"Not Only a Matter of Personal Interest"-Vaccination Narratives and the Model of Moral Motives in China and Germany

Understanding vaccination decision-making processes is vital for guiding vaccine promotion within pandemic contexts and for routine immunization efforts. Vaccine-related attitudes influencing individual decision-making can be affected by broader cultural and normative contexts. We conducted 73 qualitative interviews with adults in China (n = 40) and Germany (n = 33) between December 2020 and April 2021 to understand COVID-19 vaccination intentions and preferences, and we analyzed transcripts using a five-step framework approach. During early analysis, we identified moral considerations in line with the tenets of the Model of Moral Motives (MMM) as a recurrent theme in the data. The MMM guided further analysis steps, particularly with its distinction between motives that are proscriptive (focus on avoiding harm by inhibiting "bad" behavior) and prescriptive (focus on actively seeking positive outcomes). Proscriptive vaccination arguments that compelled vaccination in our data included avoiding negative attention, being a law-abiding citizen, preventing harm to others, and protecting one's country. Prescriptive motives focused on self-efficacious behavior such as protecting the health of oneself and others via widespread but voluntary vaccination, prioritizing elderly and predisposed individuals for vaccination, and favoring a fair and equitable distribution of vaccines at the global level. In the interviews in China, both lines of arguments emerged, with a general tendency toward more proscriptive reasoning; interviews conducted in Germany tended to reflect more prescriptive motives. We encourage research and vaccine promotion practice to reflect moral considerations when aiming to understand public health preventive behavior and when developing tailored health promotion campaigns.

Moral characteristics predicting COVID-19 vaccination

OBJECTIVE

The current study aims to assess, for the first time, whether vaccination is predicted by different behavioral and cognitive aspects of moral decision-making.

BACKGROUND

Studies linking moral factors to vaccination have largely examined whether vaccination decisions can be explained by individual differences in the endorsement of various principles and norms central to deontology-based arguments in vaccination ethics. However, these studies have overlooked whether individuals prioritize norms over other considerations when making decisions, such as maximizing consequences (utilitarianism).

METHOD

In a sample of 1492 participants, the current study assessed whether vaccination is explained by individual differences in three aspects of moral decision-making (consequence sensitivity, norm sensitivity, and action tendency), while also considering ethics position (idealism, relativism) and moral identity.

RESULTS

Supportive vaccination (vaccine uptake accompanied by a positive attitude toward vaccines) was associated with utilitarianism (increased consequence sensitivity) and increased tolerance to risks and harm toward others. Meanwhile, although those in the non-vaccinated group was associated with higher harm sensitivities, they neither supported nor received the COVID vaccines (when vaccines prevent harm from infection).

CONCLUSION

Pro-vaccination messages may be made more effective by addressing perceptions of harms associated with vaccines and infections, respectively.

COVID-19 vaccine refusal as unfair free-riding

Contributions to COVID-19 vaccination programmes promise valuable collective goods. They can support public and individual health by creating herd immunity and taking the pressure off overwhelmed public health services; support freedom of movement by enabling governments to remove restrictive lockdown policies; and improve economic and social well-being by allowing businesses, schools, and other essential public services to re-open. The vaccinated can contribute to the production of these goods. The unvaccinated, who benefit from, but who do not contribute to these goods can be morally criticised as free-riders. In this paper defends the claim that in the case of COVID-19, the unvaccinated are unfair free-riders. I defend the claim against two objections. First, that they are not unfair free-riders because they lack the subjective attitudes and intentions of free-riders; second, that although the unvaccinated may be free-riders, their free-riding is not unfair.

"Look After Each Other"- Ethical Concerns in the Use of Communicative Appeals to Solidarity in the Face of a Pandemic

During the recent COVID-19 pandemic international organizations and national and local governments employed appeals to solidarity or "we-messages" for the purpose of encouraging the public to adopt mitigation measures and to help more vulnerable others. Since appeals to solidarity inherently aim to influence people's views and practices, they raise ethical concerns similar to concerns associated with health communication persuasive campaigns (e.g. respect for autonomy, personal responsibility, stigmatization) and concerns more specifically associated with appeals to solidarity (e.g. divisiveness). The first part of the paper introduces a conceptual distinction between two types of approaches to solidarity according to an instrumental or moral emphasis. Appeals to solidarity according to this distinction are illustrated with examples from the COVID-19 pandemic. The second part summarizes normative justifications and advantages for employing appeals to solidarity. The third part presents ethical concerns associated with appealing to solidarity in the time of a pandemic. Drawing on these concerns, the final part presents propositions for normative conditions for employing solidarity appeals in a time of a pandemic and notes the importance of research needed to identify additional ethical concerns and conceptions of solidarity in multicultural societies. It concludes with noting the importance of employing appeals to solidarity that go beyond mitigating the pandemic and of conducting a critical discourse on the mandate of the state to make "top-down" moral demands.

