Perceptions of vaccination certificates among the general population in Geneva, Switzerland.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to assess the public perception of COVID-19 vaccination certificates as well as potential differences between individuals. METHODS: Between 17 March and 1 April 2021, a self-administered online questionnaire was proposed to all persons aged 18 years and older participating in the longitudinal follow-up of SARS-CoV-2 seroprevalence studies in Geneva, Switzerland. The questionnaire covered aspects of individual and collective benefits, and allowed participants to select contexts in which vaccination certificates should be presented. Results were presented as the proportion of persons agreeing or disagreeing with the implementation of vaccination certificates, selecting specific contexts where certificates should be presented, and agreeing or disagreeing with the potential risks related to certificates. Logistic regression was used to calculate odds ratios for factors associated with certificate non-acceptance. RESULTS: Overall, 4067 individuals completed the questionnaire (response rate 77.4%; mean age 53.3 ± standard deviation 14.4 years; 56.1% were women). About 61.0% of participants agreed or strongly agreed that a vaccination certificate was necessary in certain contexts and 21.6% believed there was no context where vaccination certificates should be presented. Contexts where a majority of participants perceived a vaccination certificate should be presented included jobs where others would be at risk of COVID-related complications (60.7%), jobs where employees would be at risk of getting infected (58.7%), or to be exempt from quarantine when travelling abroad (56.0%). Contexts where fewer individuals perceived the need for vaccination certificates to be presented were participation in large gatherings (36.9%), access to social venues (35.5%), or sharing the same workspace (21.5%). Younger age, no intent for vaccination, and not believing vaccination to be an important step in surmounting the pandemic were factors associated with certificate non-acceptance. CONCLUSION: This large population-based study showed that the general adult population in Geneva, Switzerland, agreed with the implementation of vaccination certificates in work-related and travel-related contexts. However, this solution was perceived as unnecessary for access to large gatherings or social venues, or to share the same workspace. Differences were seen with age, sex, education, socioeconomic status, and vaccination willingness and perception, highlighting the importance of taking personal and sociodemographic variation into consideration when predicting acceptance of such certificates.

Financial Loss and Depressive Symptoms in University Students During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison Between 23 Countries.

Objectives: To assess the association between students' financial loss and depressive symptoms during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether this association varied by countries having different levels of lockdown measures. Methods: This cross-sectional survey, conducted in spring 2020, included 91,871 students from 23 countries. Depressive symptoms were measured using the shortened Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale and information on lockdowns retrieved from the COVID-19 government response tracker. The association between financial loss and depressive symptoms was investigated estimating prevalence ratios (PR) with multilevel Poisson models. Results: Some 13% of students suffered financial loss during the lockdown and 52% had a relatively high depression score, with large between-countries differences. Minimally and maximally adjusted models showed a 35% (PR = 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.29-1.42) and 31% (PR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.26-1.37) higher prevalence of depressive symptoms in students who lost economic resources compared to students with stable economic resources. No substantial differences in the association were found across countries. Conclusion: Depressive symptoms were more frequent among students who suffered financial loss during the pandemic. Policy makers should consider this issue in the implementation of COVID-19 mitigating measures.

Financial Loss and Depressive Symptoms in University Students During the First Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic: Comparison Between 23 Countries

Objectives: To assess the association between students’ financial loss and depressive symptoms during the first wave of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and whether this association varied by countries having different levels of lockdown measures. Methods: This cross-sectional survey, conducted in spring 2020, included 91,871 students from 23 countries. Depressive symptoms were measured using the shortened Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale and information on lockdowns retrieved from the COVID-19 government response tracker. The association between financial loss and depressive symptoms was investigated estimating prevalence ratios (PR) with multilevel Poisson models. Results: Some 13% of students suffered financial loss during the lockdown and 52% had a relatively high depression score, with large between-countries differences. Minimally and maximally adjusted models showed a 35% (PR = 1.35, 95% Confidence Interval (CI) = 1.29–1.42) and 31% (PR = 1.31, 95% CI = 1.26–1.37) higher prevalence of depressive symptoms in students who lost economic resources compared to students with stable economic resources. No substantial differences in the association were found across countries. Conclusion: Depressive symptoms were more frequent among students who suffered financial loss during the pandemic. Policy makers should consider this issue in the implementation of COVID-19 mitigating measures.

