Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

Incentives for COVID-19 Vaccination: Implications for Public Health Preparedness in a New Pandemic

OBJECTIVE

To examine opinions about incentives for vaccination against COVID-19.

METHODS

A qualitative study was conducted in spring 2022. The study population consisted of pairs of university students and their parents throughout Serbia. The qualitative content analysis was applied.

RESULTS

A total of 18 participants (9 student-parent pairs) were included. The following themes were identified: 1) Attitudes about financial incentives for vaccination, 2) Non-financial incentives for vaccination, and 3) Suggestions to enhance vaccination coverage. Theme 1 comprised several subthemes: General response to money, Dissatisfaction with financial incentives, Satisfaction with financial incentives and Amount of money to change people's opinion. Most parents and some students expressed a clear dissatisfaction and disapproval of the concept of financial incentives for compliance with vaccination. Financial offers would not make our participants change their position on whether to receive the vaccine, as no major differences in attitude towards vaccinations between the vaccinated and the non-vaccinated study participants was observed. Non-financial incentives were more acceptable compared to financial ones, but they were also seen as beneficial for some and not others.

CONCLUSIONS

Financial incentive programs' potential for inefficiency and public mistrust make other methods to boost vaccine uptake better public health choices for now.

Kantian political philosophy, coercion, and public health

Many public health policies are coercive and therefore, they require moral justification. Kantian political philosophy is an under-explored but appealing approach to public health ethics. According to the Kantian approach, which is centred around freedom as independence, the state has an important role in protecting that freedom. In doing so, the state is justified to use coercion. To illustrate the Kantian approach, we consider its implications in the context of coercive vaccination policy. We show coercive vaccination policies are justified, because the state is needed to provide determinacy, because such policies are needed to guarantee the systematic enjoyment of the right to freedom, and because such policies reduce the risk for dependence on others.

Making the public protect public health: the ethics of promoting collective action in emergencies

Effective public health responses to many infectious diseases require sustained collective action. Communicable disease control in populations can only be achieved by high levels of public compliance with health directives. However, governing authorities have limited options if public compliance is insufficient and collective action is failing. Mechanisms to promote public compliance occur on a spectrum from providing public health advice, offering incentives so people cooperate more, to enacting coercive public health orders and mandates. Because the burdens and benefits of these interventions have patterned distributions across society and raise questions of fairness and legitimacy, they have ethical dimensions. Against the background of government responses to COVID-19, we draw on Amatai Etzioni's compliance mechanisms to analyse the ethics and politics of using state power to drive collective action during public health emergencies. We show how different compliance mechanisms have been applied simultaneously and strategically and that the political and ethical impacts of their interaction warrant particular attention. When considering the adoption of compliance strategies, at the level of individuals and groups, it is important to recognise that intervention uptake will vary based on the threat faced, the characteristics of the population and communities, and local capacity to implement strategies. The use of compliance mechanisms during COVID-19 is also instructive. Significant preparatory work to enculture more restrictive social norms and high levels of public compliance must be undertaken immediately if efforts to sustain collective action against pressing global health problems such as global heating and antimicrobial resistance are to be successful.

Collective Reflective Equilibrium, Algorithmic Bioethics and Complex Ethics

John Harris has made many seminal contributions to bioethics. Two of these are in the ethics of resource allocation. Firstly, he proposed the "fair innings argument" which was the first sufficientarian approach to distributive justice. Resources should be provided to ensure people have a fair innings-when Harris first wrote this, around 70 years of life, but perhaps now 80. Secondly, Harris famously advanced the egalitarian position in response to utilitarian approaches to allocation (such as maximizing Quality Adjusted Life Years [QALYs]) that what people want is the greatest chance of the longest, best quality life for themselves, and justice requires treating these claims equally. Harris thus proposed both sufficientarian and egalitarian approaches. This chapter compares these approaches with utilitarian and contractualist approaches and provides a methodology for deciding among these (Collective Reflective Equilibrium). This methodology is applied to the allocation of ventilators in the pandemic (as an example) and an ethical algorithm for their deployment created. This paper describes the concept of algorithmic bioethics as a way of addressing pluralism of values and context specificity of moral judgment and policy, and addressing complex ethics.

Political Partisanship, Confucian Collectivism, and Public Attitudes toward the Vaccination Policy in Taiwan

CONTEXT

Conventional wisdom suggests that people with a collectivist tradition tend to comply more with the government's regulatory and even coercive disease-prevention policies. In addition to this sociocultural element, political partisanship is also an important aspect relating to people's willingness to cooperate with the government. This study aims to examine the relationships between these two factors and three dimensions of vaccination policy attitudes: common responsibility to take the vaccine, the government's vaccine mandate, and indignation over anti-vaxxers.

METHODS

Using data from a nationally representative cross-sectional survey conducted in 2022 in Taiwan, this study applies multiple linear ordinary least squares regression to examine the relationships between vaccination policy attitudes and Confucian collectivism and political partisanship.

FINDINGS

Confucian collectivism and political partisanship aligning with the ruling party are associated with attitudes supporting vaccination policy. For those who do not align with the ruling party, negative attitudes toward the vaccination policy appear in different dimensions according to the party they lean toward.

CONCLUSIONS

Confucian collectivism is prevalent in Taiwan and is related to public attitudes toward vaccination policy. This association is independent of political partisanship. Public health authorities should consider the sociocultural context and political atmosphere for the effectiveness of disease-prevention measures.

Cost-based COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to pay: A post-pandemic review

The primary objective of this paper is to serve as a valuable resource for policymakers who are confronted with the evolving landscape of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), considering both free and cost-based vaccination approaches. The potential consequences of shifting from free to cost-based vaccination are explored, encompassing its impact on global vaccine equity and prioritization, economic well-being, healthcare systems and delivery, public health policies, and vaccine distribution strategies. Examining past studies on willingness to pay for the initial COVID-19 vaccine dose and booster shots provides insights into how individuals value COVID-19 vaccinations and underscores the significance of addressing issues related to affordability. If COVID-19 vaccinations incur expenses, using effective communication strategies that emphasize the importance of vaccination and personal health benefits can increase willingness to pay. Making COVID-19 vaccines accessible through public health programs or health insurance can help alleviate financial barriers and increase vaccination rates.

Assessing implementation outcomes for launching balanced energy protein supplementation: A formative study in rural Bangladesh

Balanced energy protein (BEP) supplementation is an efficacious intervention in pregnancy for improving birthweight and is recommended by World Health Organization (WHO) in countries with high maternal undernutrition. Few countries have implemented BEP programmes due in part to high cost, lack of data on acceptability and feasibility, and complexity of delivery. We sought to address implementation gaps in BEP interventions through a formative study designed to understand implementation outcomes. We conducted 52 in-depth interviews and 8 focus-group discussions with married women of reproductive age, family members, health care providers and pharmacists in three unions of the Gaibandha district in rural Bangladesh. Interviews were translated and transcribed in English and analysed using an analytic framework for implementation science in nutrition. BEP was viewed as an acceptable and appropriate intervention to combat undernutrition in this setting. There was a lack of clarity on who should or could be responsible for providing/distributing BEP in a way convenient to mothers. Many participants preferred door-to-door delivery and thought this approach could address social and gender inequities, but providers mentioned already being overworked and worried about adding new tasks. Participants were concerned about the affordability of BEP and opportunity costs associated with travel to proposed distribution sites such as ANC or pharmacies. Women in these communities do not always have the agency to travel without supervision or make purchasing decisions. BEP supplementation is a complex intervention; future trials seek to assess ways to overcome these implementation challenges and inform a long-term systems-owned BEP intervention.

