Previous Vaccination History and Psychological Factors as Significant Predictors of Willingness to Receive Mpox Vaccination and a Favorable Attitude towards Compulsory Vaccination.

During the ongoing multi-country monkeypox (Mpox) outbreak, healthcare workers (HCWs) have represented a key group in mitigating disease spread. The current study aimed to evaluate the attitude of nurses and physicians in Jordan towards Mpox vaccination, as well as their attitude towards compulsory vaccination against coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), influenza, and Mpox. An online survey was distributed in January 2023 based on the previously validated 5C scale for psychological determinants of vaccination. Previous vaccination behavior was assessed by inquiring about the history of getting the primary and booster COVID-19 vaccination, influenza vaccine uptake during COVID-19, and any history of influenza vaccine uptake. The study sample consisted of 495 respondents: nurses (n = 302, 61.0%) and physicians (n = 193, 39.0%). Four hundred and thirty respondents (86.9%) had heard of Mpox before the study, and formed the final sample considered for Mpox knowledge analysis. Deficiencies in Mpox knowledge were reflected in a mean knowledge score of 13.3 ± 2.7 (out of 20.0 as the maximum score), with significantly lower knowledge among nurses and females. The intention to receive Mpox vaccination was reported by 28.9% of the participants (n = 143), while 33.3% were hesitant (n = 165), and 37.8% were resistant (n = 187). In multivariate analysis, Mpox vaccine acceptance was significantly associated with previous vaccination behavior, reflected in higher vaccine uptake and with higher 5C scores, while Mpox knowledge was not correlated with Mpox vaccination intention. The overall attitude towards compulsory vaccination was neutral, while a favorable attitude towards compulsory vaccination was associated with higher 5C scores and a history of previous vaccination uptake. The current study showed a low intention to get Mpox vaccination in a sample of nurses and physicians practicing in Jordan. The psychological factors and previous vaccination behavior appeared as the most significant determinants of Mpox vaccine acceptance and of attitudes towards compulsory vaccination. The consideration of these factors is central to policies and strategies aiming to promote vaccination among health professionals in efforts to prepare for future infectious disease epidemics.

Investigating Canadian Public Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates with a Nested Analysis Framework.

BACKGROUND: Social media is an important medium for studying public attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine mandates in Canada, and Reddit network communities are a good source for this. METHODS: This study applied a "nested analysis" framework. We collected 20378 Reddit comments via the Pushshift API and developed a BERT-based binary classification model to screen for relevance to COVID-19 vaccine mandates. We then used a Guided Latent Dirichlet Allocation (LDA) model on relevant comments to extract key topics and assign each comment to its most relevant topic. RESULTS: There were 3179 (15.6%) relevant and 17199 (84.4%) irrelevant comments. Our BERT-based model achieved 91% accuracy trained with 300 Reddit comments after 60 epochs. The Guided LDA model had an optimal coherence score of 0.471 with four topics: travel, government, certification, and institutions. Human evaluation of the Guided LDA model showed an 83% accuracy in assigning samples to their topic groups. CONCLUSION: We develop a screening tool for filtering and analyzing Reddit comments on COVID-19 vaccine mandates through topic modelling. Future research could develop more effective seed word-choosing and evaluation methods to reduce the need for human judgment.

Political Partisanship and Trust in Government Predict Popular Support for COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Various Professions and Demographic Groups: A Research Note

Due to the slow rate of COVID-19 vaccine uptake and the spread of the highly contagious Omicron variant, governments are considering mandating COVID-19 vaccination for specific professions and demographic groups. This study evaluates popular attitudes toward such policies. We fielded a survey of 535 registered voters in South Dakota to examine popular attitudes towards vaccine mandates for five groups—children 12 and older, K-12 teachers, medical staff, nursing homes staff, and police personnel. We estimated a series of logistic regression models and presented predicted probabilities to find the primary determinants of these attitudes. Results revealed that political partisanship and trust in government are strong predictors of support for vaccine mandates across all models. Should government and public health officials wish to increase the proportion of people vaccinated for COVID-19, they must recognize the limitations of current public health campaigns, and reshape their efforts in congruence with scientific findings.

