Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Department of Business Administration, Chair for Production and Logistics, Platz der Göttinger Sieben 3, 37073 Göttingen, Germany.
Georg-August-University of Göttingen, Department of Economics, Centre for Modern Indian Studies, Waldweg 26, 37073 Göttingen, Germany.
Vaccine. 2022 Apr 6;40(16):2457-2461. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.02.084. Epub 2022 Mar 3.
Despite ongoing calls for a more even global distribution of COVID-19 vaccines, there remains a great disparity between high- and low-income countries. We conducted representative surveys among the adult populations in the United States (N = 1,000) and Germany (N = 1,003) in June 2021 to assess public opinion in these countries on the distributive justice of COVID-19 vaccines. We conducted two instances of analytic hierarchy processes (AHP) to elicit how the public weighs different principles and criteria for vaccine allocation. In further discrete choice experiments, respondents were asked to split a limited supply of vaccine doses between a hypothetical high-income and a hypothetical low-income country. AHP weights in the United States and Germany were 37.4% (37.2-37.5) and 49.4% (49.2-49.5) for "medical urgency", 32.7% (32.6-32.8) and 25.4% (25.2-25.5) for "equal access for all", 13.7% (13.6-13.8) and 13.3% (13.2-13.4) for "production contribution", and 16.3% (16.2-16.4) and 12.0% (11.9-12.1) for "free market rules", respectively, with 95% CI shown in parentheses. In the discrete choice experiment, respondents in the United States and Germany split available vaccine doses such that the low-income country, which was three times more populous than the high-income country, on average received 53.9% (95% CI: 52.6-55.1) and 57.5% (95% CI: 56.3-58.7) of available doses, respectively. When faced with a dilemma where a vulnerable family member was waiting for a vaccine, 20.7% (95% CI: 18.2-23.3) of respondents in the United States and 18.2% (95% CI: 15.8-20.6) in Germany reduced the amount they allocated to the low-income country sufficiently to secure a vaccine for their family member. Our results indicate that the public in the United States and Germany favours utilitarian and egalitarian distribution principles of vaccines for COVID-19 over libertarian or meritocratic principles. This implies that political decisions favouring higher levels of redistribution would be supported by public opinion in these two countries.
尽管人们一直在呼吁更公平地在全球范围内分配 COVID-19 疫苗，但高收入国家和低收入国家之间仍然存在巨大差距。我们在 2021 年 6 月对美国（N=1000）和德国（N=1003）的成年人群进行了代表性调查，以评估这两个国家公众对 COVID-19 疫苗分配的公平性的看法。我们进行了两次层次分析法（AHP），以了解公众对疫苗分配的不同原则和标准的重视程度。在进一步的离散选择实验中，要求受访者在一个假设的高收入国家和一个假设的低收入国家之间分配有限的疫苗剂量。美国和德国的 AHP 权重分别为 37.4%（37.2-37.5）和 49.4%（49.2-49.5）用于“医疗紧迫性”，32.7%（32.6-32.8）和 25.4%（25.2-25.5）用于“所有人的平等机会”，13.7%（13.6-13.8）和 13.3%（13.2-13.4）用于“生产贡献”，16.3%（16.2-16.4）和 12.0%（11.9-12.1）用于“自由市场规则”，95%CI 用括号括起来。在离散选择实验中，美国和德国的受访者将可用疫苗剂量分配如下，即人口是高收入国家三倍的低收入国家平均获得 53.9%（95%CI：52.6-55.1）和 57.5%（95%CI：56.3-58.7）的可用剂量，分别。当面临一个弱势群体的家庭成员在等待疫苗的困境时，美国有 20.7%（95%CI：18.2-23.3）的受访者和德国有 18.2%（95%CI：15.8-20.6）的受访者会减少分配给低收入国家的剂量，以确保他们的家庭成员获得疫苗。我们的结果表明，美国和德国的公众赞成将 COVID-19 疫苗的功利主义和平等主义分配原则置于自由意志主义或精英主义原则之上。这意味着，在这两个国家，支持更高水平再分配的政治决策将得到公众舆论的支持。