The ethics of natural immunity exemptions to vaccine mandates: the Supreme Court petition

The Supreme Court of the United States has recently been petitioned to revisit legal issues pertaining to the lawfulness of imposing a vaccine mandate on individuals with proof of natural immunity during the COVID-19 pandemic. While the petition accepts that the protection of public health during COVID-19 was an important governmental interest, the petitioners maintain that the imposition of a vaccine mandate on individuals with natural immunity was not 'substantially related' to accomplishing that purpose. In this short report, we outline how some of the petition's general arguments interact with points we raised in a 2022 article in this journal defending natural immunity exemptions, in light of new evidence. In particular, we reflect on new evidence pertaining to differences between vaccine-induced immunity, natural immunity, and so-called 'hybrid' immunity. We suggest that the nuanced nature of this evidence highlights the importance of making fine-grained judgements about proportionality and necessity when considering vaccine mandates. We conclude by claiming that if future pandemics necessitate the imposition of vaccine mandates, then those seeking to justify them should clearly articulate the relevance (and the evidence) for the comparative protection of vaccine-induced, natural, and hybrid immunity.

Do COVID-19 Vaccination Policies Backfire? The Effects of Mandates, Vaccination Passports, and Financial Incentives on COVID-19 Vaccination

Faced with the challenges of motivating people to vaccinate, many countries have introduced policy-level interventions to encourage vaccination against COVID-19. For example, mandates were widely imposed requiring individuals to vaccinate to work and attend school, and vaccination passports required individuals to show proof of vaccination to travel and access public spaces and events. Furthermore, some countries also began offering financial incentives for getting vaccinated. One major criticism of these policies was the possibility that they would produce reactance and thus undermine voluntary vaccination. This article therefore reviews relevant empirical evidence to examine whether this is indeed the case. Specifically, we devote separate sections to reviewing and discussing the impacts of three major policies that were implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic: vaccination mandates, vaccination passports, and the provision of financial incentives. A careful analysis of the evidence provides little support that these policies backfire but instead can effectively promote vaccination at the population level. The policies are not without limitations, however, such as their inability to mobilize those that are strongly hesitant to vaccines. Finally, we discuss how policy-level interventions should be designed and implemented to address future epidemics and pandemics.

Implementing a School-Entry Mandate for the Human Papillomavirus Vaccine: Benefits and Challenges

Human papillomavirus (HPV), a common sexually transmitted infection, has prompted the development of vaccines to mitigate associated cancer risks, particularly cervical cancer. Regions that have achieved a high rate of vaccination coverage are witnessing a transformative impact on public health, with a notable reduction of up to 30% in the incidence of cervical cancer cases. Emphasizing the broader impact of vaccination on public health, this review investigates the role of a school-entry mandate for the HPV vaccine, aiming to inform decisions about its potential benefits and challenges. With a focus on understanding the significance of vaccination, the review delves into its potential to reduce the physical, emotional, and financial burdens associated with HPV-associated cancers. Implementing school-entry mandates for the HPV vaccine offers benefits such as increased vaccination rates, protection against HPV-related diseases, and long-term health advantages. However, challenges include ethical concerns, parental opposition, and logistical issues. Successful implementation requires clear communication, collaboration, and education, with legal and ethical considerations addressing constitutional rights, liability concerns, autonomy, and equitable access. In summary, the implementation of school-entry mandates for the HPV vaccine offers the potential for increased vaccination rates and the reduction of health disparities. However, this approach is challenged by factors such as opposition, associated costs, and legal and ethical considerations. The decision to mandate the HPV vaccine requires a delicate balance between public health priorities and individual rights, necessitating clear communication, education, and collaborative efforts to address the complexities involved.

Collective good and individual choice: Perceptions on COVID-19 vaccine mandate among COVID-19 vaccinated individuals

INTRODUCTION

Vaccine mandates are controversial, and people vary widely in their preferences to support or reject vaccine mandates. For some, vaccine mandates represent a commitment to reduce harm and support public health. For others, vaccine mandates are viewed as a threat to individual freedom and a violation of personal choice. This manuscript investigated support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate among COVID-19-vaccinated individuals and identified differences by demographic characteristics and COVID-19 experience.

METHODS

Cross-sectional surveys were given to COVID-19-vaccinated individuals at a vaccination clinic in South Texas in the U.S. with the goal of identifying attitudes, beliefs, and perceptions about COVID-19 vaccination and willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Associations of interest were analyzed using descriptive statistics.

KEY RESULTS

Approximately half of the sample was of Hispanic or Latino origin (48 %); most respondents identified as White (59 %), followed by 12 % who identified as Asian. Overall, 59 % of participants supported the possibility for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Preliminary data showed significant racial differences in willingness to support a possible COVID-19 vaccine mandate (χ2 (1, n = 893) = 26.7, p < .001, phi = .17); 80 % of Asian people reported support for COVID-19 vaccination mandate compared to 50 % to 57 % for other racial groups. Significant differences also emerged by ethnicity (χ2 (4, n = 1033) = 7.12, p = .008, phi = .08) whereby a higher percentage of Latino participants (66 %) reported willingness to support a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Similarly, significant differences were found by age (χ2 (4, n = 1045) = 20.92, p < .001, phi = .21), yet no significant differences were found by sex or previous COVID-19 diagnosis.

CONCLUSION

Support for a COVID-19 vaccination mandate is controversial even among vaccinated people. Identifying and understanding cultural and contextual factors that underlie differences in attitudes and beliefs about COVID-19 vaccination mandates is essential to advance dialogue and inform educational health campaigns to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates.

Individual and social determinants of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and uptake in Northwest Syria

INTRODUCTION

The COVID-19 outbreak devastated the fragmented health system in Syria, a war-torn country, and exaggerated the demands for humanitarian assistance. COVID-19 vaccination was rolled out in Northwest Syria, an area out of government control, in May 2021. However, vaccine acceptance rates are still minimal, which is reflected in the meager percentage of vaccinated people. The study aims to investigate the effectiveness of the humanitarian actors' plans to address the COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and conclude practical strategies for boosting vaccine uptake in Northwest Syria.

METHODS AND MATERIALS

Two questionnaires were developed to collect data from humanitarian organizations involved in the COVID-19 vaccination campaign and people from northwest Syria. Data analysis was performed using SPSS 22 data analysis program.

RESULTS

According to the findings, 55.5% of people refused the COVID-19 vaccine. The results showed a knowledge gap and lack of evidence regarding humanitarian actors' strategies to address the vaccine's low uptake. Besides, it was found that doctors and medical workers were reliable sources of information about the vaccine. However, they were not systematically engaged in community mobilization and risk communication to promote people's perspectives on the vaccine.

