Discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated people during the pandemic.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, sizeable groups of unvaccinated people persist even in countries with high vaccine access1. As a consequence, vaccination became a controversial subject of debate and even protest2. Here we assess whether people express discriminatory attitudes in the form of negative affectivity, stereotypes and exclusionary attitudes in family and political settings across groups defined by COVID-19 vaccination status. We quantify discriminatory attitudes between vaccinated and unvaccinated citizens in 21 countries, covering a diverse set of cultures across the world. Across three conjoined experimental studies (n = 15,233), we demonstrate that vaccinated people express discriminatory attitudes towards unvaccinated individuals at a level as high as discriminatory attitudes that are commonly aimed at immigrant and minority populations3-5. By contrast, there is an absence of evidence that unvaccinated individuals display discriminatory attitudes towards vaccinated people, except for the presence of negative affectivity in Germany and the USA. We find evidence in support of discriminatory attitudes against unvaccinated individuals in all countries except for Hungary and Romania, and find that discriminatory attitudes are more strongly expressed in cultures with stronger cooperative norms. Previous research on the psychology of cooperation has shown that individuals react negatively against perceived 'free-riders'6,7, including in the domain of vaccinations8,9. Consistent with this, we find that contributors to the public good of epidemic control (that is, vaccinated individuals) react with discriminatory attitudes towards perceived free-riders (that is, unvaccinated individuals). National leaders and vaccinated members of the public appealed to moral obligations to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake10,11, but our findings suggest that discriminatory attitudes-including support for the removal of fundamental rights-simultaneously emerged.

Mapping routine measles vaccination in low- and middle-income countries.

The safe, highly effective measles vaccine has been recommended globally since 1974, yet in 2017 there were more than 17 million cases of measles and 83,400 deaths in children under 5 years old, and more than 99% of both occurred in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs)1-4. Globally comparable, annual, local estimates of routine first-dose measles-containing vaccine (MCV1) coverage are critical for understanding geographically precise immunity patterns, progress towards the targets of the Global Vaccine Action Plan (GVAP), and high-risk areas amid disruptions to vaccination programmes caused by coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)5-8. Here we generated annual estimates of routine childhood MCV1 coverage at 5 × 5-km2 pixel and second administrative levels from 2000 to 2019 in 101 LMICs, quantified geographical inequality and assessed vaccination status by geographical remoteness. After widespread MCV1 gains from 2000 to 2010, coverage regressed in more than half of the districts between 2010 and 2019, leaving many LMICs far from the GVAP goal of 80% coverage in all districts by 2019. MCV1 coverage was lower in rural than in urban locations, although a larger proportion of unvaccinated children overall lived in urban locations; strategies to provide essential vaccination services should address both geographical contexts. These results provide a tool for decision-makers to strengthen routine MCV1 immunization programmes and provide equitable disease protection for all children.

Anti-science kills: From Soviet embrace of pseudoscience to accelerated attacks on US biomedicine.

The United States witnessed an unprecedented politicization of biomedical science starting in 2015 that has exploded into a complex, multimodal anti-science empire operating through mass media, political elections, legislation, and even health systems. Anti-science activities now pervade the daily lives of many Americans, and threaten to infect other parts of the world. We can attribute the deaths of tens of thousands of Americans from COVID-19, measles, and other vaccine-preventable diseases to anti-science. The acceleration of anti-science activities demands not only new responses and approaches but also international coordination. Vaccines and other biomedical advances will not be sufficient to halt COVID-19 or future potentially catastrophic illnesses, unless we simultaneously counter anti-science aggression.

Racism, disease, and vaccine refusal: People of color are dying for access to COVID-19 vaccines.

As the vaccines against COVID are slowly becoming available, we need to consider the paradox of why so many people of color are dying from the disease yet cannot get the vaccinations. Concerns focus on vaccine refusal but lack of access is the bigger problem.

Ladders and stairs: how the intervention ladder focuses blame on individuals and obscures systemic failings and interventions.

