UNIVERSITI MALAYSIA PERLIS (UniMAP)

FACULTY OF BUSINESS & COMMUNICATION

SMP15503 BUSINESS ETHICS

SEMESTER 1, ACADEMIC SESSION 2023/2024

GROUP ASSIGNMENT (COVID-19 IN INDIA)

GROUP : 5 (21A)

NAME MATRIC NUMBER

NUR SHAFIQAH IZZATI BINTI ISHAK 211222392
CHAN WEI JIE 211220503
LIM BEE HUI 211222366
FAHIMA NASREEN BINTI MOHD ZAID 211220517
HEMAWATHY A/P DEVARAJOO 211223334
GETHA A/P M.CHELLAIAH 211222357

PREPARED FOR : MADAM HASLINA BINTI HASSAN BASRI

DATE OF SUBMISSION : 26 DECEMBER 2023

TABLE OF CONTENT

CONTENT PAGE

1.0 Introduction 3

2.0 Decisions By India Government (Win Declaration) 4

3.0 Decisions By Indian Citizens 5

4.0 Decisions By India Government (Ban Exportation of Vaccines) 6

5.0 Decisions By Vaccine Manufacturers 7

6.0 Decisions By Other Countries 8

7.0 Ethical Way To Handle Same Situation in Malaysia 9

8.0 Conclusion 10

References 11

2
1.0 INTRODUCTION

India's path stands out as a complicated story defined by victories and losses, political manoeuvring,
and the delicate balance between public health and commercial imperatives in the chaotic terrain of the
worldwide struggle against the COVID-19 epidemic. The sequence of events from late 2020 to early
2021 gives a clear picture of the obstacles confronting the Indian government as it attempts to manage
a crisis that has left an indelible mark on the country.

The Indian government declared a triumphant victory against the COVID-19 virus at the end of 2020
and the beginning of 2021. This declaration, which appeared to be motivated by political concerns in
advance of the 2021 elections, aimed to rally support from a people sick of the pandemic's extraordinary
hardships. As locals desired for a return to normalcy, requests for the relaxing of lockdown regulations,
particularly to assist a return to work, resonated. Notably, religious organisations joined the chorus,
urging a relaxation of limitations to allow for the organisation of festivals that are essential for both
spiritual and economic sustenance.

In the middle of these hopes and dreams, Indian vaccine producers found themselves at the centre of
worldwide efforts to battle the epidemic. They pledged to shipping millions of vaccinations to other
countries after signing diplomatic and commercial agreements, playing a critical part in the global
immunisation effort. However, the story took an unexpected turn when India was hit by a catastrophic
second wave of COVID-19. The sudden increase of instances, compounded by political protests and
religious festivals that violated COVID-19 safety rules, resulting in a tragic loss of life.

To address the rising domestic situation, the Indian government took a dramatic move by prohibiting
local vaccine makers from selling vaccines outside. While the goal was to reduce domestic vaccine
shortages, the decision had far-reaching ramifications for the makers themselves. Faced with the
prospect of legal action and fines for late delivery or contractual noncompliance, many vaccine
manufacturers found themselves in perilous seas.

The consequences of India's vaccine export restriction rippled across the world. In order to defend itself,
the United States barred the export of critical raw materials used in vaccine manufacture to foreign
countries. Concurrently, the European Union issued a six-week ban on vaccine exports, highlighting
the global interdependence of the pandemic response and the difficult balance between national interests
and international solidarity.

This complicated tapestry of events, from initial pronouncements of success to the stark realities of a
deadly second wave and the accompanying worldwide impact, highlights the challenges involved in
addressing such a large-scale public health disaster. The following investigation will dive more into the
complex interaction of political, economic, and public health factors that impacted India's reaction to
the COVID-19 outbreak during this key period.

3
2.0 DECISIONS BY INDIA GOVERNMENT (WIN DECLARATION)

A proclamation of triumph over the COVID-19 virus was issued by the Indian government in a
significant step towards the end of 2020 and early 2021. This statement, apparently portrayed as a
victory against a terrible foe, fulfilled two functions. On the one hand, it attempted to inspire trust and
security in the Indian people, while on the other, it was precisely scheduled to generate support for the
upcoming elections in 2021.

