We present the case of a 31-year-old female with Fontan circulation who developed signs of protein-losing enteropathy 10 days after second COVID-19 vaccination. After standard investigations for identification of potential triggers for protein-losing enteropathy, we concluded that coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) booster vaccination could have been the most probable underlying trigger. Prompt investigation of new symptoms post-vaccination in high-risk patients is necessary.

We studied severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection and vaccination status among six ethnic groups in Amsterdam, the Netherlands. We analysed participants of the Healthy Life in an Urban Setting cohort who were tested for SARS-CoV-2 spike protein antibodies between 17 May and 21 November 2022. We categorized participants with antibodies as only infected, only vaccinated (≥1 dose), or both infected and vaccinated, based on self-reported prior infection and vaccination status and previous seroprevalence data. We compared infection and vaccination status between ethnic groups using multivariable, multinomial logistic regression. Of the 1,482 included participants, 98.5% had SARS-CoV-2 antibodies (P between ethnic groups = 0.899). Being previously infected and vaccinated ranged from 41.5% (95% confidence interval (CI) = 35.0–47.9%) in the African Surinamese to 67.1% (95% CI = 59.1–75.0%) in the Turkish group. Compared to participants of Dutch origin, participants of South-Asian Surinamese (adjusted odds ratio (aOR) = 3.31, 95% CI = 1.50–7.31)), African Surinamese (aOR = 10.41, 95% CI = 5.17–20.94), Turkish (aOR = 3.74, 95% CI = 1.52–9.20), or Moroccan (aOR = 15.24, 95% CI = 6.70–34.65) origin were more likely to be only infected than infected and vaccinated, after adjusting for age, sex, household size, trust in the government’s response to the pandemic, and month of study visit. SARS-CoV-2 infection and vaccination status varied across ethnic groups, particularly regarding non-vaccination. As hybrid immunity is most protective against coronavirus disease 2019, future vaccination campaigns should encourage vaccination uptake in specific demographic groups with only infection.

As COVID-19 spread rapidly during the early months of the pandemic, many communities around the globe anxiously waited for a vaccine. At the start of the pandemic, it was widely believed that Africa would be a significant source of infection, and thus, vaccinating African communities became a primary goal among local and global health authorities. However, when the COVID-19 vaccine became available in March 2021 in Sierra Leone, many people viewed it with scepticism and hesitation. While much literature has focused on access and distribution-related challenges for vaccination in the region, a growing number of studies discuss vaccine hesitancy as driving low vaccine uptake. Shifting attention to understanding the determinants of vaccine hesitancy remains fundamental to increasing vaccination rates, as negative vaccine perceptions tend to delay or prevent vaccination. This study sought to do this by assessing, through semi-structured qualitative interviews, vaccine-related attitudes and experiences of residents of Sierra Leone’s Kono District. In contrast to studies that utilise “knowledge-deficit” models of belief, however, this study drew upon the vaccine anxieties framework (Leach and Fairhead, 2007), which views vaccines as being imbued with personal, historical, and political meaning. Findings suggest that important bodily, social, and political factors, including fear of side effects, the spread of misinformation prompted by poor messaging strategies, and distrust of government and international actors, influenced people’s COVID-19 vaccine attitudes and behaviours. It is hoped that the study’s findings will inform future policies and interventions related to vaccine uptake in Africa and globally.

This study explored the effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection and COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on neonatal outcomes among women from the general Dutch population. VASCO is an ongoing prospective cohort study aimed at assessing vaccine effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccination. Pregnancy status was reported at baseline and through regular follow-up questionnaires. As an extension to the main study, all female participants who reported to have been pregnant between enrolment (May–December 2021) and January 2023 were requested to complete an additional questionnaire on neonatal outcomes. Multivariable linear and logistic regression analyses were used to determine the associations between self-reported SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy and neonatal outcomes, adjusted for age, educational level, and presence of a medical risk condition. Infection analyses were additionally adjusted for COVID-19 vaccination before and during pregnancy, and vaccination analyses for SARS-CoV-2 infection before and during pregnancy. Of 312 eligible participants, 232 (74%) completed the questionnaire. In total, 196 COVID-19 vaccinations and 115 SARS-CoV-2 infections during pregnancy were reported. Infections were mostly first infections (86; 75%), caused by the Omicron variant (95; 83%), in women who had received ≥1 vaccination prior to infection (101; 88%). SARS-CoV-2 infection during pregnancy was not significantly associated with gestational age (β = 1.7; 95%CI: −1.6–5.0), birth weight (β = 82; −59 to 223), Apgar score <9 (odds ratio (OR): 1.3; 0.6–2.9), postpartum hospital stay (OR: 1.0; 0.6–1.8), or neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR: 0.8; 0.2–3.2). COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy was not significantly associated with gestational age (β = −0.4; −4.0 to 3.2), birth weight (β = 88; −64 to 240), Apgar score <9 (OR: 0.9; 0.4–2.3), postpartum hospital stay (OR: 0.9; 0.5–1.7), or neonatal intensive care unit admission (OR: 1.6; 0.4–8.6). In conclusion, this study did not find an effect of SARS-CoV-2 infection or COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy on any of the studied neonatal outcomes among a general Dutch, largely vaccinated, population. Together with data from other studies, this supports the safety of COVID-19 vaccination during pregnancy.

High prevalence of long COVID symptoms has emerged as a significant public health concern. This study investigated the associations between three doses of COVID-19 vaccines and the presence of any and ≥3 types of long COVID symptoms among people with a history of SARS-CoV-2 infection in Hong Kong, China. This is a secondary analysis of a cross-sectional online survey among Hong Kong adult residents conducted between June and August 2022. This analysis was based on a sub-sample of 1,542 participants with confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection during the fifth wave of COVID-19 outbreak in Hong Kong (December 2021 to April 2022). Among the participants, 40.9% and 16.1% self-reported having any and ≥3 types of long COVID symptoms, respectively. After adjusting for significant variables related to sociodemographic characteristics, health conditions and lifestyles, and SARS-CoV-2 infection, receiving at least three doses of COVID-19 vaccines was associated with lower odds of reporting any long COVID symptoms comparing to receiving two doses (adjusted odds ratio [AOR]: 0.69, 95% CI: 0.54, 0.87, P = .002). Three doses of inactivated and mRNA vaccines had similar protective effects against long COVID symptoms. It is important to strengthen the coverage of COVID-19 vaccination booster doses, even in the post-pandemic era.

Vaccination is the most important method to control the spread of SARS-CoV-2, the virus that causes COVID-19, and vaccination is key to this goal. This paper highlights considerations for policy development around vaccination attestation and proof requirements, specifically in rural Appalachia. Migrant and immigrant farmworkers are integral to the food and goods supply chain globally; they have been disproportionately impacted by COVID-19, therefore these policies need to take extensive precautions for farmworkers to systematically and easily comply with vaccination status submission procedures. In this paper, we present steps to equitably manage and implement vaccine mandates: (1) Develop and establish policies to support safe workplace standards for everyone, including vaccination policies; (2) Utilize equitable methods to collect vaccine verification; (3) Use effective and inclusive methods to implement the policies by using these techniques; (4) Integrate key populations to develop and strengthen policies to improve health equity.

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.