Introduced in 2007 by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, the intervention ladder has become an influential tool in bioethics and public health policy for weighing the justification for interventions and for weighing considerations of intrusiveness and proportionality. However, while such considerations are critical, in its focus on these factors, the ladder overemphasises the role of personal responsibility and the importance of individual behaviour change in public health interventions. Through a study of vaccine hesitancy and vaccine mandates among healthcare workers, this paper investigates how the ladder obscures systemic factors such as the social determinants of health. In overlooking these factors, potentially effective interventions are left off the table and the intervention ladder serves to divert attention away from key issues in public health. This paper, therefore, proposes a replacement for the intervention ladder-the intervention stairway. By broadening the intervention ladder to include systemic factors, the stairway ensures relevant interventions are not neglected merely due to the framing of the issue. Moreover, it more accurately captures factors influencing individual health as well as allocations of responsibility for improving these factors.

Unmasking vaccine hesitancy and refusal: a deep dive into Anti-vaxxer perspectives on COVID-19 in Spain.

BACKGROUND: At the time of the emergence of COVID-19, denialist and anti-vaccine groups have also emerged and are shaking public confidence in vaccination. METHODS: A qualitative study was conducted using online focus groups. Participants had not received any doses of vaccination against the disease. A total of five focus group sessions were conducted with 28 participants. They were recruited by snowball sampling and by convenience sampling. RESULTS: The two major topics mentioned by the participants were adverse effects and information. The adverse effects described were severe and included sudden death. In the case of information, participants reported: (1) consultation of websites on which scientists posted anti-vaccination content; and (2) distrust. CONCLUSIONS: At a time when anti-vaccine groups pose a major challenge to public health in general, and to COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in particular, this study is a first step towards gaining deeper insight into the factors that lead to COVID-19 vaccine refusal.

Lived Religion in Religious Vaccine Exemptions.

This essay explores a more inclusive and equitable interpretation of "religion" within the context of religious vaccine exemptions. The existing literature critiques the prevalent interpretation of the meaning of religion in religious exemption cases, but frequently overlooks the importance of incorporating the concept of "lived religion." This essay introduces the concept of lived religion from religious studies, elucidates why this lived religion approach is crucial for redefining "religion," and illustrates its application in the domain of religious vaccine exemptions. The author contends that broadening the meaning of religion by employing the concept of lived religion would promote a more inclusive and equitable implementation of religious vaccine exemptions.

Emphasize personal health benefits to boost COVID-19 vaccination rates.

The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines is a tremendous scientific response to the current global pandemic. However, vaccines per se do not save lives and restart economies. Their success depends on the number of people getting vaccinated. We used a survey experiment to examine the impact on vaccine intentions of a variety of public health messages identified as particularly promising: three messages that emphasize different benefits from the vaccines (personal health, the health of others, and the recovery of local and national economies) and one message that emphasizes vaccine safety. Because people will likely be exposed to multiple messages in the real world, we also examined the effect of these messages in combination. Based on a nationally quota representative sample of 3,048 adults in the United States, our findings suggest that several forms of public messages can increase vaccine intentions, but messaging that emphasizes personal health benefits had the largest impact.

Incentives can spur COVID-19 vaccination uptake.

Recent evidence suggests that vaccination hesitancy is too high in many countries to sustainably contain COVID-19. Using a factorial survey experiment administered to 20,500 online respondents in Germany, we assess the effectiveness of three strategies to increase vaccine uptake, namely, providing freedoms, financial remuneration, and vaccination at local doctors. Our results suggest that all three strategies can increase vaccination uptake on the order of two to three percentage points (PP) overall and five PP among the undecided. The combined effects could be as high as 13 PP for this group. The returns from different strategies vary across age groups, however, with older cohorts more responsive to local access and younger cohorts most responsive to enhanced freedoms for vaccinated citizens.

Social Stigma and COVID-19 Vaccine Refusal in France.

