A comparative study of eight COVID-19 protective measures and their impact on Swiss tourists' travel intentions.

A comparative vignette-based experimental survey design incorporating various socio-psychological factors, linked to the Theory of Planned Behavior (TPB), the Health Belief Model (HBM) and the Domain-Specific Risk-Taking scale (DOSPERT) was carried out to test variations in eight travel-related COVID-19 protective measures on Swiss tourists' travel intentions. Among the tested measures, vaccination passports, surgical masks and quarantining are those that stand out the most, with surgical masks having the greatest acceptance and willingness to adopt while traveling. Quarantining, on the other hand, appears to have a deterrent influence on travel intentions, and vaccination passports have the lowest perceived barriers during travel, but the highest perceived benefits in mitigating the spread of the infection. The discussion of individual differences has specific implications for tourism management against the background of our empirical findings.

CoviChain: A Blockchain Based COVID-19 Vaccination Passport

Vaccination passports are being issued by governments around the world in order to open up their travel and hospitality sectors. Civil liberty campaigners on the other hand argue that such mandatory instruments encroach upon our fundamental right to anonymity, freedom of movement, and are a backdoor to issuing "identity documents” to citizens by their governments. We present a privacy-preserving framework that uses two-factor authentication to create a unique identifier that can be used to locate a person's vaccination record on a blockchain, but does not store any personal information about them. Our main contribution is the employment of a locality sensitive hashing algorithm over an iris extraction technique, that can be used to authenticate users and anonymously locate vaccination records on the blockchain, without leaking any personally identifiable information to the blockchain. Our proposed system allows for the safe reopening of society, while maintaining the privacy of citizens. © 2023, The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.

Perceived Covid-19-crisis intensity and family supportive organizational perceptions as antecedents of parental burnout: A study conducted in Italy in March/April 2021 and 2022.

The purpose of this study is to investigate to what extent perceived Covid-19-crisis intensity (PCCI) leads to the experience of parental burnout (PB), a syndrome characterized by exhaustion, emotional detachment from one's own children and a sense of inefficacy in the role as parent. Furthermore, the mediating role of work-family conflict (WFC) is examined. The buffering effect of family supportive organizational perceptions during the pandemic (FSOP-p) on the relationship between work-family conflict and parental burnout is also explored. Data were collected in March-April 2021 and March/April 2022. In spring 2021, 222 Italian working parents with at least one minor child living at home filled out the questionnaire. Data from 2021 showed that PCCI was positively related to the experience of parental burnout. Moreover, WFC mediated this relationship. No significant interaction effect was found for FSOP-p; however it was found that FSOP-p is negatively related to PCCI and WFC, and indirectly to parental burnout. In spring 2022, we examined whether there were changes in PCCI, WFC, and FSOP-p in a sample of 83 Italian parents. Moreover, for the second data collection we examine the tensions experienced by parents in their families about vaccination and infection precaution measures (e.g., Covid-19 vaccination passport). The results are different in 2022; the effect of PCCI on parental burnout is now completely mediated by the amount of WFC. It seems that now we go 'back to normal' and homeworking has become more optional for many, there is still an effect of PCCI on WFC, but no longer directly on parental burnout. Furthermore, the prevalence of PCCI in 2022 is lower than in 2021, while WFC and FSOP-p are not significantly different between the two timepoints. As family supportive organizational perceptions reduce the level of perceived Covid-19 intensity, organizations are urged to develop practices of support and to create a supportive environment.

Are You Willing to Protect the Health of Older People? Intergenerational Contact and Ageism as Predictors of Attitudes toward the COVID-19 Vaccination Passport.

Since the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic, the vulnerability of older people to COVID-19 has been stressed in political discourse and the mass media, with the call to protect older adults. Therefore, policies aimed at reducing the spread of coronavirus, such as the COVID-19 vaccination passport policy, might be perceived as policies aimed at preserving the health of older people, and negative attitudes toward older people (i.e., ageism) might underlie negative attitudes toward such policies. While intergenerational contact is one of the main antecedents of reduced ageism, the pandemic has forced people to separate, and direct intergenerational contact in particular might have been reduced, possibly being replaced by telephone and virtual contact. In a correlational study (N = 153 Italian university students) we found that quantity and quality of direct intergenerational contact diminished during the pandemic. Virtual intergenerational contact was unexpectedly less frequent than direct contact. Quality of direct contact before the pandemic was associated, over and above the effects of other contact forms under investigation, with reduced ageism, which was in turn associated with negative attitude toward the vaccination passport. Findings will be discussed focusing on the roles of intergenerational contact and ageism for public health.

