Institute for Social Marketing and Health, University of Stirling, Stirling FK9 4LA, UK.
NatCen The National Centre for Social Research, 35 Northampton Square, London EC1V 0AX, UK.
Vaccine. 2022 Dec 5;40(51):7389-7396. doi: 10.1016/j.vaccine.2022.05.072. Epub 2022 Jun 3.
Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive.
Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n = 50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically.
Six themes were identified in participants' narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create 'vaccine apartheid'; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness.
To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
关于为了最大限度提高接种率而强制接种 COVID-19 疫苗的争论仍在继续。决策者必须考虑是否以及在何种情况下进行强制接种，不仅要考虑法律和道德问题，还要考虑公众意见。在反对强制接种的人群中实施强制接种可能会适得其反。
2021 年 2 月至 5 月，通过定性电话访谈（qualitative telephone interviews）对英国成年人进行了疫苗护照和强制接种疫苗的态度调查。从一项针对 COVID-19 疫苗接种态度的基于概率的全国性调查的回复者中，有目的地选择了参与者（n=50），包括对疫苗犹豫不决的人。对数据进行了主题分析。
参与者关于强制接种疫苗的叙述中确定了六个主题：（i）对于某些职业来说，为了保护弱势群体并促进自由流动的恢复，强制接种疫苗是必要和相称的；（ii）强制接种疫苗会侵犯自主权和选择权；（iii）强制接种疫苗代表着国家权力的过度扩张；（iv）强制接种疫苗可能会造成“疫苗种族隔离”；（v）重要的是要考虑到背景和框架；（vi）强制接种疫苗面临着相当大的可行性挑战。那些拒绝接种疫苗的人往往强烈反对强制接种疫苗。然而，那些赞成接种疫苗的人也对自由选择、国家强制和社会分裂表示担忧。
据我们所知，这是英国首次对公众对 COVID-19 疫苗强制接种的看法进行深入研究。它没有评估对不同强制接种疫苗的支持情况，而是探讨了支持和反对强制接种疫苗的观点背后的情感、原则和推理。我们的数据表明，围绕强制接种疫苗的争论可能会引起强烈关注，并可能使人们对强制接种疫苗的态度更加怀疑。决策者应谨慎行事。虽然民意调查可以提供对强制接种疫苗的看法，但观点是复杂的，需要就具体情况进行进一步协商。
