; therapeutics; vaccine access; vaccine development; vaccine technologies.

© 2021 The Authors.

Publication types

Justin Bieber’s ‘Justice’ Tour Hopes to Get Fans Involved With Climate Action, Criminal Justice Reform, Voter Registration

By Jem Aswad

Executive Editor, Music

• Childish Gambino Announces ‘New World Tour’ Dates, Drops New Version of ‘3.15.20’ Album and Video 16 hours ago
• Dennis Thompson, MC5 Drummer and Last Surviving Member, Dies at 75 4 days ago
• Meshell Ndegeocello, Fishbone Top BRIC Celebrate Brooklyn! 2024 Festival Lineup  5 days ago

Justin Bieber ’s Justice World Tour – launching February 18 in San Diego and spanning more than 90 dates in more than 20 countries — aims to bring “Justice In Action” to every corner of the globe.

Bieber has teamed up with  Propeller  to reward his fans for taking action. Every night on the tour, Propeller will enable fans to enter to win a VIP ticket upgrade to watch the show from one of the best spots in the house; fans also will be able to enter to  win a trip to meet Bieber in Paris  at his Accor Arena show in 2023.

More to the point, Bieber will be using his platform to raise awareness and inspire his fans to sign petitions, follow impactful organizations on social media, register to vote, volunteer their time, donate, and more in support of efforts to raise money for the Generosity Foundation, help transform the criminal justice system with REFORM Alliance, and fight climate change with NRDC. The more actions a fan completes, the more they increase their chances of winning. Participating organization and full tour dates appear below.

Each night of tour there will be a local action curated by LIVE FREE to support criminal justice reforms at the local level. Fans will also be able to earn free concert tickets by participating in live trainings in select cities, focused on ending injustice in their communities.

Popular on Variety

According to the announcement, Bieber’s goal is to inspire millions of individual actions, help connect his fans to important causes, and provide participating groups with a new foundation of supporters, all while registering voters and raising awareness and funds for critical local and national justice efforts.

The Justice World Tour is presented by T-Mobile and promoted by AEG. “Justice In Action” is a partnership between Justin Bieber, Propeller, Scooter Braun Projects, and more than eighteen partnering organizations, listed here:

LIST OF “JUSTICE IN ACTION” PARTICIPATING ORGANIZATIONS

• Active Minds   IG:  @active_minds
• Alexandria House  IG:  @alexandriahousela
• Anti-Recidivism Coalition  IG:  @antirecidivismcoalition
• Backline  IG:  @backline.care
• Fund for Guaranteed Income  IG:  @fund4gi 
• Generosity Foundation
• Hollaback!  IG:  @ihollagram  
• Impact Justice  IG:  @impactjustice
• Last Prisoner Project  IG:  @lastprisonerproject
• LIFT Communities  IG:  @lift_communities 
• LIVE FREE  IG:  @livefreeusa 
• NRDC  IG:  @NRDC_org
• Poor People’s Campaign  IG:  @poorpeoplescampaign 
• REFORM Alliance  IG:  @REFORM 
• Stop AAPI Hate  IG:  @stopaapihate 
• The King Center   IG:  @thekingcenter 
• This Is About Humanity  IG:  @thisisabouthumanity 

JUSTIN BIEBER, THE JUSTICE WORLD TOUR: 2022

February 18  San Diego, CA – Pechanga Arena San Diego February 20  Las Vegas, NV – T-Mobile Arena February 22  Glendale, AZ – Gila River Arena February 24  Los Angeles, CA – The Forum February 26  Tacoma, WA – Tacoma Dome February 28  San Jose, CA – SAP Center At San Jose

March 2  San Jose, CA – SAP Center At San Jose March 4  Sacramento, CA – Golden 1 Center March 7  Los Angeles, CA – Crypto.com Arena March 8  Los Angeles, CA – Crypto.com Arena March 11  Portland, OR – Moda Center March 13  Salt Lake City, UT – Vivint Smart Home Arena March 16  Denver, CO – Ball Arena March 18  Tulsa, OK – Bok Center March 21  Atlanta, GA – State Farm Arena March 22  Atlanta, GA – State Farm Arena March 25  Toronto, ON Canada – Scotiabank Arena March 27 Ottawa, ON Canada – Canadian Tire Centre March 29  Montreal, QC Canada – Bell Centre March 31  Newark, NJ – Prudential Center

