Vaccines are not the only public health tool, but they are critical in routine and emergency settings. Achieving optimal vaccination rates requires timely access to vaccines. However, we have persistently failed to secure, distribute, and administer vaccines in a timely, effective, and equitable manner despite an enduring rhetoric of global health equity.

Many governments employed mandates for COVID-19 vaccines, imposing consequences upon unvaccinated people. Attitudes towards these policies have generally been positive, but little is known about how discourses around them changed as the characteristics of the disease and the vaccinations evolved. Western Australia (WA) employed sweeping COVID-19 vaccine mandates for employment and public spaces whilst the state was closed off from the rest of the country and world, and mostly with no COVID-19 in the community. This article analyses WA public attitudes during the mandate policy lifecycle from speculative to real. Qualitative interview data from 151 adults were analysed in NVivo 20 via a novel chronological analysis anchored in key policy phases: no vaccine mandates, key worker vaccine mandates, vaccine mandates covering 75% of the workforce and public space mandates. Participants justified mandates as essential for border reopening and, less frequently, for goals such as protecting the health system. However, public discourse focusing on ‘getting coverage rates up’ may prove counter-productive for building support for vaccination; governments should reinforce end goals in public messaging (reducing suffering and saving lives) because such messaging is likely to be more meaningful to vaccination behaviour in the longer term.

Vaccination is one of the most recognised strategies in public health for preventing the spread of epidemics, and the availability of a vaccine is often expected by health actors to be a ‘game-changer’. However, the COVID-19 (coronavirus disease 2019) vaccine in Senegal was not the magic bullet that the international community expected. A very low vaccination coverage rate (less than 10% by April 2023) was observed in this country, once considered a model in West Africa for its epidemic response. Beyond the population’s alleged hesitancy to be vaccinated, was a lack of preparedness to blame? Previous analyses show that outbreak preparation limited to standard interventions is not sufficient in the face of the social, cultural, and political configurations of each epidemic context and that uncertainty limits response capacity. This paper examines the social life of the COVID-19 vaccine to identify the forms and contextual dimensions of uncertainty related to immunisation in Senegal. The authors explore how vaccination was implemented and compare experiences with the preparedness process, to offer insight on uncertainties. Using Stirling’s theoretical model that defines various expressions of incertitude, the authors identify four nexuses at various stages of the social life of COVID-19 vaccine in Senegal: (1) material uncertainty related to vaccine availability, (2) ambiguity of the population about the purpose of vaccination and the risks of the disease, (3) uncertainty related to side effects, and (4) uncertainty about vaccination strategies shared by scientific and health authorities. These uncertainties were only partly considered in the preparedness process, for they are related to systemic structural dimensions and reflect the impact of global/regional powers on the local level. The findings of this research are relevant not only to support better communication around vaccines in Senegal but also more generally to the prevention of emerging epidemics shaped by human behaviours.

Australia’s approach to its biosecurity and borders has always been two-pronged – quarantine first, vaccination second. This article asks what this combination looked like in practice by exploring two neglected smallpox vaccination campaigns directed towards Indigenous peoples in the early twentieth century. We argue these were important campaigns because they were the first two pre-emptive, rather than reactionary, vaccination programs directed towards First Nations people. Second, both episodes occurred in Australia’s northern coastline, where the porous maritime geography and proximity to Southeast Asia posed a point of vulnerability for Australian health officials. While smallpox was never endemic, (though epidemic), in Australia, it was endemic at various times and places across Southeast Asia. This shifting spectre of smallpox along the northern coastline was made even more acute for state and federal health officials because of the existing polyethnic relationships, communities, and economies. By vaccinating Indigenous peoples in this smallpox geography, they were envisioned and embedded into a ‘hygienic’ border for the protection of white Australia, entwining the two-prongs as one approach. In this article, we place public health into a recent scholarship that has ‘turned the map upside down’ to re-spatialise Australia’s history and geography to the north and its global connections, while demonstrating how particular coastlines and their connections were drawn into a national imaginary through a health lens.

This paper challenges historically preconceived notions surrounding a minor’s ability to make medical decisions, arguing that federal health law should be reformed to allow minors with capacity as young as age 12 to consent to their own Centers for Diseases Control and Prevention (CDC)-approved COVID-19 vaccinations. This proposal aligns with and expands upon current exceptions to limitations on adolescent decision-making. This analysis reviews the historic and current anti-vaccination sentiment, examines legal precedence and rationale, outlines supporting ethical arguments regarding adolescent decision-making, and offers rebuttals to anticipated ethical counterarguments.

