RESUMEN
Background: Namibia has not been spared from the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic, and as intervention the Namibian government has rolled out vaccination programmes. This study was conducted before the roll out of these vaccines to assess the preference for COVID-19 vaccinations. Stated preference studies provide information about social demand, access, willingness-to-pay and financing for future COVID-19 vaccination. Methods: A stated choice experiment (SCE) survey was administered to a sample of 506 participants from Namibia's general population between October 2020 and December 2020. Participants were asked to make a series of hypothetical choices and estimate their preference for different attributes of a vaccine. A latent class model was used to analyse the SCE data. The study also assessed anti-vaccination behaviour, past vaccination behaviour, impacts of COVID-19 on mental and physical health and Willingness-To-Pay (WTP) measures. The WTP measures were captured as out-of-pocket and further calculated using the marginal rate of substitution method in SCE. Results: Data from 269 participants was included in the analysis. Vaccine side effects (40.065), population coverage (4.688), payment fee to receive vaccine immediately (3.733) were the top three influential attributes for vaccine preferences. Accordingly, increases in mild and severe side effects of vaccine options had negative impacts on utility; with an average WTP of N$728.26 to reduce serious side effects. The average WTP to receive a high-quality vaccine with 90% efficient was found to be N$233.11 (US$15.14). Across classes, there was a strong preference for vaccines with high effectiveness over longer durations of time. Conclusions: The results provide useful information for the Namibian government to improve the current strategies for vaccine rollout interventions.
RESUMEN
This study was undertaken to: (i) comprehend the observers' perceptions of COVID-19 and identify its impacts on the observation of harvesting, handling, and processing of marine resources, and biological data collection during commercial fishing, (ii) assess the risk of contracting COVID-19 onboard the fishing vessels, (iii) compare fishery catches for the pre-COVID-19 (2018 and 2019) and COVID-19 (2020 and 2021) years, and (iv) suggest possible ways to mitigate the impacts of COVID-19 on the activities of at sea-observations and data collection. Thus, 45 Namibian fisheries observers were interviewed by telephone to capture their perceptions of COVID-19 on the sea-observations and biological data collection. Messrooms were the riskiest places (45.7%) onboard the fishing vessel where observers perceived likely to contract COVID-19. For at-sea observations, 57.1% of the respondents felt that COVID-19 has negatively impacted observations as fisheries observers were risk-averse, especially in the processing factories. Half of the participants purported a negative impact on the collection of biological data, as on some vessels fisheries observers were not permitted to sample the fish supposedly for fear of cross-contamination. Analysis of fisheries observation data and fisheries catch data showed a significant difference in the total number of fishing trips made between 2018 and 2021 (X 2 = 145 . 34 , df = 3, p < 0.05), with a notable reduction in 2020 fishing trips. Similarly, the number of observed fishing trips between 2018 and 2021 differed significantly (X 2 = 136 . 80 , df = 3, p < 0.05). Fishing catches were lowest in 2020, possibly reflecting severe impacts of COVID-19 in that year. Understanding the impact of COVID-19 on at-sea observation and data collection can inform decision makers to improve management of marine resources during COVID-19 pandemic. Findings from this study can also serve as a lesson for nations that use observer data for stock assessment.
RESUMEN
Despite unprecedented progress in developing COVID-19 vaccines, global vaccination levels needed to reach herd immunity remain a distant target, while new variants keep emerging. Obtaining near universal vaccine uptake relies on understanding and addressing vaccine resistance. Simple questions about vaccine acceptance however ignore that the vaccines being offered vary across countries and even population subgroups, and differ in terms of efficacy and side effects. By using advanced discrete choice models estimated on stated choice data collected in 18 countries/territories across six continents, we show a substantial influence of vaccine characteristics. Uptake increases if more efficacious vaccines (95% vs 60%) are offered (mean across study areas = 3.9%, range of 0.6%-8.1%) or if vaccines offer at least 12 months of protection (mean across study areas = 2.4%, range of 0.2%-5.8%), while an increase in severe side effects (from 0.001% to 0.01%) leads to reduced uptake (mean = -1.3%, range of -0.2% to -3.9%). Additionally, a large share of individuals (mean = 55.2%, range of 28%-75.8%) would delay vaccination by 3 months to obtain a more efficacious (95% vs 60%) vaccine, where this increases further if the low efficacy vaccine has a higher risk (0.01% instead of 0.001%) of severe side effects (mean = 65.9%, range of 41.4%-86.5%). Our work highlights that careful consideration of which vaccines to offer can be beneficial. In support of this, we provide an interactive tool to predict uptake in a country as a function of the vaccines being deployed, and also depending on the levels of infectiousness and severity of circulating variants of COVID-19.