April 2  Pittsburgh, PA – PPG Paints Arena

April 7  Jacksonville, FL – Vystar Veterans Memorial Arena

April 9  Tampa, FL – Amalie Arena

April 11  Orlando, FL – Amway Center

April 13  Miami, FL – FTX Arena – Shipping & Receiving April 16  Greensboro, NC – Greensboro Coliseum Complex

April 19  Cincinnati, OH – Heritage Bank Center April 21  Indianapolis, IN – Gainbridge Fieldhouse April 24  Des Moines, IA – Wells Fargo Arena

April 27  Austin, TX – Moody Center April 29  Houston, TX – Toyota Center

May 1  Dallas, TX – American Airlines Center May 4  Kansas City, MO – T-Mobile Center May 6  Minneapolis, MN – Target Center

May 9  Chicago, IL – United Center May 10  Chicago, IL – United Center

May 12  Grand Rapids, MI – Van Andel Arena May 14  Buffalo, NY – Keybank Center

May 16  Columbus, OH – Schottenstein Center May 18  Nashville, TN – Bridgestone Arena

May 22  Monterrey, MX – Estadio de Béisbol Monterrey May 23  Zapopan, Mexico – Estadio 3 de Marzo

May 25  Mexico City, Mexico – Foro Sol May 26  Mexico City, Mexico – Foro Sol

June 3  Brooklyn, NY – Barclays Center

June 5  Detroit, MI – Little Caesars Arena

June 7  Toronto, ON Canada – Scotiabank Arena June 8  Toronto, ON Canada – Scotiabank Arena

June 10  Washington, DC – Capital One Arena June 13  New York, NY – Madison Square Garden June 14  New York, NY – Madison Square Garden June 16  Philadelphia, PA – Wells Fargo Center June 18  Uncasville, CT – Mohegan Sun Arena

June 20  Boston, MA – TD Garden June 23  St Louis, MO – Enterprise Center June 24  Milwaukee, WI – American Family Insurance Amphitheater

August 3 Skanderborg, Denmark – Smukfest August 5 Malmo, Sweden – Bigslap Xl August 7 Trondheim, Norway – Trondheim Summertime August 9 Helsinki, Finland – Kaisaniemen Park

September 4 Rio de Janeiro, Brazil – Rock In Rio September 7 Santiago, Chile – Estadio Nacional September 10 Buenos Aires, Argentina – Estadio Único de La Plata September 28 Cape Town, South Africa – Cape Town Stadium

October 1 Johannesburg, South Africa – Johannesburg FNB Stadium October 13 Tel Aviv, Israel – HaYarkon Park

November 22 Perth, Australia – HBF Park November 26 Melbourne, Australia – Marvel Stadium November 30 Sydney, Australia – Sydney Football Stadium

December 3 Brisbane, Australia – Suncorp Stadium December 7 Auckland, New Zealand – Mt Smart Stadium

January 13 Amsterdam, Netherlands – Ziggo Dome

January 14 Amsterdam, Netherlands – Ziggo Dome January 16 Hamburg, Germany – Barclays Arena January 18 Zürich, Switzerland – Hallenstadion January 21 Lisbon, Portugal – Altice Arena January 23 Madrid, Spain – WiZink Center January 25 Barcelona, Spain – Palau Sant Jordi January 27 & 28 Bologna, Italy – Unipol Arena January 31 Cologne, Germany – LANXESS Arena

February 2 Frankfurt, Germany – Festhalle February 4 Berlin, Germany – Mercedes-Benz Arena February 8 Glasgow, UK – OVO Hydro February 11 Aberdeen, UK – P&J Live February 13 & 14 & 16 London, UK – The O2 February 22 & 23 Birmingham, UK – Resorts World Arena February 25 Manchester, UK – AO Arena February 26 Sheffield, UK – Utilita Arena

March 4 Manchester, UK – AO Arena

March 6 & 7 Paris, France – Accor Arena March 9 Munich, Germany – Olympiahalle March 11 Budapest, Hungary – Budapest Arena March 12 Prague, Czech Republic – O2 Arena March 15 Stockholm, Sweden – Tele2 Arena March 17 & 18 Copenhagen, Denmark – Royal Arena March 20 & 21 Antwerp, Belgium – Sportpaleis March 24 Vienna, Austria – Wiener Stadthalle March 25 Krakow, Poland – TAURON Arena

More From Our Brands

Karol g broke several records during her ‘mañana será bonito’ latin american tour, billy baldwin and chynna phillips’s california home just hit the market for $3.8 million, husch blackwell’s 2024 ncaa compliance report: college athletics in transition, the best loofahs and body scrubbers, according to dermatologists, the voice semi-finals recap: which of the top 9 performed like a perfect 10, verify it's you, please log in.