CONCLUSION

Risk communication and community engagement programs were not significantly associated with increasing the COVID-19 acceptance rate. Humanitarian actors must reconsider their strategies to address vaccine hesitancy in Northwest Syria. These strategies should engage medical professionals through dialogue sessions on the realities of the pandemic and vaccine development mechanism based on a compelling and evidence-based approach.

Ethics of artificial intelligence in medicine

ABSTRACT

This article reviews the main ethical issues that arise from the use of artificial intelligence (AI) technologies in medicine. Issues around trust, responsibility, risks of discrimination, privacy, autonomy, and potential benefits and harms are assessed. For better or worse, AI is a promising technology that can revolutionise healthcare delivery. It is up to us to make AI a tool for the good by ensuring that ethical oversight accompanies the design, development and implementation of AI technology in clinical practice.

COVID-19 vaccine boosters for young adults: a risk benefit assessment and ethical analysis of mandate policies at universities

In 2022, students at North American universities with third-dose COVID-19 vaccine mandates risk disenrolment if unvaccinated. To assess the appropriateness of booster mandates in this age group, we combine empirical risk-benefit assessment and ethical analysis. To prevent one COVID-19 hospitalisation over a 6-month period, we estimate that 31 207-42 836 young adults aged 18-29 years must receive a third mRNA vaccine. Booster mandates in young adults are expected to cause a net harm: per COVID-19 hospitalisation prevented, we anticipate at least 18.5 serious adverse events from mRNA vaccines, including 1.5-4.6 booster-associated myopericarditis cases in males (typically requiring hospitalisation). We also anticipate 1430-4626 cases of grade ≥3 reactogenicity interfering with daily activities (although typically not requiring hospitalisation). University booster mandates are unethical because they: (1) are not based on an updated (Omicron era) stratified risk-benefit assessment for this age group; (2) may result in a net harm to healthy young adults; (3) are not proportionate: expected harms are not outweighed by public health benefits given modest and transient effectiveness of vaccines against transmission; (4) violate the reciprocity principle because serious vaccine-related harms are not reliably compensated due to gaps in vaccine injury schemes; and (5) may result in wider social harms. We consider counterarguments including efforts to increase safety on campus but find these are fraught with limitations and little scientific support. Finally, we discuss the policy relevance of our analysis for primary series COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

Effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccine mandates in raising vaccination rates among the elderly and general population in Europe: Controlled interrupted time series analysis

BACKGROUND

During the COVID-19 pandemic, three European countries (Austria, Greece, Italy) announced and/or implemented mandatory COVID-19 vaccination for high-risk groups in the general population. Besides the ethical justification for this policy, it is important to assess and quantify the effectiveness of the mandate in raising vaccination rates.

METHODS

Controlled interrupted time series analysis of first-dose vaccination rates in the targeted age groups (Greece: ≥60 years; Italy: ≥50 years) relative to a control group (Greece: 50-59 years; Italy: 25-49 years) between week 35/2021 and week 50/2022. For Austria an uncontrolled analysis was performed, as the vaccine mandate targeted all adults ≥18 years.

RESULTS

Announcement of mandatory vaccination substantially increased vaccination rates in the targeted age groups compared to control in both Greece (RR = 4.36, 95 % CI: 3.57-5.32) and Italy (RR = 2.90, 95 % CI: 2.37-3.56), an effect which persisted throughout the study period. There were 176,428 (95 % CI: 164,097-187,226) mandate-attributable first-dose vaccinations in Greece and 316,192 (95 % CI: 282,467-346,678) in Italy, most of which occurred before the mandate came into effect. In Austria no discernible increase in vaccination rates was observed after the announcement of mandatory vaccination. At the end of the study period, 9.5 % of ≥60 year-olds in Greece, 4.9 % of ≥50 year-olds in Italy and 13.8 % of ≥18 year-olds in Austria remained unvaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

In Greece and Italy - though not in Austria - simple announcement of a vaccine mandate rapidly increased COVID-19 vaccination rates in the targeted age groups, without fully closing the vaccination gap. Mandatory vaccination appears to effectively target complacency but not vaccine hesitancy, and its public health benefits need to be weighted against possible detrimental effects on confidence and trust.

Relations of behavioral inhibition and activation system sensitivities with vaccination outcomes: Investigating the mediating role of vaccine hesitancy in older adults

The study of behavioral inhibition system (BIS) and behavioral activation system (BAS) sensitivities has produced a multitude of models and frameworks to better understand decision-making and behavior. We extend this research to the study of a vaccination by exploring the relation of BIS and BAS sensitivities with vaccination willingness, receipt, and word-of-mouth. We also assess whether dimensions of vaccine hesitancy mediate these relations, testing whether they are viable explanatory mechanisms. By conducting a multi-wave survey study, our results support that BIS sensitivity does not meaningfully relate to vaccine hesitancy or vaccination outcomes. On the other hand, BAS sensitivity related to detrimental vaccination outcomes, and these effects were mediated by vaccine hesitancy dimensions associated with perceptions that vaccines cause health risks and are not needed for healthy individuals. Based on extant BIS and BAS theory, these results suggest that certain people may see refraining from vaccination as a nonpunishment.

Vaccine conspiracy association with higher COVID-19 vaccination side effects and negative attitude towards booster COVID-19, influenza and monkeypox vaccines: A pilot study in Saudi Universities

Conspiracies regarding vaccines are widely prevalent, with negative consequences on health-seeking behaviors. The current study aimed to investigate the possible association between the embrace of vaccine conspiracies and the attitude to booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and monkeypox (mpox) vaccinations as well as the perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The target population involved academic staff and university students in health colleges in the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia. A self-administered questionnaire was distributed in January 2023 to collect data on participants' demographics, self-reported side effects following each dose, willingness to get booster COVID-19, seasonal influenza, and mpox vaccinations, as well as an evaluation of vaccine conspiracies and attitude to mandatory vaccination. Among the 273 participants, the willingness to receive yearly booster COVID-19 vaccination was observed among 26.0% of the participants, while it was 46.9% and 34.1% for seasonal influenza and mpox vaccinations, respectively. Multinomial logistic regression analyses demonstrated a significant correlation between endorsing vaccine conspiracies and higher frequency of self-reported side effects following uptake of the second and third doses of COVID-19 vaccines. Vaccine conspiracies were also correlated with attitude toward booster COVID-19, influenza, mpox, and mandatory vaccination. The findings of this pilot study highlighted the potential adverse impact of the preexisting notions and negative attitudes toward vaccines, which could have contributed to heightened perceived side effects following COVID-19 vaccination. The study also highlighted the ongoing divisions concerning mandatory vaccination policies, emphasizing the need for cautious implementation of this strategy as a last resort for public health benefit.