Coronavirus and the social state: Austria in the pandemic

This chapter examines the chronology as well as the cause-and-effect of the evolution of the rule of law, state power, public health, and popular will in Austria. While some European Union (EU) states had enacted vaccine mandates for older residents, and other European countries required COVID-19 vaccines of health-care workers, Austria's more-or-less universal Impfpflicht for adults represented a new milestone in the EU amid the crises of the twenty-first century. In parliament as well as in the new and old media, the most prominent objectors to the vaccine mandate hailed from the populist nationalist-right Freedom Party of Austria. Starting in 2009, Austria faced its own share of the sovereign debt misery or eurozone crisis. Despite the Sturm, Drang, and sordid scandal of the last decade or so, Austria's Sozialstaat is neither down nor out. © 2023 John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Higher education decision on covid-19 vaccine mandate

Higher education institutions (HEIs) had a public health decision to make in fall 2021, whether or not to mandate a Covid-19 vaccine for all students. The aim of this paper is to study the factors that influence the student vaccine mandate decision. We employ a logistic regression with the dependent variable equal 1 if a HEI has a student mandate;0 otherwise. We hypothesize that the student vaccine mandate decision is influenced by an institution's ranking, type, enrolment, competition, and political landscape. The results are consistent with expectations. Our significant finding is that top-ranked HEIs are more likely to have a vaccine mandate, with the probability of a vaccine mandate declining as the ranking declines. HEIs below those top-ranked are concerned about the financial implications of mandating vaccines, and this concern is heightened when students have alternatives. A national standard for a higher education vaccine mandate will internalize the positive externalities associated with a Covid-19 vaccine mandate, and overcome the reluctance of some HEIs to implement a vaccine mandate.

Urban-rural divide in COVID-19 infection and vaccination rates in healthcare workers in British Columbia, Canada.

Introduction: Healthcare workers (HCWs) play a critical role in responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. Early in the pandemic, urban centres were hit hardest globally; rural areas gradually became more impacted. We compared COVID-19 infection and vaccine uptake in HCWs living in urban versus rural locations within, and between, two health regions in British Columbia (BC), Canada. We also analysed the impact of a vaccine mandate for HCWs. Methods: We tracked laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infections, positivity rates and vaccine uptake in all 29,021 HCWs in Interior Health (IH) and all 24,634 HCWs in Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), by occupation, age and home location, comparing to the general population in that region. We then evaluated the impact of infection rates as well as the mandate on vaccination uptake. Results: While we found an association between vaccine uptake by HCWs and HCW COVID-19 rates in the preceding 2-week period, the higher rates of COVID-19 infection in some occupational groups did not lead to increased vaccination in these groups. By 27 October 2021, the date that unvaccinated HCWs were prohibited from providing healthcare, only 1.6% in VCH compared with 6.5% in IH remained unvaccinated. Rural workers in both areas had significantly higher unvaccinated rates compared with urban dwellers. Over 1800 workers, comprising 6.7% of rural HCWs and 3.6% of urban HCWs, remained unvaccinated and set to be terminated from their employment. While the mandate prompted a significant increase in uptake of second doses, the impact on the unvaccinated was less clear. Conclusions: As rural areas often suffer from under-staffing, loss of HCWs could have serious impacts on healthcare provision as well as on the livelihoods of unvaccinated HCWs. Greater efforts are needed to understand how to better address the drivers of rural-related vaccine hesitancy.

Résumé Introduction: Les travailleurs de la santé (TS) jouent un rôle essentiel dans la réponse à la pandémie de COVID-19. Au début de la pandémie, les centres urbains ont été les plus durement touchés à l'échelle mondiale; les zones rurales ont progressivement été plus touchées. Nous avons comparé l'infection à la COVID-19 et l'adoption du vaccin chez les travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé vivant dans des zones urbaines et rurales au sein de deux régions sanitaires de la Colombie-Britannique (C.-B.), au Canada, et entre ces régions. Nous avons également analysé l'impact d'un mandat de vaccination pour les travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé. Méthodes: Nous avons suivi les infections au SRAS-CoV-2 confirmées en laboratoire, les taux de positivité et l'adoption du vaccin chez les 29 021 TS d'Interior Health (IH) et les 24 634 TS de Vancouver Coastal Health (VCH), par profession, âge et lieu de résidence, en les comparant à la population générale de cette région. Nous avons ensuite évalué l'impact des taux d'infection ainsi que du mandat sur le recours à la vaccination. Résultats: Bien que nous ayons trouvé une association entre l'adoption du vaccin par les TS et les taux de COVID-19 des travailleurs de la santé au cours de la période de deux semaines précédentes, les taux plus élevés d'infection par la COVID-19 dans certains groupes professionnels n'ont pas entraîné une augmentation de la vaccination dans ces groupes. En date du 27 octobre 2021, date à laquelle il était interdit aux travailleuses et travailleurs de santé non vaccinés de fournir des soins de santé, seul 1,6% des travailleuses et travailleurs de la VCH, contre 6,5% des travailleuses et travailleurs de l'IH, n'étaient toujours pas vaccinés. Les travailleuses et travailleurs ruraux des deux zones présentaient des taux de non-vaccination significativement plus élevés que les citadins. Plus de 1 800 travailleuses et travailleurs, soit 6,7% des TS ruraux et 3,6% des TS urbains, n'étaient toujours pas vaccinés et devaient être licenciés. Bien que le mandat ait entraîné une augmentation significative de la prise des deuxièmes doses, l'impact sur les personnes non-vaccinées était moins clair. Conclusions: Comme les zones rurales souffrent souvent d'un manque de personnel, la perte de TS pourrait avoir de graves répercussions sur la prestation des soins de santé ainsi que sur les moyens de subsistance des TS non-vaccinés. Des efforts plus importants sont nécessaires pour comprendre comment mieux aborder les facteurs d'hésitation à SE faire vacciner en milieu rural. Mots-clés: Travailleuses et travailleurs de la santé, COVID-19, vaccination, mandat de vaccination, milieu rural.