Justin Bieber Justice World Tour in South Africa has issued a vaccine mandate Image via Big Concerts

Justin Bieber latest: Strict age, vax mandate for Justice World Tour shows

Justin Bieber fans are slamming the star’s vaccine mandate to attend his Justice World Tour stop in South Africa.

Canadian singing sensation Justin Bieber is bringing his Justice World Tour to South Africa in 2022. But to attend the Cape Town or Johannesburg concert , you will need to be over the age of 12 and have a vaccine passport – the latter of which many tweeps are not happy about.

JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTICE WORLD TOUR TICKETS TO GO ON SALE

Justin Bieber will be performing at Cape Town’s DHL stadium on 28 September 2022 and in Joburg’s FNB stadium on 1 October 2022.

Big Concerts announced that tickets to the 2022 concert will officially go on sale on Friday, 3 December 2021 at 9am via Ticketmaster.

But there are several factors to consider. The age limit is 12 years old, and children 14 years and younger must be accompanied by a “responsible adult”.

In addition, all concert-goers must be “fully vaccinated” and must display proof of their vaccinations before being allowed into the venue, according to the promoter.

JUST ANNOUNCED! JUSTIN BIEBER JUSTICE WORLD TOUR @justinbieber announced new dates for his much-anticipated Justice World Tour, including… 28 Sep, DHL Stadium 1 Oct, FNB Stadium 🎟️ go on sale Fri 3 Dec at 9 am from https://t.co/jj1YOmz9E6 Brought to you by @947 & @KFMza pic.twitter.com/0FOJmzTAbH — BIG Concerts (@BigConcerts) November 15, 2021

Insurance providers Discovery — who is an official sponsor of the show — had the following to say about the shows and vaccine mandate:

“The world is opening up again, and we’re excited that concerts are back! Beliebers, get ready for the Justin Bieber Justice World Tour.

“It’s time to be responsible and take safety precautions to enjoy the things we’ve been missing out on”.

ALSO READ: Un-beliebable! SA tweeps slam Justin Bieber’s ‘apartheid Israel’ tour plans

TWEEPS REACT TO VAX PASSPORT

A number of Justin Bieber fans took to Twitter to criticise his vaccine mandate as a prerequisite to attend his Justice World Tour shows.

One tweep posted: “What is going on in the world? I am so frustrated reading all these vaccine mandates. You can still get it and pass it on after the vaccine yet you may enter a Justin Bieber concert…what the actual f***!”. Twitter

What is going on in the world? I am so frustrated reading all these vaccine mandates. You can still get it and pass it on after the vaccine yet you may enter a Justin Bieber concert🤷‍♂️ what the actual fuck!!! — Benna (@BennaBch) November 16, 2021

Another added: “First Justin Bieber concert I’ll miss in my life Bc of this damn vaccine”.

First Justin Bieber concert I’ll miss in my life Bc of this damn vaccine. Fml — 🌻 (@yellowbieb) November 11, 2021

Another tweep asked South African fans in particular whether they were angered by the vaccine mandate.

They tweeted: “Is this a violation of rights!!? Will you be going to high court to interdiction this discrimination…?”

Can we hear from SA Bieber fas who, up to now, had refused flatly to vaccine. Is this a violation of rights!!? Will you be going to high court to interdiction this discrimination…? — FRANCIS MOLETSANE 🇿🇦🇿🇦 (@Mokanye14) November 15, 2021

JUSTIN BIEBER TOUR ORGANISERS ISSUE STATEMENT

A statement from Justin Bieber’s Justice World Tour organisers claimed the vaccine mandate was in line with local government regulations.

