Does education influence COVID-19 vaccination? A global view.

After the recent hard attempts felt on a global scale, notably in the health sector, the steady efforts of scientists have been materialized in maybe one of the most expected findings of the last decades, i.e. the launching of the COVID-19 vaccines. Although it is not our goal to plead for vaccination, as the decision in this regard is a matter of individual choice, we believe it is necessary and enlightening to analyze how one's educational status interferes with COVID-19 vaccination. There are discrepancies between world states vis-à-vis their well-being and their feedback to crises, and from the collection of features that can segregate the states in handling vaccination, in this paper, the spotlight is on education. We are referring to this topic because, generally, researches converge rather on the linkage between economic issues and COVID-19 vaccination, while education levels are less tackled in relation to this. To notice the weight of each type of education (primary, secondary, tertiary) in this process, we employ an assortment of statistical methods, for three clusters: 45 low-income countries (LICs), 72 middle-income countries (MICs) and 53 high-income countries (HICs). The estimates suggest that education counts in the COVID-19 vaccination, the tertiary one having the greatest meaning in accepting it. It is also illustrated that the imprint of education on vaccination fluctuates across the country groups scrutinized, with HICs recording the upper rates. The heterogeneity of COVID-19 vaccination-related behaviors should determine health authorities to treat this subject differently. To expand the COVID-19 vaccines uptake, they should be in an ongoing dialogue with all population categories and, remarkably, with those belonging to vulnerable communities, originated mostly in LICs. Education is imperative for vaccination, and it would ought to be on the schedule of any state, for being assimilated into health strategies and policies.

COVID-19 vaccination and governance in the case of low, middle and high-income countries.

BACKGROUND: Global crises, regardless of the place where they started to spread or of the factors that triggered them, require a comprehensive approach, primarily based on good communication, cooperation and mutual support. No individual and no institution should remain indifferent to crises but, on the contrary, be fully aware that any involvement in curbing them matters. Although humanity can be affected by various types of crises, in this paper we refer to the one related to COVID-19 pandemic. There are certain reasons that come to justify our choice: first of all, being a shock with a strong impact on people, its analysis should be performed from several angles; this may bring to light an image with its disparate propagation and measures to counteract it both in developed countries, and especially in those with a shortage of resources. Secondly, in the context of the emergence of vaccines against COVID-19, it is helpful to have an overview of COVID-19 through the lens of the relationship between the vaccination process and the elements that characterize governance, with a differentiated dashboard by country categories worldwide: low, middle and high-income countries. Our study is far from capturing the complexity arising from such social problem, but rather aims to outline the defining role of governance when it comes to providing firm reactions to the COVID-19 crisis. METHODS: Given that our sample consists of a large number of countries, namely 170, first, examined all together, and then, split into three groups (high, middle and low-income), it is challenging to address governance in association with COVID-19 vaccination, in order to see how much they interact and how each of the six aggregate governance indicators of the World Bank (Worldwide Governance Indicators) is reflected in this process. Even if they do not oscillate strongly over relatively short periods of time, reporting on health issues requires a sequential inventory, considering closer time intervals, so as to be able to act promptly. Thus, to better distinguish how the COVID-19 vaccination process evolved in low, middle and high-income countries, but also how it was imprinted by governance, we present the situation quarterly (March, June, September and December), in 2021, the year when the immunization campaigns were the most intense at the global level. Regarding the applied methods, we mention both OLS regressions with robust estimators and a panel model, used to investigate the determinants of COVID-19 vaccination, some of them describing the good governance, as well as other dimensions. RESULTS: The findings point out that the influence of governance on COVID-19 vaccination differs depending on whether a country belongs to high, middle or low-income typology: the strongest determinism of governance on vaccination is encountered in high-income countries, and the weakest in low-income ones; in some cases, governance does not matter significantly. However, exploring the three groups of states included in the research, it is observed that the most relevant factors in this relationship are government effectiveness, regulatory quality and control of corruption. CONCLUSIONS: Besides the order of importance of governance indicators on COVID-19 vaccination, our study indicates that, overall, governance positively shapes the vaccination rate at the level of the chosen sample. In normative terms, these findings can be translated particularly by the fact that they can serve as information to raise awareness on the relevance of the existence of an institutional framework that allows the formulation of strategies according to the patterns of each country, especially since the actionable tools depend on the available resources. As a general conclusion, public policies should be designed in such a way as to strengthen trust in vaccination regulations and in governments, to reduce the multifaceted negative effects of this health crisis and to hope for its total end.

The implications of globalization on COVID-19 vaccination in Europe.