Children, vaccines, and financial incentives

Recent studies have been analyzing and measuring the efficacy of the use of financial incentives to increase the Covid-19 vaccine uptake. To the best of our knowledge, this paper is the only study available in the literature that aims to measure the effect of financial incentives on vaccine rates among children. This paper explores the effects of a specific financial incentive on parents' vaccination decisions for their children. Using data from a regional practice, where students aged 12 and older received $50 gift cards per Covid-19 vaccination dose, we use various methodologies (synthetic control, linear regression, and difference-in-differences) to approximate the effects of financial incentives on vaccine rates. Our analysis reveals that gift cards increase vaccination rates by 2.64-4.23 percentage points from a baseline rate of 38 percent, concluding that financial incentives, in conjunction with other incentives and policies, can be considered to increase the rate of vaccines for 12- to 17-year-olds.

Vaccine Mandates and Cultural Safety

The issues and problems of mandatory vaccination policy and roll out in First Nations communities are unique and do not concern the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. These issues are also independent of more specific arguments of mandatory vaccination of healthcare workers as a condition of employment. As important as these issues are, they do not consider the complex politics of ongoing settler colonialism and First Nations community relations. In this paper, we also set aside the very real problems of disinformation, hesitancy, scientific and health illiteracy, and other concerns that drive vaccine hesitancy and refusal. These affect all communities, including First Nations communities. We, instead describe the dominant arguments in favour of mandatory vaccination and critique them in terms of the disputed legitimacy of Settler-Colonial decision-making as it impacts First Nations communities. We contend cultural responsiveness and safety-not state compulsion-must remain the first principles of any engagement-including vaccination-with First Nations Peoples, families, and communities.

Perspectives on research needs in healthcare epidemiology and antimicrobial stewardship: what's on the horizon - Part I

In this overview, we articulate research needs and opportunities in the field of infection prevention that have been identified from insights gained during operative infection prevention work, our own research in healthcare epidemiology, and from reviewing the literature. The 10 areas of research need are: 1) transmissions and interruptions, 2) personal protective equipment and other safety issues in occupational health, 3) climate change and other crises, 4) device, diagnostic, and antimicrobial stewardship, 5) implementation and de-implementation, 6) health care outside the acute care hospital, 7) low- and middle-income countries, 8) networking with the "neighbors", 9) novel research methodologies, and 10) the future state of surveillance. An introduction and chapters 1-5 are presented in part I of the article, and chapters 6-10 and the discussion in part II. There are many barriers to advancing the field, such as finding and motivating the future IP workforce including professionals interested in conducting research, a constant confrontation with challenges and crises, the difficulty of performing studies in a complex environment, the relative lack of adequate incentives and funding streams, and how to disseminate and validate the often very local quality improvement projects. Addressing research gaps now (i.e., in the postpandemic phase) will make healthcare systems more resilient when facing future crises.

Influences of COVID-19 vaccination policy on students' vaccine acceptance

Background

Higher education institutions (HEIs) developed and implemented a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy to facilitate vaccine acceptance and vaccination among universities' staff and students. However, little is known about influences of the mandatory vaccination policy on health science students at a university and they tend to result in vaccine hesitancy.

Aim

To explore the influences of the mandatory COVID-19 vaccine policy on health sciences students' vaccine acceptance at HEIs in South Africa.

Setting

The study was conducted in one of the universities in the Western Cape Province, South Africa.

Methods

An interpretive qualitative exploratory-descriptive research was conducted with 10 participants who were selected using the purposive sampling method to participate in semi-structured interviews. Data were audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

Results

Two themes and 12 sub-themes were identified during the data analysis, namely individual and group influencing factors, as well as contextual influencing factors.

Conclusion

This study revealed that the COVID-19 vaccination mandatory policy influenced the students' quality of life, academic performance and well-being. The findings from this study indicate that there were perceived barriers related to personal and contextual influencing factors than benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

Contribution

The understanding of and insight into the influences of the mandatory vaccination policy provided a basis for further strategies that may be developed to address COVID-19 vaccine infodemic, vaccine hesitancy and its risk effects. This can be done through collaboration with different stakeholders to educate health science students about the perceived benefits of COVID-19 vaccination.

How Scientists View Vaccine Hesitancy

This paper examines possible causes, consequences, and potential solutions for addressing vaccine hesitancy in the United States, focusing on the perspectives of academic scientists. By examining the experiences of scientists, who are arguably a critical community in US society, we gain deeper insights into how they understand the complexities of vaccine hesitancy and whether their insights and opinions converge with or diverge from the current literature. We present findings from a national survey of a representative sample of academic scientists from the fields of biology and public health regarding vaccine hesitancy and related topics. Empirical analysis using descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate analyses covers multiple topics, including vaccine controversy, trust in science, causes of vaccine hesitancy, preferred policy and regulatory approaches, risk perceptions, and scientists' ethics and perceived communication roles. The results highlight a diversity of opinions within the scientific community regarding how to improve science-society communication in regard to vaccines, including the need to be transparent and candid to the public about the risk of vaccines and their research.

Public Preferences for Introducing a COVID-19 Certificate: A Discrete Choice Experiment in the Netherlands

OBJECTIVE

Here we investigate public preferences for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) certificates in the Netherlands, and whether these preferences differ between subgroups in the population.

METHODS

A survey including a discrete choice experiment was administered to 1500 members of the adult population of the Netherlands. Each participant was asked to choose between hypothetical COVID-19 certificates that differed in seven attributes: the starting date, and whether the certificate allowed gathering with multiple people, shopping without appointment, visiting bars and restaurants, visiting cinemas and theatres, attending events, and practising indoor sports. Latent class models (LCMs) were used to determine the attribute relative importance and predicted acceptance rate of hypothetical certificates.

RESULTS

Three classes of preference patterns were identified in the LCM. One class a priori opposed a certificate (only two attributes influencing preferences), another class was relatively neutral and included all attributes in their decision making, and the final class was positive towards a certificate. Respondents aged > 65 years and those who plan to get vaccinated were more likely to belong to the latter two classes. Being allowed to shop without appointment and to visit bars and restaurants was most important to all respondents, increasing predicted acceptance rate by 12 percentage points.

CONCLUSIONS

Preferences for introduction of a COVID-19 certificate are mixed. A certificate that allows for shopping without appointment and visiting bars and restaurants is likely to increase acceptance. The support of younger citizens and those who plan to get vaccinated seems most sensitive to the specific freedoms granted by a COVID-19 certificate.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and attitudes in Pakistan: a cross-sectional phone survey of major urban cities

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 mass vaccination is the only hopeful savior to curb the pandemic. Vaccine distribution to achieve herd immunity is hindered by hesitance and negative attitude of the public against COVID-19 vaccination. This study aims to evaluate the vaccine hesitancy and attitudes in major cities in Pakistan as well as their determinants.

METHODS

A cross-sectional telephonic survey was conducted in June 2021 in major cities of Pakistan including Karachi, Lahore, Islamabad, Peshawar, and Gilgit, from unvaccinated urban population aged 18 years or older. Random Digit Dialing through multi-stage stratified random sampling was used to ensure representation of each target city and socio-economic classes. Questionnaire collected information on socio-demographics, COVID-19-related experiences, risk perception of infection, and receptivity of COVID-19 vaccination. Multivariate logistic regression analyses were performed to identify key determinants of vaccine hesitancy and acceptance.

