Search results

While vaccines are an effective preventative measure to defend against the spread and harmful symptoms of COVID-19, information about COVID vaccines can be difficult to find and conflicting in its coverage of vaccines’ benefits and risks. This study aims to examine the extent to which Americans are searching for information about the three major vaccine producers (Pfizer-BioNTech, Moderna and Johnson & Johnson’s Janssen) in relation to the amount of reliable scholarly information that has been produced about each one.

Data were retrieved from Google Trends for the US Web users alongside scientific research output of the US scientists toward three Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC)-authorized COVID-19 vaccines in Web of Science, Scopus and PubMed. The authors searched for descriptive statistical analyses to detect coronavirus-seeking behavior versus coronavirus releases in the USA from May 1, 2020, to April 30, 2021.

Of the three COVID-19 vaccines, Pfizer has attracted more attention from the US population. However, the greatest number of articles about COVID-19 vaccines published by the US scholars belonged to Moderna (M = 8.17), with Pfizer (M = 7.75) having slightly less, and Janssen (M = 0.83) well behind. A positive association was found between COVID-19 vaccine information-seeking behavior (ISB) on Google and the amount of research produced about that vaccine (P <0.001).

As the researchers use the single search engine, Google, to retrieve data from the USA, thus, selection bias will be existing as Google only gathers the data of people who chose to get the information by using this search engine.

If the policymakers in the US Department of Health and Human Services or the US CDC desire to improve the country’s health ISB and the scientific publication behavior (SPB) of the US researchers regarding COVID-19 vaccines studies, they should reference the results of such a study.

From an infodemiological viewpoint, these findings may support the health policymakers, as well as researchers who work on COVID-19 vaccines in the USA.

The nutritional and anthropometric status can be essential in determining their immune response to vaccines. The purpose of this paper was to investigate the association between diet quality and anthropometric indices with the side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine and the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobulin G titer among Kurdish adults.

This cross-sectional survey-based study was conducted between December 2021 and February 2022. This paper included data on 115 adults, 20–89 years old, from the Kurdistan region. Dietary information was collected using a short food frequency questionnaire, and diet quality was assessed using a plant-based healthy diet score. A blood test was performed to measure the SARS-CoV-2 immunoglobin G (IgG) titer after the vaccination's first and second doses.

Overweight and obese subjects reported more local pain, myalgia, headache, local bruising and local reactions after receiving the first dose of the vaccine (p = 0.04). People on a less healthy diet reported more local pain, myalgia and headache (p = 0.04) and more local bruising and reactions (p = 0.01) after receiving the second dose of the vaccine. On the other hand, the authors observed that those with healthy dietary habits had more IgG titer after the first and second doses of vaccination than those with less healthy dietary habits (p = 0.001).

The results showed that participants with a healthy diet and normal weight status had fewer side effects of the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 vaccine than obese people and those with a less healthy diet.

Several types of vaccines were manufactured by different companies to control and stop the spread of COVID-19. This study aimed to identify the postvaccination side effects of the three different vaccines (Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Sinopharm) among the Iraqi population in Baghdad, Iraq.

A prospective cross-sectional study was conducted in Baghdad, Iraq from May 2021 to March 2022. An online-based questionnaire was used to collect the data through social media, i.e. WhatsApp, Messenger and Google Classroom. A total of 737 vaccinated participants using a snowball sampling methodology were used in this study.

Among the study population, 328 (44.50%) were males and 409 (55.50%) were females. The highest age group that participated was 18–30 years (79.10%) followed by 31–40 years (12.10%), 41–50 years (4.20%), 51–60 years (2.40%) and 60 = years (2.20%). However, 58.8% of the participants received Pfizer-BioNTech, 23.7% received the AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccine and 17.5% received Sinopharm. Out of the total participants, 56.60% showed postvaccination side-effects such as fever, headache, fatigue and dizziness, while 33% showed no side-effects and 10.40% were not sure. Pfizer-BioNTech and AstraZeneca-Oxford vaccines were the most vaccines prevalent of side-effects.

The majority of the side reactions associated with the AstraZeneca and Pfizer vaccines were manageable and self-limiting, including fever, fatigue, headache, joint pain and dizziness, compared to the Sinopharm vaccines, which reported lower postside effects.

The COVID-19 pandemic was unprecedented and has disproportionately affected the lives and livelihoods of people worldwide. Many governments restricted social and economic activities to curb the virus, and with the availability of the COVID-19 vaccine, many see it as providing hope to return to normalcy. Within such a context, China, Russia, and the United States (USA) have leveraged their vaccine diplomacy to gain and expand their influence. Vaccine diplomacy could help major powers cement their influence well beyond the pandemic if successfully deployed. By examining the vaccine diplomacy race in Southeast Asia, this chapter reveals the factors that motivate major powers to engage in the race and the strategies used. This chapter also assesses China’s vaccine diplomacy in Malaysia and how it has contributed to cementing a stronger bilateral relationship between Malaysia and China that would probably outlast the pandemic.

