COVID-19 immunity (or vaccine) passports: a documentary overview and analysis of regimes of health verification within the coronavirus pandemic

Concerns, perceived risk, and hesitancy on COVID-19 vaccine: a qualitative exploration among university students living in the West Bank

The current study aimed to explore Palestinian university students' perceptions and concerns about COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy. Our sample comprised 50 university students selected using snowball sampling techniques from Palestinian universities in the West Bank, Palestine. Thematic content analysis was conducted to identify the main themes of semi-structured interviews with students. The results of the thematic content analysis yielded four main themes: Students' perceptions and concerns on COVID-19 vaccinations, perceived risks of vaccination, experiences related to vaccination, and causes of vaccination hesitancy. Participants expressed concerns and doubts about the vaccine's safety, showing high hesitancy and scepticism; they also reported different causes for COVID-19 vaccination hesitancy in the Palestinian context, such as the lack of confidence in vaccines, false beliefs about vaccines, and peculiar political instability and conflict of the Palestinian territories enduring a military occupation undermining the health system's capacity to respond to the COVID-19 outbreak appropriately. Health authorities and policymakers are urgently called to invest in and potentiate awareness campaigns to change the diffuse people's stereotypes related to the COVID-19 vaccine in the Palestinian territories.

Individual factors influencing public's perceptions about the importance of COVID-19 immunity certificates: a cross-sectional online questionnaire survey in the UK

BACKGROUND

Understanding how perceptions around immunity certificates are influenced by individual characteristics is important to inform evidence-based policy making and implementation strategies for services around immunity and vaccine certification.

OBJECTIVE

To assess what were the main individual factors (including health beliefs about COVID-19, vaccination views, socio-demographic and lifestyle factors) influencing people's perception of the importance of using COVID-19 immunity certificates.

METHODS

Cross-sectional online survey with a nationally representative sample in the UK, conducted on the 3rd of August 2021. Responses were collected and analysed from 534 participants, aged 18 and older, residents of the UK. The primary outcome measure (dependent variable) was the participants' perceived importance of using immunity certificates, computed as an index of six items. The following individual drivers were used as the independent variables: a) personal beliefs about COVID-19 (using constructs adapted from the Health Belief Model), b) personal views on vaccination, c) willingness to share immunity status with service providers, and d) variables related to respondents' lifestyle and socio-demographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Perceived importance of immunity certificates was higher among respondents who felt that contracting COVID-19 would have a severe negative impact on their health (β=0.2564, P<.001=0.0000) and felt safer if vaccinated (β =0.1552, P<.001=0.0000). The prospect of future economic recovery positively influenced perceived importance of immunity certificates. Respondents who were employed or self-employed (β=-0.2412, P=.0010), or experienced an increase in income after the COVID-19 pandemic (β=-0.1287, P=.0020) perceived less important the use of immunity certificates compared to those who were unemployed or had retired or those who had experienced reduction in their income during the pandemic.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of our survey suggest that more vulnerable members in our society (unemployed or retired and those believing that COVID-19 would have a severe impact on their health) and people who experienced a reduction in income during the pandemic perceived the severity of not using immunity certificates in their daily life as higher.

CLINICALTRIAL

Public views on the Covid-19 immunity certificate: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

Already in its first implementation, the introduction of the Covid-19 immunity certificate has generated some debate among the public. This debate might be a hindrance to the effective realization of this policy. This study aimed to systematically review published research evaluating public feeling of the Covid-19 immunity certificate policy measure and to find which factors might influence its acceptance.

METHODS

We followed the scoping review methods manual by the Joanna Briggs Institute. We included studies with no time limits that presented novel data, and no exclusions have been made based on study design. We excluded articles that presented just expert opinions.

RESULTS

We found and reviewed 17 articles. The included studies were conducted in two main countries (the United Kingdom and Switzerland), with the rest from Israel, Italy, Spain, Germany, Australia, Taiwan and China. Both qualitative and quantitative studies were included, and nonrepresentative samples were mostly used to explore the public feeling about the Covid-19 immunity certification. The included studies showed that public views on immunity certification are quite contradictory and influenced by age, gender, ethnicity, political orientation and attitudes towards Covid-19 vaccination. The topic more often addressed by the included studies was the public's views on the positive and negative implications of the Covid-19 immunity certificate in terms of ethical, legal and behavioural consequences of this measure.

CONCLUSION

The varying acceptance rates are notable and may partly be linked to differences in demographics, Covid-19 concerns and ideological beliefs, as seen in other health-related tracking policies. Moreover, dominant factors behind the (un)success of this policy are complex and entangled with the cultural and political dimensions rather than being just technical. For this reason, it is important to expand psychosocial research to better understand the concerns behind health certifications and allow planning of culturally based and ethically sound suitable strategies. This would be very relevant to increasing public approval and compliance with this public health measure.

PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION

This does not apply to our work as it was a review paper.