RESULTS

The prevalence of vaccinated population in this survey was 15%. Of the 2270 respondents, 65% respondents were willing to vaccinate, while only 19% were registered for vaccination. Factors significantly associated with vaccine willingness were older age (aOR: 6.48, 95% CI: 1.94-21.58), tertiary education (aOR: 2.02, 95% CI: 1.36, 3.01), being employed (aOR: 1.34, 95% CI: 1.01, 1.78), perceived risk of COVID-19 (aOR: 4.38, 95% CI: 2.70, 7.12), and higher compliance with standard operating procedures (aOR: 1.72, 95% CI: 1.26, 2.35). The most common vaccine hesitancy reasons were 'no need' (n = 284, 36%) and concerns with 'vaccine safety and side effects' (n = 251, 31%), while most reported vaccine motivation reasons were 'health safety' (n = 1029, 70%) and 'to end the pandemic' (n = 357, 24%).

CONCLUSIONS

Although our study found 35% hesitancy rate of COVID-19 vaccine, there were noticeable demographic differences that suggest tailored communication strategy to address concerns held by most hesitant subpopulation. Use of mobile vaccination facilities particularly for less mobile and disadvantaged, and implementation and evaluation of social mobilization strategy should be considered to increase overall COVID-19 vaccination acceptance and coverage.

Previous Vaccination History and Psychological Factors as Significant Predictors of Willingness to Receive Mpox Vaccination and a Favorable Attitude towards Compulsory Vaccination

During the ongoing multi-country monkeypox (Mpox) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have represented a key group in mitigating disease spread. The current study aimed to evaluate the attitude of nurses and physicians in Jordan towards Mpox vaccination, as well as their attitude towards compulsory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), influenza, and Mpox. An online survey was distributed in January 2023 based on the previously validated 5C scale for psychological determinants of vaccination. Previous vaccination behavior was assessed by inquiring about the history of getting the primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination, influenza vaccine uptake during COVID-19, and any history of influenza vaccine uptake. The study sample consisted of 495 respondents: nurses (n = 302, 61.0%) and physicians (n = 193, 39.0%). Four hundred and thirty respondents (86.9%) had heard of Mpox before the study, and formed the final sample considered for Mpox knowledge analysis. Deficiencies in Mpox knowledge were reflected in a mean knowledge score of 13.3 ± 2.7 (out of 20.0 as the maximum score), with significantly lower knowledge among nurses and females. The intention to receive Mpox vaccination was reported by 28.9% of the participants (n = 143), while 33.3% were hesitant (n = 165), and 37.8% were resistant (n = 187). In multivariate analysis, Mpox vaccine acceptance was significantly associated with previous vaccination behavior, reflected in higher vaccine uptake and with higher 5C scores, while Mpox knowledge was not correlated with Mpox vaccination intention. The overall attitude towards compulsory vaccination was neutral, while a favorable attitude towards compulsory vaccination was associated with higher 5C scores and a history of previous vaccination uptake. The current study showed a low intention to get Mpox vaccination in a sample of nurses and physicians practicing in Jordan. The psychological factors and previous vaccination behavior appeared as the most significant determinants of Mpox vaccine acceptance and of attitudes towards compulsory vaccination. The consideration of these factors is central to policies and strategies aiming to promote vaccination among health professionals in efforts to prepare for future infectious disease epidemics.

Healthcare Workers' Attitudes towards Mandatory COVID-19 Vaccination: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 vaccine mandates are considered a controversial public health policy both in public debate and among healthcare workers (HCWs). Thus, the objective of this systematic review is to give a deep insight into HCWs' views and attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination mandates amid the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

METHODS

A systematic literature search of five databases (PubMed, Scopus, Embase, CINAHL, and Web of Science) was conducted between July 2022 and November 2022. Original quantitative studies that addressed the attitudes of HCWs regarding COVID-19 vaccine mandates were considered eligible for this systematic review. All the included studies (n = 57) were critically appraised and assessed for risk of systematic bias. Meta-analyses were performed, providing a pooled estimate of HCWs' acceptance towards COVID-19 vaccine mandates for: 1. HCWs and 2. the general population.

RESULTS

In total, 64% (95% CI: 55%, 72%) of HCWs favored COVID-19 vaccine mandates for HCWs, while 50% (95% CI: 38%, 61%) supported mandating COVID-19 vaccines for the general population.

CONCLUSIONS

Our findings indicate that mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 is a highly controversial issue among HCWs. The present study provides stakeholders and policy makers with useful evidence related to the compulsory or non-compulsory nature of COVID-19 vaccinations for HCWs and the general population. Other: The protocol used in this review is registered on PROSPERO with the ID number: CRD42022350275.

A Millian Case for Censoring Vaccine Misinformation

The spread of vaccine misinformation may contribute to vaccine refusal/hesitancy and consequent harms. Nonetheless, censorship is often rejected on the grounds of free expression. This article examines John Stuart Mill's influential defence of free expression but finds that his arguments for freedom apply only to normal, reasonably favourable circumstances. In other cases, it may be permissible to restrict freedom, including freedom of speech. Thus, while Mill would ordinarily defend the right to express false views, such as that vaccines cause autism, he might have accepted restrictions on anti-vaccine misinformation during the present pandemic. This illustrates that even the staunchest defenders of free speech can permit temporary restrictions in exceptional circumstances.

Vaccination or NPI? A conjoint analysis of German citizens' preferences in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic

This research uses discrete choice-based conjoint analysis that elicits the preference structure of German citizens when it comes to their timely intention to vaccinate. The focus is on the trade-offs between pharmaceuticals (vaccine) and "non-pharmaceutical interventions" (NPIs) such as lock-downs and social distancing measures, as well as the value of voluntary versus mandatory compliance to the citizens. Our results highlight three critical insights: (a) value of waiting: at 70% effective vaccine, 1/3 of citizens still would prefer to be vaccinated in the next 6 months rather than immediately; (b) costs of NPI constraints: an effective vaccine may come as a solution to compensate for the costs induced by invasive NPI imposed for an extended period; (c) freedom of choice: voluntary compliance is preferred by citizens over imposed measures whether it relates to vaccination choice, lock-down measures, or work location choice during the pandemic. Backing up those findings in monetary value, a quick shot of a 100% effective vaccination is estimated to be worth in the range of 11,400€. Still, the value of the shot quickly falls to no value when effectiveness drops below 50. At the same time, the cost of imposing protective rules lies in the range of 1500-2500€, depending on the rule analyzed. In comparison, the burden of extra complete lock-down and social distancing is about 775€ per citizen per month. As most current vaccines are being proven to have high efficacy, a strategy that selects the most effective vaccine candidates while emphasizing how the vaccine may stop the pain of lasting lock-downs will be appropriate to nudge the population towards vaccination. Control measures that are too restrictive may be welfare-deteriorating, but enough NPI measures must be recommended as long as vaccination adoption is not sufficiently large.

