Mask Use During COVID-19: A Social-Ecological Analysis.

To limit the spread of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention issued recommendations that individuals wear face masks in public. Despite these recommendations, the individual decision to adhere and wear a mask may not be a simple decision. In this article, we examine the decision to wear a mask from a social-ecological perspective. Through critical analysis of societal, interpersonal and community, and intrapersonal influences, it is clear that the decision to wear a mask is multifaceted and influenced by constructs including public health recommendations and government mandates, racism and cultural norms, geography, household income, age, and personal attitudes. Understanding the multifactorial influences on mask wearing during COVID-19 is crucial for informing the creation and distribution of inclusive public health messaging regarding mask wearing now in the midst of an unprecedented health crisis, and in future unforeseen public health emergencies.

Mandatory and seasonal vaccination against COVID-19: Attitudes of the vaccinated people in Serbia.

The aim of our study was to examine the position of vaccinated people regarding the proposal for mandatory and seasonal vaccination against COVID-19 in Serbia. A cross-sectional study was conducted in a sample of people who came to receive a third dose of COVID-19 at the Institute of Public Health of Serbia in September and October 2021. Data were collected by means of a sociodemographic questionnaire. The study sample comprised 366 vaccinated adults. Factors associated with the belief that vaccination against COVID-19 should become mandatory were being married, being informed about COVID-19 from TV programmes and medical journals, trust in health professionals, and having friends affected by COVID-19. In addition to these predictors, factors associated with the belief that COVID-19 vaccination should become seasonal were being older, consistently wearing facemasks, and not being employed. The results of this study highlight that trust in information delivery, evidence-based data, and healthcare providers may be a major driver of mandatory and seasonal vaccine uptake. A careful assessment of the epidemiological situation, the capacity of the health system, and the risk-benefit ratio is needed in order to introduce seasonal and/or mandatory vaccination against COVID-19.

Good reasons to vaccinate: mandatory or payment for risk?

Mandatory vaccination, including for COVID-19, can be ethically justified if the threat to public health is grave, the confidence in safety and effectiveness is high, the expected utility of mandatory vaccination is greater than the alternatives, and the penalties or costs for non-compliance are proportionate. I describe an algorithm for justified mandatory vaccination. Penalties or costs could include withholding of benefits, imposition of fines, provision of community service or loss of freedoms. I argue that under conditions of risk or perceived risk of a novel vaccination, a system of payment for risk in vaccination may be superior. I defend a payment model against various objections, including that it constitutes coercion and undermines solidarity. I argue that payment can be in cash or in kind, and opportunity for altruistic vaccinations can be preserved by offering people who have been vaccinated the opportunity to donate any cash payment back to the health service.

Increases In COVID-19 Vaccination Among NYC Municipal Employees After Implementation Of Vaccination Requirements.

In July 2021 New York City (NYC) instituted a requirement for all municipal employees to be vaccinated against COVID-19 or undergo weekly testing. The city eliminated the testing option November 1 of that year. We used general linear regression to compare changes in weekly primary vaccination series completion among NYC municipal employees ages 18-64 living in the city and a comparison group of all other NYC residents in this age group during May-December 2021. The rate of change in vaccination prevalence among NYC municipal employees was greater than that of the comparison group only after the testing option was eliminated (employee slope = 12.0; comparison slope = 5.3). Among racial and ethnic groups, the rate of change in vaccination prevalence among municipal employees was higher than the comparison group for Black and White people. The requirements were associated with narrowing the gap in vaccination prevalence between municipal employees and the comparison group overall and between Black municipal employees and employees from other racial and ethnic groups. Workplace requirements are a promising strategy for increasing vaccination among adults and reducing racial and ethnic disparities in vaccination uptake.

Do COVID-19 vaccine mandates still make sense?

Ineffective or outdated requirements could undermine trust, some vaccine researchers say.

The impact of COVID-19 certification mandates on the number of cases of and hospitalizations with COVID-19 in the UK: A difference-in-differences analysis.

