A "step too far" or "perfect sense"? A qualitative study of British adults' views on mandating COVID-19 vaccination and vaccine passports.

BACKGROUND: Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive. METHODS: Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically. FINDINGS: Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness. DISCUSSION: To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.

Lockdown and licensed premises: COVID-19 lessons for alcohol policy.

INTRODUCTION: The COVID-19 pandemic necessitated unprecedented changes in alcohol availability, including closures, curfews and restrictions. We draw on new data from three UK studies exploring these issues to identify implications for premises licensing and wider policy. METHODS: (i) Semi-structured interviews (n = 17) with licensing stakeholders in Scotland and England reporting how COVID-19 has reshaped local licensing and alcohol-related harms; (ii) semi-structured interviews (n = 15) with ambulance clinicians reporting experiences with alcohol during the pandemic; and (iii) descriptive and time series analyses of alcohol-related ambulance callouts in Scotland before and during the first UK lockdown (1 January 2019 to 30 June 2020). RESULTS: COVID-19 restrictions (closures, curfews) affected on-trade premises only and licensing stakeholders highlighted the relaxation of some laws (e.g. on takeaway alcohol) and a rise in home drinking as having long-term risks for public health. Ambulance clinicians described a welcome break from pre-pandemic mass public intoxication and huge reductions in alcohol-related callouts at night-time. They also highlighted potential long-term risks of increased home drinking. The national lockdown was associated with an absolute fall of 2.14 percentage points [95% confidence interval (CI) -3.54, -0.74; P = 0.003] in alcohol-related callouts as a percentage of total callouts, followed by a daily increase of +0.03% (95% CI 0.010, 0.05; P = 0.004). DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 gave rise to both restrictions on premises and relaxations of licensing, with initial reductions in alcohol-related ambulance callouts, a rise in home drinking and diverse impacts on businesses. Policies which may protect on-trade businesses, while reshaping the night-time economy away from alcohol-related harms, could offer a 'win-win' for policymakers and health advocates.

National survey of attitudes towards and intentions to vaccinate against COVID-19: implications for communications.

OBJECTIVES: To examine public views on COVID-19 vaccination and consider the implications for communications and targeted support. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: Online and telephone nationally representative survey in Great Britain, January to February 2021. PARTICIPANTS: 4978 adults. Survey response rate was 84%, among the 5931 panellists invited. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Sociodemographic characteristics (age, gender, ethnicity, education, financial status), COVID-19 status, vaccine acceptance, trust in COVID-19 vaccination information sources, perceptions of vaccination priority groups and perceptions of importance of second dose. RESULTS: COVID-19 vaccine acceptance (83%) was associated with increasing age, higher level of education and having been invited for vaccination. Acceptance decreased with unconfirmed past COVID-19, greater financial hardship and non-white British ethnicity; black/black British participants had lowest acceptance. Overall, healthcare and scientific sources of information were most trusted. Compared with white British participants, other ethnicities had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with lower educational attainment or financial hardship had lower trust in healthcare and scientific sources. Those with no qualifications had higher trust in media and family/friends. While trust was low overall in community or faith leaders, it was higher among those with Asian/Asian British and black/black British ethnicity compared with white British participants. Views of vaccine prioritisation were mostly consistent with UK official policy but there was support for prioritising additional groups. There was high support for having the second vaccine dose. CONCLUSIONS: Targeted engagement is needed to address COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in non-white British ethnic groups, in younger adults, and among those with lower education, greater financial hardship and unconfirmed past infection. Healthcare professionals and scientific advisors should play a central role in communications and tailored messaging is needed for hesitant groups. Careful communication around vaccination prioritisation continues to be required.

Managing COVID-19 Transmission Risks in Bars: An Interview and Observation Study

Objective: Licensed premises face particular challenges to operating safely within COVID-19 restrictions. Following a U.K. national lockdown from March 20, 2020, we studied business practices and behaviors in licensed premises to inform COVID-19 policies. To our knowledge, no previous study worldwide has examined these issues. Method: Before premises reopened in Scotland, we conducted in-depth telephone interviews (May–June 2020) with participants from hospitality trade associations, licensed premises, or in related roles (n = 18). Interviews focused on anticipated business practices and challenges relevant to minimizing COVID-19 transmission. Following reopening (July–August 2020), we conducted observations of relevant practices and behaviors in 29 bars purposively sampled for diversity, using a structured schedule. Interviews and observation reports were analyzedthematically. Results: Interviewees generally sought clarity, flexibility, and balance in government guidance on reopening, and they cited commercial and practical challenges to doing so safely. Alcohol consumption was perceived as an additional but potentially manageable challenge. Most observed premises had made physical and operational modifications;however, practices were variable. Observed incidents of concern included close physical interaction between customers and with staff, frequently featuring alcohol intoxication and rarely effectively stopped by staff. Conclusions: Despite the efforts of bar operators and guidance from government, potentially significant risks of COVID-19 transmission persisted in a substantial minority of observed bars, especially when customers were intoxicated.