Since the development of the COVID-19 vaccinations, questions surrounding race have been prominent in the literature on vaccine uptake. Early in the vaccine rollout, public health officials were concerned with the relatively lower rates of uptake among certain racial/ethnic minority groups. We suggest that this may also be patterned by racial/ethnic residential segregation, which previous work has demonstrated to be an important factor for both health and access to health care.

In this study, we examine county-level vaccination rates, racial/ethnic composition, and residential segregation across the U.S. We compile data from several sources, including the American Community Survey (ACS) and Centers for Disease Control (CDC) measured at the county level.

We find that just looking at the associations between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, both percent Black and percent White are significant and negative, meaning that higher percentages of these groups in a county are associated with lower vaccination rates, whereas the opposite is the case for percent Latino. When we factor in segregation, as measured by the index of dissimilarity, the patterns change somewhat. Dissimilarity itself was not significant in the models across all groups, but when interacted with race/ethnic composition, it moderates the association. For both percent Black and percent White, the interaction with the Black-White dissimilarity index is significant and negative, meaning that it deepens the negative association between composition and the vaccination rate.

The analysis is only limited to county-level measures of racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, so we are unable to see at the individual-level who is getting vaccinated.

We find that segregation moderates the association between racial/ethnic composition and vaccination rates, suggesting that local race relations in a county helps contextualize the compositional effects of race/ethnicity.

The debate between modernity and post-modernity has taken centre stage of philosophical discourse since before the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. Even after the advent of the pandemic, it has yet to be resolved with each camp claiming to be the victor over the other, and therefore sealed a permanent dichotomy between both schools of thought. With COVID-19 menacing the world, it is timely to revisit the debate and to come to a conclusion that once and for all will dissolve the fissure between these two dominant theoretical paradigms. It is also hoped that the conclusion made can pave the way for a new theoretical paradigm that is more comprehensive and efficient in facing the post-COVID world. By referring to Southeast Asian communities namely the Malaysian, Indonesian, and Singaporean publics, the chapter puts forward the argument that the existing dichotomy between these two theoretical frameworks could no longer sustain its status-quo. This is because the abruption of confusions amongst the public over the issues surrounding the COVID-19 vaccines – and hence on modern science and modernity itself – requires us to stop from rigidly devoting ourselves towards either one of these theoretical paradigms. Based on the case studies, the chapter then suggests for revisions to be made by benefitting from the best of both theoretical paradigms and by omitting those concepts that are no longer effective to be adopted in facing the post-pandemic world.

Introducing immunity or vaccine passports is one non-pharmaceutical intervention that governments are considering to exempt immune, vaccinated or otherwise risk-free individuals from lockdowns and other public health restrictions during the coronavirus pandemic. The primary objective of these documents would be to begin reopening societies, restarting economies and returning to a pre-pandemic normalcy. This article aims to present the start of a conceptual documentary analysis of (proposed and existing) COVID-19 immunity passports in order to more fully center their documentary status within research, considerations and conversations about their potential roles, impacts and implications.

Inspired by Paula A. Treichler's argument for the importance of theoretical thought for untangling the socio-cultural phenomena of epidemics, and drawing upon interdisciplinary theories of documentation, identity and public health, combined with recent news coverage of the coronavirus pandemic, this article provides a contemporary overview and conceptual analysis of emerging documentary regimes of COVID-19 immunity verification involving immunity or vaccine passports.

Three major interconnected objectives could be fulfilled by immunity passports. First, they would establish and materialize an official identity of COVID-19 immune for people possessing the formal document. Second, they would serve as material evidence establishing and verifying individuals' immunity, vaccination or risk-free status from the coronavirus that would, in term, determine and regulate their movements and other privileges. Third, they would create tangible links between individuals and governments' official or recognized identity category of COVID-19 immune. Immunity passports would, therefore, help enable and enforce governmental authority and power by situating individuals within documentary regimes of COVID-19 immunity verification.

In the expanding interdisciplinary literature on COVID-19 immunity passports, sometimes also called certificates, licenses, or passes, there appears to be only minimal reference to their documentary instantiations, whether physical, digital, and/or hybrid documents. As yet, there is not any specific documentary approach to or analysis of immunity passports as kinds of documentation. A documentary approach helps to illuminate and emphasize the materiality of and ontological considerations concerning the coronavirus pandemic and its associated kinds of immunity or vaccination.

By beginning an exploration of what makes immunity passports thinkable as a public health response to the coronavirus pandemic, this article illuminates these health and identity documents' material implications for, and effects on, individuals and societies. This article, therefore, helps shed light on what immunity passports reveal about the complicated and contested intersections of identity, documentation, public health and socio-political control and discipline.

This article contributes the start of a documentary analysis of (proposed and existing) COVID-19 immunity passports in order to more fully center their documentary status within research and conversations about them.