President Pines, Board of Regents Chair Goodman, and members of the USM Board of Regents:

The University of Maryland’s mandate for vaccine boosters announced on January 7, 2022, which expands on a mandate issued by the University System of Maryland, is not justifiable as a necessary public health measure, has the potential to cause harm, and undermines the reputation and credibility of the University as an institution guided by rigorous evidence.

The undersigned represent students, faculty, staff, alumni, and parents. We lament the terrible toll the COVID-19 pandemic has had on the world and our community. We celebrate the availability of vaccines for all. But we also value decisions guided by scientific evidence of efficacy and necessity. It is widely acknowledged that vaccination does not prevent transmission, and is therefore not defensible as a necessary public health measure. In this context, the university must respect bodily autonomy and personal medical decision making.

98.2% of university students, faculty, and staff are vaccinated. Abundant evidence indicates that the primary vaccine series continues to prevent severe illness and death–an outcome worth celebrating. Boosters are available to all, including those who are high risk or otherwise eager to take any measure to avoid infection. But emerging evidence indicates that reduction in infection due to boosters is uncertain and likely short-lived. As the efficacy and durability of total avoidance of infection with a booster is not clear, many may be justifiably satisfied with their reduced risk of severe disease without the booster.

The available vaccines are based on the original strain of SARS-Cov-2. Many members of the campus community recently contracted and recovered from COVID, and now have immunity to the strains currently in circulation. They will gain no benefit from a booster, meaning the risk, however miniscule, of an adverse event outweighs the benefit. It is widely accepted that myocarditis is an adverse event related to mRNA vaccines administered to young men. While these events are rare and typically mild, some are severe, and even mild cases may require limiting activity for an extended period. One may argue that this risk is justified before the initial vaccine series based on the risk of severe outcomes from COVID infection. However, vaccinated young men required to get yet another dose are being subjected to this risk with no evidence of benefit, particularly if they are recovered from COVID. In fact, Dr. Paul Offit, director of the Vaccine Education Center at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia, and a vaccine developer, recently went on record to say that the benefit of boosting is not worth the risk to the average, healthy young adult male. He advised his own 20-something son against getting a booster.

Many experts reject the idea that boosting young and healthy individuals is an appropriate strategy at this stage of the pandemic. In September 2021, the FDA’s external vaccine review panel voted 16-2 against blanket approval of boosters. The FDA decided internally to ignore these recommendations and approve boosters for all. Amidst this process, two senior members of the vaccine review committee resigned. Both contributed to a Lancet opinion piece arguing against universal boosting. Among other points, they argue that unnecessary boosting impedes global vaccine equity, and may broadly reduce vaccine acceptance.

The university's values statement espouses that "our actions are guided not only by what is good for self but also by what is good for all." While the university may recommend boosters, and support their best-use case based on current data (older adults and high risk individuals), a mandate does not meet the criteria of "good for all"--in fact, the lack of evidence that it will provide a collective benefit through reduction in transmission, the lack of benefit for most young healthy individuals, and the potential for harm for half of the student body make it quite the opposite.

Many of the undersigned have chosen to receive a booster shot. Others may still choose to do so. Others may be comfortable with their protection following recovery from COVID. But we are united in our conviction that the booster mandate is not grounded in rigorous evidence of public health benefit, has the potential to cause harm, continue to erode trust in public health, and decrease overall vaccine acceptance. As members of the University of Maryland community, we wish to uphold the credibility of the university by insisting the booster mandate be suspended.