Background: Mandatory COVID-19 certification, showing proof of vaccination, negative test, or recent infection to access to public venues, was introduced at different times in the four countries of the UK. We aim to study its effects on the incidence of cases and hospital admissions. Methods: We performed Negative binomial segmented regression and ARIMA analyses for four countries (England, Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales), and fitted Difference-in-Differences models to compare the latter three to England, as a negative control group, since it was the last country where COVID-19 certification was introduced. The main outcome was the weekly averaged incidence of COVID-19 cases and hospital admissions. Results: COVID-19 certification led to a decrease in the incidence of cases and hospital admissions in Northern Ireland, as well as in Wales during the second half of November. The same was seen for hospital admissions in Wales and Scotland during October. In Wales the incidence rate of cases in October already had a decreasing tendency, as well as in England, hence a particular impact of COVID-19 certification was less obvious. Method assumptions for the Difference-in-Differences analysis did not hold for Scotland. Additional NBSR and ARIMA models suggest similar results, while also accounting for correlation in the latter. The assessment of the effect in England itself leads one to believe that this intervention might not be strong enough for the Omicron variant, which was prevalent at the time of introduction of COVID-19 certification in the country. Conclusions: Mandatory COVID-19 certification reduced COVID-19 transmission and hospitalizations when Delta predominated in the UK, but lost efficacy when Omicron became the most common variant.

Considering a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidates.

The world continues to face the effects of the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic. COVID-19 vaccines are safe and effective in protecting recipients, decreasing the risk of COVID-19 acquisition, transmission, hospitalization, and death. Transplant recipients may be at greater risk for severe SARS-CoV-2 infection. As a result, transplant programs have begun instituting mandates for COVID-19 vaccine for transplant candidacy. While the question of mandating COVID-19 vaccine for adult transplant candidates has garnered attention in the lay and academic press, these discussions have not explicitly addressed children who may be otherwise eligible for kidney transplants. In this paper we seek to examine the potential ethical justifications of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for pediatric kidney transplant candidacy through an examination of relevant ethical principles, analogous cases of the use of mandates, differences between adult and pediatric kidney transplant candidates, and the role of gatekeeping in transplant vaccine mandates. At present, it does not appear that pediatric kidney transplant centers are justified to institute a COVID-19 vaccine mandate for candidates. Finally, we will offer suggestions to be considered prior to the implementation of a COVID-19 vaccine mandate.

Acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates among New York City parents, November 2021.

School-based vaccine mandates improve vaccination coverage in children. We conducted a cross-sectional survey of parents in New York City (NYC) in November 2021 to measure acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates for students, and for teachers and school staff. Random address-based sampling was used to recruit parents of children 5-11 years of age. Among 2,506 parents surveyed, 44.3% supported school-based vaccine mandates for students and 69.1% supported mandates for teachers and school staff. Asian parents, male parents, those with higher income, college education, those voting for the 2021 Democratic mayoral candidate and parents from Manhattan were most likely to support vaccine mandates for students. Among all parents, 25.1% said they would not vaccinate their child if required. Our data show only modest support for school-based COVID-19 vaccine mandates for children despite their importance in improving vaccination coverage.

Effects of non-pharmaceutical interventions on social distancing during the COVID-19 pandemic: Evidence from the 27 Brazilian states.

BACKGROUND: Despite substantial evidence on the effectiveness of non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs), there is still limited evidence on the individual effects of different types of NPIs on social distancing, especially in low- and middle-income countries. METHODS: We used panel data analysis to evaluate the effects of mandatory social distancing rules on social distancing. We obtained data on six different categories of mandatory restrictions implemented in Brazil, by date and state, from state government gazettes (diários oficiais). We then defined a social distancing rules index (SDI) to measure the strictness of social distancing rules, assigning each a value of 2, 1, or 0 depending on whether restrictions were full, partial, or very limited/non-existent at every given time. A separate variable was defined for masking mandates. We tested whether the following variables were associated to social distancing: SDI, masking mandates, COVID-19 incidence, population socioeconomic status, and political orientation. Data is for each day between March 11th and November 10th, 2020 in the 27 Brazilian states (N = 6615). FINDINGS: Social distancing increased when social distancing rules were stricter, and decreased when the use of face masks became mandatory. The effects of different types of restrictions varied: suspending in-person classes and gatherings, religious/sport/cultural activities had a greater effect than other types of restrictions. Also, the effect of social distancing rules on people's behaviour decreased over time, especially when rules were stricter. INTERPRETATION: Mandatory social distancing rules must be adopted to increase social distancing. Stricter rules have a higher impact, but result in decreased compliance over time. Policymakers should prioritize more targeted policies.