RESUMO
On-time effective vaccination is critical to curbing a pandemic, but this is often hampered by citizens' hesitancy to get quickly vaccinated. This research concentrates on the hypothesis that, besides traditional factors in the literature, vaccination success would hinge on two dimensions: a) addressing a broader set of risk perception factors than health-related issues only, and b) securing sufficient social and institutional trust at the time of vaccination campaign launch. We test this hypothesis regarding Covid-19 vaccination preferences in six European countries and at the early stage of the pandemic by April 2020. We find that addressing the two roadblock dimensions could further boost Covid-19 vaccination coverage by 22%. The study also offers three extra innovations. The first is that the traditional segmentation logic between vaccine "acceptors", "hesitants" and "refusers" is further justified by the fact that segments have different attitudes: refusers care less about health issues than they are worried about family tensions and finance (dimension 1 of our hypothesis). In contrast, hesitants are the battlefield for more transparency by media and government actions (dimension 2 of our hypothesis). The second added value is that we extend our hypothesis testing with a supervised non-parametric machine learning technique (Random Forests). Again, consistent with our hypothesis, this method picks up higher-order interaction between risk and trust variables that strongly predict on-time vaccination intent. We finally explicitly adjust survey responses to account for possible reporting bias. Among others, vaccine-reluctant citizens may under-report their limited will to get vaccinated.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Humanos , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Vacinas contra COVID-19 , Vacinação , Intenção , EmoçõesRESUMO
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.
