I would challenge the assertion in your first line. To take an extreme example: Suppose we all agree that a horrible and unethical act (the Nazi’s medical exper

I would challenge the assertion in your first line. To take an extreme example: Suppose we all agree that a horrible and unethical act (the Nazi’s medical experiments, for example) had lasting positive impacts for millions of people, tipping the scales in favor of net benefit. In that case, I don’t think many people would consider the Nazi’s experiments okay, merely because one set of people benefited “more” than another set suffered. I do not draw similarities between the vaccines and Nazi atrocities, I only challenge the idea that “do no harm” can be reduced to a utilitarian balancing of good/harm across an entire population.