An Ethical Anaylsis of the Arguments Both For and Against COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers.

BACKGROUND: Since the development of the first U.S. Food and Drug Administration-approved vaccine for the prevention of serious disease and death associated with the SARS-CoV-2 virus, health care workers have been expected to comply with mandatory immunization requirements or face potential termination of employment and censure by their state medical boards. Although most accepted this mandate, there have been several who have felt this was an unnecessary intrusion and violation of their right to choose their own health care mitigation strategies, or an infringement on their autonomy and other civil liberties. Others have argued that being a health care professional places your duties above your own self-interests, so-called fiduciary duties. As a result of these duties, there is an expected obligation to do the best action to achieve the "most good" for society. A so-called "utilitarian argument." DISCUSSION: We explore arguments both for and against these mandatory vaccine requirements and conclude using duty- and consequence-based moral reasoning to weigh the merits of each. CONCLUSIONS: Although arguments for and against vaccine mandates are compelling, it is the opinion of the Ethics Committee of the American Academy of Emergency Medicine that vaccine mandates for health care workers are ethically just and appropriate, and the benefit to society far outweighs the minor inconvenience to an individual's personal liberties.

Attitudes toward COVID-19 vaccine mandate: The role of psychological characteristics and partisan self-identification.

Governments around the world are increasingly considering vaccine mandates to curb the spread of COVID-19. In May 2022, we surveyed 394 residents of South Dakota to examine predictors of popular attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. We investigated the role of Big Five personality traits, right-wing authoritarianism, and social dominance orientation, as well as partisan self-identification, evangelical identity, and COVID-19 vaccination status. Results showed that Big Five personality traits (openness and emotional stability), right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, evangelical identity, and partisan self-identification are linked to attitudes toward a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Our findings underscore the politicization of the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the impact of dispositional factors on attitudes toward mandatory COVID-19 vaccination.

Leveraging meatpacking ownership concentration and community centrality to improve disease resiliency

The U.S. meat processing sector has been subject to amplified scrutiny after workers exhibited disproportionately high rates of COVID-19 infections and deaths. In response, Tyson Foods-one of the largest meat packers in the country-mandated that its employees be vaccinated against COVID-19 by November 1, 2021. In this paper, we investigate the impact that the Tyson vaccine mandate had on vaccine uptake, infection rates, and deaths in counties where Tyson processing facilities are located. We find that the mandate resulted in approximately 35,000 additional vaccinations. The resultant vaccine uptake avoided 98 COVID-19 infections per day and nearly 75 COVID-19-related deaths;the associated public health savings total $45.4 million. Employee health-related interventions at the corporate level can leverage industry ownership concentration and the centrality of packing operations in host communities to improve health outcomes and disease resiliency well beyond the packing operations.

COVID-19 Misinformation and Social Network Crowdfunding: Cross-sectional Study of Alternative Treatments and Antivaccine Mandates.

