4.2 Article

Support for a COVID-19 vaccine mandate in the face of safety concerns and political affiliations: An Australian study

期刊

POLITICS
卷 42, 期 4, 页码 480-491

出版社

SAGE PUBLICATIONS LTD
DOI: 10.1177/02633957211009066

关键词

COVID-19; public health; vaccination; vaccination mandates

资金

  1. Australian Research Council [DE19000158]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Australian willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine is relatively low, with concerns mainly revolving around safety issues due to rapid development. Support for government mandates has also decreased, although there is still a significant proportion of respondents who express support.
COVID-19 vaccine development has been widely awaited, but concerns around acceptance and political polarisation prevail. We sought to determine the willingness of Australians to take a (then prospective) COVID-19 vaccine, compared with their previously recorded opinions about other vaccines. We also sought to determine reasons for hesitancy, levels of support for possible government mandates, and the political basis of support. We surveyed 1200 Australians, including 898 participants in a panel previously asked in 2017 about vaccines and mandates. In all, 66% of respondents indicated they would take a coronavirus vaccine, less than the 88% who in 2017 agreed that vaccines are safe, effective, and necessary. Also, 70% of the respondents who indicated hesitancy were concerned about the safety of the vaccine if it was developed too quickly, and 73% of all respondents agreed that the government should require a coronavirus vaccine for work, travel, and study. This is lower than the 85% who agreed with the childhood vaccine mandate in 2017, but slightly higher than the number of respondents who indicated that they would definitely be willing to take the coronavirus vaccine themselves. Older respondents, higher income respondents, and respondents who vote for major parties were all significantly more likely to take a coronavirus vaccine and to support government requirements.

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

4.2
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