Book contents
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Part I Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
- Part II Health Behaviours and Policies during Covid-19
- 14 The Effect of COVID-19 on Health and Health Behaviours
- 15 Mental Health and Health Behaviours among Vulnerable Populations during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States
- 16 Mental Health Interventions during the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 17 Wrinkles in a Pandemic?
- 18 Can Behavioural Insights Explain Ethnic Minority Vaccination Gaps?
- 19 How Can We Optimise Healthcare Delivery in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic?
- 20 Biases in Vaccine Authorisation
- 21 Trust and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 22 How Do Individuals Perceive the Risk of COVID-19 Compared to Food Poisoning and Influenza?
- Index
- References
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: 31 January 2025
Book contents
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Copyright page
- Epigraph
- Contents
- Contributors
- Preface
- Acknowledgements
- 1 Behavioural Economics and Policy for Pandemics
- Part I Evidence from Experiments and Behavioural Insights
- Part II Health Behaviours and Policies during Covid-19
- 14 The Effect of COVID-19 on Health and Health Behaviours
- 15 Mental Health and Health Behaviours among Vulnerable Populations during the COVID-19 Pandemic in the United States
- 16 Mental Health Interventions during the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 17 Wrinkles in a Pandemic?
- 18 Can Behavioural Insights Explain Ethnic Minority Vaccination Gaps?
- 19 How Can We Optimise Healthcare Delivery in the Wake of the COVID-19 Pandemic?
- 20 Biases in Vaccine Authorisation
- 21 Trust and the COVID-19 Pandemic
- 22 How Do Individuals Perceive the Risk of COVID-19 Compared to Food Poisoning and Influenza?
- Index
- References
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
- Type
- Chapter
- Information
- Behavioural Economics and Policy for PandemicsInsights from Responses to COVID-19, pp. 369 - 377Publisher: Cambridge University PressPrint publication year: 2024
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