Financial incentives for vaccination do not have negative unintended consequences

Financial incentives to encourage healthy and prosocial behaviours often trigger initial behavioural change1-11, but a large academic literature warns against using them12-16. Critics warn that financial incentives can crowd out prosocial motivations and reduce perceived safety and trust, thereby reducing healthy behaviours when no payments are offered and eroding morals more generally17-24. Here we report findings from a large-scale, pre-registered study in Sweden that causally measures the unintended consequences of offering financial incentives for taking the first dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. We use a unique combination of random exposure to financial incentives, population-wide administrative vaccination records and rich survey data. We find no negative consequences of financial incentives; we can reject even small negative impacts of offering financial incentives on future vaccination uptake, morals, trust and perceived safety. In a complementary study, we find that informing US residents about the existence of state incentive programmes also has no negative consequences. Our findings inform not only the academic debate on financial incentives for behaviour change but also policy-makers who consider using financial incentives to change behaviour.

How Mandatory Can We Make Vaccination?

The novel coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic has refocused attention on the issue of mandatory vaccination. Some have suggested that vaccines ought to be mandatory, while others propose more moderate alternatives, such as incentives. This piece surveys a range of possible interventions, ranging from mandates through to education. All may have their place, depending on circumstances. However, it is worth clarifying the options available to policymakers, since there is sometimes confusion over whether a particular policy constitutes a mandate or not. Further, I illustrate a different kind of alternative to mandatory vaccination. Rather than seeking less coercive alternatives to a mandate, we might instead employ an alternative mandate, which requires people to do something less than get vaccinated. For instance, we might merely require people to attend an appointment at a vaccine clinic. Whether this mandatory attendance policy is justified will depend on specific circumstances, but it represents another way to promote vaccination, without mandating it. In some cases, this may represent an appropriate balance between promoting public health goals and respecting individual liberty.

Psychological Antecedents of Healthcare Workers towards Monkeypox Vaccination in Nigeria

The ongoing monkeypox (MPX) outbreak has been declared a public health emergency of international concern. People in close contact with active MPX cases, including healthcare workers (HCWs), are at higher risk of virus acquisition since the MPX virus can be transmitted by skin contact or respiratory secretions. In this study, we aimed to assess the psychological antecedents of MPX vaccination among Nigerian HCWs using the 5C scale. We used an anonymous online cross-sectional survey to recruit potential participants using snowball sampling. The questionnaire aimed to assess the geo/socioeconomic features and the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccine acceptance (confidence, complacency, constraints, calculation, and collective responsibility). A total of 389 responses were included, with a median age of 37 years (IQR: 28−48), 55.5% males, and 60.7% married participants. Among the studied Nigerian HCWs, only 31.1% showed confidence in MPX vaccination, 58.4% expressed complacency towards vaccination, 63.8% perceived constraints towards MPX vaccination, 27.2% calculated the benefits and risks of vaccination, and 39.2% agreed to receive MPX vaccination to protect others. The determinants of MPX vaccine confidence were being single (OR = 5.07, 95% CI: 1.26−20.34, p = 0.022), a higher education level (with pre-college/high school as a reference, professional/technical: OR = 4.12, 95% CI: 1.57−10.73, p = 0.004, undergraduate: OR = 2.94, 95% CI: 1.32−6.55, p = 0.008, and postgraduate degree (OR = 3.48, 95% CI: 1.51−8.04, p = 0.003), and absence of chronic disease (OR = 2.57, 95% CI: 1.27−5.22, p = 0.009). The significant complacency predictors were having a middle-income (OR = 0.53, 95% CI: 0.33−0.89, p = 0.008), having a bachelor’s degree (OR = 2.37, 95% CI: 1.10−5.11, p = 0.027), and knowledge of someone who died due to MPX (OR = 0.20, 95% CI: 0.05−0.93, p = 0.040). Income was associated with perceived vaccination constraints (OR = 0.62, 95% CI: 0.39−0.99, p = 0.046). Participants aged 46−60 years had decreased odds in the calculation domain (OR = 0.52, 95% CI: 0.27−0.98, p = 0.044). Middle-income and bachelor degree/postgraduate education significantly influenced the collective responsibility domain (OR = 2.10, 95% CI: 1.19−3.69, p = 0.010; OR = 4.17, 95% CI: 1.85−9.38, p < 0.001; and OR = 3.45, 95% CI: 1.50−7.90, p = 0.003, respectively). An investigation of the 5C pattern-based psychological antecedents of MPX vaccination in a sample of Nigerian HCWs revealed low levels of vaccine confidence and collective responsibility with high levels of constraints and complacency. These psychological factors are recommended to be considered in any efforts aiming to promote MPX vaccination needed in a country where MPX is endemic.

Healthcare professional and professional stakeholders' perspectives on vaccine mandates in Switzerland: A mixed-methods study

BACKGROUND

There currently are no mandatory vaccines in Switzerland. However, Swiss federal legislation allows for vaccination mandates in settings where the risk of transmission to vulnerable groups is high, such as healthcare professionals (HCPs) working with vulnerable patients. Since HCPs are trusted information sources, a priority population for COVID-19 vaccination, and potentially subjected to mandates, we investigated HCP perspectives on mandates.

METHODS

A national online survey was administered to HCPs (October 2020-March 2021), including vaccine mandates questions concerning patients (measles) and HCPs (influenza). We qualitatively investigated HCP mandate perspectives through: (1) 34 interviews with HCPs, HCP professional society representatives, and health authorities; (2) a focus group discussion (FGD) with complementary medicine (CM) and biomedical physicians, and Swiss Federal Vaccination Commission members.

RESULTS

1933 participants (496 physicians, 226 pharmacists, 607 nurses, 604 midwives) responded to the survey. Quantitative results show all professional groups preferred shared parent-HCP measles vaccine decisions (65%, 54%, 50%, 48%, respectively; p for trend < 0.001). Midwives (87%) and nurses (70%) preferred individual influenza vaccination decisions for HCPs, while physicians (49%) and pharmacists (44%) preferred shared employee-employer decisions (p for trend < 0.001). Physicians (p < .001) and pharmacists (p < .01) with CM training favored individual influenza vaccination decisions. Qualitative results show general HCP opposition to vaccine mandates, mainly because participants argued how other approaches, such as HCP training and better information, could encourage uptake. Arguments against COVID-19 mandates included insufficiently documented long-term safety/efficacy data. From participants' perspectives, mandated vaccination should be used as a last resort. Some participants expressed fear that with mandates, notably for influenza and COVID-19, some HCPs might leave their jobs. HCPs were unsure what vaccine mandates would concretely look like in practice, particularly regarding sanctions for non-compliance and enforcement.

CONCLUSION

In Switzerland, HCPs generally were opposed to vaccination mandates. Clarity and guidance are needed from health authorities to better inform discussions around vaccine mandates.

A "step too far" or "perfect sense"? A qualitative study of British adults' views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports

BACKGROUND

Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive.

METHODS

Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically.

FINDINGS

Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness.

DISCUSSION

To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.

Attitude toward a mandatory COVID-19 vaccination policy and its determinants: Evidence from serial cross-sectional surveys conducted throughout the pandemic in Germany

BACKGROUND

Mandating vaccination against COVID-19 is often discussed as a means to counter low vaccine uptake. Beyond the potential legal, ethical, and psychological concerns, a successful implementation also needs to consider citizens' support for such a policy. Public attitudes toward vaccination mandates and their determinants might differ over time and, hence, should be monitored.

