US Public Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates | Vaccination | JAMA Network Open | JAMA Network
[Skip to Navigation]
Sign In
Figure.  Acceptability of Mandates
Acceptability of Mandates

Error bars indicate 95% CIs.

Table.  Respondent Demographic Characteristics
Respondent Demographic Characteristics
1.
Opel  DJ, Omer  SB.  Measles, mandates, and making vaccination the default option.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):303-304. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0291 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
2.
Stewart  AM.  Mandatory vaccination of health care workers.   N Engl J Med. 2009;361(21):2015-2017. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0910151 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
3.
Mello  MM, Silverman  RD, Omer  SB.  Ensuring uptake of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(14):1296-1299. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2020926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
4.
Opel  DJ, Diekema  DS, Ross  LF.  Should we mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for children?   JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 14, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
5.
Kreps  S, Prasad  S, Brownstein  JS,  et al.  Factors associated with US adults’ likelihood of accepting COVID-19 vaccination.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2025594. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25594 PubMedGoogle Scholar
6.
Gostin  LO.  Mandatory HPV vaccination and political debate.   JAMA. 2011;306(15):1699-1700. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1525 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
Limit 200 characters
Limit 25 characters
Conflicts of Interest Disclosure

Identify all potential conflicts of interest that might be relevant to your comment.

Conflicts of interest comprise financial interests, activities, and relationships within the past 3 years including but not limited to employment, affiliation, grants or funding, consultancies, honoraria or payment, speaker's bureaus, stock ownership or options, expert testimony, royalties, donation of medical equipment, or patents planned, pending, or issued.

Err on the side of full disclosure.

If you have no conflicts of interest, check "No potential conflicts of interest" in the box below. The information will be posted with your response.

Not all submitted comments are published. Please see our commenting policy for details.

Limit 140 characters
Limit 3600 characters or approximately 600 words
    2 Comments for this article
    EXPAND ALL
    Let's use science
    Sam Tetbaum |
    For months the scientific journals and similar platforms were full with articles bringing out the same point; "We must be transparent with all efficacy and safety information regarding the COVID-19 vaccines. Because if not, it'll not only hurt uptake rates of these vaccines, it will fuel and worsen vaccine hesitancy in general. Yet when faced now with the first challenge, we fail that test so badly.

    The most googled subject over the past few days has been "do the vaccines protect against the new strain?". Now instead of giving satisfactory evidence-backed answers, for example; It's not the first time
    we see different strains, since the beginning of the outbreak until now the predominant strain has changed many times, yet there are so few cases of known reinfection. That shows that the immunity against one seems to protect against all strains as 99.9999% of the genome is the same in all strains.

    Therefore although it may take a few more weeks to have, in the places where the new strain is spreading, enough people who received both doses of the vaccine, to verify it as a fact. We can comfortably say that "Yes it does protect against the new strain".

    Instead, the given answer is as follows; Vaccine manufacturers know that the virus can mutate and take it into consideration that's why the influenza vaccine includes many strains (or "It's proven to also work against the new strain" people don't buy that).

    Does that calm the worried reader? Or it makes him think, I'm asking about the COVID vaccine and they're distracting me with the flu vaccine, what are they hiding? Or worse he'll figure, we all know every year many vaccinated people still get the flu despite it covering many strains, then the COVID vaccine can only fear worse.

    We must counter myths with facts, misinformation with science. Because if we try to counter misinformation with misinformation, we don't have an edge over them.

    Sam Tetbaum
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Varied Public Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates
    Michael McAleer, PhD(Econometrics),Queen's | Asia University, Taiwan
    The detailed and informative research report emphasizes public attitudes toward mandating of COVID-19 vaccines in the USA to stem transmission of the infectious and contagious virus and disease.

    Anti-vaxxers, anti-maskers, those who do not like to be told what is in society's and their own best interests, individuals who are concerned about the numerous mutated strains of the wild-type SARS-CoV-2 virus, individuals with medically-approved dispensations, and those who need time to elapse to discover as yet unknown side effects of the various approved vaccines, will be difficult to persuade to be vaccinated, whether mandatory or not.

    The Gallup-type probability-based panel surveys were
    undertaken between 14-27 September 2020, which is quite different from late-December 2020, when second and possibly third waves have been observed, with several approved vaccines being distributed.

    States generally have the authority to issue mandates, but a concerted national approach would be more likely to succeed than face a backlash, something that has been lacking under current circumstances.
    CONFLICT OF INTEREST: None Reported
    READ MORE
    Research Letter
    Public Health
    December 18, 2020

    US Public Attitudes Toward COVID-19 Vaccine Mandates

    Author Affiliations
    • 1Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Philadelphia
    • 2Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
    • 3University of Denver Sturm College of Law, Denver, Colorado
    • 4Fels Institute of Government, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    • 5Penn Program on Opinion Research and Election Studies, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
    JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(12):e2033324. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33324
    Introduction

    Ending the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic through vaccination will require sufficient uptake, possibly through mandatory vaccination. At present, certain vaccines are required for children to attend school.1 Although vaccine mandates for adults are legal, they have generally been applied narrowly to select groups, such as health care workers, rather than broadly enforced.2 We surveyed the US public to assess acceptability of COVID-19 vaccine mandates.

