ABSTRACT
Among the objectives of the WHO Global Vaccination Action Plan 2020-2025, there is the establishment, in all countries, of a National Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG), an independent body with the aim of supporting and harmonising vaccination policies. Italy firstly established a NITAG in 2017; it contributed to the nation's immunization policies but fell short of its goal of becoming a true reference group. The newly appointed NITAG, made up of 28 independent experts, has the ambitious goal to promote the new National Immunization Prevention Plan (PNPV), to harmonise the current vaccination schedule with the anti-COVID-19 campaign, and to recover the vaccination coverage decline that occurred during the pandemic. The contact with the ECDC EU/EEA, the WHO Global NITAG networks, and all the national stakeholders needs to be reinforced in order to accomplish these aims. This paper describes the structure, organisation, and strategy of the new Italian NITAG.
Subject(s)
Advisory Committees , COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Mass Vaccination , Advisory Committees/history , Advisory Committees/organization & administration , Italy/epidemiology , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Immunization Programs/standards , Immunization Programs/trends , COVID-19/epidemiology , History, 21st Century , Goals , Mass Vaccination/ethics , Mass Vaccination/organization & administration , Mass Vaccination/standards , Mass Vaccination/trends , Conflict of Interest , HumansABSTRACT
A twenty-year-old idea from network science is that vaccination campaigns would be more effective if high-contact individuals were preferentially targeted. Implementation is impeded by the ethical and practical problem of differentiating vaccine access based on a personal characteristic that is hard-to-measure and private. Here, we propose the use of occupational category as a proxy for connectedness in a contact network. Using survey data on occupation-specific contact frequencies, we calibrate a model of disease propagation in populations undergoing varying vaccination campaigns. We find that vaccination campaigns that prioritize high-contact occupational groups achieve similar infection levels with half the number of vaccines, while also reducing and delaying peaks. The paper thus identifies a concrete, operational strategy for dramatically improving vaccination efficiency in ongoing pandemics.
Subject(s)
Contact Tracing , Disease Transmission, Infectious/prevention & control , Immunization Programs , Occupational Health , Occupations , Pandemics/prevention & control , Vaccination , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethicsABSTRACT
Psychiatric disorders, and especially severe mental illness, are associated with an increased risk of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection and COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality. People with severe mental illness should therefore be prioritised in vaccine allocation strategies. Here, we discuss the risk for worse COVID-19 outcomes in this vulnerable group, the effect of severe mental illness and psychotropic medications on vaccination response, the attitudes of people with severe mental illness towards vaccination, and, the potential barriers to, and possible solutions for, an efficient vaccination programme in this population.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/methods , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Mental Disorders/psychology , Risk Assessment , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination Coverage , Vulnerable Populations/psychologySubject(s)
COVID-19 , Health Personnel , Immunization Programs , Mandatory Programs , Vaccination Hesitancy , Vaccination , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Communicable Disease Control/methods , Communicable Disease Control/organization & administration , Health Personnel/ethics , Health Personnel/psychology , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Mandatory Programs/ethics , Mandatory Programs/organization & administration , Personal Autonomy , SARS-CoV-2 , Social Responsibility , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination/ethics , Vaccination/psychology , Vaccination Coverage/methods , Vaccination Hesitancy/ethics , Vaccination Hesitancy/psychologySubject(s)
COVID-19 , Immunization Programs , Mental Disorders/epidemiology , Patient Selection , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Europe/epidemiology , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/methods , Immunization Programs/statistics & numerical data , Needs Assessment , Risk Adjustment/methods , SARS-CoV-2 , Vaccination Coverage/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Vaccines, when available, will prove to be crucial in the fight against Covid-19. All societies will face acute dilemmas in allocating scarce lifesaving resources in the form of vaccines for Covid-19. The author proposes The Value of Lives Principle as a just and workable plan for equitable and efficient access. After describing what the principle entails, the author contrasts the advantage of this approach with other current proposals such as the Fair Priority Model.