METHODS

Between April 2020 and April 2021, we investigated public support for mandatory vaccination policies in Germany and examined individual correlates, such as vaccination intentions, confidence in vaccine safety, and perceived collective responsibility, using a series of cross-sectional, quota-representative surveys (overall N = 27,509).

RESULTS

Support for a vaccination mandate declined before the approval of the first vaccine against COVID-19 in December 2020 and increased afterwards. However, at the end of April 2021, only half of respondents were in favor of mandatory regulations. In general, mandates were endorsed by those who considered the vaccines to be safe, anticipated practical barriers, and felt responsible for the collective. On the contrary, perceiving vaccination as unnecessary and weighing the benefits and risks of vaccination was related to lower support. Older individuals and males more often endorsed vaccination mandates than did younger participants and females. Interestingly, there was a gap between vaccination intentions and support for mandates, showing that the attitude toward mandatory vaccination was not only determined by vaccination-related factors such as vaccine safety or prosocial considerations.

CONCLUSIONS

Because of low public support, mandatory vaccination against COVID-19 should be considered a measure of last resort in Germany. However, if removing barriers to vaccination and educational campaigns about vaccine safety and the societal benefits of high vaccination uptake are not sufficient for increasing vaccination uptake to the required levels, mandates could be introduced. In this case, measures to ensure and increase acceptance and adherence should be taken.

COVID-19 Vaccines and the Virtues

From a moral point of view, what arguments are there for and against seeking COVID-19 vaccination? Can it be morally permissible to require (parts of) a population to receive a vaccine? The present paper adopts a perspective of virtue ethics and argues both that it is morally right for an individual virtuous moral agent to seek COVID-19 vaccination and for a virtuous ruler to impose mandatory vaccinations on her population. We begin by first presenting virtue ethics and the current vaccine controversy. Second, we examine whether a virtuous individual should get vaccinated. Third, we consider whether, from a moral point of view, it is right for a ruler to impose mandatory vaccinations on her citizens. Fourth, we answer some objections to our argument. Finally, we conclude that virtue ethical considerations warrant both the individual choice of getting vaccinated and mandatory vaccinations against COVID-19.

No-vaxxers are different in public good games

In September 2021 we conducted a survey to 1482 people in Italy, when the vaccination campaign against Covid19 was going on. In the first part of the survey we run three simple tests on players' behavior in standard tasks with monetary incentives to measure their risk attitudes, willingness to contribute to a public good in an experimental game, and their beliefs about others' behavior. In the second part, we asked respondents if they were vaccinated and, if not, for what reason. We classified as no-vaxxers those (around [Formula: see text] of the sample) who did not yet start the vaccination process and declared that they intended not to do it in the future. We find that no-vaxxers contribute less to the public good in the experimental game because they trust others less to do so. from the three tests we extrapolated a classification based on the benchmark of rationality and other-regarding preferences for each respondent, and we found that in this respect no-vaxxers do not differ from the rest of the population.

Vaccine Hesitancy: Contemporary Issues and Historical Background

Vaccination, despite being recognized as one of the most effective primary public health measures, is viewed as unsafe and unnecessary by an increasing number of individuals. Anxiety about vaccines and vaccination programs leading to vaccine hesitancy results from a complex mix of social and political influences, cultural and religious beliefs, the availability of and ability to interpret health and scientific information, and personal and population experiences of health systems and government policies. Vaccine hesitancy is becoming a serious threat to vaccination programs, and was identified as one of the World Health Organization’s top ten global health threats in 2019. The negative impact of anti-vaccination movements is frequently cited as one of the major reasons for rising vaccine hesitancy amongst the general public world-wide. This review discusses the various issues surrounding vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaccine movement, starting with the definitions of vaccine hesitancy and the anti-vaccine movement in their early history and in the modern era, before discussing the key drivers of vaccine hesitancy, particularly across different regions of the world, with a focus on various countries with low-, middle-, or high-income economies with different socio-economic populations. The review concludes with the impact of vaccine hesitancy on herd immunity and social, psychological, and public health measures to counter vaccine hesitancy.

High Frequency of COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy among Canadians Immunized for Influenza: A Cross-Sectional Survey

We assessed the frequency and correlates of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy before Canada's vaccine rollout. A cross-sectional vaccine hesitancy survey was completed by consecutive patients/family members/staff who received the influenza vaccine at McGill University affiliated hospitals. Based on the self-reported likelihood of receiving a future vaccine (scale 0-10), the following three groups were defined: non-hesitant (score 10), mildly hesitant (7.1-9.9), and significantly hesitant (0-7). Factors associated with vaccine hesitancy were assessed with multivariate logistic regression analyses and binomial logistic regression machine learning modelling. The survey was completed by 1793 people. Thirty-seven percent of participants (n = 669) were hesitant (mildly: 315 (17.6%); significantly: 354 (19.7%)). Lower education levels, opposition and uncertainty about vaccines being mandatory, feelings of not receiving enough information about COVID-19 prevention, perceived social pressure to get a future vaccine, vaccine safety concerns, uncertainty regarding the vaccine risk-benefit ratio, and distrust towards pharmaceutical companies were factors associated with vaccine hesitancy. Vaccine safety concerns and opposition to mandatory vaccinations were the strongest correlates of vaccine hesitancy in both the logistic regressions and the machine learning model. In conclusion, in this study, over a third of people immunized for influenza before the COVID-19 vaccine rollout expressed some degree of vaccine hesitancy. Effectively addressing COVID-19 vaccine safety concerns may enhance vaccine uptake.

An Overview of Strategies to Improve Vaccination Compliance before and during the COVID-19 Pandemic

The debate on vaccination mandate was fuelled over the past two years by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study aimed at overviewing vaccination strategies and corresponding vaccine coverages for childhood vaccinations before the pandemic and for SARS-CoV-2 in high-income countries. A qualitative comparison was also performed between the two contexts: unlike for childhood vaccinations, only one European country (Austria) imposed generalised COVID-19 mandates, most countries preferring targeted mandates for higher-risk categories (Italy, Greece) or workers in key public services (Finland, Australia, New Zealand, UK, Germany). Many countries (Norway, Sweden, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain) confirmed their traditional voluntary vaccination approach also for COVID-19, while others (Slovenia and Hungary), historically relying on compulsory vaccination strategies, surprisingly opted for voluntary SARS-CoV-2 vaccination, with unsatisfactory results in terms of immunisation rates. However, no tangible relationship was generally found between vaccination policies and immunisation coverages: data show that, unlike some countries with mandates, countries where vaccinations are merely recommended could achieve higher coverages, even beyond the recommended 95% threshold. The COVID-19 experience has enriched pre-existent vaccination strategy debates by adding interesting elements concerning attitudes towards vaccines in a novel and unexplored context. Interpreting the available results by considering the different cultural contexts and vaccine hesitancy determinants can help to better understand the complexity of the relationship between policies and achieved coverages.

