COVID vaccination intentions vary among the US population. We report the results of a nationally representative survey undertaken in July 2020 (N=889) that examined the association of six vaccine-specific beliefs with intentions to vaccinate. We find that four of the six beliefs have substantial associations with intention (Gammas between .60 and .77), that the associations mostly do not vary with gender, age, race/ethnicity, or misinformation (even though intentions do vary with each of those variables). Also, once adjusted for the vaccine-specific beliefs, level of misinformation is not related to intentions. We consider the implications of these results and argue both that persuasive campaigns can be informed by these specific results, and given rapid changes in vaccine availability, that there is a substantial need for elaborated and repeated follow-up studies.
This article provides a map of the UBI debate, structured into the main themes that guide and group the arguments on both sides. It finds that UBI’s supporters and opponents both draw on core principles of justice and freedom, focusing on need and poverty, discrimination and inequality, growth, social opportunity, individuality, and self-development. From an economic perspective, they both appeal to business concerns about efficiency, risk, flexibility, and consumption, as well as labour interests on work fulfilment, working conditions, remuneration, and bargaining. Likewise, they focus on political questions around welfare state reforms, redistribution, taxation and funding sources, democratic citizenship, and the prospects for cross-party policy coalitions. By providing an overview of the thematic pillars of the UBI debate, this article helps researchers and activists locate and orient themselves within the wider spectrum of opinion on UBI.
The development of a COVID-19 vaccine is a critical strategy for combatting the pandemic. However, in order for vaccination efforts to succeed, there must be widespread willingness to vaccinate. Prior research has found that Black Americans, who have already been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, report lower intentions to get a vaccine than do other populations. In this study, we investigate potential causes of this disparity, focusing on vaccine-related behavioral beliefs and trust in four COVID-19 information sources (mainstream media, social media, President Trump, and public health officials and agencies). Using a nationally-representative survey (n=889), we demonstrate that differences in vaccine beliefs explain the lower vaccine intentions reported by Black participants compared to non-Black participants. However, while we find associations between trust in information sources and vaccine beliefs, we do not find evidence that differences in trust accounted for the observed differences in vaccine beliefs by race. Furthermore, we found evidence of moderation; the association of trust in two sources, Trump and public health officials and agencies, with beliefs were smaller among Black participants. Overall, our results suggest that trust in information sources alone does not explain the observed relationship between race and vaccine beliefs. This relationship warrants further investigation.
People with disabilities face various forms of barriers in society. Even daily activities are diffi cult to handle. Multiple varieties of assistive tools are being created to overcome these daily barriers. We count among these wheelchairs or exoskeletons, but there are other forms of assistive technology (designed for a particular type of disability) that help people with their disabilities. Th e aim of the thesis is to analyze the progress of the assistive technology that helps with disabilities and its role in modern society. Our primary source will be a book Disability, Society and Assistive Technology (2017) by Bodil Ravneberg and Sylvia Söderström. In their work, they show a close connection between assistive technologies and the quality of life of a person with a disability.
In this article, we conduct a case study of EU-level debates on universal basic income (UBI) trials, as part of which we examine core contributions in the Conference on the Future of Europe, the election manifestos produced by European party groups, as well as European Parliament debates since 2009. The results indicate that parties and politicians are far more hesitant than citizens to demand UBI, while also relying proportionally more on proposing trials rather than policies. Interpreting the results, we develop a conceptual framework designed to better understand how political decisionmakers at the EU level can deal with the uncertainties involved in European social policymaking. We argue that these actors face legal, political, and suitability risks when proposing policies that would integrate the EU’s social dimension. Unlike in national settings, the potential to pursue various strategies of risk reduction is limited at the EU level. However, we argue that empirical trials of social policies are particularly well-suited to insuring politicians at the EU level against risks. This insurance function is based not only on the scope of empirical trials to reduce uncertainties about policy outcomes, but also on the fact that they are inherently non-binding. By simply proposing empirical trials, actors can influence agendas, benefit from public demands, or reduce public pressure without having to take on the risks associated with implementing a fully-fledged policy proposal. We conclude that empirical trials can be understood as buffers against risks that might be used strategically by politicians, and which have the potential to break stalemates in the future development of a “Social Europe”.
Purpose: The purpose of this article is to analyze some of the most significant ethical and human rights impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic. The analysis aims to demonstrate the failures of many political decision that lead to restriction and limitation of human rights. Design/methodology/approach: We analyze various documents, reports and news articles that provide essential information about the different governmental restrictions that may lead to controversial human rights issues. We also use some philosophical texts to support our theoretical basis for the defence of human rights. Overall, we aim to find some of the groups that were vulnerable during COVID-19 pandemic and describe some of the human rights concerns and ethical issues. Social implications: We hope that our article will impact political regulations and restrictions that can have severe human rights implications. We also hope to inspire citizens, scientists and politicians to uphold and protect human rights and dignity during COVID-19 pandemic. Findings: In our article, we have found that many countries had problems with creating rules, restriction and regulations that are upholding and protecting human rights or did not have ethical implications. We have also found that many vulnerable groups were disadvantaged because regulations did not take into account their precarious position. Originality/value: We have analyzed the ongoing ethical and human rights problems with the COVID-19 pandemic because we believe that they present some of the most fundamental challenges to our society. Our analysis tries to demonstrate some of the most fundamental human rights issues and proposes to address these issues to avoid any future failures.
The role of education is indisputable in our culture. From the moment we are born we are constantly learning new information and skills. Education has such an importance that we recognize it as a part of human rights. Nobody disputes that children have the right to education. The second article of the universal declaration of human rights declares that rights should create conditions for equality. Therefore education should be equal for all children. Nevertheless, is this the reality in all cases? In Slovakia for example, (but also in many other countries in the world) we have plenty of problems with inclusive education. Sociologist Zuzana Kusá argues that in Slovakia there is a trend to separate the children which are deemed "normal" from the disadvantaged and to create special classes for the latter group. The right to education should involve inclusion and should create cooperative conditions for the learning of children. Slovakia is one of the countries that do not provide a cohesive inclusion of all children. Therefore, we shall examine the current state of the right to education and analyze how we could improve its deficiencies. We will use the concept of affirmative action (positive discrimination) as presented by Michael Sandel in the title "Justice. What´s the right thing to do?" The second concept that we will examine is the concept of equality of opportunity, as presented by John Rawls and others. We will investigate how these two concepts might help us with an improvement of the right to education and how they could fix some of the prevailing issues for example faced in Slovakia´s educational system.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.