COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and (Mis)perception of Risk.

IF 0.5 4区 社会学 Q3 LAW American Journal of Law & Medicine Pub Date : 2022-03-01 DOI:10.1017/amj.2022.13
Joanna K Sax
{"title":"COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy and (Mis)perception of Risk.","authors":"Joanna K Sax","doi":"10.1017/amj.2022.13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>This Article tackles the critical problem of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and provides a normative framework for legal policies to address such hesitancy in the ongoing pandemic. The foundation of this Article rests in decision-making theories that allow policymakers to understand individual misperception of risk as compared to evidence-based assessment of risk. Vaccine-hesitant individuals assign a high risk to the COVID-19 vaccine and a low risk to the disease-a perception that is disconnected from the science. The backbone of this Article is the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and the underlying science of the disease and vaccines. The timeline provides a factual background to demonstrate how vaccine hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine emerged. The instant pandemic also demonstrates changes in how individuals see themselves in society, receive information, and are persuaded by economic forces. This Article combines the individual's decision-making process with modern day variables to suggest interventions that can undo anti-vaccine damage. While the novelty of the normative framework provided herein is instructive for current COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy issues, this framework can be applied to other areas in which individual's perceptions of risk are disconnected from evidence-based assessment of risk.</p>","PeriodicalId":7680,"journal":{"name":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","volume":"48 1","pages":"54-90"},"PeriodicalIF":0.5000,"publicationDate":"2022-03-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"American Journal of Law & Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/amj.2022.13","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"LAW","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

This Article tackles the critical problem of COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy and provides a normative framework for legal policies to address such hesitancy in the ongoing pandemic. The foundation of this Article rests in decision-making theories that allow policymakers to understand individual misperception of risk as compared to evidence-based assessment of risk. Vaccine-hesitant individuals assign a high risk to the COVID-19 vaccine and a low risk to the disease-a perception that is disconnected from the science. The backbone of this Article is the timeline of the COVID-19 pandemic and the underlying science of the disease and vaccines. The timeline provides a factual background to demonstrate how vaccine hesitancy to the COVID-19 vaccine emerged. The instant pandemic also demonstrates changes in how individuals see themselves in society, receive information, and are persuaded by economic forces. This Article combines the individual's decision-making process with modern day variables to suggest interventions that can undo anti-vaccine damage. While the novelty of the normative framework provided herein is instructive for current COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy issues, this framework can be applied to other areas in which individual's perceptions of risk are disconnected from evidence-based assessment of risk.

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
COVID-19疫苗犹豫和(错误)风险认知。
本文解决了COVID-19疫苗犹豫不决这一关键问题,并为在当前大流行中解决这一犹豫不决的法律政策提供了规范性框架。本文的基础在于决策理论,这些理论使决策者能够理解个体对风险的误解,而不是基于证据的风险评估。对疫苗犹豫不决的人认为COVID-19疫苗的风险很高,而疾病的风险很低——这种看法与科学脱节。本文的主要内容是COVID-19大流行的时间表以及该疾病和疫苗的基础科学。时间表提供了事实背景,说明对COVID-19疫苗的疫苗犹豫是如何出现的。即时大流行还表明,个人如何看待自己在社会中的地位、如何接受信息以及如何被经济力量说服发生了变化。本文将个人的决策过程与现代变量结合起来,提出可以消除抗疫苗损害的干预措施。虽然本文提供的规范框架的新颖性对当前COVID-19疫苗犹豫问题具有指导意义,但该框架可应用于个人风险认知与基于证据的风险评估脱节的其他领域。
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
CiteScore
0.80
自引率
16.70%
发文量
8
期刊介绍: desde Enero 2004 Último Numero: Octubre 2008 AJLM will solicit blind comments from expert peer reviewers, including faculty members of our editorial board, as well as from other preeminent health law and public policy academics and professionals from across the country and around the world.
期刊最新文献
A Protected Class, An Unprotected Condition, and A Biomarker - A Method/Formula for Increased Diversity in Clinical Trials for the African American Subject with Benign Ethnic Neutropenia (BEN) - CORRIGENDUM. "The Timeless Explosion of Fantasy's Dream": How State Courts Have Ignored the Supreme Court's Decision in Panetti v. Quarterman - ERRATUM. Mental Health Matters: A Look At Abortion Law Post-Dobbs - ERRATUM. Abortion Access for Women in Custody in the Wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health. How The "Great Resignation" and COVID Unemployment Have Eroded the Employer Sponsored Insurance Model and Access to Healthcare.
×
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