Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry.

IF 1.9 4区 医学 Q3 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH Health Pub Date : 2024-11-01 Epub Date: 2023-11-15 DOI:10.1177/13634593231204169
Claudia Chaufan
{"title":"Is Covid-19 \"vaccine uptake\" in postsecondary education a \"problem\"? A critical policy inquiry.","authors":"Claudia Chaufan","doi":"10.1177/13634593231204169","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Since the launch of the Covid-19 global vaccination campaign, postsecondary institutions have strongly promoted vaccination, often through mandates, and the academic literature has identified \"vaccine uptake\" among postsecondary students as a problem deserving monitoring, research, and intervention. However, with the admission that vaccines do not stop viral spread, that older-age and co-morbidities are major determinants of poor outcomes, and that many vaccine side effects disproportionately affect the young, it cannot be assumed that a risk-benefit analysis favors vaccinating postsecondary students. Drawing from critical policy studies, I appraise the literature on Covid-19 vaccine uptake in postsecondary education. I find that this literature reflects the \"scientific consensus,\" hardly acknowledging contradictory medical evidence, ignoring coercive elements underlying \"vaccine acceptance,\" and neglecting ethical tensions built into the very design of vaccination policies. I discuss potential explanations for my findings, and their implications for academia's role in society in the COVID-19 era and beyond.</p>","PeriodicalId":12944,"journal":{"name":"Health","volume":" ","pages":"831-857"},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11528847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13634593231204169","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2023/11/15 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Since the launch of the Covid-19 global vaccination campaign, postsecondary institutions have strongly promoted vaccination, often through mandates, and the academic literature has identified "vaccine uptake" among postsecondary students as a problem deserving monitoring, research, and intervention. However, with the admission that vaccines do not stop viral spread, that older-age and co-morbidities are major determinants of poor outcomes, and that many vaccine side effects disproportionately affect the young, it cannot be assumed that a risk-benefit analysis favors vaccinating postsecondary students. Drawing from critical policy studies, I appraise the literature on Covid-19 vaccine uptake in postsecondary education. I find that this literature reflects the "scientific consensus," hardly acknowledging contradictory medical evidence, ignoring coercive elements underlying "vaccine acceptance," and neglecting ethical tensions built into the very design of vaccination policies. I discuss potential explanations for my findings, and their implications for academia's role in society in the COVID-19 era and beyond.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
高等教育中的Covid-19“疫苗接种”是一个“问题”吗?一个关键的政策调查。
自启动Covid-19全球疫苗接种运动以来,高等教育机构通常通过授权大力推广疫苗接种,学术文献已将高等教育学生中的“疫苗摄取”确定为一个值得监测、研究和干预的问题。然而,由于承认疫苗不能阻止病毒传播,年龄和合并症是不良结果的主要决定因素,以及许多疫苗副作用对年轻人的影响不成比例,因此不能假设风险-效益分析有利于为大专学生接种疫苗。根据重要的政策研究,我评估了关于高等教育中Covid-19疫苗接种的文献。我发现这些文献反映了“科学共识”,几乎不承认相互矛盾的医学证据,忽视了“疫苗接受”背后的强制性因素,忽视了疫苗接种政策设计中存在的伦理紧张关系。我讨论了对我的发现的可能解释,以及它们对学术界在COVID-19时代及以后的社会角色的影响。
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 去求助
来源期刊
Health
Health Multiple-
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊介绍: Health: is published four times per year and attempts in each number to offer a mix of articles that inform or that provoke debate. The readership of the journal is wide and drawn from different disciplines and from workers both inside and outside the health care professions. Widely abstracted, Health: ensures authors an extensive and informed readership for their work. It also seeks to offer authors as short a delay as possible between submission and publication. Most articles are reviewed within 4-6 weeks of submission and those accepted are published within a year of that decision.
期刊最新文献
As if I was a spacecraft returning to Earth's atmosphere. Expanding insights into illness narratives and childhood cancer through evocative autoethnography. The practice of information appraisal: An ethnographic study of a health information intervention. Is Covid-19 "vaccine uptake" in postsecondary education a "problem"? A critical policy inquiry. Visualising, navigating and making time: The use of a digital solution in treatment and rehabilitation from low back pain. Sensing pain: Embodied knowledge in endometriosis.
×
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
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 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 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1