Several COVID-19 vaccinations have been authorised worldwide. Whilst some vaccines are contraindicated for certain age groups or health conditions, there are often multiple clinically suitable authorised vaccine brands available. Few states have allowed recipients to choose amongst them, though there are multiple reasons why choice would be valued. We consider the policy justifications for state controls on recipient choice amongst COVID-19 vaccine brands, focusing on European countries and drawing on the UK context as an example. We contrast justifications for not offering choice at the height of the early pandemic crisis, and as some states seek to de-escalate their response and transition towards living with COVID-19. We argue that in the latter context public expectations of choice between available vaccine brands and platforms may rise, but that several considerations may justify continued restrictions on choice. A key factor which states should continue to take into consideration is the global nature of the pandemic. Insofar as offering recipient choice at a national level might exacerbate global inequity in vaccine distribution, states retain a normative and legal justification for restricting choice amongst available and clinically suitable vaccine brands.

中文翻译：

---

各州是否应该限制接受者在相关和可用的 COVID-19 疫苗中的选择？

全球范围内已批准多种 COVID-19 疫苗接种。虽然某些疫苗对某些年龄组或健康状况是禁忌的，但通常有多种临床适用的授权疫苗品牌可供选择。很少有州允许接受者在其中进行选择，尽管有多种原因可以使选择受到重视。我们考虑了国家控制 COVID-19 疫苗品牌中接受者选择的政策依据，重点关注欧洲国家并以英国为例。我们对比了在早期大流行危机最严重时不提供选择的理由，因为一些州试图降低他们的反应并过渡到与 COVID-19 一起生活。我们认为，在后一种情况下，公众对可用疫苗品牌和平台之间选择的期望可能会上升，但有几个考虑因素可能证明继续限制选择是合理的。各国应继续考虑的一个关键因素是大流行的全球性质。就在国家层面提供接受者选择可能会加剧全球疫苗分配不平等而言，各州保留了规范和法律理由来限制在可用的和临床上合适的疫苗品牌之间的选择。