It said in a statement: “For the health and safety of everyone attending Justin Bieber: Justice World Tour, all tour dates will abide by local and venue COVID-19 policies. Additional policies may be put in place at the discretion of the venue or tour”

For the health and safety of everyone attending Justin Bieber Justice World Tour, all tour dates will abide by local and venue COVID-19 policies. Additional policies may be put in place at the discretion of the venue or tour, reflective of the status of COVID-19 in the tour city. — Justins Tour Updates (@JustinsTourNews) November 15, 2021

In South Africa, children as young as 12 are permitted to get the Covid-19 vaccination – without their parent’s consent .

Wil jy geld spaar op jou versekeringspremies? Kliek hier vir 10 top wenke!

Latest Posts

South Africa: Today’s latest news and headlines, Tuesday, 30 April

Recognising signs of canine asthma in your Dog

BREAKING: Former SA boxing world champion found dead  

Daily Lotto: Here are Monday, 29 April’s numbers and results

Die Antwoord: Documentary tells their side of allegations

Presidency denies SABC Head of News is being targeted by SSA

Know Your Rights: New NYC Virtual Tour Examines Past Injustice & Aims to Educate

Tour operator, inside out tours, is hosting a new virtual experience that explores criminal justice reform in new york city while educating americans on their rights., by linda gaudino • published november 22, 2021 • updated on january 28, 2022 at 8:45 am.

One small business is changing the game when it comes to classic New York City tourism by putting a spotlight on the moments in history where civil rights were at risk.

Know Your Rights: From the Central Park Five to the Present is a new virtual experience hosted by Inside Out Tours , a full-service DMC and receptive tour operator offering virtual, walking, and bus excursions.

While constructing the tour, president and founder, Stacey Toussaint, accompanied by her fiancé, Derrek Murdock, traveled across the boroughs to sites of unarmed shootings of Black men, false arrests, and miscarriages of justice around the criminal justice system.

To Toussaint, this tour is an opportunity for both public schools to educate students and for parents to have an open conversation with children regarding this history.

Get San Diego local news, weather forecasts, sports and lifestyle stories to your inbox. Sign up for NBC San Diego newsletters.

This is a tour that's extremely important because what it's meant to be is an insight to what has happened in our city whether we're talking about Sean Bell, Eric Garner, or Amadou Diallo. Stacey Toussaint President & Founder, Inside Out Tours

The tour touches upon a range of incidents, going as far back as the Harlem riots during the 1960s.

Toussaint is excited for the Know Your Right Tour because it addresses what is currently happening in the justice system.

"What was also very important for me in creating it to not make it a situation where we were talking about villanizing people but rather a situation where we're looking at systems where people may profit over other peoples' misery," Toussaint told NBC New York.

The tour also makes a point to highlight those, whether activists or police officers, who stood up against injustice.

This new addition comes after Inside Out Tours launched the NYC Slavery & the Underground Railroad Tour, which was launched in 2010 but is still one of the company's most popular walking tours.

Next year, Toussaint, who is also an attorney, is hoping to launch a first-of-its-kind in-person Equal Justice Tour talking about the historical development of the criminal justice system in New York.

"I think it's important for us as a society to know, it's not about assigning blame, it's about changing systems," noted Toussaint.

This story is part of a series following small business owners through the pandemic. To view all stories part of NBC Local’s “Rebound” project, click  here .

This article tagged under:

Hailey Bieber Supports Husband Justin as He Returns to Stage After Health Scare

In june, justin bieber announced the postponement of some of his justice world tour shows due to his ramsay hunt syndrome diagnosis. now, he's back on stage. see hailey's sweet message to her husband..

Justin Bieber  back on stage? You better Belieb it. 

After postponing several of his Justice World Tour shows due to his Ramsay Hunt syndrome diagnosis , the singer returned to the stage at the Lucca Summer Festival in Italy on July 31, and his wife  Hailey Bieber  was there to cheer him on. 

"One thing I know for certain," the model wrote on Instagram alongside footage of him performing his hit "Holy" in front of the crowd, "is you can't keep this guy down…"

Hailey wasn't the only one excited to see Justin doing what he loves. Posting a message to his fans on Instagram, the two-time Grammy winner wrote, "Luv u guys and I missed you." During his set, Justin also thanked the crowd for their love and support before setting intentions for what his resumed tour is all about.