Subject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Immunization Programs/ethics , Value of Life , Humans , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Resource Allocation/ethics , United KingdomSubject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/administration & dosage , COVID-19 Vaccines/supply & distribution , Health Policy , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , Indigenous Peoples , Prejudice , Brazil , COVID-19/prevention & control , Humans , Prejudice/prevention & controlSubject(s)
COVID-19 , Emigration and Immigration , Healthcare Disparities , Humanities , Immunization Programs , Minority Health , COVID-19/ethnology , COVID-19/prevention & control , COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , Healthcare Disparities/ethics , Healthcare Disparities/ethnology , Humanities/ethics , Humanities/trends , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Minority Health/ethics , Minority Health/ethnology , SARS-CoV-2 , United States/epidemiology , Vaccination Coverage/ethics , Vaccination Coverage/organization & administrationABSTRACT
Mandatory school vaccination policies with exclusion of unvaccinated students can be a powerful tool in ensuring high vaccination rates. Some parents may object to mandatory vaccination policies, claiming exemptions based on medical, religious, or philosophical reasons. Individual schools, school systems, or local or regional governments have different policies with respect to whether, and what kind of, exemptions may be allowed. In the setting of the current pandemic, questions regarding the acceptability of exemptions have resurfaced, as schools and local governments struggle with how to safely return children to school. Anticipating that school attendance will be facilitated by the development of a vaccine, school systems will face decisions about whether to mandate vaccination and whether to permit exemptions. The American Academy of Pediatrics promulgates policy favoring the elimination of nonmedical exemptions generally in schools. This discussion considers whether schools should eliminate nonmedical exemptions to vaccination as proposed in the American Academy of Pediatrics policy, ultimately concluding that broad elimination of exemptions is not justified and advocating a more nuanced approach that encourages school attendance while promoting vaccination and broader public health goals.
Subject(s)
Health Policy/legislation & jurisprudence , Immunization Programs/ethics , Schools/ethics , Vaccination Refusal/ethics , Vaccination/ethics , Adolescent , Attitude to Health , Child , Humans , Immunization Programs/legislation & jurisprudence , Parents , Schools/legislation & jurisprudence , United States , Vaccination/legislation & jurisprudence , Vaccination Refusal/legislation & jurisprudenceSubject(s)
COVID-19 Vaccines/therapeutic use , COVID-19 , Health Care Rationing , Health Services Accessibility , Immunization Programs , Resource Allocation/organization & administration , COVID-19/epidemiology , COVID-19/prevention & control , Health Care Rationing/ethics , Health Care Rationing/methods , Health Care Rationing/organization & administration , Health Services Accessibility/ethics , Health Services Accessibility/standards , Humans , Immunization Programs/ethics , Immunization Programs/organization & administration , SARS-CoV-2ABSTRACT
Vaccination plays an important role in pandemic planning and response. The possibility of developing an effective vaccine for a novel pandemic virus is not assured. However, as we have seen with SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development, with sufficient resources and global focus, successful outcomes can be achieved in a relatively short period. However even when vaccine is available it will initially be scarce. When one becomes available, how should it be distributed? In this paper we explicate how ethical thinking that is carefully attuned to context is essential to decisions about how we should conduct vaccination in a pandemic where demand exceeds supply. We focus on two key issues. First, setting the aims for a pandemic vaccination programme. Second, thinking about the means of delivering a chosen aim. We outline how pandemic vaccine distribution strategies can be implemented with distinct aims, e.g. protecting groups at greater risk of harm, saving the most lives, or ensuring societal benefit. Each aim will result in a focus on a different priority population and each strategy will have a different benefit-harm profile. Once we have decided our aim, we still have choices to make about delivery. We may achieve at least some ends via direct or indirect strategies. Such policy decisions are not merely technical, but necessarily involve ethics. One important general issue is that such planning decisions about distribution will always be made under conditions of uncertainty about vaccine safety and effectiveness. However, planning how to distribute vaccine for SARS-CoV-2 is even harder because we understand relatively little about the virus, transmission, and its immunological impact in the short and long term.