Papers Please-Predictive Factors of National and International Attitudes Toward Immunity and Vaccination Passports: Online Representative Surveys

Background: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are introducing digital passports that allow citizens to return to normal activities if they were previously infected with (immunity passport) or vaccinated against (vaccination passport) SARS-CoV-2. To be effective, policy decision-makers must know whether these passports will be widely accepted by the public and under what conditions. This study focuses attention on immunity passports, as these may prove useful in countries both with and without an existing COVID-19 vaccination program;however, our general findings also extend to vaccination passports.Objective: We aimed to assess attitudes toward the introduction of immunity passports in six countries, and determine whatMethods: We collected 13,678 participants through online representative sampling across six countries-Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom-during April to May of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed attitudes and support for the introduction of immunity passports.Results: Immunity passport support was moderate to low, being the highest in Germany (775/1507 participants, 51.43%) and the United Kingdom (759/1484, 51.15%);followed by Taiwan (2841/5989, 47.44%), Australia (963/2086, 46.16%), and Spain (693/1491, 46.48%);and was the lowest in Japan (241/1081, 22.94%). Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used to assess predictive factors for immunity passport support across countries. International results showed neoliberal worldviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.22), personal concern (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), perceived virus severity (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), the fairness of immunity passports (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.36-2.66), liking immunity passports (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.61-2.94), and a willingness to become infected to gain an immunity passport (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.51-1.68) were all predictive 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65), and risk of harm to society (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76) predicted a decrease in support for immunity

A review on perceptions of the COVID-19 vaccine passports: A problem solver or a problem maker?

Bu çalışmanın amacı, Twitter kullanıcılarının aşı pasaportlarına yönelik yaklaşımlarını anlamak, bu yaklaşımların nedenlerini açıklamak ve bu yaklaşımlar ile sürdürülebilirlik arasındaki ilişkiyi ortaya koymaktır. Çalışmada bu amaçlara ulaşmak adına NVivo 12 programı ile 56 farklı hashtag'den 104 binden fazla tweet ve retweet elde edilmiştir. Bu verilerin analizi tümevarımsal analiz yöntemiyle gerçekleştirilmiştir. Araştırma sonuçlarına göre zorunlu aşı pasaportlarına yönelik üç temel görüş bulunmaktadır. Bunlar;aşı pasaportlarını tamamiyle destekleyenler, aşı pasaportlarını tamamiyle reddedenler ve bu pasaportların zorunlu olmasını reddedenlerdir. Aşı pasaportlarını tamamiyle destekleyenler;aşıların insan sağlığına olumlu etkisi, sosyal yaşama geri dönme arzusu ve ekonomiyi yeniden canlandırma isteğiyle bu yaklaşımı sergilemektedir. Aşı pasaportlarını tamamiyle reddedenler ve bu pasaportların zorunlu olmasını reddedenler ise aşı tereddüdü, eşitlik ve ayrımcılık kaygıları, özgürlük endişeleri ve yeni bir dünya düzeni yaratıldığına dair inançlar nedeniyle bu yaklaşımları sergilemektedir. Araştırmadaki önemli sonuçlardan biri de sürdürülebilirlikle ilgilidir. Bu sonuca göre aşı pasaportlarını destekleyenler ekonomik ve sosyal sürdürülebilirlik üzerinde dururken;desteklemeyenler sosyal sürdürülebilirlik boyutunu reddederek bu uygulamaların zorunlu olmasının nedenini tümüyle ekonomik sürdürülebilirlikle ilişkilendirmektedir. Onlara göre hükümetler, otoriteler ve büyük ticari işletmeler karlılığı halk sağlığının üzerinde tutmaktadır.Alternate : The study aims to understand the approaches of Twitter users toward vaccination passports, explain the reasons for these approaches, and reveal the relationship between these approaches and sustainability. More than 104 thousand tweets and retweets from 56 different hashtags were obtained with the NVivo 12 program to achieve these goals. The analysis of these data was carried out with the inductive analysis method. According to the research results, there are three basic views on compulsory vaccination passports. These;Those who fully support vaccination passports, reject vaccination passports altogether, and reject mandatory passports. Those who fully support their vaccination passports;demonstrate this approach with the positive effect of vaccines on human health, the desire to return to social life, and the desire to revive the economy. Those who reject vaccination passports entirely and those who refuse to make these passports compulsory exhibit these approaches because of their vaccine hesitation, concerns about equality and discrimination, concerns about freedom, and the belief that new world order has been created. One of the actual results of the research is related to sustainability. According to this result, while those who support vaccination passports focus on economic and social sustainability, those who accept the social sustainability dimension associate the reason why these practices are compulsory with economic sustainability. According to them, governments, authorities and large commercial enterprises place profitability above public health.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia.

