Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-s22k5 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-31T07:47:39.546Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

20 - Biases in Vaccine Authorisation

Erring on the Side of Rare Events in SARS-CoV-2 Vaccines

from Part II - Health Behaviours and Policies during Covid-19

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

By
Joan Costa-Font ,
Miqdad Asaria  and
Elias Mossialos
Edited by
Joan Costa-Font  and
Matteo M. Galizzi
Joan Costa-Font
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Matteo M. Galizzi
Affiliation:
London School of Economics and Political Science
Get access

Summary

Decisions regarding the authorisation of new vaccines against SARS-CoV-2 have been highly heterogeneous across countries, resulting in significant regulatory misalignment regarding the vaccines approved for use in different countries. This chapter argues that such misalignment reflects an appeal to a version of the ‘precautionary principle’, which we define as ‘erring on the side of rare events’ (ESRE). This chapter discusses some cognitive biases that affect decision-making under risk, including the role of the media, especially the effect of social media. Finally, we provide a discussion of public reactions to ESRE and some conclusions and policy implications.

Keywords

regulationCOVID-19 vaccines
Type
Chapter
Information
Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
Insights from Responses to COVID-19
 , pp. 369 - 377
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2024

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Adnkronos. (2021). AstraZeneca, Sileri: ‘In Italy 15–20% will say no to this vaccine’. 11 April. www.adnkronos.com/astrazeneca-sileri-in-italia-15-20-dira-no-a-questo-vaccino_1k0wvRABWH6qU4bK0xq0B9#Google Scholar
Avorn, J., & Kesselheim, A. (2020). Regulatory decision-making on COVID-19 vaccines during a public health emergency. JAMA, 324(13), 1284–1285.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Costa-Font, J., Asaria, M., & Mossialos, E. (2021). Erring on the side of rare events? A behavioural explanation for COVID-19 vaccine regulatory misalignment. Journal of Global Health, 11, 03080.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Duffy, B. (2020). Coronavirus: Vaccine misinformation and the role of social media. 14 December, London Kings College. www.kcl.ac.uk/policy-institute/assets/coronavirus-vaccine-misinformation.pdfGoogle Scholar
EC (European Commission). (2002). Communication from the Commission on the Precautionary Principle. COM (2000) 1 final. European Commission, Brussels. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/21676661-a79f-4153-b984-aeb28f07c80a/language-enGoogle Scholar
European Medicines Agency. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine AstraZeneca: Benefits still outweigh the risks despite possible link to rare blood clots with low blood platelets. www.ema.europa.eu/en/news/covid-19-vaccine-astrazeneca-benefits-still-outweigh-risks-despite-possible-link-rare-blood-clotsGoogle Scholar
Fox, R., & Tversky, A. (1995). Ambiguity aversion and comparative ignorance. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 110(3), 585–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gollier, C., Jullien, B., & Treich, N. (2000). Scientific progress and irreversibility: An economic interpretation of the ‘Precautionary Principle’. Journal of Public Economics, 75(2), 229–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Golman, R., Gurney, N., & Loewenstein, G. (2021). Information gaps for risk and ambiguity. Psychological Review, 128(1), 86–103.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Han, P. K., Moser, R. P., & Klein, W. M. (2007). Perceived ambiguity about cancer prevention recommendations: Associations with cancer-related perceptions and behaviours in a US population survey. Health Expectations, 10(4), 321–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lichtenstein, S., Slovic, P., Fischhoff, B., Layman, M., & Combs, B. (1978). Judged frequency of lethal events. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Learning and Memory, 4, 551–578.Google Scholar
Loomba, S., de Figueiredo, A., Piatek, S. J., de Graaf, K., & Larson, H. J. (2021). Measuring the impact of COVID-19 vaccine misinformation on vaccination intent in the UK and USA. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(3), 337–348.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nieman Reports. (2021). What newsrooms can learn about trust from coverage of the AstraZeneca vaccine. https://niemanreports.org/articles/what-newsrooms-can-learn-about-trust-from-coverage-of-the-astrazeneca-vaccine/Google Scholar
Ofcom. (2021). Covid-19 news and information: Consumption and attitudes. www.ofcom.org.uk/research-and-data/tv-radio-and-on-demand/news-media/coronavirus-news-consumption-attitudes-behaviourGoogle Scholar
Pluviano, S., Watt, C., & Della Sala, S. (2017). Misinformation lingers in memory: Failure of three pro-vaccination strategies. PloS One, 12(7), e0181640.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Raptis, S, Chen, J. N., Saposnik, F., Pelyavskyy, R., Liuni, A., & Saposnik, G. (2017). Aversion to ambiguity and willingness to take risks affect therapeutic decisions in managing atrial fibrillation for stroke prevention: results of a pilot study in family physicians. Patient Preference and Adherence, 11, 1533–1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Sunstein, C. R. (2003). Beyond the precautionary principle. University of Pennsylvania Law Review, 151(3), 1003–1058.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Symons, X. (2021). COVID-19 vaccine confidence and the ethics of media reporting. ABC: Religion and Ethics. www.abc.net.au/religion/vaccine-confidence-and-the-ethics-of-media-reporting/13317478Google Scholar
Thaler, R. H., Tversky, A., Kahneman, D., & Schwartz, A. (1997). The effect of myopia and loss aversion on risk taking: An experimental test. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 112(2), 647–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vilella-Vila, M., & Costa-Font, J. (2008). Press media reporting effects on risk perceptions and attitudes towards genetically modified (GM) food. The Journal of Socio-Economics, 37(5), 2095–3106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
YouGov. (2021). Europeans now see AstraZeneca vaccine as unsafe, following blood clots scare. https://yougov.co.uk/topics/international/articles-reports/2021/03/22/europeans-now-see-astrazeneca-vaccine-unsafe-folloGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×