Although globalization has left its mark on economic dynamism, causing conditionalities among various aspects (market openness, production networks, technological and information developments, migratory flows, international cooperation, humanitarian support, etc.), the less pleasant side of it should not be omitted, i.e. the emergence of the framework for the faster diffusion of epidemiological diseases. Thus, with the onset of the SARS-CoV-2 virus, its widespread circulation is a serious challenge for the provision of efficient solutions to combat it, especially in countries with fragile health systems, poor institutional quality and lack of resources. In this paper we aim to investigate the implications of globalization on the COVID-19 vaccination of the population. The period under analysis is January 1, 2021-January 1, 2022, using montly data, and the object of our study are 48 European states. To capture the relationship between globalization and the vaccination rate, we applied regression models, including a number of factors that may influence the progress of vaccination. In order to test the robustness of the results, the two-stage least squares (2SLS) regressions was used. The regression models developed underlined that globalization impacts the degree of vaccination. More globalized economies are more competitive in COVID-19 management, and the significance of this effect comes from better interconnection in global markets and easier access to medical discoveries. At the same time, countries with a higher vaccination rate are associated with higher levels of development. Based on the results obtained, we proposed some policy recommendations to increase the propensity to vaccinate, ensure equity in the distribution of vaccines and provide financial support to developing countries.

European Governments' Responses to the COVID-19 Pandemic during the First Wave: Resetting Governance Systems to Cope More Effectively with Future Shocks.

The emergence of the current global crisis induced by the rapid spread of the COVID-19 pandemic brings about an urgent need to rethink and reshape recovery strategies adapted to this specific challenging context. Neglecting this reconfiguration could lead to system lockdown, affecting all sectors, both on medium and long term. The coronavirus has penetrated various countries with different degrees of intensity, thus being spatially diversified; even within the same country, with the same lockdown measures, an enormous variety in cases is encountered. Subsequently, even if crises may manifest heterogeneously and the long-term impact of implementing recovery policies cannot be accurately known ex ante by governments, institutions could adapt themselves to changing circumstances and respond promptly and appropriately to emerging shocks only if their functioning framework had been well set up by the outbreak of the crisis. Considering these aspects, the main questions that this paper aims to answer are: How effective have governmental measures in European countries been in combating the COVID-19 crisis?; Could the solutions offered by the European states' governments have an influence on diminishing the intensity of negative effects of a possible more serious return of this health crisis? What more could national authorities and international actors do to control the epidemiological evolution of SARS-CoV-2? Is a generic European Union policy helpful or should there be a case for local policy? Based on these issues, a comprehensive picture of the differences between the East and the West of Europe in terms of some medical, socio-economic, institutional and cultural factors will be outlined, in order to emphasize which of the two groups better-handled the COVID-19 situation in the first wave, covering the lockdown period (March 1, 2020 - June 1, 2020) and the relaxation period (June 1, 2020 - September 1, 2020); at the same time, some policy recommendations on how governments should more effectively manage future similar crises to generate a higher resilience of the systems will be provided.

COVID-19 and the efficiency of health systems in Europe.

BACKGROUND: This study aims at analyzing the efficiency of the health systems of 31 European countries in treating COVID-19, for the period January 1, 2020 - January 1, 2021, by incorporating some factors from a multidimensional perspective. METHODS: The methodology used in the research was Data Envelopment Analysis (DEA), through which efficiency scores for health systems have been calculated. The research was performed considering three stages: the first wave (January 1-June 15), the relaxation period (June 15-October 1) and the second wave (October 1-December 31). In evaluating the determinants of the efficiency of health systems, six major fields of influence were taken into account: health care, health status, population, economic, cultural/societal and governmental issues, all covering 15 indicators. After measuring the efficiency, we used the Tobit type regression to establish the influencing elements on it. RESULTS: The results for the public health systems of European states were determined for each country and period. We evaluated the efficiency of health systems in Europe against COVID-19, starting from health inputs (COVID-19 cases, physicians, nurses, hospital beds, health expenditure) and output (COVID-19 deaths). The obtained outputs show that, especially in the first phase of the pandemic, the inefficiency of the health systems was quite high, mainly in Western countries (Italy, Belgium, Spain, UK). In the relaxation phase and in the second wave, the Western states, severely affected at the beginning of the pandemic, began to take adequate measures and improve the efficiency of their sanitary systems. Instead, Eastern European countries were hit hard by the inefficiency of health systems (Bulgaria, Greece, Hungary, Romania). After Tobit regression, results of the study show that the influencing elements are different for the three stages: concerning the first wave, comobirdities, population age, and population density are important; for relaxation period a great influence have government effectiveness and power distance; with respect to second wave, the relevant factors are education and population density. CONCLUSIONS: The results obtained could serve as starting points for health policymakers to perform comparative analyzes in terms of good practices in the health system and to develop national plans to better deal with health crises. At the same time, they can be used internationally to achieve a coherent and effective community response to the pandemic.