Understanding hesitancy with revealed preferences across COVID-19 vaccine types.

Many countries have secured larger quantities of COVID-19 vaccines than their population is willing to take. The abundance and the large variety of vaccines created not only an unprecedented intensity of vaccine related public discourse, but also a historical moment to understand vaccine hesitancy better. Yet, the heterogeneity of hesitancy by vaccine types has been neglected in the existing literature so far. We address this problem by analysing the acceptance and the assessment of five vaccine types. We use information collected with a nationally representative survey at the end of the third wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in Hungary. During the vaccination campaign, individuals could reject the assigned vaccine to wait for a more preferred alternative that enables us to quantify revealed preferences across vaccine types. We find that hesitancy is heterogenous by vaccine types and is driven by individuals' trusted source of information. Believers of conspiracy theories are more likely to evaluate the mRNA vaccines (Pfizer and Moderna) unacceptable. Those who follow the advice of politicians are more likely to evaluate vector-based (AstraZeneca and Sputnik) or whole-virus vaccines (Sinopharm) acceptable. We argue that the greater selection of available vaccine types and the free choice of the individual are desirable conditions to increase the vaccination rate in societies.

Allocating vaccines to remote and on-site workers in the tradable sector.

Vaccination may be the solution to the pandemic-induced health crisis, but the allocation of vaccines is a complex task in which ethical, economic and social considerations are important. The biggest challenge is to use the limited number of vaccines available in a way that protects vulnerable groups, prevents further spread of infection, and reduces economic uncertainty. We argue that once the vaccination of healthcare workers and the most vulnerable groups has been completed, prioritizing the vaccination of on-site workers is important not only to slow the spread of the infection, but also to ensure the smooth running of economic production. We propose a simple economic model where remote and on-site workers are complementary to each other in the short run, thus a negative shock to the supply of either one may decrease the demand for the other, leading to unemployment. By illustrating the model using pre-Covid employment data from Sweden and Hungary, we show that the optimal vaccine allocation between remote and on-site workers in the tradable sector should be based on different proportions depending on the relative infection risk of on-site workers and the degree of vaccine availability. As long as the number of vaccines is limited and on-site workers are at higher risk of infection, they should be preferred in general. However, as more vaccines become available, countries like Sweden, where the share of occupations that can be done remotely is higher shall start immunize remote workers. In Hungary, where on-site work is dominant in the tradable sector, continued vaccination of on-site workers is more beneficial.