    Methods

    The University of Pennsylvania institutional review board exempted this survey study because the survey was anonymous and the information was recorded in such a way that the identity of the respondents cannot be ascertained. The survey followed proprietary Gallup guidelines.

    Results are based on a Gallup Panel web study completed between September 14 and 27, 2020, by 2730 consenting US adults, aged 18 years and older. Participants consented through the survey website. The survey response rate was 39% (American Association for Public Opinion Research RR1). The Gallup Panel is a well-established, probability-based panel. Respondents were asked about the acceptability of states requiring adults and children and employers requiring employees to “get the COVID-19 vaccine (unless they have a medical reason not to be vaccinated).”

    Descriptive statistics were calculated using Gallup-provided survey weights to generate nationally representative estimates. Respondents’ answers were compared using χ2 tests accounting for survey weights. Statistical significance was set at α = .05 for 2-tailed tests. Analyses were conducted using R statistical software version 4.0.2 (R Project for Statistical Computing).

    Results

    The sample was weighted to be demographically representative of the US population (Table). Overall, 61.4% (95% CI, 60.0%-63.0%) of respondents indicated they would likely get a COVID-19 vaccine. Republicans and Independents were, however, significantly less likely to get vaccinated than Democrats (Republicans, 44.3% [95% CI, 41.7%-46.8%]; Independents, 58.4% [95% CI, 55.5%-61.1%]; Democrats, 76.6% [95% CI, 74.7%-78.5%]), and Black respondents were significantly less likely than non-Black respondents to get vaccinated (43.6% [95% CI, 39.2%-48.2%] vs 63.7% [95% CI, 62.3%-65.2%]).

    Nearly one-half (48.6%; 95% CI, 44.8%-53.0%) of respondents regarded requiring COVID-19 vaccination for children attending school as acceptable or very acceptable (hereafter, acceptable), and 38.4% (95% CI, 34.6%-42.0%) regarded it as unacceptable or very unacceptable (hereafter, unacceptable) (Figure). Although 40.9% (95% CI, 37.2%-45.0%) of respondents found state mandates for adults acceptable, 44.9% (95% CI, 41.0%-49.0%) found them unacceptable. Compared with state mandates for adults, slightly more respondents (47.7%; 95% CI, 43.8%-52.0%) found employer-enforced employee mandates acceptable, whereas 38.1% (95% CI, 34.4%-42.0%) found them unacceptable.

    Individuals likely to get a COVID-19 vaccine accepted mandates at higher rates than those unlikely to do so (mandates for children, 73.6% [95% CI, 68.5%-78.1%] vs 23.7% [95% CI, 19.4%-28.7%]; mandates for adults, 65.0% [95% CI, 59.7%-69.9%] vs 17.3% [95% CI, 13.6%-21.7%]; mandates for employees, 72.5% [95% CI, 67.3%-77.1%] vs 22.9% [95% CI, 18.6%-27.8%]). Democrats were likelier than Republicans and Independents to accept state mandates for children (Republicans, 27.4% [95% CI, 21.5%-34.2%]; Independents, 44.0% (95% CI, 36.5%-51.7%); Democrats, 70.2% [95% CI, 64.3%-75.7%]) and adults (Republicans, 22.6% [95% CI, 17.1%-29.3%]; Independents, 34.0% [95% CI, 27.1%-41.5%]; Democrats, 60.8% [95% CI, 54.6%-66.6%]) and employer-enforced employee mandates (Republicans, 31.0% [95% CI, 24.8%-37.9%]; Independents, 41.0% [95% CI, 33.7%-48.8%]; Democrats, 66.0% [95% CI, 59.9%-71.7%]). Compared with non-Black respondents, fewer Black respondents accepted state mandates for adults (42.7% [95% CI, 38.7%-46.8%] vs 27.0% [95% CI, 17.5%-39.2%]), and more found them unacceptable (43.1% [95% CI, 39.1%-47.2%] vs 58.4% [95% CI, 45.7%-70.1%]). Respondents with a bachelor’s degree or higher were likelier to find mandates acceptable than those without (mandates for children, 66.0% [95% CI, 60.1%-71.4%] vs 39.7% [95% CI, 34.9%-44.6%]; mandates for adults, 56.4% [95% CI, 50.4%-62.2%] vs 32.9% [95% CI, 28.3%-37.7%]; mandates for employees, 62.4% [95% CI, 56.5%-68.0%] vs 39.9% [95% CI, 35.2%-44.9%]). No gender differences were observed.