Solidarity and Public Health

We argue that an unqualified use of the term solidarity in public health is not only equivocal but problematic toward the ends of public health. The term may be deployed normatively by public health advocates to strengthen the bonds among public health practitioners and refer to an ideal society in which the importance of interdependence among members ought to be acknowledged throughout the polity. We propose an important distinction between partisan solidarity and societal solidarity. Because any moralized belief in a vision of a broad societal solidarity will be a contested political ideal, political reality would limit solidarity based on such a vision to partisan solidarity. An idealized vision of societal solidarity is simply not politically feasible in pluralistic, liberal, democratic societies. However, although societal solidarity is unlikely with respect to any particular policy, it might be hoped for with respect to constitutional procedures that provide boundaries for the agon of the political process. We suggest that moralizing assertions of a solidaristic ideal in a pluralistic society might be counterproductive to generating the political support necessary for public health per se and establishing legitimate public health policy. A pragmatic political approach would be for public health advocates to generate sufficient strong political support for those public health policies that are most amenable to the political and social realities of a time and place.

COVID-19 differentiated measures for unvaccinated individuals: The need for clear goals and strong justifications

Numerous countries and jurisdictions have implemented differential COVID-19 public health restrictions based on individual vaccination status to mitigate the public health risks posed by unvaccinated individuals. Although it is scientifically and ethically justifiable to introduce such vaccination-based differentiated measures as a risk-based approach to resume high-risk activities in an ongoing pandemic, their justification is weakened by lack of clarity on their intended goals and the specific risks or potential harms they intend to mitigate. Furthermore, the criteria for the removal of differentiated measures may not be clear, which raises the possibility of shifting goalposts without clear justification and with potential for unfairly discriminatory consequences. This paper seeks to clarify the ethical justification of COVID-19 vaccination-based differentiated measures based on a public health risk-based approach, with focus on their deployment in domestic settings. We argue that such measures should be consistent with the principal goal of COVID-19 vaccination programmes, which is to reduce the incidence of severely ill patients and associated healthcare burdens so as to protect a health system. We provide some considerations for the removal of vaccination-based differentiated measures based on this goal.

Global media framing, COVID-19 and the issue of vaccination: An empirical inquisition

Background: This study examined global media framing on issues of vaccination for COVID-19. The framing and media dependency theories were used to understand the potential influence of global media outlets as suppliers of health messages during pandemics.

Methods: Content analysis was used to generate qualitative and quantitative data to answer the research questions. The qualitative data provided rich descriptive data about the themes and types of news frames on issues of vaccination for COVID-19, while the quantitative data provided statistical details about the frequency, viewership level and types of news frames on issues of vaccination for COVID-19.

Results: The findings of this study showed that conflict and responsibility frames were the predominant frames used to report issues of vaccination for COVID-19. Also, the findings of this study indicated that vaccine safety was the overriding media theme on vaccination issue for COVID-19.

Conclusion: The global media serve as suppliers of health communication in developed and developing countries. This study recommended that the global media can spearhead an information campaign to correct misconceptions, misrepresentations and misinformation on issues of vaccination for COVID-19.

Public Preferences for Policies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands

OBJECTIVES

The COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens' preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination.

METHODS

We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase.

RESULTS

Respondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported.

Exploring the ethics of genetic prioritisation for COVID-19 vaccines

There is evidence to suggest that host genomic factors may account for disease response variability in COVID-19 infection. In this paper, we consider if and how host genomics should influence decisions about vaccine allocation. Three potential host genetic factors are explored: vulnerability to infection, resistance to infection, and increased infectivity. We argue for the prioritisation of the genetically vulnerable in vaccination schemes, and evaluate the potential for ethical de-prioritisation of individuals with genetic markers for resistance. Lastly, we discuss ethical prioritisation of individuals with genetic markers for increased infectivity (those more likely to spread COVID-19).

Reckless spreader or blameless victim? How vaccination status affects responses to COVID-19 patients

Background

Vaccination against Covid-19 has become an increasingly polarizing issue in western democracies. While much research has focused on social-psychological determinants of vaccine hesitancy, less is known about the attitudes and behaviors of the vaccinated populations towards those who are unvaccinated. Building on Weiner's attribution theory (2005, 1985, 1980), we predict that vaccination status determines the attribution of personal responsibility and blame in Covid-19 social dilemmas. This in turn explains people's affective and behavioral responses towards those who have fallen ill or infected others with COVID-19.

Approach

Through two preregistered experiments (total N = 1200) we show that people attribute greater personal responsibility when unvaccinated (vs. vaccinated) people fall ill from, or infect others with COVID-19. This attribution of responsibility manifested in less sympathy towards unvaccinated COVID-19 patients, which was associated with a lower willingness to help patients and their families (Study 1). Likewise, higher perceived responsibility results in greater anger towards unvaccinated people who had (involuntarily) infected others with the virus, which was associated with a greater desire for punitive actions (Study 2).

Conclusion

These findings suggest that unvaccinated people experience blame as well as negative attitudes and behaviors from the vaccinated population. This could in turn strengthen people's refusal to get vaccinated and increase polarization between vaccine supporters and vaccine critics.

What money can't buy: an argument against paying people to get vaccinated

This paper considers the proposal to pay people to get vaccinated against the SARS-CoV-2 virus. The first section introduces arguments against the proposal, including less intrusive alternatives, unequal effects on populations and economic conditions that render payment more difficult to refuse. The second section considers arguments favouring payment, including arguments appealing to health equity, consistency, being worth the cost, respect for autonomy, good citizenship, the ends justifying the means and the threat of mutant strains. The third section spotlights long-term and short-term best practices that can build trust and reduce 'vaccine hesitancy' better than payment. The paper concludes that people who, for a variety of reasons, are reluctant to vaccinate should be treated like adults, not children. Despite the urgency of getting shots into arms, we should set our sights on the long-term goals of strong relationships and healthy communities.

The unnaturalistic fallacy: COVID-19 vaccine mandates should not discriminate against natural immunity

COVID-19 vaccine requirements have generated significant debate. Here, we argue that, on the evidence available, such policies should have recognised proof of natural immunity as a sufficient basis for exemption to vaccination requirements. We begin by distinguishing our argument from two implausible claims about natural immunity: (1) natural immunity is superior to 'artificial' vaccine-induced immunity simply because it is 'natural' and (2) it is better to acquire immunity through natural infection than via vaccination. We then briefly survey the evidence base for the comparison between naturally acquired immunity and vaccine-induced immunity. While we clearly cannot settle the scientific debates on this point, we suggest that we lack clear and convincing scientific evidence that vaccine-induced immunity has a significantly higher protective effect than natural immunity. Since vaccine requirements represent a substantial infringement of individual liberty, as well as imposing other significant costs, they can only be justified if they are necessary for achieving a proportionate public health benefit. Without compelling evidence for the superiority of vaccine-induced immunity, it cannot be deemed necessary to require vaccination for those with natural immunity. Subjecting them to vaccine mandates is therefore not justified. We conclude by defending the standard of proof that this argument from necessity invokes, and address other pragmatic and practical considerations that may speak against natural immunity exemptions.