A pandemic is no private matter: the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Austria

Druml, Christiane; Czech, Herwig

doi:10.1016/s2213-2600(22)00063-7

Cited by 14 publications

(14 citation statements)

References 3 publications

(1 reference statement)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The mandate was approved by the Austrian Parliament and required vaccination of residents 18 years and older, with exceptions for individuals with pre-existing conditions that would have made the vaccination ineffective or dangerous, for those who had tested positive for COVID-19 within 180 days, and for pregnant women. 6 , 7 Concurrently, similar measures were discussed in Germany. 8 However, with the decline of the Omicron wave the Austrian vaccine mandate was suspended, and most restrictions were lifted in the D-A-CH region.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Willingness to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine in the German-speaking D-A-CH region in Europe: A cross-sectional study

Weitzer

Birmann

Steffelbauer

et al. 2022

The Lancet Regional Health - Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 74%

Willingness to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine in the German-speaking D-A-CH region in Europe: A cross-sectional study

Weitzer

Birmann

Steffelbauer

et al. 2022

The Lancet Regional Health - Europe

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Citing the potential for backlash and resistance, in December 2020, the director of the WHO’s immunisation department stated: “I don’t think we envision any countries creating a mandate for [COVID-19] vaccination.”55 Many governments originally followed with similar public statements, only to shift positions, often suddenly, in mid or late 2021 during the Delta or Omicron surge, including in Austria (the first country to announce a full population-wide mandate) 56 57. Cognitive dissonance may have been compounded by the changing rationale provided for vaccine mandate policies, which originally focused on achieving herd immunity to stop viral transmission and included public messaging that vaccinated people could not get or spread COVID-19.…”

Section: What Can We Learn From the Behavioural Sciences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Despite clear evidence that infection-derived immunity provides significant protection from severe disease on par with vaccination,18 31 prior infection status has consistently been underplayed. Many individuals with post-infection immunity have been suspended or fired from their jobs (or pushed to leave) or been unable to travel or participate in society31 56–59 while transmission continued among vaccinated individuals in the workplace. This inconsistency was widely covered in American conservative and libertarian-leaning media in ways that reinforced distrust not only about the scientific basis of vaccine policies but also the entire public health establishment, including the US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).…”

Section: What Can We Learn From the Behavioural Sciences?mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…COVID-19 vaccine policies have generated intense political debate, mass street protests and energised new populist movements with varied political views 20 21 25–28 56. Studies show that while many support these policies, others view them as inherently coercive, discriminatory, disproportionate and counter to liberal values of bodily autonomy, freedom of choice and informed consent 25–28.…”

Section: The Political and Legal Effects Of Vaccine Mandates Passport...mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For instance, right-wing and populist parties in Germany (the Alternative for Germany), Canada (People’s Party) and Austria (Freedom Party) have come out strongly against medical segregation. After implementing the world’s first population-wide mandatory vaccine policy in February 2022, Austria suspended it 6 days before police would impose fines (max €3600), partially due to legal concerns, mass street protests and the fact that the rate of vaccination had not significantly improved (20% of adults remain unvaccinated) 56 88. In 2022, the US Supreme Court struck down the Biden administration’s federal vaccine mandate as unconstitutional,89 just as it came into effect for 80 million workers (although upholding the mandate for HCWs); republicans had long criticised the mandates 90 91.…”

Section: The Political and Legal Effects Of Vaccine Mandates Passport...mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good

et al. 2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Vaccination policies have shifted dramatically during COVID-19 with the rapid emergence of population-wide vaccine mandates, domestic vaccine passports and differential restrictions based on vaccination status. While these policies have prompted ethical, scientific, practical, legal and political debate, there has been limited evaluation of their potential unintended consequences. Here, we outline a comprehensive set of hypotheses for why these policies may ultimately be counterproductive and harmful. Our framework considers four domains: (1) behavioural psychology, (2) politics and law, (3) socioeconomics, and (4) the integrity of science and public health. While current vaccines appear to have had a significant impact on decreasing COVID-19-related morbidity and mortality burdens, we argue that current mandatory vaccine policies are scientifically questionable and are likely to cause more societal harm than good. Restricting people’s access to work, education, public transport and social life based on COVID-19 vaccination status impinges on human rights, promotes stigma and social polarisation, and adversely affects health and well-being. Current policies may lead to a widening of health and economic inequalities, detrimental long-term impacts on trust in government and scientific institutions, and reduce the uptake of future public health measures, including COVID-19 vaccines as well as routine immunisations. Mandating vaccination is one of the most powerful interventions in public health and should be used sparingly and carefully to uphold ethical norms and trust in institutions. We argue that current COVID-19 vaccine policies should be re-evaluated in light of the negative consequences that we outline. Leveraging empowering strategies based on trust and public consultation, and improving healthcare services and infrastructure, represent a more sustainable approach to optimising COVID-19 vaccination programmes and, more broadly, the health and well-being of the public.

show abstract

Attitudes toward COVID‐19 vaccination status disclosure in the provider–patient relationship: Findings from a population survey

Badahdah,

Viskupič,

Wiltse

2024

World Med & Health Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic ignited heated discussions on social media as well as in the medical, legal, and political communities, about whether health‐care providers should have the right to refuse to see unvaccinated patients. Another discussed idea during the pandemic, though it attracted less attention, was about patients' right to learn about the vaccination status of their health‐care providers. In this paper, we examined public attitudes toward these two rights using data from a cross‐sectional survey conducted in South Dakota in the summer of 2021. We utilized registration‐based sampling to recruit participants. The survey collected data on some of the most significant variables reported in the literature that shape people's attitudes toward COVID‐19 vaccines. Specifically, participants provided information on their age, gender, educational level, household income, COVID‐19 vaccination status, stress induced by the pandemic, and political partisan identification. The health‐care providers' rights as well as the patients' rights were gauged with one item each using a five‐point Likert scale. We analyzed data from 573 respondents (Mage = 56.6 years, SD = 16.48), which showed that older participants, those with higher levels of COVID‐19‐related stress, and vaccinated individuals expressed higher support, while Republicans expressed lower support for the two policies. Gender, education, and income did not influence participants' attitudes. Although the findings might have limited generalizability to populations outside South Dakota, they offer valuable insights for developing comprehensive ethical codes where vaccination status might be at the center stage for clinician‐patient relationships in future pandemic responses.

show abstract

A pandemic is no private matter: the COVID-19 vaccine mandate in Austria

Cited by 14 publications

References 3 publications

Willingness to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine in the German-speaking D-A-CH region in Europe: A cross-sectional study

Willingness to receive an annual COVID-19 booster vaccine in the German-speaking D-A-CH region in Europe: A cross-sectional study

The unintended consequences of COVID-19 vaccine policy: why mandates, passports and restrictions may cause more harm than good

Attitudes toward COVID‐19 vaccination status disclosure in the provider–patient relationship: Findings from a population survey

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About