4.4 Article

Anticipation of COVID-19 vaccines reduces willingness to socially distance

期刊

JOURNAL OF HEALTH ECONOMICS
卷 80, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhealeco.2021.102530

关键词

Vaccine information; Social distancing; Vaccination; Information; Economic epidemiology; Public health communication

资金

  1. Danish National Research Foundation [DNRF134]
  2. Swiss National Science Foundation [PZ00P1_201956]
  3. Riksbankens Jubileumsfond
  4. Handelsbankens forskningsstiftelse
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [PZ00P1_201956] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The anticipation and positive information of COVID-19 vaccines can reduce voluntary social distancing and adherence to public health guidelines, ultimately accelerating the spread of infectious diseases. As vaccination rolls out, policies aimed at increasing social distancing may become less effective, and stricter policies might be needed.
We investigate how the anticipation of COVID-19 vaccines affects voluntary social distancing. In a large-scale preregistered survey experiment with a representative sample, we study whether providing information about the safety, effectiveness, and availability of COVID-19 vaccines affects the willingness to comply with public health guidelines. We find that vaccine information reduces peoples' voluntary social distancing, adherence to hygiene guidelines, and their willingness to stay at home. Getting positive information on COVID-19 vaccines induces people to believe in a swifter return to normal life. The results indicate an important behavioral drawback of successful vaccine development: An increased focus on vaccines can lower compliance with public health guidelines and accelerate the spread of infectious disease. The results imply that, as vaccinations roll out and the end of a pandemic feels closer, policies aimed at increasing social distancing will be less effective, and stricter policies might be required.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据