A taxonomy of anti-vaccination arguments from a systematic literature review and text modelling

The proliferation of anti-vaccination arguments is a threat to the success of many immunization programmes. Effective rebuttal of contrarian arguments requires an approach that goes beyond addressing flaws in the arguments, by also considering the attitude roots-that is, the underlying psychological attributes driving a person's belief-of opposition to vaccines. Here, through a pre-registered systematic literature review of 152 scientific articles and thematic analysis of anti-vaccination arguments, we developed a hierarchical taxonomy that relates common arguments and themes to 11 attitude roots that explain why an individual might express opposition to vaccination. We further validated our taxonomy on coronavirus disease 2019 anti-vaccination misinformation, through a combination of human coding and machine learning using natural language processing algorithms. Overall, the taxonomy serves as a theoretical framework to link expressed opposition of vaccines to their underlying psychological processes. This enables future work to develop targeted rebuttals and other interventions that address the underlying motives of anti-vaccination arguments.

The (Un)fairness of Vaccination Freeriding

For contagious diseases like measles a successful immunization program can result in herd protection. Small outbreaks may still occur but fade out soon, because the possibilities for the pathogen to spread in the 'herd' are very small. This implies that people who refuse to participate in such a program will still benefit from the protection it offers, but they don't do their part in maintaining protection. Isn't that a case of freeriding-and isn't that unfair towards all the people who do collaborate? If so, that might be considered an additional ground for making vaccination mandatory or compulsory. In this paper I argue that vaccination refusal can be considered as freeriding, but that this might not be unfair. The public good of herd protection is a peculiar public good because it supervenes on private benefits that are enjoyed by all who do opt for vaccination. For vaccinated individuals, the additional benefit of herd protection comes about, as it were, for free, and hence they can't complain that others benefit without sharing in the burdens. There are however still other grounds for making vaccination compulsory or at least for seeing refusal as a morally wrong choice.

Inframarginal externalities: COVID-19, vaccines, and universal mandates

COVID-19 vaccine mandates are in place or being debated across the world. Standard neoclassical economics argues that the marginal social benefit from vaccination exceeds the marginal private benefit; everyone vaccinated against a given infectious disease protects others by not transmitting the disease. Consequently, private levels of vaccination will be lower than the socially optimal levels due to free-riding, which requires mandates to overcome the problem. We argue that universal mandates based on free-riding are less compelling for COVID-19. We argue that because the virus can be transmitted even after receiving the vaccine, most of the benefits of the COVID-19 vaccine are internalized: vaccinated individuals are protected from the worst effects of the disease. Therefore, any positive externality may be inframarginal or policy irrelevant. Even when all the benefits are not internalized by the individual, the externalities mainly are local, mostly affecting family and closely associated individuals, requiring local institutional (private and civil society) arrangements to boost vaccine rates, even in a global pandemic. Economists and politicians must justify such universal vaccine mandates on some basis other than free-riding.

Social pressure, altruism, free-riding, and non-compliance in mask wearing by U.S. residents in response to COVID-19 pandemic

Human behavior, such as wearing a mask in public, affects the trajectory of the COVID-19 pandemic. A nationally representative survey of 1198 U.S. residents was used to study demographics, perceptions, and stated beliefs of residents who indicated they believe masks have a role in society in response to COVID-19 but self-reported not wearing masks in at least one public place studied. Individuals who believed wearing masks protected others were more likely to report voluntarily wearing them, providing possible evidence of altruism. Perceiving social pressure negatively impacted the probability of voluntary mask wearing amongst those who believed masks have a role in society, suggesting social shaming may not increase compliance among these individuals. Free-riding is one possible explanation for why an individual respondent may self-report belief that mask wearing has a role in society and simultaneously self-report not voluntarily wearing a mask in public locations. Alternatively, incomplete knowledge, confusion about the role of masks in controlling spread of COVID-19, or fatigue are all possible explanations for why adults who believe masks play a role demonstrate less than optimal compliance themselves with mask wearing. Promotion of altruism, rather than social shaming, is more likely to increase mask wearing based on this analysis. Tactics to improve public health initiative compliance and participation may change throughout the duration of the pandemic and/or may differ between segments of the population. Increased understanding of human behavior as it relates to mask wearing can inform public health communications and construction of incentive-aligned messaging to improve public health-related behaviors and associated outcomes.