Improving preparedness for next pandemics: Max level of COVID-19 vaccinations without social impositions to design effective health policy and avoid flawed democracies

In the presence of pandemic threats, such as Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis, vaccination is one of the fundamental strategies to cope with negative effects of new viral agents in society. The rollout of vast vaccination campaigns also generates the main issue of hesitancy and resistance to vaccines in a share of people. Many studies have investigated how to reduce the social resistance to vaccinations, however the maximum level of vaccinable people against COVID-19 (and in general against pandemic diseases), without coercion in countries, is unknown. The goal of this study is to solve the problem here by developing an empirical analysis, based on global data, to estimate the max share of people vaccinable in relation to socioeconomic wellbeing of nations. Results, based on 150 countries, reveal that vaccinations increase with the income per capita, achieving the maximum share of about 70% of total population, without coercion. This information can provide new knowledge to establish the appropriate goal of vaccination campaigns and in general of health policies to cope with next pandemic impacts, without restrictions that create socioeconomic problems. Overall, then, nations have a natural level of max vaccinable people (70% of population), but strict policies and mandates to achieve 90% of vaccinated population can reduce the quality of democracy and generate socioeconomic issues higher than (pandemic) crisis.

A Lesson from the Green Pass Experience in Italy: A Narrative Review

The COVID-19 outbreak has raised several global challenges related to disease management while highlighting the need to embrace a multidimensional approach in dealing with events such as. Due to the singular features of SARS-CoV-2, an appropriate medical response was required to develop new vaccines able to tackle it effectively. Mass vaccination plans were thus promptly launched around the world. However, vaccine uptake has been coupled with growing concerns that have affected people’s willingness to get vaccinated. To promote compliance with vaccination campaigns, many governments introduced the use of vaccination certificates and immunization passports. Studies have discussed some benefits and cons coupled with the rollout of vaccine passports or certificates. This paper takes up and extends this discussion by showing the results of a mini- narrative review we undertook with the aim of critically summarizing the existing scholarly research on the Green Pass in Italy. In analyzing the 12 included records, we explored the scientific viability of this measure, as well as the concerns and criticisms it has raised and the recommendations that have been proposed to address them, as a starting point to consider how the lesson learned in the Italian context can contribute to informing future reflections and strategies in view ofanother pandemic event.

Why 'one size fits all' is not enough when designing COVID-19 immunity certificates for domestic use: a UK-wide cross-sectional online survey

OBJECTIVES

The present study explored public's willingness to use COVID-19 immunity certificates across six different domestic scenarios.

DESIGN

Cross-sectional online survey.

SETTING

UK representative survey conducted on 3 August 2021.

PARTICIPANTS

534 UK residents over 18 years old.

INTERVENTIONS

Participants replied to the same set of questions.

PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES

The primary outcome measure was willingness to use immunity certificates across three different domestic settings: (1) visiting the general practitioner (GP) for a non-urgent health issue; (2) dining in a restaurant and (3) attending a performance in a theatre. For each setting two options, one prioritising convenience (option A) and the other privacy (option B), were offered. Our secondary outcome measures were computed indices from items adapted from the Health Belief Model; attitudes towards sharing immunity status with service providers; prior to COVID-19 lifestyle. In addition, we recorded data about respondents' sociodemographic characteristics.

RESULTS

Respondents were more willing to use immunity certificates that prioritised convenience (92%), rather than privacy (76%), when visiting their GP . However, privacy was more favourable in the other two settings (dining in a restaurant (84%) and going to a theatre (83%)) compared with convenience (38% and 39% respectively). Personal beliefs about COVID-19 and immunity certificates were associated with variations in willingness to use these across all scenarios. No variations were observed across sociodemographics and lifestyle.

CONCLUSIONS

The findings of this survey suggest that there is not one-size-fits-all solution for designing immunity certificates. Immunity certificates are complex sociotechnical systems, any attempt to implement these for domestic use should be tailored to different settings and user needs. The design of certification services requires a more evidence-based approach and further research is needed to understand how different settings, design elements (like convenience or privacy) and personal beliefs about the pandemic should inform their design.

Easing Restrictions During Vaccine Scarcity. How Mitigation Measures Help Tackling Associated Moral and Behavioral Challenges

Background: When vaccines became first available during the Covid-19 pandemic, their demand significantly exceeded their supply. In consequence, the access to vaccines, initially, was distributed unequally. At the same time, governments started easing pandemic restrictions for vaccinated and recovered persons and restoring their freedoms since their risk of transmitting the virus is significantly reduced. Evidence: We show that restoring freedoms for vaccinated and recovered persons - while upholding restrictions for the rest of the population - is morally unfair during vaccine scarcity. Further, it may yield unintended side-effects, including perverse incentives, growing rifts in society, and the expansion of marginalization. Policy Options & Recommendations: We recommend accompanying easing for vaccinated and recovered individuals by mitigation measures for those who are neither vaccinated nor recovered. We propose, first, to temporarily lift the same restrictions for negative-tested individuals, as for vaccinated or recovered people. Second, the state must ensure broad and easy access to testing for everyone - free of charge. Conclusion: If done right, these mitigation measures create (at least temporarily) equal access to freedom for everybody - solving the moral problem of unfair access to freedoms and counteracting possible negative consequences.