BACKGROUND: There are ongoing calls to harmonise and increase the use of COVID-19 vaccination certificates (CVCs) in Asia. Identifying groups in Asian societies who oppose CVCs and understanding their reasons can help formulate an effective CVCs policy in the region. However, no formal studies have explored this issue in Asia. METHOD: The COVID-19 Vaccination Policy Research and Decision-Support Initiative in Asia (CORESIA) was established to address policy questions related to CVCs. An online cross-sectional survey was conducted from June to October 2021 in nine Asian countries. Multivariable logistical regression analyses were performed to identify potential opposers of CVCs. RESULTS: Six groups were identified as potential opposers of CVCs: (i) unvaccinated (Odd Ratio (OR): 2.01, 95% Confidence Interval (CI): 1.65-2.46); vaccine hesitant and those without access to COVID-19 vaccines; (ii) those not wanting existing NPIs to continue (OR: 2.97, 95% CI: 2.51-3.53); (iii) those with low level of trust in governments (OR: 1.25, 95% CI: 1.02-2.52); (iv) those without travel plans (OR: 1.58, 95% CI: 1.31-1.90); (v) those expecting no financial gains from CVCs (OR: 2.35, 95% CI: 1.98-2.78); and (vi) those disagreeing to use CVCs for employment, education, events, hospitality, and domestic travel. CONCLUSIONS: Addressing recurring public health bottlenecks such as vaccine hesitancy and equitable access, adherence to policies, public trust, and changing the narrative from 'societal-benefit' to 'personal-benefit' may be necessary and may help increase wider adoption of CVCs in Asia.

Public Preferences for Policies to Promote COVID-19 Vaccination Uptake: A Discrete Choice Experiment in The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVES: The COVID-19 pandemic forms an unprecedented public health, economic, and social crisis. Uptake of vaccination is critical for controlling the pandemic. Nevertheless, vaccination hesitancy is considerable, requiring policies to promote uptake. We investigate Dutch citizens' preferences for policies that aim to promote vaccination through facilitating choice of vaccination, profiling it as the norm, making vaccination more attractive through rewards, or punishing people who reject vaccination. METHODS: We conducted a discrete choice experiment in which 747 respondents were asked to choose between policies to promote vaccination uptake and their impacts on the number of deaths, people with permanent health problems, households with income loss, and a tax increase. RESULTS: Respondents generally had a negative preference for policies that promote vaccination. They particularly disliked policies that punish those who reject the vaccine and were more favorable toward policies that reward vaccination, such as awarding additional rights to vaccinated individuals through vaccination passports. Respondents who reject vaccination were in general much more negative about the policy options than respondents who consider accepting the vaccine. Nevertheless, vaccination passports are supported by both respondents who accept the vaccine, those who reject vaccination, and those who are unsure about vaccination. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides concrete directions for governments attempting to increase the vaccination uptake in ways that are supported by the public. Our results could encourage policy makers to focus on policy options that make vaccination easier and reward people who take the vaccine, as especially the implementation of vaccination passports was supported.

Papers Please - Predictive Factors of National and International Attitudes Toward Immunity and Vaccination Passports: Online Representative Surveys.

BACKGROUND: In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, countries are introducing digital passports that allow citizens to return to normal activities if they were previously infected with (immunity passport) or vaccinated against (vaccination passport) SARS-CoV-2. To be effective, policy decision-makers must know whether these passports will be widely accepted by the public and under what conditions. This study focuses attention on immunity passports, as these may prove useful in countries both with and without an existing COVID-19 vaccination program; however, our general findings also extend to vaccination passports. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to assess attitudes toward the introduction of immunity passports in six countries, and determine what social, personal, and contextual factors predicted their support. METHODS: We collected 13,678 participants through online representative sampling across six countries-Australia, Japan, Taiwan, Germany, Spain, and the United Kingdom-during April to May of the 2020 COVID-19 pandemic, and assessed attitudes and support for the introduction of immunity passports. RESULTS: Immunity passport support was moderate to low, being the highest in Germany (775/1507 participants, 51.43%) and the United Kingdom (759/1484, 51.15%); followed by Taiwan (2841/5989, 47.44%), Australia (963/2086, 46.16%), and Spain (693/1491, 46.48%); and was the lowest in Japan (241/1081, 22.94%). Bayesian generalized linear mixed effects modeling was used to assess predictive factors for immunity passport support across countries. International results showed neoliberal worldviews (odds ratio [OR] 1.17, 95% CI 1.13-1.22), personal concern (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.16), perceived virus severity (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.01-1.14), the fairness of immunity passports (OR 2.51, 95% CI 2.36-2.66), liking immunity passports (OR 2.77, 95% CI 2.61-2.94), and a willingness to become infected to gain an immunity passport (OR 1.6, 95% CI 1.51-1.68) were all predictive factors of immunity passport support. By contrast, gender (woman; OR 0.9, 95% CI 0.82-0.98), immunity passport concern (OR 0.61, 95% CI 0.57-0.65), and risk of harm to society (OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.67-0.76) predicted a decrease in support for immunity passports. Minor differences in predictive factors were found between countries and results were modeled separately to provide national accounts of these data. CONCLUSIONS: Our research suggests that support for immunity passports is predicted by the personal benefits and societal risks they confer. These findings generalized across six countries and may also prove informative for the introduction of vaccination passports, helping policymakers to introduce effective COVID-19 passport policies in these six countries and around the world.