BACKGROUND: Crowdfunding is increasingly used to offset the financial burdens of illness and health care. In the era of the COVID-19 pandemic and associated infodemic, the role of crowdfunding to support controversial COVID-19 stances is unknown. OBJECTIVE: We sought to examine COVID-19-related crowdfunding focusing on the funding of alternative treatments not endorsed by major medical entities, including campaigns with an explicit antivaccine, antimask, or antihealth care stances. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of GoFundMe campaigns for individuals requesting donations for COVID-19 relief. Campaigns were identified by key word and manual review to categorize campaigns into "Traditional treatments," "Alternative treatments," "Business-related," "Mandate," "First Response," and "General." For each campaign, we extracted basic narrative, engagement, and financial variables. Among those that were manually reviewed, the additional variables of "mandate type," "mandate stance," and presence of COVID-19 misinformation within the campaign narrative were also included. COVID-19 misinformation was defined as "false or misleading statements," where cited evidence could be provided to refute the claim. Descriptive statistics were used to characterize the study cohort. RESULTS: A total of 30,368 campaigns met the criteria for final analysis. After manual review, we identified 53 campaigns (0.17%) seeking funding for alternative medical treatment for COVID-19, including popularized treatments such as ivermectin (n=14, 26%), hydroxychloroquine (n=6, 11%), and vitamin D (n=4, 7.5%). Moreover, 23 (43%) of the 53 campaigns seeking support for alternative treatments contained COVID-19 misinformation. There were 80 campaigns that opposed mandating masks or vaccination, 48 (60%) of which contained COVID-19 misinformation. Alternative treatment campaigns had a lower median amount raised (US $1135) compared to traditional (US $2828) treatments (P<.001) and a lower median percentile of target achieved (11.9% vs 31.1%; P=.003). Campaigns for alternative treatments raised substantially lower amounts (US $115,000 vs US $52,715,000, respectively) and lower proportions of fundraising goals (2.1% vs 12.5%) for alternative versus conventional campaigns. The median goal for campaigns was significantly higher (US $25,000 vs US $10,000) for campaigns opposing mask or vaccine mandates relative to those in support of upholding mandates (P=.04). Campaigns seeking funding to lift mandates on health care workers reached US $622 (0.15%) out of a US $410,000 goal. CONCLUSIONS: A small minority of web-based crowdfunding campaigns for COVID-19 were directed at unproven COVID-19 treatments and support for campaigns aimed against masking or vaccine mandates. Approximately half (71/133, 53%) of these campaigns contained verifiably false or misleading information and had limited fundraising success. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1001/jamainternmed.2019.3330.

Protection motivation unmasked: Applying protection motivation theory to skepticism toward COVID-19 mask and vaccine mandates.

Variants of COVID-19 have sparked controversy regarding mask and/or vaccine mandates in some sectors of the country. Many people hold polarized opinions about such mandates, and it is uncertain what predicts attitudes towards these protective behavior mandates. Through a snow-ball sampling procedure of respondents on social media platforms, this study examined skepticism of 774 respondents toward these mandates as a function of the Protection Motivation Theory (PMT) of health. Hierarchical linear regressions examined Protection Motivation (PM) as a predictor of mask and vaccine mandate skepticism independently and with political party affiliation as a control. PM alone accounted for 76% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001 and 65% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001. When political affiliation was entered (accounting for 28% of the variance in mask mandate skepticism, p < 0.001, and 26% in vaccine mandate skepticism, p < 0.001), PM still accounted for significant percentages of variance in both mask (50%) and vaccine (43%) mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001. Across regressions, perceived severity, outcome efficaciousness, and self-efficacy each directly accounted for unique variance in mask and vaccine mandate skepticism, ps < 0.001; only perceived vulnerability failed to account for unique variance in the regressions, ps > 0.05. Specifically, the more severe participants perceived COVID-19 to be and the greater the perceived efficacy of masks and vaccines preventing the spread of COVID-19, the lower participants' skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates. Similarly, the higher participants' self-efficacy in wearing masks or receiving the vaccine, the lower their skepticism toward mask and vaccine mandates.

Primary care professionals' support for Covid-19 vaccination mandates: Findings from a US national survey.

Healthcare organizations have been early adopters of Covid-19 vaccine mandates as a strategy to end the pandemic. We sought to evaluate support for such mandates among pediatric primary care professionals (PCPs) in the United States. In February-March 2021, we conducted a national online survey of 1,047 PCPs (71% physicians). We used multivariable logistic regression to assess correlates of PCPs' support for Covid-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers. Most PCPs supported Covid-19 vaccine mandates for health care workers (83%). PCPs were more likely to support mandates if they perceived health care workers to be at highest risk of getting Covid-19 compared to other worker types (8 percentage points, p < 0.01). PCPs were also more likely to support mandates if their clinic recommended or required vaccination (11 percentage points and 20 percentage points respectively, both p < 0.01). However, PCPs were less likely to support mandates if their clinic offered incentives to vaccinate (10 percentage points, p < 0.05). Clinic recommendations and requirements for Covid-19 vaccination may increase support for mandates. Incentives may decrease support, perhaps by creating the perception that viable alternatives to mandates exist.

Politics of COVID-19 vaccine mandates: Left/right-wing authoritarianism, social dominance orientation, and libertarianism.

