Abstract
Background Debate is ongoing about mandating COVID-19 vaccination to maximise uptake. Policymakers must consider whether to mandate, for how long, and in which contexts, taking into account not only legal and ethical questions but also public opinion. Implementing mandates among populations who oppose them could be counterproductive.
Methods Qualitative telephone interviews (Feb-May 2021) with British adults explored views on vaccine passports and mandatory vaccination. Participants (n=50) were purposively selected from respondents to a probability-based national survey of attitudes to COVID-19 vaccination, to include those expressing vaccine-hesitancy. Data were analysed thematically.
Findings Six themes were identified in participants’ narratives concerning mandates: (i) mandates are a necessary and proportionate response for some occupations to protect the vulnerable and facilitate the resumption of free movement; (ii) mandates undermine autonomy and choice; (iii) mandates represent an over-reach of state power; (iv) mandates could potentially create ‘vaccine apartheid’; (v) the importance of context and framing; and (vi) mandates present considerable feasibility challenges. Those refusing vaccination tended to argue strongly against mandates. However, those in favour of vaccination also expressed concerns about freedom of choice, state coercion and social divisiveness.
Discussion To our knowledge, this is the first in-depth UK study of public views on COVID-19 vaccine mandates. It does not assess support for different mandates but explores emotions, principles and reasoning underpinning views. Our data suggest that debate around mandates can arouse strong concerns and could entrench scepticism. Policymakers should proceed with caution. While surveys can provide snapshots of opinion on mandates, views are complex and further consultation is needed regarding specific scenarios.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This work was supported by a UK Research & Innovation (UKRI) Ideas to Address COVID-19 award [grant number ES/V012851/1]. The Scottish boost of the OPTIMUM study was supported by a grant from Public Health Scotland (PHS) [Project Ref 2020/21 RE003]. UKRI and PHS had no role in study design; in the collection, analysis or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript; or in the decision to submit the article for publication. The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of UKRI or PHS.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
The details of the IRB/oversight body that provided approval or exemption for the research described are given below:
Stirling University General University Ethics Panel (GUEP 2021 1002) approved the study
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines and uploaded the relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material as supplementary files, if applicable.
Yes
Footnotes
kathryn.angus{at}stir.ac.uk, a.j.ford{at}stir.ac.uk, douglas.eadie{at}stir.ac.uk, kate.hunt{at}stir.ac.uk, a.m.mackintosh{at}stir.ac.uk, mussher{at}sgul.ac.uk
Andy.MacGregor{at}scotcen.org.uk, curtis.jessop{at}natcen.ac.uk
h.bedford{at}ucl.ac.uk
Data Availability
The anonymised survey data are available upon reasonable request to the authors