CONTEXT: In 2021, French health authorities strongly promoted vaccination against COVID-19. The authors assumed that refusing this vaccine became a stigma, and they investigated potential public stigma toward unvaccinated people among the French population. METHODS: A representative sample of the French adult population (N = 2,015) completed an online questionnaire in September 2021. The authors focused on participants who were already vaccinated against COVID-19 or intended to get vaccinated (N = 1,742). A cluster analysis was used to obtain contrasted attitudinal profiles, and the authors investigated associated factors with logistic regressions. FINDINGS: Regarding attitudes toward unvaccinated people, a majority of respondents supported several pejorative statements, and a significant minority also endorsed social rejection attitudes. The authors found four contrasting attitudinal profiles: moral condemnation only (32% of respondents), full stigma (26%), no stigma (26%), and stigma rejection (16%). Early vaccination, civic motives for it, faith in science, rejection of political extremes, and being aged 65 or older were the main factors associated with stigmatizing attitudes toward unvaccinated people. CONCLUSIONS: The authors found some evidence of stigmatization toward unvaccinated people, but further research is needed, especially to investigate perceived stigmatization among them. The authors discuss their results with reference to the concept of "folk devils" and from a public health perspective.

Tracking COVID-19 vaccination expectancies and vaccination refusal in the United States.

To identify factors that predict COVID-19 vaccination refusal and show how expectancies affect vaccination acceptance for non-vaccinated adults, we used a monthly repeated cross-sectional sample from June/2021 to October/2021 to collect data on vaccination behaviors and predictor variables for 2,116 US adults over 50 years of age. Selection bias modeling - which is required when data availability is a result of behavioral choice - predicts two outcomes: (1) no vaccination vs. vaccination for the entire sample and (2) the effects of expectancy indices predicting vaccination Refuser vs. vaccination Accepters for the unvaccinated group. Vaccine refusers were younger and less educated, endorsed common misconceptions about the COVID-19 epidemic, and were Black. Vaccination expectancies were related to vaccination refusal in the unvaccinated eligible group: negative expectancies increased vaccine refusal, while positive expectancies decreased it. We conclude that behavior-related expectancies (as opposed to more stable psychological traits) are important to identify because they are often modifiable and provide a point of intervention, not just for COVID-19 vaccination acceptance but also for other positive health behaviors.

Local infectious disease experience influences vaccine refusal rates: a natural experiment.

Vaccination has been critical to the decline in infectious disease prevalence in recent centuries. Nonetheless, vaccine refusal has increased in recent years, with complacency associated with reductions in disease prevalence highlighted as an important contributor. We exploit a natural experiment in Glasgow at the beginning of the twentieth century to investigate whether prior local experience of an infectious disease matters for vaccination decisions. Our study is based on smallpox surveillance data and administrative records of parental refusal to vaccinate their infants. We analyse variation between administrative units of Glasgow in cases and deaths from smallpox during two epidemics over the period 1900-1904, and vaccine refusal following its legalization in Scotland in 1907 after a long period of compulsory vaccination. We find that lower local disease incidence and mortality during the epidemics were associated with higher rates of subsequent vaccine refusal. This finding indicates that complacency influenced vaccination decisions in periods of higher infectious disease risk, responding to local prior experience of the relevant disease, and has not emerged solely in the context of the generally low levels of infectious disease risk of recent decades. These results suggest that vaccine delivery strategies may benefit from information on local variation in incidence.

Childhood vaccine refusal and what to do about it: a systematic review of the ethical literature.

BACKGROUND: Parental refusal of routine childhood vaccination remains an ethically contested area. This systematic review sought to explore and characterise the normative arguments made about parental refusal of routine vaccination, with the aim of providing researchers, practitioners, and policymakers with a synthesis of current normative literature. METHODS: Nine databases covering health and ethics research were searched, and 121 publications identified for the period Jan 1998 to Mar 2022. For articles, source journals were categorised according to Australian Standard Field of Research codes, and normative content was analysed using a framework analytical approach. RESULTS: Most of the articles were published in biomedical journals (34%), bioethics journals (21%), and journals that carry both classifications (20%). Two central questions dominated the literature: (1) Whether vaccine refusal is justifiable (which we labelled 'refusal arguments'); and (2) Whether strategies for dealing with those who reject vaccines are justifiable ('response arguments'). Refusal arguments relied on principlism, religious frameworks, the rights and obligations of parents, the rights of children, the medico-legal best interests of the child standard, and the potential to cause harm to others. Response arguments were broadly divided into arguments about policy, arguments about how individual physicians should practice regarding vaccine rejectors, and both legal precedents and ethical arguments for vaccinating children against a parent's will. Policy arguments considered the normative significance of coercion, non-medical or conscientious objections, and possible reciprocal social efforts to offset vaccine refusal. Individual physician practice arguments covered nudging and coercive practices, patient dismissal, and the ethical and professional obligations of physicians. Most of the legal precedents discussed were from the American setting, with some from the United Kingdom. CONCLUSIONS: This review provides a comprehensive picture of the scope and substance of normative arguments about vaccine refusal and responses to vaccine refusal. It can serve as a platform for future research to extend the current normative literature, better understand the role of cultural context in normative judgements about vaccination, and more comprehensively translate the nuance of ethical arguments into practice and policy.

