Easing Restrictions During Vaccine Scarcity. How Mitigation Measures Help Tackling Associated Moral and Behavioral Challenges.

IF 3.5 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Max Tretter, David B Ehrlich, Ulrich von Ulmenstein
{"title":"Easing Restrictions During Vaccine Scarcity. How Mitigation Measures Help Tackling Associated Moral and Behavioral Challenges.","authors":"Max Tretter,&nbsp;David B Ehrlich,&nbsp;Ulrich von Ulmenstein","doi":"10.3389/phrs.2021.1604269","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Background:</b> When vaccines became first available during the Covid-19 pandemic, their demand significantly exceeded their supply. In consequence, the access to vaccines, initially, was distributed unequally. At the same time, governments started easing pandemic restrictions for vaccinated and recovered persons and restoring their freedoms since their risk of transmitting the virus is significantly reduced. <b>Evidence:</b> We show that restoring freedoms for vaccinated and recovered persons - while upholding restrictions for the rest of the population - is morally unfair during vaccine scarcity. Further, it may yield unintended side-effects, including perverse incentives, growing rifts in society, and the expansion of marginalization. <b>Policy Options & Recommendations:</b> We recommend accompanying easing for vaccinated and recovered individuals by mitigation measures for those who are neither vaccinated nor recovered. We propose, first, to temporarily lift the same restrictions for negative-tested individuals, as for vaccinated or recovered people. Second, the state must ensure broad and easy access to testing for everyone - free of charge. <b>Conclusion:</b> If done right, these mitigation measures create (at least temporarily) equal access to freedom for everybody - solving the moral problem of unfair access to freedoms and counteracting possible negative consequences.</p>","PeriodicalId":35944,"journal":{"name":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","volume":"42 ","pages":"1604269"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-10-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8588827/pdf/","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.3389/phrs.2021.1604269","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Background: When vaccines became first available during the Covid-19 pandemic, their demand significantly exceeded their supply. In consequence, the access to vaccines, initially, was distributed unequally. At the same time, governments started easing pandemic restrictions for vaccinated and recovered persons and restoring their freedoms since their risk of transmitting the virus is significantly reduced. Evidence: We show that restoring freedoms for vaccinated and recovered persons - while upholding restrictions for the rest of the population - is morally unfair during vaccine scarcity. Further, it may yield unintended side-effects, including perverse incentives, growing rifts in society, and the expansion of marginalization. Policy Options & Recommendations: We recommend accompanying easing for vaccinated and recovered individuals by mitigation measures for those who are neither vaccinated nor recovered. We propose, first, to temporarily lift the same restrictions for negative-tested individuals, as for vaccinated or recovered people. Second, the state must ensure broad and easy access to testing for everyone - free of charge. Conclusion: If done right, these mitigation measures create (at least temporarily) equal access to freedom for everybody - solving the moral problem of unfair access to freedoms and counteracting possible negative consequences.

在疫苗短缺期间放松限制。缓解措施如何帮助应对相关的道德和行为挑战。
背景:当新冠肺炎大流行期间首次提供疫苗时,其需求远远超过供应。因此,最初获得疫苗的机会分配不均。与此同时,各国政府开始放松对接种疫苗和康复者的疫情限制,并恢复他们的自由,因为他们传播病毒的风险大大降低。证据:我们表明,在疫苗短缺期间,恢复接种疫苗者和康复者的自由,同时坚持对其他人群的限制,在道德上是不公平的。此外,它可能会产生意想不到的副作用,包括不正当的激励、社会裂痕的加剧以及边缘化的扩大。政策选择和建议:我们建议通过对既没有接种疫苗也没有康复的人采取缓解措施,为接种疫苗和康复的人提供相应的缓解措施。首先,我们建议暂时取消对检测呈阴性的个人以及接种疫苗或康复者的同样限制。其次,国家必须确保每个人都能广泛、方便地获得免费检测。结论:如果做得好,这些缓解措施(至少暂时)为每个人创造了平等的自由机会——解决了不公平获得自由的道德问题,并抵消了可能的负面后果。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS
PUBLIC HEALTH REVIEWS Nursing-Community and Home Care
CiteScore
8.30
自引率
1.80%
发文量
47
审稿时长
5 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信