公众对COVID-19“豁免护照”的看法。

IF 2.5 2区 哲学 Q1 ETHICS
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Pub Date : 2021-07-08 eCollection Date: 2021-01-01 DOI:10.1093/jlb/lsab016
Mark A Hall, David M Studdert
{"title":"公众对COVID-19“豁免护照”的看法。","authors":"Mark A Hall,&nbsp;David M Studdert","doi":"10.1093/jlb/lsab016","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or 'passports' to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government 'passports' or private 'certificates' for COVID-19 immunity.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes/measures: </strong>Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.</p>","PeriodicalId":56266,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","volume":"8 1","pages":"lsab016"},"PeriodicalIF":2.5000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-08","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2a/2a/lsab016.PMC8271136.pdf","citationCount":"19","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Public views about COVID-19 'Immunity Passports'.\",\"authors\":\"Mark A Hall,&nbsp;David M Studdert\",\"doi\":\"10.1093/jlb/lsab016\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p><strong>Importance: </strong>Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or 'passports' to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions.</p><p><strong>Objective: </strong>To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges.</p><p><strong>Design and setting: </strong>National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government 'passports' or private 'certificates' for COVID-19 immunity.</p><p><strong>Participants: </strong>Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics.</p><p><strong>Main outcomes/measures: </strong>Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, <i>p</i> = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%).</p><p><strong>Conclusions and relevance: </strong>Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":56266,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"volume\":\"8 1\",\"pages\":\"lsab016\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.5000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-08\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/2a/2a/lsab016.PMC8271136.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"19\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Law and the Biosciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab016\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"哲学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"2021/1/1 0:00:00\",\"PubModel\":\"eCollection\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"ETHICS\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Law and the Biosciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1093/jlb/lsab016","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"哲学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2021/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"ETHICS","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 19

摘要

重要性:有效疫苗的发现和对感染可延长预防冠状病毒病(COVID-19)的信心的增强,重新引发了使用免疫证书或“护照”来选择性地减少当前公共卫生限制的讨论。目的:了解公众对政府和私人授予豁免特权的看法。设计与设置:2020年6月进行全国在线调查。参与者被随机询问政府“护照”或私人COVID-19免疫“证书”。参与者:从为学术研究而维持的常设小组中选出的成年人,以近似全国人口统计数据。主要成果/措施:支持/反对豁免特权的程度,以及观点是否因政府与私人收养而有所不同;人口结构;政治派别或观点;或各种与covid - 19相关的态度和经历。结果:在1315名受访者中,45.2%的人支持豁免特权,支持私人证书的人略多于支持政府护照的人(48.1%对42.6%,p = 0.04)。使用护照或证件重返高风险工作岗位或参加大型娱乐活动比一般重返工作岗位得到更多的支持。支持水平不会因年龄组、社会经济或就业状况、城市化程度、政治派别或观点,或被调查者是否患有慢性病而有显著差异。然而,调整后的分析估计显示,女性的支持度较低(优势比,0.64;95%可信区间,0.51 ~ 0.80),西班牙裔(0.56;0.40 - 0.78)和其他少数民族(0.58;0.40 - 0.85),但在黑人中没有(0.83;0.60到1.15)。个人想要护照或证书的人的支持率要高得多(75.6%对24.4%),而认为这会损害社区社会结构的人的支持率要低得多(22.9%对77.1%)。结论和相关性:公众对政府或私人使用免疫证书的看法存在分歧,但在将问题政治化之前,这些观点并没有根据通常的政治路线或表明个人易受感染的特征而变化。社会对豁免特权计划的可取性可能难以达成共识。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

Public views about COVID-19 'Immunity Passports'.

Public views about COVID-19 'Immunity Passports'.

Public views about COVID-19 'Immunity Passports'.

Public views about COVID-19 'Immunity Passports'.

Importance: Discovery of effective vaccines and increased confidence that infection confers extended protection against coronavirus disease (COVID-19) have renewed discussion of using immunity certificates or 'passports' to selectively reduce ongoing public health restrictions.

Objective: To determine public views regarding government and private conferral of immunity privileges.

Design and setting: National on-line survey fielded in June 2020. Participants were randomly asked about either government 'passports' or private 'certificates' for COVID-19 immunity.

Participants: Adults from a standing panel maintained for academic research, selected to approximate national demographics.

Main outcomes/measures: Level of support/opposition to immunity privileges, and whether views vary based on: government vs. private adoption; demographics; political affiliation or views; or various COVID19-related attitudes and experiences.

Results: Of 1315 respondents, 45.2% supported immunity privileges, with slightly more favoring private certificates than government passports (48.1% vs 42.6%, p = 0.04). Support was greater for using passports or certificates to enable returns to high-risk jobs or attendance at large recreational events than for returning to work generally. Levels of support did not vary significantly according to age groups, socioeconomic or employment status, urbanicity, political affiliation or views, or whether the respondent had chronic disease(s). However, estimates from adjusted analyses showed less support among women (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% confidence interval, 0.51 to 0.80), and among Hispanics (0.56; 0.40 to 0.78) and other minorities (0.58; 0.40 to 0.85) compared with whites, but not among blacks (0.83; 0.60 to 1.15). Support was much higher among those who personally wanted a passport or certificate (75.6% vs 24.4%) and much lower among those who believed this would harm the social fabric of their community (22.9% vs 77.1%).

Conclusions and relevance: Public views are divided on both government or private uses of immunity certificates, but, prior to any efforts to politicize the issues, these views did not vary along usual political lines or by characteristics that indicate individual vulnerability to infection. Social consensus on the desirability of an immunity privileges programs may be difficult to achieve.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Journal of Law and the Biosciences
Journal of Law and the Biosciences Medicine-Medicine (miscellaneous)
CiteScore
7.40
自引率
5.90%
发文量
35
审稿时长
13 weeks
期刊介绍: The Journal of Law and the Biosciences (JLB) is the first fully Open Access peer-reviewed legal journal focused on the advances at the intersection of law and the biosciences. A co-venture between Duke University, Harvard University Law School, and Stanford University, and published by Oxford University Press, this open access, online, and interdisciplinary academic journal publishes cutting-edge scholarship in this important new field. The Journal contains original and response articles, essays, and commentaries on a wide range of topics, including bioethics, neuroethics, genetics, reproductive technologies, stem cells, enhancement, patent law, and food and drug regulation. JLB is published as one volume with three issues per year with new articles posted online on an ongoing basis.
×
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