‘Take the Pill, It Is Only Fair’! Contributory Fairness as an Answer to Rose’s Prevention Paradox

One proposal to significantly reduce cardiovascular disease is the idea of administering a ‘polypill’—a combination of drugs that reduce the risk of heart disease and carry few side effects—to everyone over the age of 55. Despite their promise, population strategies like the polypill have not been well-accepted. In this article, I defend the polypill (and consequently, other similar population strategies) by appealing to fairness. The argument focuses on the need to fairly distribute the costs to individuals. While the fact that population strategies like the polypill impose minor costs on everyone has primarily been used to criticize such strategies, I argue that it gives us a reason to support them. I argue that implementing a population strategy with the polypill contributes to the public good of ‘health system capacity’. I then explain that public goods have widely accepted obligations: they carry an obligation to fairly distribute the costs of the goods and prevent free-riding. Thus, we have at least one pro tanto moral reason to implement the polypill. As such, this article challenges the current literature on the topic, which has largely held adopting population strategies like the polypill to be unjustifiable.

Global Imperative of Suicidal Ideation in 10 Countries Amid the COVID-19 Pandemic

Background: The novel coronavirus (COVID-19) has had a detrimental impact on individuals' psychological well-being; however, a multi-country comparison on the prevalence of suicidal ideation due to the virus is still lacking. Objectives: To examine the prevalence and correlates of suicidal ideation among the general population across 10 countries during the COVID-19 pandemic. Materials and methods: This was a cross-sectional study which used convenience sampling and collected data by conducting an online survey. Participants were sourced from 10 Eastern and Western countries. The Patient Health Questionnaire (PHQ-9) was used to measure the outcome variable of suicidal ideation. Ordinal regression analysis was used to identify significant predictors associated with suicidal ideation. Results: A total of 25,053 participants (22.7% male) were recruited. Results from the analysis showed that the UK and Brazil had the lowest odds of suicidal ideation compared to Macau (p < 0.05). Furthermore, younger age, male, married, and differences in health beliefs were significantly associated with suicidal ideation (p < 0.05). Conclusions: The findings highlight the need for joint international collaboration to formulate effective suicide prevention strategies in a timely manner and the need to implement online mental health promotion platforms. In doing so, the potential global rising death rates by suicide during the pandemic can be reduced.

Ethical Issues in COVID-19 Communication to Mitigate the Pandemic: Dilemmas and Practical Implications

Communication plays a critical role in all stages of a pandemic. From the moment it is officially declared governments and public health organizations aim to inform the public about the risk from the disease and to encourage people to adopt mitigation practices. The purpose of this article is to call attention to the multiple types and the complexity of ethical challenges in COVID-19 communication. Different types of ethical issues in COVID-19 communication are presented in four main sections. The first deals with ethical issues in informing the public about the risk of the pandemic and dilemmas regarding communicating uncertainty, using threats and scare tactics, and framing the pandemic as a war. The second concerns unintended consequences that relate to increasing inequities, stigmatization, ageism, and delaying medical care. The third raises ethical issues in communicating about specific mitigation practices: contact tracing, wearing face masks, spatial (also referred to as social) distancing, and handwashing or sanitizing. The fourth concerns appealing to positive social values associated with solidarity and personal responsibility, and ethical challenges when using these appeals. The article concludes with a list of practical implications and the importance of identifying ethical concerns, which necessitate interdisciplinary knowledge, cross-disciplinary collaborations, public discourse and advocacy.

Association Between Depression, Health Beliefs, and Face Mask Use During the COVID-19 Pandemic

The 2019 novel coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic is associated with increases in psychiatric morbidity, including depression. It is unclear if people with depressive symptoms understand or apply COVID-19 information differently to the general population. Therefore, this study aimed to examine associations between depression, health beliefs, and face mask use during the COVID-19 pandemic among the general population in Hong Kong. This study gathered data from 11,072 Hong Kong adults via an online survey. Respondents self-reported their demographic characteristics, depressive symptoms (PHQ-9), face mask use, and health beliefs about COVID-19. Hierarchical logistic regression was used to identify independent variables associated with depression. The point-prevalence of probable depression was 46.5% (n = 5,150). Respondents reporting higher mask reuse (OR = 1.24, 95%CI 1.17-1.34), wearing masks for self-protection (OR = 1.03 95%CI 1.01-1.06), perceived high susceptibility (OR = 1.15, 95%CI 1.09-1.23), and high severity (OR = 1.33, 95%CI 1.28-1.37) were more likely to report depression. Depression was less likely in those with higher scores for cues to action (OR = 0.82, 95%CI 0.80-0.84), knowledge of COVID-19 (OR = 0.95, 95%CI 0.91-0.99), and self-efficacy to wear mask properly (OR = 0.90 95%CI 0.83-0.98). We identified a high point-prevalence of probable major depression and suicidal ideation during the COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong, but this should be viewed with caution due to the convenience sampling method employed. Future studies should recruit a representative probability sample in order to draw more reliable conclusions. The findings highlight that COVID-19 health information may be a protective factor of probable depression and suicidal ideation during the pandemic. Accurate and up-to-date health information should be disseminated to distressed and vulnerable subpopulations, perhaps using digital health technology, and social media platforms to prompt professional help-seeking behavior.

