Correlates of support for international vaccine solidarity during the COVID-19 pandemic: Cross-sectional survey evidence from Germany.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, many residents of high-income countries (HICs) were eligible for COVID-19 vaccine boosters, while many residents of lower-income countries (LICs) had not yet received a first dose. HICs made some efforts to contribute to COVID-19 vaccination efforts in LICs, but these efforts were limited in scale. A new literature discusses the normative importance of an international redistribution of vaccines. Our analysis contributes an empirical perspective on the willingness of citizens in a HIC to contribute to such efforts (which we term international vaccine solidarity). We analyse the levels and predictors of international vaccine solidarity. We surveyed a representative sample of German adults (n = 2019) who participated in a two-wave YouGov online survey (w1: Sep 13-21, 2021 and w2: Oct 4-13, 2021). International vaccine solidarity is measured by asking respondents preferences for sharing vaccine supplies internationally versus using that supply as boosters for the domestic population. We examine a set of pre-registered hypotheses. Almost half of the respondents in our sample (48%) prioritize giving doses to citizens in less developed countries. A third of respondents (33%) prefer to use available doses as boosters domestically, and a fifth of respondents (19%) did not report a preference. In line with our hypotheses, respondents higher in cosmopolitanism and empathy, and those who support domestic redistribution exhibit more support for international dose-sharing. Older respondents (who might be more at risk) do not consistently show less support for vaccine solidarity. These results help us to get a better understanding of the way citizens' form preferences about a mechanism that redistributes medical supplies internationally during a global crisis.

Estimating the size of "anti-vax" and vaccine hesitant populations in the US, UK, and Canada: comparative latent class modeling of vaccine attitudes.

Vaccine hesitancy is a significant impediment to global efforts to vaccinate against the SARS-CoV-2 virus at levels that generate herd immunity. In this article, we show the utility of an inductive approach - latent class analysis (LCA) - that allows us to characterize the size and nature of different vaccine attitude groups; and to compare how these groups differ across countries as well as across demographic subgroups within countries. We perform this analysis using original survey data collected in the US, UK, and Canada. We also show that these classes are strongly associated with SARS-CoV-2 vaccination intent and perceptions of the efficacy and safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, suggesting that attitudes about vaccines to fight the novel coronavirus pandemic are well explained by latent vaccine attitudes that precede the pandemic. More specifically, we find four substantive classes of vaccine attitudes: strong supporters, supporters with concerns, vaccine hesitant, and "anti-vax" as well as a fifth measurement error class. The strong "anti-vax" sentiment class is small in all three countries, while the strong supporter class is the largest across all three countries. We observe different distributions of class assignments in different demographic groups - most notably education and political leaning (partisanship and ideology).

The ephemeral effects of fact-checks on COVID-19 misperceptions in the United States, Great Britain and Canada.

Widespread misperceptions about COVID-19 and the novel coronavirus threaten to exacerbate the severity of the pandemic. We conducted preregistered survey experiments in the United States, Great Britain and Canada examining the effectiveness of fact-checks that seek to correct these false or unsupported beliefs. Across three countries with differing levels of political conflict over the pandemic response, we demonstrate that fact-checks reduce targeted misperceptions, especially among the groups who are most vulnerable to these claims, and have minimal spillover effects on the accuracy of related beliefs. However, these reductions in COVID-19 misperception beliefs do not persist over time in panel data even after repeated exposure. These results suggest that fact-checks can successfully change the COVID-19 beliefs of the people who would benefit from them most but that their effects are ephemeral.

Minimal effects from injunctive norm and contentiousness treatments on COVID-19 vaccine intentions: evidence from 3 countries.

Does information about how other people feel about COVID-19 vaccination affect immunization intentions? We conducted preregistered survey experiments in Great Britain (5,456 respondents across 3 survey waves from September 2020 to February 2021), Canada (1,315 respondents in February 2021), and the state of New Hampshire in the United States (1,315 respondents in January 2021). The experiments examine the effects of providing accurate public opinion information to people about either public support for COVID-19 vaccination (an injunctive norm) or public beliefs that the issue is contentious. Across all 3 countries, exposure to this information had minimal effects on vaccination intentions even among people who previously held inaccurate beliefs about support for COVID-19 vaccination or its perceived contentiousness. These results suggest that providing information on public opinion about COVID vaccination has limited additional effect on people's behavioral intentions when public discussion of vaccine uptake and intentions is highly salient.

Tennessee Trauma Care System Plan, part III.

Tennessee implemented a statewide trauma care system in 1988. This system serves the state of Tennessee and supports eight neighboring states. The demographics and geography of Tennessee have ensured that nearly all residents have rapid access to the trauma care system. However, since 1988, many changes have occurred in healthcare in general, and trauma care in particular, that point out problems and issues with the Tennessee trauma care system. Therefore, the Tennessee Trauma Care Advisory Council has developed this Trauma Care System Plan to look at needs and opportunities for the future of trauma care in Tennessee. This plan will be presented in four segments: History, Administrative Components, Operational Components, and Clinical Components.

Tennessee trauma care system plan, Part 1.

Tennessee implemented a statewide trauma care system in 1988. This system serves the state of Tennessee and supports eight neighboring states. The demographics and geography of Tennessee have ensured that nearly all residents have rapid access to the trauma care system. However, since 1988, many changes have occurred in healthcare in general, and trauma care in particular, that point out problems and issues with the Tennessee trauma care system. Therefore, the Tennessee Trauma Care Advisory Council has developed this Trauma Care System Plan to look at needs and opportunities for the future of trauma care in Tennessee. This plan will be presented in four segments: History, Administrative Components, Operational Components, and Clinical Components.

Tennessee trauma care system plan, Part II.

Tennessee implemented a statewide trauma care system in 1988. This system serves the state of Tennessee and supports eight neighboring states. The demographics and geography of Tennessee have ensured that nearly all residents have rapid access to the trauma care system. However, since 1988, many changes have occurred in healthcare in general, and trauma care in particular, that point out problems and issues with the Tennessee trauma care system. Therefore, the Tennessee Trauma Care Advisory Council has developed this Trauma Care System Plan to look at needs and opportunities for the future of trauma care in Tennessee. This plan will be presented in four segments: History, Administrative Components, Operational Components, and Clinical Components.