Ethical Attitudes toward COVID-19 Passports: Evidences from Spain

Abstract

A so-called COVID-19 passport or Immunity passport (IP) has been proposed to facilitate the mobility of individuals while the SARS-CoV-2 pandemic persists. A COVID-19 passport can play a key role in the control of the pandemic, specifically in areas with a high density of population, and the help of smart city technology could be very useful to successfully implement IPs. This research studies the impact of ethical judgments on user attitudes toward using vaccine passports based on a Multidimensional Ethics Scale (MES) that contains five ethical constructs: moral equity, relativism, egoism, utilitarianism, and contractualism. Regression analysis shows that MES satisfactorily explains attitude (R2 = 87.82%, p < 0.001) and that a positive evaluation in moral equity, egoism and utilitarianism is significant (p < 0.001). The objective of the passport (variable leisure) shows a significant negative moderating effect on moral equity (coefficient = −0.147, p = 0.0302) and a positive one on relativism (coefficient = 0.158, p = 0.0287). Adjustment by means of fsQCA shows that five ethical constructs satisfactorily explain both favorable and unfavorable attitudes toward IPs. Solutions explaining acceptance attain an overall consistency (cons) = 0.871 and coverage (cov) = 0.980. In the case of resistance, we found that cons = 0.979 and cov = 0.775. However, that influence is asymmetrical. To have a positive attitude toward the passport, it is a sufficient condition to attain a positive evaluation on a single ethical factor. On the other hand, when explaining resistance, and with the exception of the recipe ~utilitarianism (cons = 0.911 and cov = 0.859), explanatory prime implications require the interaction of at least two variables. Likewise, the context in which the passport is required is significant to explain rejection.

Factors associated with the opposition to COVID-19 vaccination certificates: A multi-country observational study from Asia

“…Hence, the question of who opposes the adoption of CVCs (analogous to which groups are vaccine hesitant [ 14 ]) may have more policy relevance. Existing studies exploring public perception of CVCs have found mixed opinions [ [15] , [16] , [17] , [18] , [19] , [20] ]. However, the majority of these studies have been western-centric, and their findings may not be generalisable to Asia given contextual differences such as vaccination rates, trust in government, tolerance for and adherence to restrictive COVID-19 policies, dependency on tourism among others [ 12 , 21 , 22 ].…”

The Transition of Cities towards Innovations in Mobility: Searching for a Global Perspective

“…Coverage is the ratio of cases that, presenting the results, are explained by the solution. The coverage of a solution measures the ability of the recipe to explain all of the observations and can be assimilated to R 2 [ 70 ]. Coverage is the parameter that explains the empirical relevance of the solution.…”

“…To establish the individual net effects, a multiple linear regression was performed, in which OVE was explained on the basis of INF, SIM, MAT, SEF and INNThe significance of the regression coefficients evaluated with Student’s t -test and the overall goodness of the regression model with R 2 [ 70 ]. This regression has an adjusted coefficient of determination of 0.999.…”

“…fsQCA is an interesting complement to regression analysis as it focuses on the analysis of effects from a different perspective. While regression methods find the net effect of the variables, fsQCA offers a set of combinations—called recipes or complex causal patterns—that explain the result [ 70 , 71 ]. The advantage of QCA over regression-based techniques is that they establish relationships between subsets of conditions in order to explain the relationships [ 69 ].…”

COVID-19 excess death rate in Eastern European countries associated with weaker regulation implementation and lower vaccination coverage

“…This provides key insights for Eastern Europe, which is understudied on this critical policy and public health topic. The focus of most international research and the global media has often focused primarily on outcomes of Western countries and associated factors – especially the resistance toward vaccination and public health measures (18) – pandemic outcomes have been poorer in Eastern Europe than Western counterparts. In the early phases of the pandemic, urgent short term measures were effective in preventing deaths in Eastern Europe (19), but over the longer term, other factors have played a more important role in mitigating the pandemic.…”