Policies allowing some minors to consent to receive recommended vaccines are ethically defensible. However, a policy change at the federal level expanding minor consent for vaccinations nationwide risks triggering a political backlash. Such a move may be perceived as infringing on the rights of parents to make decisions about their children’s health care. In the current post-COVID environment of heightened anti-vaccination activism, changes to minor consent laws may be unadvisable, and policy makers should proceed with caution.

Little information exists concerning the spatial relationship between invasive meningococcal disease (IMD) cases and Neisseria meningitidis (N. meningitidis) carriage. The aim of this study was to examine whether there is a relationship between IMD and asymptomatic oropharyngeal carriage of meningococci by spatial analysis to identify the distribution and patterns of cases and carriage in South Australia (SA). Carriage data geocoded to participants’ residential addresses and meningococcal case notifications using Postal Area (POA) centroids were used to analyse spatial distribution by disease- and non-disease-associated genogroups, as well as overall from 2017 to 2020. The majority of IMD cases were genogroup B with the overall highest incidence of cases reported in infants, young children, and adolescents. We found no clear spatial association between N. meningitidis carriage and IMD cases. However, analyses using carriage and case genogroups showed differences in the spatial distribution between metropolitan and regional areas. Regional areas had a higher rate of IMD cases and carriage prevalence. While no clear relationship between cases and carriage was evident in the spatial analysis, the higher rates of both carriage and disease in regional areas highlight the need to maintain high vaccine coverage outside of the well-resourced metropolitan area.

This study aimed to understand rural–urban differences in the uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations during the peak period of the national vaccination roll-out in Aotearoa New Zealand (NZ). Using a linked national dataset of health service users aged 12+ years and COVID-19 immunization records, age-standardized rates of vaccination uptake were calculated at fortnightly intervals, between June and December 2021, by rurality, ethnicity, and region. Rate ratios were calculated for each rurality category with the most urban areas (U1) used as the reference. Overall, rural vaccination rates lagged behind urban rates, despite early rapid rural uptake. By December 2021, a rural–urban gradient developed, with age-standardized coverage for R3 areas (most rural) at 77%, R2 81%, R1 83%, U2 85%, and U1 (most urban) 89%. Age-based assessments illustrate the rural–urban vaccination uptake gap was widest for those aged 12–44 years, with older people (65+) having broadly consistent levels of uptake regardless of rurality. Variations from national trends are observable by ethnicity. Early in the roll-out, Indigenous Māori residing in R3 areas had a higher uptake than Māori in U1, and Pacific peoples in R1 had a higher uptake than those in U1. The extent of differences in rural–urban vaccine uptake also varied by region.

We examine the likely acceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in the period prior to political polarization around vaccine mandates. Two representative cross-sectional surveys of 1,000 respondents were fielded in August and December 2020. The surveys included items about the COVID-19 vaccine and vaccine mandates. Respondents self-identifying as liberal were the least likely to believe the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects (p< .001), conservatives were the most likely (p < .001), and moderates fell in between. Individuals with a bachelor’s degree were less likely to think the vaccine had undisclosed harmful effects than individuals without a bachelor’s degree (p < .001), and 60.5% of those individuals did not support a government vaccine mandate. Political ideology was more often strongly associated with avoiding government involvement compared to education level. In summary, both liberal political ideology and higher education were significantly associated with endorsing intended vaccine uptake. We discuss these results in terms of positive versus negative rights.

Post COVID-19 condition (PCC) refers to persistent or recurring symptoms (>8 weeks) occurring ≤12 weeks following acute COVID-19. The objective of this systematic review was to assess the evidence on the risk of PCC with vaccination before or after COVID-19 or after developing PCC, and the safety of vaccination among those already experiencing PCC. A search was conducted up to 13 December 2022 and standard systematic review methodology was followed. Thirty-one observational studies were included. There is moderate confidence that two doses of vaccine given pre-infection reduced the odds of PCC (pooled OR (pOR) 0.67, 95% CI 0.60–0.74, I2 = 59.9%), but low confidence that one dose may not reduce the odds (pOR 0.64, 95% CI 0.31#x2013;1.31, I2 = 99.2%), and the evidence is very uncertain about the effect of three doses (pOR 0.45, 95% CI 0.10#x2013;1.99, I2 = 30.9%). One of three studies suggested vaccination shortly after COVID-19 may offer additional protection from developing PCC compared to unvaccinated individuals, but this evidence was very uncertain. For those with PCC, vaccination was not associated with worsening PCC symptoms (10 studies) and appears safe (3 studies), but it is unclear if vaccination may change established PCC symptoms.