The WHO identified vaccine hesitancy as a major global threat – in 2019. The threat still seems relevant. The issue of whether people may be compelled to accept a Covid-19 vaccination, or be deprived of a right or benefit if they refuse, is under worldwide discussion. The Lex-Atlas: Covid-19 (LAC19) project has therefore surveyed our contributors with a view to identifying whether countries had legal policies on mandatory Covid-19 vaccination, or saw the public or private use of vaccine conditionality or vaccine "passports." Rapporteurs from 35 countries and one territory (Hong Kong) responded in detail to our survey. We are publishing an overview of the results of that survey, as well as some country and issue case studies, in this, our first LAC19 Blog Symposium on Compulsory Vaccination Requirements. The symposium format is inspired by the work of our friends at Verfassungsblog.de, whose pandemic work will also feature on this website where relevant and with whom we will see future collaboration.
Part I and Part II of the editorial overview will be published today and tomorrow respectively, and be followed by country and case studies over the course of the remainder of this and next week. We shall hear from the rapporteurs and contributors of countries including Brazil, Chile, China, Israel, Norway, the Philippines, the UK, and the USA, as well as from scholars commenting on particular issues such as the ethical case for (and against) mandatory vaccination, digital certification, and vaccination requirements in the employment context. We hope readers enjoy this first exhibition of what LAC19 has in store over the coming months!TWEET