Reasons for and insights about HPV vaccination refusal among ultra-Orthodox Jewish mothers.

BACKGROUND: Vaccination against human papillomavirus (HPV) is a pivotal tool for preventing a significant cause of cervical cancer. One particular culturally recognized context associated with negative attitudes toward the HPV vaccine is the religiousness of parents. However, relatively speaking, there remains a scarcity of studies that have focused specifically on religious groups, especially non-Christian groups. PURPOSE: To better understand the basis for members of an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community to object to the HPV vaccine and how such objections can and cannot be reduced, thereby improving cultural competence-namely, the cultural understanding and ethical addressing of HPV vaccination refusal. METHODS: This qualitative study conducted semi-structured interviews with ten Israeli ultra-Orthodox mothers who are opposed to administering the HPV vaccine to their daughters. The content analysis addressed these results and extracted the major issues arising from these particular interviews. RESULTS: Four main novel insights were found pertaining to the negative stance toward HPV vaccination among mothers in an ultra-Orthodox Jewish community: (a) lack of knowledge about the HPV vaccine is not part of the reasoning against it; (b) rabbinical authority might have a lesser influence than expected for the moderation of HPV vaccine refusal; (c) complicated viewpoints regarding childhood vaccination may be the larger non-moderating context for HPV vaccination refusal; and (d) cultural competence is important for the ability to change the negative attitudes toward HPV vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: The study may improve cultural competence regarding HPV vaccination and contribute to decreasing objections to the HPV vaccine in ultra-Orthodox communities.

[How to Defend Mandatory Immunization Against Vaccine Hesitancy and Vaccine Refusal? An Ethical Assessment]. / Asi Kararsizligi ve Asi Reddi Olgusu Karsisinda Zorunlu Bagisiklama Nasil Savunulmali? Etik Açisindan Bir Degerlendirme.

One of the basic ethical principles in medical practice is to respect personal autonomy. However, it is a widely accepted view that when it comes to health problems that concern not only the individual but also the society, especially in epidemics of infectious diseases, individual autonomy can be violated by prioritizing the benefit of the community. This view is based on the scientific fact that epidemics can only be controlled by immunizing all susceptible individuals. However, whether all susceptible individuals can be compelled to be immunized remains a matter of debate around the world. Especially in the last three years, during the worldwide Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, a significant part of the society has been hesitant about being vaccinated, and some have argued that vaccines should be rejected altogether. In the face of the situation outlined above, the question of "should immunization be mandatory?" has become more important than ever to be able to answer the question in a way that will ensure as broad consensus as possible. In this review article; it was discussed under which conditions mandatory immunization could be justified in terms of ethics and thus, it was aimed to contribute to the solution of the vital problem created by the phenomenon of vaccine hesitancy and rejection in terms of public health. To this aim, first of all, the need to clarify some concepts was mentioned. Afterwards, the arguments "must be compulsory", "should be optional", and "should not be done to anyone" were evaluated with their justifications and it was determined that the argument that immunization should be mandatory could be justified in terms of ethics. In the article, it was argued that the conflicts of "individual freedom X community benefit" and "personal autonomy X community benefit" did not exist in today's actual conditions, but it was stated that an individual with the knowledge of reality experiences a tension in the face of not putting this knowledge into practice. It was emphasized that in order to overcome this tension, consolidation of the theoretical background and also consideration of the macro determinants of vaccine hesitancy and rejection in practice were necessary. What needs to be done to re-establish trust in the medical institution was listed, and it was argued that the question of how to implement mandatory immunization could only be answered in a healthy way through a transformation process that will be implemented through a social dialogue.