Mandatory and punitive vaccination policies, such as requiring vaccination certificates for public activities and firing employees who refuse vaccination, have raised considerable objections. With a sample of U.S. crowdsourced workers (N = 983), this study investigates how four ideologies-left-wing authoritarianism (LWA), right-wing authoritarianism (RWA), social dominance orientation (SDO), and libertarianism-explain vaccine acceptance and attitudes toward vaccine policies. Results show that LWA predicts higher vaccine acceptance and support for COVID-19 vaccine mandates and the punishment of unvaccinated individuals, whereas libertarianism and RWA show negative relationships. SDO is linked to opposition to vaccine mandates. This study underscores the role of specific ideological components in shaping attitudes toward vaccine policies while also contributing to the arguments that LWA and libertarianism have important implications for studying sociopolitical attitudes.

Can "My Body, My Choice" anti-vaxxers be pro-life?

Many "anti-vaxxers" oppose COVID-19 vaccination mandates on the grounds that they wrongfully infringe on bodily autonomy. Their view has been expressed with the slogan "My Body, My Choice," co-opted from the pro-choice abortion rights movement. Yet, many of those same people are pro-life and support abortion restrictions that are effectively a kind of gestation mandate. Both vaccine and gestation mandates impose restrictions on bodily autonomy in order to prevent serious harms. This article evaluates the defensibility of the anti-vax pro-life position. We argue that the case for opposing gestation mandates on grounds of bodily autonomy is much stronger than the case for opposing vaccine mandates-even if fetuses have full moral status. Thus, there is a deep tension in being a pro-life, COVID anti-vaxxer concerned with bodily autonomy.

Designing COVID-19 vaccine mandates in colleges and universities: a roadmap to the 10 key questions.

COVID-19 transmission among students, faculty, and staff at US institutions of higher education (IHEs) is a pressing concern, especially with the dominance of the highly contagious Delta variant and emergence of the Omicron variant. From the start of the pandemic to May 26, 2021, >700,000 cases were linked to US colleges and universities. To protect their populations and surrounding communities, IHE administrators are increasingly considering COVID-19 vaccine requirements. Roughly one-quarter of the nearly 4,000 college and university campuses across the US have announced COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students or employees. However, deciding to require vaccination is only the first of multiple decisions, as IHEs face complex issues of how to design and refine their mandates, including whether to require boosters. Mandates vary significantly in stringency, implementation, impact on members of the college or university community, and net benefit to the institution. This essay examines 10 key questions that an IHE must face in designing or refining a COVID-19 vaccination mandate. Showing that these 10 questions were carefully considered may be crucial if the institution's mandate is challenged. Ultimately, how an IHE designs its mandate may make the difference between meaningful risk mitigation that advances institutional goals and benefits students, faculty, and staff versus a public health failure that erodes trust, raises equity concerns, threatens to undermine preexisting vaccination requirements, and divides the campus.

Considerations for fair prioritization of COVID-19 vaccine and its mandate among healthcare personnel.

With current COVID-19 vaccine demand outweighing supply and the emergency authorization/rollout of three novel vaccines in the United States, discussions continue regarding fair prioritization among various groups for this scarce resource. The US federal government's recommended vaccination schedule, meant to assist states with vaccine allocation, demonstrates fair ethical considerations; however, difficulties remain comparing various groups to determine fair vaccine access and distribution. Although strides have been taken to analyze risks versus benefits of early vaccination across certain high-risk populations, prioritizing vulnerable populations versus essential workers remains challenging for multiple reasons. Similarly, as COVID-19 vaccine allocation and distribution continues in the US and in other countries, topics that require continued consideration include sub-prioritization among currently prioritized groups, prioritization among vulnerable groups disproportionately affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, like ethnic minorities, and holistic comparisons between groups who might receive various and disparate benefits from vaccination. Although all current COVID-19 vaccines are emergency authorization use only and a vaccine mandate would be considered only once these vaccines are licensed by the US Food and Drug Administration, future vaccination policies require time and deliberation. Similarly, given current vaccine hesitancy, mandatory vaccination of certain groups, like healthcare personnel, may need to be considered when these vaccines are licensed, especially if voluntary vaccination proves insufficient. Continued discussions regarding risks versus benefits of mandatory COVID-19 vaccination and the unique role of healthcare personnel in providing a safe healthcare environment could lead to better deliberation regarding potential policies. This commentary aims to address both questions of fair prioritization and sub-prioritization of various groups, as well as ethical considerations for mandatory COVID-19 vaccination among healthcare personnel.