Who wants COVID-19 vaccination to be compulsory? The impact of party cues, left-right ideology, and populism

Vaccine hesitancy is one of the major obstacles for successfully combating the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. To achieve a sufficiently high vaccination rate, calls for compulsory vaccinations have been discussed controversially. This study analyses what drives citizens’ attitudes towards compulsory vaccination during the COVID-19 pandemic. Specifically, we are interested in the impact of party- and expert cues on public attitudes. We further expect populist attitudes to be an important indicator of the rejection of compulsory vaccination due to their scepticism towards science. To test these expectations, we rely on a cueing experiment conducted on a sample of 2265 German citizens. We test for the effects of in-party and out-party cues as well as public health expert cues. We find evidence for in-party cues, meaning that respondents adjust their position on this issue in the direction of their most preferred party. Similar results can be found for public health expert cues. However, there is no evidence for out-party cues. Further analyses reveal that support for compulsory vaccinations is not affected by left-right placement directly. Instead, only the combination of right-wing attitudes and populism negatively affects support for compulsory vaccination.

Effects of political versus expert messaging on vaccination intentions of Trump voters

To increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake in resistant populations, such as Republicans, focus groups suggest that it is best to de-politicize the issue by sharing five facts from a public health expert. Yet polls suggest that Trump voters trust former President Donald Trump for medical advice more than they trust experts. We conducted an online, randomized, national experiment among 387 non-vaccinated Trump voters, using two brief audiovisual artifacts from Spring 2021, either facts delivered by an expert versus political claims delivered by President Trump. Relative to the control group, Trump voters who viewed the video of Trump endorsing the vaccine were 85% more likely to answer “yes” as opposed to “no” in their intention to get fully vaccinated (RRR = 1.85, 95% CI 1.01 to 3.40; P = .048). There were no significant differences between those hearing the public health expert excerpt and the control group (for “yes” relative to “no” RRR = 1.14, 95% CI 0.61 to 2.12; P = .68). These findings suggest that a political speaker’s endorsement of the COVID-19 vaccine may increase uptake among those who identify with that speaker. Contrary to highly-publicized focus group findings, our randomized experiment found that an expert’s factually accurate message may not be effectual to increase vaccination intentions.

Role of Community Medicine during COVID-19 Pandemic

Pandemics have significantly affected economy of each country. Health & political system have been also drastically affected in each part of the country. To fight against pandemic, it demands multidimensional approaches comprising of various measures like surveillance, containment, isolation & quarantine, border restriction as well as various socio-political and community measures. Though the entire health workforce is involved at multiple levels, the role of a community medicine/public health expert is maximum in controlling the spread in the community and managing the situation. The community medicine specialists can contribute to the public health as well as health-care services in combating the pandemic. This review has been done for giving an insight of proper utilisation of public health services and existing manpower of community medicine. Also this will channelize our health system and give a direction for combating future public health crisis. So Government should utilise the experiences and expertise to manage the pandemic very well.

Expert-Led Securitization: The Case of the 2009 Pandemic in Denmark and Sweden

This article goes beyond the study of speech acts to investigate the process of securitization during a health crisis. The article introduces the concept of ‘expert-led securitization’ to account for situations when experts dominate the administrative process that translates a securitizing speech act into extraordinary public policy. Expert-led securitization was particularly salient during the 2009 pandemic flu in Denmark and Sweden. Autonomous public health expert agencies led the national securitization processes, and these never included intense political battles or extensive public debates. In turn, the respective processes resulted in different policies: Sweden’s main response to the pandemic was an extraordinary push to vaccinate its whole population, while Denmark’s was a one-off offer of vaccination to about twenty percent of its people. Hence, the 2009 pandemic example illustrates the added value of investigating the administrative dynamics of securitization when seeking to understand differences in extraordinary policies.

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Neue Herausforderungen für Public Health

ZusammenfassungPublic Health hat vielfältige Möglichkeiten, gesundheitlichen Folgen des Klimawandels proaktiv zu begegnen. Neben Forschung zu Auswirkungen klimatischer Veränderungen, Nebeneffekten von Klimaschutz- und zur Wirksamkeit von Anpassungsmaßnahmen kommt Public Health-Expert*innen eine bedeutende Rolle in Prävention und Behandlung von klimawandelbedingten Gesundheitsstörungen zu. Erforderliches Wissen gilt es in Public Health- und Medizin-Curricula zu vermitteln. Weitere Aufgaben sind systematische Reduktionen von CO2-Emissionen im Gesundheitssektor und Umsetzung von Klimaanpassungsmaßnahmen.

Imperial polities, intercolonialism, and the shaping of global governing norms: public health expert networks in Asia and the League of Nations Health Organization, 1908–37

This article stresses the role of colonial governments, not only national sovereign states, in Asia (and to a lesser extent, Africa) at the League of Nations in shaping global governing norms. It emphasizes the significance of lateral and horizontal cooperative actions across colonial governments, especially intercolonial networks of public health experts. It argues that the League of Nations Health Organization (LNHO) accepted these intercolonial practices in Asia in the 1920s, and that this led it to recognize colonial governments as formal and legitimate units in its intergovernmental conferences held in the mid 1930s. In the process, the LNHO provided an intercolonial channel for ‘national’ experts from colonial Asia to participate directly in regional and global governing norm-making processes. In turn, this highlights both the ambiguous nature of national experts and the intercolonial legacy in international health programmes in developing countries in the post-war period.