"Guys I want to say thank you so much for having me back. This is my first day back," he told the audience . "It's so good to be here. As some of you guys know, the Justice Tour is about equality. It's about justice for all. No matter what you look like, no matter your shape, your size, your ethnicity. We're all the same, we're all one. We know that racism is evil. We know that division is evil. It is wrong. But we are here to be the difference makers, and I want to say thank you to each and every one of you guys for being a part of this tour tonight."

Justin announced on June 10 that he'd been diagnosed with Ramsay Hunt syndrome and that he was experiencing temporary paralysis in parts of his face, leading him to take a break from the tour to focus on his health.

"As you can see, this eye is not blinking," he told his followers in a video message . "I can't smile on this side of my face. This nostril will not move. So, there's full paralysis in this side of my face. So for those who are frustrated by my cancelations of the next shows, I'm just physically, obviously, not capable of doing them."

Trending Stories

Kelly clarkson sets record straight on ozempic rumors amid weight loss, kate gosselin shares rare pic of 4 of her and jon's sextuplets, meghan markle & prince harry's archewell charity declared "delinquent".

Justin and Hailey continued to keep fans updated on how he was doing . "He's doing really well," she said during a June 15 appearance on of  Good Morning America . "He's getting better every single day. He's feeling a lot better. Obviously, it was just a very scary and random situation to happen, but he's going to be totally OK and I'm just grateful that he's fine."

Just a few months prior, Hailey had her own health scare. In March, she informed her followers she'd "started having stroke like symptoms" and " suffered a very small blood clot " to her brain. Hailey was taken to the hospital and ended up undergoing a heart procedure .

"The conclusion was that I had a blood clot that traveled into my heart," she explained in an April YouTube video, later adding,"My blood clot actually escaped through the flap or the hole in my heart and it traveled to my brain and that is why I suffered a TIA [a transient ischemic attack]."

Hailey told  GMA  she's feeling "a lot better" and spoke about how she and Justin leaned on each other  during their recent health issues. "I think the silver lining of it, honestly, is that it brings us a lot closer," she said, "‘cause you're going through this together, you're being there for each other, you're supporting each other and there's just something that really, like, bonds you through these times."

Miss Teen USA 2023 Runner-Up Declines Title After Winner Steps Down

Ryan reynolds reacts to rumor taylor swift revealed name of baby no. 4.

• Search Please fill out this field.
• Manage Your Subscription
• Give a Gift Subscription
• Newsletters
• Sweepstakes

All 9 Supreme Court Justices Have Received COVID Vaccine

Chief Justice John Roberts received both doses of the Pfizer vaccine in January

The nine Supreme Court justices have received the COVID-19 vaccine.

"The Justices have all been fully vaccinated," the court's public information officer, Kathleen Arberg, said in a statement to CNN Thursday. Arberg did not immediately respond to PEOPLE's request for comment.

The current justices include Chief Justice John G. Roberts and Associate Justices Clarence Thomas, Stephen G. Breyer, Samuel A. Alito, Jr., Sonia Sotomayor, Elena Kagan, Neil M. Gorsuch, Brett M. Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett.

While the court did not disclose exactly when each justice was vaccinated, it was reported in January that Chief Justice Roberts had received his first and second jab.

"The Chief Justice has taken steps to protect against infection, including minimizing contact with staff, regular testing, and receiving both doses of the Pfizer vaccine ," Arberg said in a statement to CNN on Jan. 11.

Barrett — who issued her first signed majority opinion on Thursday — reportedly had COVID-19 last summer , but recovered before her nomination to the Supreme Court after the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg in September .

Several members of Congress have also already received the vaccine, as well as President Joe Biden and Vice President Kamala Harris .

As information about the coronavirus pandemic rapidly changes, PEOPLE is committed to providing the most recent data in our coverage. Some of the information in this story may have changed after publication. For the latest on COVID-19, readers are encouraged to use online resources from the CDC , WHO and local public health departments . PEOPLE has partnered with GoFundMe to raise money for the COVID-19 Relief Fund, a GoFundMe.org fundraiser to support everything from frontline responders to families in need, as well as organizations helping communities. For more information or to donate, click here .

Related Articles