Acceptability of COVID-19 Certificates: A Qualitative Study in Geneva, Switzerland, in 2020.

Immunity certificates related to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus-2 (SARS-CoV-2) have been under discussion since the beginning of the pandemic with conflicting opinions. In order to identify arguments in favor of and against the possible implementation of documents certifying immunity of an individual based on serological testing, we developed a qualitative study in Geneva, Switzerland. The study took place between two lockdowns with a sense of semi-normalcy during summer 2020 in Switzerland but at a time when no vaccine was available and seroprevalence was below 21%. Eleven focus groups with members of the public and 14 semi-structured interviews with stakeholders were conducted between July and November 2020, with a total of 68 participants with an age range between 24 and 77 years. Interviews and focus groups transcripts were coded with the ATLAS.ti CAQDAS. Few participants considered immunity certificates based on serological testing as an acceptable public health measure. Major concerns included the reliability of scientific data related to COVID-19 immunity and serological testing potential re-infection as well as the possibility that the use of certificates could result in deleterious outcomes. Discrimination, counterfeiting, incitement for self-infection, invasion of the private sphere, violation of personal integrity, and violation of medical secrecy were perceived as the major risks. Benefits of immunity certificates were more perceived when in relation to vaccination, and included gains in medical knowledge and protection in certain contexts involving leisure or work-related activities. The consequences of implementing immunity certificates are numerous, and the acceptability by the general population has to be considered when engaging in such policy. Even if the results provide a snapshot of arguments discussed around immunity certificates based on serological testing before the implementation of the COVID-19 vaccine, most of the issues discussed are central in the current debates about vaccination certificates.

Building a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to the COVID-19 pandemic.

The current global systemic crisis reveals how globalised societies are unprepared to face a pandemic. Beyond the dramatic loss of human life, the COVID-19 pandemic has triggered widespread disturbances in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems in many countries across the world. Resilience describes the capacities of natural and human systems to prevent, react to and recover from shocks. Societal resilience to the current COVID-19 pandemic relates to the ability of societies in maintaining their core functions while minimising the impact of the pandemic and other societal effects. Drawing on the emerging evidence about resilience in health, social, economic, environmental and governance systems, this paper delineates a multisystemic understanding of societal resilience to COVID-19. Such an understanding provides the foundation for an integrated approach to build societal resilience to current and future pandemics.

The Impact of the Covid-19 Pandemic and the Lockdown on the Health and Living Conditions of Undocumented Migrants and Migrants Undergoing Legal Status Regularization.

Introduction: Undocumented migrants are at high risk of adverse consequences during crises because of a lack of access to essential securities and sources of support. This study aims to describe the impact of the COVID-19 crisis on the health and living circumstances of precarious migrants in Switzerland and to assess whether those undergoing legal status regularization fared better than undocumented migrants. Materials and methods: This cross-sectional mixed methods study was conducted during the COVID-19 lockdown in April-May 2020. Undocumented and recently regularized migrants taking part in an ongoing cohort study were asked to respond to an online questionnaire. A subsample was selected to undergo semi-directed phone interviews. Results: Overall, 117 of the 379 (30.9%) cohort study participants responded to the questionnaire. Seventeen interviews were conducted. Migrants faced cumulative and rapidly progressive difficulties in essential life domains. As a consequence, they showed high prevalence of exposure to COVID-19, poor mental health along with frequent avoidance of health care. Moreover, the loss of working hours and the related income overlapped with frequent food and housing insecurity. Around one participant in four had experienced hunger. Despite these unmet needs, half of the participants had not sought external assistance for reasons that differ by legal status. Both groups felt that seeking assistance might represent a threat for the renewal or a future application for a residency permit. While documented migrants were less severely affected in some domains by having accumulated more reserves previously, they also frequently renounced to sources of support. Conclusions: The cumulated difficulties faced by migrants in this period of crisis and their limited search for assistance highlight the need to implement trust-building strategies to bridge the access gap to sources of support along with policies protecting them against the rapid loss of income, the risk of losing their residency permit and the exposure to multi-fold insecurities.