The issue of vaccine refusal: study of risky behaviour.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study is to identify the influence of factors that determine the refusal of influenza vaccine among three subjects groups. METHODS: A survey was conducted amongst three high­risk groups in years 2018-2019 (Moscow, Russia). The survey involved 1,620 parents and pregnant women (group 1), 324 doctors (group 2) and 433 students (group 3). The analysis revealed a poor vaccine uptake among respondents of all three groups. RESULTS: According to the survey results, only 22.2 % of children and 13.8 % of adults were vaccinated against influenza. The group 2 showed higher rates for vaccinated adults and children, namely 36.7 % and 58.7 % , respectively. The lowest adherence to annual vaccinations was recorded in group 3 (only 17.3 %). There is also a negative correlation between adherence to vaccination and smoking -0.66), unhealthy diet -0.73), poor oral hygiene -0.61) as well as insufficient awareness of the need of influenza vaccine -0.81). CONCLUSION: The general lack of vaccination awareness has a fundamental role in forming a negative attitude toward influenza vaccine. It is necessary to conduct research to promote vaccination against influenza to improve vaccine uptake among high­risk groups, particularly in students (Tab. 1, Fig. 1, Ref. 32).

Promoting COVID-19 vaccine acceptance: recommendations from the Lancet Commission on Vaccine Refusal, Acceptance, and Demand in the USA.

Since the first case of COVID-19 was identified in the USA in January, 2020, over 46 million people in the country have tested positive for SARS-CoV-2 infection. Several COVID-19 vaccines have received emergency use authorisations from the US Food and Drug Administration, with the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine receiving full approval on Aug 23, 2021. When paired with masking, physical distancing, and ventilation, COVID-19 vaccines are the best intervention to sustainably control the pandemic. However, surveys have consistently found that a sizeable minority of US residents do not plan to get a COVID-19 vaccine. The most severe consequence of an inadequate uptake of COVID-19 vaccines has been sustained community transmission (including of the delta [B.1.617.2] variant, a surge of which began in July, 2021). Exacerbating the direct impact of the virus, a low uptake of COVID-19 vaccines will prolong the social and economic repercussions of the pandemic on families and communities, especially low-income and minority ethnic groups, into 2022, or even longer. The scale and challenges of the COVID-19 vaccination campaign are unprecedented. Therefore, through a series of recommendations, we present a coordinated, evidence-based education, communication, and behavioural intervention strategy that is likely to improve the success of COVID-19 vaccine programmes across the USA.

What determines health professionals' COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy? A nationwide study.

INTRODUCTION: To contain the COVID-19 pandemic, higher vaccination rates are essential. However, as vaccine hesitancy is a reality, it is important to understand what drives health professionals to refuse getting vaccinated against COVID-19, who have been in the frontline of this pandemic since its beginning and may be key actors to improve vaccine coverage among their patients. PURPOSE: This study aims to assess the factors associated with vaccine hesitancy (VH) among health professionals (physicians, nurses, pharmacists and dentists). METHODS: A nationwide cross-sectional study was conducted through an online survey, with 890 Portuguese health professionals. A logistic regression analysis was used to determine the adjusted odds ratio (OR) of the independent variables (perceptions, knowledge and attitudes) per 1-point increase in the Likert scale and VH. RESULTS: Complacency, communications, confidence and convenience were strongly associated with VH probability. Concerns about vaccines' efficacy (ORPhysicians  = 8.33, 95% CI: 4.51-15.36) and safety (ORNurses  = 11.07, 95% CI: 4.12-29.77) increase the risk of VH on all health professional groups. A reduction of VH probability is associated with higher risk perceptions of getting infected (1/ORNurses  = 2.76, 95% CI: 1.52-5.02) and suffering complications (1/ORNurses  = 33.72, 95% CI: 8.48-134.13), higher confidence in the effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines (1/ORDentists  = 12.29, 95% CI: 2.91-51.89), risk perception of getting infected if vaccinated (1/ORPhysicians  = 14.92, 95% CI: 6.85-32.50), risk of suffering from complications after getting vaccinated, and higher trust levels on the information transmitted by competent authorities (1/ORDentists  = 17.76, 95% CI: 3.83-82.22). CONCLUSIONS: To reduce COVID-19 VH, which appears to be highly influenced by perceptions, knowledge and attitudes, it is essential to promote interventions directed to transforming these potentially modifiable determinants.