Adolescent HPV vaccination: empowerment, equity and ethics

Despite the great promise offered by human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines to reduce disease burden and promote socioeconomic and gender equality, their implementation into national programmes has been slow. The vaccination of adolescents against a disease that may have serious consequences much later in life requires special consideration to the principles and processes of informed consent. Accumulating experiences from implementations in many countries indicate a need to examine ethical considerations related to adolescent vaccination. However, frameworks that integrate legal, development- and rights-based considerations in adolescent vaccination policies, while taking into account practical realities of HPV vaccination programmes, are currently lacking. We argue that principles of autonomy, social justice and gender equality have impacts on adolescent immunization that go beyond mere acceptance of vaccination and place greater demands on what constitutes meaningful informed consent, with implications for the provision of age- and context-appropriate information, vaccine financing and gender-based vaccination policies. Independent of cost-effectiveness considerations, we find a strong case to support universal HPV vaccination of girls that is free at the point of use and, where feasible, to extend vaccination to boys under the same financing schemes.

ABBREVIATIONS

HPV: Human papillomavirus; STI: Sexually transmitted infections; WHO: World Health Organization.

The moral obligation to be vaccinated: utilitarianism, contractualism, and collective easy rescue

We argue that individuals who have access to vaccines and for whom vaccination is not medically contraindicated have a moral obligation to contribute to the realisation of herd immunity by being vaccinated. Contrary to what some have claimed, we argue that this individual moral obligation exists in spite of the fact that each individual vaccination does not significantly affect vaccination coverage rates and therefore does not significantly contribute to herd immunity. Establishing the existence of a moral obligation to be vaccinated (both for adults and for children) despite the negligible contribution each vaccination can make to the realisation of herd immunity is important because such moral obligation would strengthen the justification for coercive vaccination policies. We show that two types of arguments-namely a utilitarian argument based on Parfit's Principle of Group Beneficence and a contractualist argument-can ground an individual moral obligation to be vaccinated, in spite of the imperceptible contribution that any single vaccination makes to vaccine coverage rates. We add a further argument for a moral obligation to be vaccinated that does not require embracing problematic comprehensive moral theories such as utilitarianism or contractualism. The argument is based on a "duty of easy rescue" applied to collectives, which grounds a collective moral obligation to realise herd immunity, and on a principle of fairness in the distribution of the burdens that must be borne to realise herd immunity.

The Ethics of Vaccination Nudges in Pediatric Practice

Techniques from behavioral economics-nudges-may help physicians increase pediatric vaccine compliance, but critics have objected that nudges can undermine autonomy. Since autonomy is a centrally important value in healthcare decision-making contexts, it counts against pediatric vaccination nudges if they undermine parental autonomy. Advocates for healthcare nudges have resisted the charge that nudges undermine autonomy, and the recent bioethics literature illustrates the current intractability of this debate. This article rejects a principle to which parties on both sides of this debate sometimes seem committed: that nudges are morally permissible only if they are consistent with autonomy. Instead, I argue that, at least in the case of pediatric vaccination, some autonomy-undermining nudges may be morally justified. This is because parental autonomy in pediatric decision-making is not as morally valuable as the autonomy of adult patients, and because the interests of both the vaccinated child and other members of the community can sometimes be weighty enough to justify autonomy-infringing pediatric vaccination nudges. This article concludes with a set of worries about the effect of pediatric vaccination nudges on parent-physician relationships, and it calls on the American Academy of Pediatrics to draw on scientific and bioethics research to develop guidelines for the use of nudges in pediatric practice and, in particular, for the use of pediatric vaccination nudges.

Measles Vaccination is Best for Children: The Argument for Relying on Herd Immunity Fails

This article examines an argument which may negatively influence measles vaccination uptake. According to the argument, an individual child in a highly vaccinated society may be better off by being non-vaccinated; the child does not risk vaccine adverse effects and is protected against measles through herd immunity. Firstly, the conclusion of the argument is challenged by showing that herd immunity's protection is unreliable and inferior to vaccination. Secondly, the logic of the argument is challenged by showing that the argument is inherently self-defeating and therefore logically inconsistent. In practice the argument cannot be used to protect children against measles. Measles vaccination is undoubtedly best for children, even in highly vaccinated societies. Only if a medical contraindication to vaccination exists should vaccination be waived in favour of reliance on herd immunity. This places obligations on those who stand in care relationships with the child: parents, healthcare providers, and the state.