Passport to a Mighty Nation: Exploring Sociocultural Foundation of Chinese Public's Attitude to COVID-19 Vaccine Certificates.

Vaccination against COVID-19 is essential against the pandemic. There are broad discussions on adopting certificates for vaccination and the immunity obtained after infection. Based on a national sample of over 2000 participants administered in April 2021, the current study examines the Chinese public's attitudes to the so-called COVID-19 vaccination passport and factors contributing to their viewpoints. Generally, the Chinese people had favorable opinions on the passport. Among possible contributing factors, income, personal benefit perception, the subjective norm of COVID-19 vaccination, and nationalism were significantly associated with the public's positive attitude. At the same time, general vaccine knowledge and scientific literacy had an inconstant effect. Echoing recent studies, these findings reveal a collectivism-oriented attitude of the Chinese public towards the proposal to certify vaccination publicly. Theoretical and practical implications of the results were discussed.

Reducing COVID-19 Cases and Deaths by Applying Blockchain in Vaccination Rollout Management.

Goal: Because a fast vaccination rollout against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is critical to restore daily life and avoid virus mutations, it is tempting to have a relaxed vaccination-administration management system. However, a rigorous management system can support the enforcement of preventive measures, and in turn, reduce incidence and deaths. Here, we model a trustable and reliable management system based on blockchain for vaccine distribution by extending the Susceptible-Exposed-Infected-Recovery (SEIR) model. The model includes prevention measures such as mask-wearing, social distancing, vaccination rate, and vaccination efficiency. It also considers negative social behavior, such as violations of social distance and attempts of using illegitimate vaccination proofs. By evaluating the model, we show that the proposed system can reduce up to 2.5 million cases and half a million deaths in the most demanding scenarios.

COVID-19 vaccination passport: prospects, scientific feasibility, and ethical concerns.

A vaccination passport (also known as "vaccination certificate," "immunization passport," or "digital health pass") is a document that provides proof of vaccination and certifies that the holder is protected from illness. It is a more reliable and practical substitute for immunity passports since COVID-19 vaccination is considered a better correlate of protection. Vaccination passport can be considered as a tool offering the holder the privilege of traveling freely within countries without any restrictions. The majority of the countries that are dependent on travel and tourism have exhibited a positive inclination toward implementing COVID-19 vaccination passports, while others have a mixed opinion. The successful implementation of vaccination passports will be a complex task for the policymakers as it requires addressing several ethical, legal, and data security concerns outlined in this article. However, vaccination passports can offer economic and health benefits that will allow the gradual recovery of the economy.

[The vaccine-condition or vaccination passport and its eventual fit into a broad recommended vaccination framework against COVID-19]. / La vacuna-condición o el pasaporte de vacunación y su eventual encaje en un marco general de vacunación recomendada contra la COVID-19.

It is important to think about the eventual application of a COVID-19 vaccination certificate as an eligibility criterion to carry out certain activities and to discuss in advance the problems that the use of this tool may pose in legal terms. To this end, we must begin by stating the assumptions that would be necessary to justify its implantation, including scientific consensus on the scope of the immunity granted by COVID-19 vaccines, especially in blocking transmission in the community. Likewise, it emphasizes the importance of broadening the view in the sense of internalizing that the passport or vaccination pass constitutes only one of the many options within a rich catalog of possibilities when it comes to reinforcing the recommended vaccination model through incentives adopted in the Vaccination Strategy against COVID-19, including the use of nudging. In any case, if conditionality is installed and expanded to the extent of significantly influencing daily life, it could lead to a kind of indirect obligation, with the risk of dysfunctions in terms of equality and systemic coherence if the public powers do not contribute to clearly define the legal limits beforehand and to drive a process that in itself could be dispersed and disorderly.