    Discussion

    Vaccine mandates have drawn attention because of growing concerns that voluntary COVID-19 vaccination rates will be insufficient to stem transmission.3,4 Consistent with prior research,5 we found that demographic characteristics and partisanship were associated with self-reported likelihood of COVID-19 vaccination. Demographic characteristics and partisanship were also associated with acceptance of COVID-19 vaccine mandates. This suggests that in some states or localities, COVID-19 vaccine mandates—particularly for adults—may be ineffective or, worse, prompt backlash.6 Employer-enforced employee mandates did not garner majority acceptance; however, acceptability exceeded unacceptability, suggesting a potential role for employers to increase COVID-19 vaccine uptake, particularly among key groups such as frontline workers.

    A limitation of this study is that respondents described the acceptability of hypothetical COVID-19 vaccine mandates. Responses may differ as efficacy and safety evidence for actual COVID-19 vaccines develop and if perceptions of pandemic politicization change.

    Public health efforts aimed at making COVID-19 vaccines accessible and improving uptake should continue before considering mandates. Mandates should be used only if COVID-19 continues to be inadequately contained and voluntary vaccine uptake is insufficient.

    Back to top
    Article Information

    Accepted for Publication: November 18, 2020.

    Published: December 18, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.33324

    Open Access: This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the CC-BY License. © 2020 Largent EA et al. JAMA Network Open.

    Corresponding Author: Emily A. Largent, JD, PhD, RN, Department of Medical Ethics and Health Policy, University of Pennsylvania Perelman School of Medicine, Blockley Hall, Rm 1403, 423 Guardian Dr, Philadelphia, PA 19104 (elargent@pennmedicine.upenn.edu).

    Author Contributions: Ms Sangenito had full access to all the data in the study and takes responsibility for the integrity of the data and the accuracy of the data analysis.

    Concept and design: Largent, Persad, Glickman, Emanuel.

    Acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data: Largent, Sangenito, Glickman, Boyle.

    Drafting of the manuscript: Largent.

    Critical revision of the manuscript for important intellectual content: All authors.

    Statistical analysis: Sangenito.

    Obtained funding: Emanuel.

    Administrative, technical, or material support: Glickman, Boyle.

    Supervision: Emanuel.

    Conflict of Interest Disclosures: Dr Largent reported receiving grants from the Greenwall Foundation and the National Institute on Aging outside the submitted work. Dr Persad reported receiving grants from the Greenwall Foundation, personal fees from ASCO Post for column authorship, and personal fees from the World Health Organization for consulting outside the submitted work. Dr Emanuel reported receiving nonfinancial support from RAND Corporation, Goldman Sachs, Center for Global Development, and The Atlantic; personal fees from Roivant Sciences, Inc, Medical Specialties Distributors, LLC, Vizient University Health System Consortium, Center for Neurodegenerative Disease Research, Genentech Oncology, Council of Insurance Agents and Brokers, America’s Health Insurance Plans, Montefiore Physician Leadership Academy Launch, Medical Home Network, Ecumenical Center–UT Health, American Academy of Optometry, Associação Nacional de Hospitais Privados, National Alliance of Healthcare Purchaser Coalitions, Optum Labs, Massachusetts Association of Health Plans, Healthcare Financial Management Association, District of Columbia Hospital Association, Washington University, Brown University, Mckay Lab, American Society for Surgery of the Hand, Association of American Medical Colleges, America’s Essential Hospitals, Johns Hopkins University, National Resident Matching Programs, Shore Memorial Health System, Tulane University, Oregon Health and Science University, United Health Group, Blue Cross Blue Shield, and CBI; and reported being a partner in COVID Recovery Consulting, LLC, Embedded Health Care, LLC, and Oak HC/FT Venture outside the submitted work. No other disclosures were reported.

    Funding/Support: This research was supported by the Colton Foundation.

    Role of the Funder/Sponsor: The funder had no role in the design and conduct of the study; collection, management, analysis, and interpretation of the data; preparation, review, or approval of the manuscript; and decision to submit the manuscript for publication.

    References
    1.
    Opel  DJ, Omer  SB.  Measles, mandates, and making vaccination the default option.   JAMA Pediatr. 2015;169(4):303-304. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2015.0291 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    2.
    Stewart  AM.  Mandatory vaccination of health care workers.   N Engl J Med. 2009;361(21):2015-2017. doi:10.1056/NEJMp0910151 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    3.
    Mello  MM, Silverman  RD, Omer  SB.  Ensuring uptake of vaccines against SARS-CoV-2.   N Engl J Med. 2020;383(14):1296-1299. doi:10.1056/NEJMp2020926PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    4.
    Opel  DJ, Diekema  DS, Ross  LF.  Should we mandate a COVID-19 vaccine for children?   JAMA Pediatr. Published online September 14, 2020. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2020.3019 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    5.
    Kreps  S, Prasad  S, Brownstein  JS,  et al.  Factors associated with US adults’ likelihood of accepting COVID-19 vaccination.   JAMA Netw Open. 2020;3(10):e2025594. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2020.25594 PubMedGoogle Scholar
    6.
    Gostin  LO.  Mandatory HPV vaccination and political debate.   JAMA. 2011;306(15):1699-1700. doi:10.1001/jama.2011.1525 PubMedGoogle ScholarCrossref
    ×