The choice to proclaim victory in the face of a worldwide epidemic, with its unparalleled obstacles and
uncertainties, raises fascinating questions about the rationale behind such a daring declaration. The
political context and the imperatives linked with an impending election were at the core of this choice.
The goal to garner popular support for the forthcoming elections offered a powerful motivation for the
administration to promote a triumphant narrative, so generating an image of competent pandemic
control.

This decision, however, occurred against a backdrop of increasing appeals from residents and religious
groups alike pushing the government to relax lockdown laws. The argument was based on the economic
consequences of lengthy lockdowns, with individuals eager to return to work and religious organisations
hoping to resume festivals that are important not just for cultural reasons but also for the economic
survival of temples and affiliated businesses. In this environment, the government's decision to proclaim
victory intended not just to shape public opinion but also to meet rising demand to lift restrictions and
restart economic activity.

As the government portrayed local success, Indian vaccine makers moved into large deals to export
millions of doses to foreign nations. The diplomatic and commercial agreements, totalling 59.8 million
vaccinations, highlighted India's key participation in the worldwide pandemic response. However, the
stark reality of a deadly second wave of COVID-19 would soon eclipse this worldwide participation.

The significant increase of cases during the second wave revealed the impact of political demonstrations
and religious festivals held in violation of conventional COVID-19 protocols. Thousands of people
were killed in a single day, casting doubt on the reality of the previous statement of triumph. The choice
to prioritise political campaigning and holiday celebrations above public health standards fuelled the
ferocity of the second wave, throwing doubt on the original triumphant assertion.

The Indian government banned local vaccine makers from shipping doses overseas in response to the
developing issue and to solve domestic vaccine shortages. While attempting to protect the nation's
interests, this move exposed vaccine makers to legal ramifications. The impending danger of legal
action and fines for alleged contractual violations or late delivery complicated an already difficult
position.

The implications of India's decision to ban vaccine exports reverberated throughout the world, causing
chain reactions in other nations. To preserve its own vaccine supply chain, the United States prohibited
the export of critical raw ingredients for vaccine manufacture. Concurrently, the European Union, faced
with its own issues, announced a six-week moratorium on vaccine shipments. This chain of events
highlighted the worldwide response to the pandemic's interconnection, as well as the difficult balance
between national interests and international collaboration.

To summarise, India's choice to proclaim victory over COVID-19, despite the uncertainties,
demonstrates the complex interaction of political, economic, and public health issues. The combined
goal of gaining electoral support while also addressing local concerns to relieve lockdowns generated a
narrative that would eventually be called into question by the brutal realities of a disastrous second
wave and its global ramifications. This choice serves as a sad reminder of the complications that come
with addressing a public health catastrophe in the face of political constraints and global
interdependence.

4
3.0 DECISIONS BY INDIAN CITIZENS

The intricate socio-economic and cultural forces at work are shown in the desire of Indian people and
religious groups to have lockdown regulations relaxed so they could resume work and celebrate
religious holidays during the COVID-19 pandemic. This case offers a complex conversation on cultural
customs, economic issues, and public health.

Firstly, about public health concern. It is because risk of spread to easing lockdown measures without
adequate precautions can pose a risk of virus transmission. The COVID-19 pandemic is characterized
by its contagious nature, and gatherings during festivals or work environments can become potential
hotspots for the virus. Strain on Healthcare System: A surge in cases due to eased lockdown measures
can strain the healthcare system, potentially overwhelming hospitals and healthcare facilities. This
could lead to difficulties in providing adequate medical care to those in need.

Second, is variants and unknowns. The introduction of fresh viral variations introduces a degree of
uncertainty. It may be difficult to forecast the outcomes of reducing constraints due to the incomplete
understanding of the long-term effects and transmission dynamics of these variants. Then, for income,
livelihoods, and economic factors. Long-term lockdowns have had a detrimental economic impact,
particularly on daily wage workers and those employed in the unorganized sector. In order to ensure
livelihoods and financial stability, it is believed that easing limitations is essential for both individuals
and businesses to continue economic operations.

After that, business and industry recovery Lockdowns have hurt a number of industries, and it is crucial
for these sectors to recover if the economy is to develop overall. Many residents are calling for a
regulated and staged reopening while balancing important public health and economic issues. Next, is
about socio-cultural significance of religious festivals. Religious festivals are very important in India's
culture and society. They are essential in building ties throughout the community and maintaining
customs. Festival celebration stems from a desire to preserve cultural legacy as well as economic
concerns.

Next, effects of the economy on religious groups are temples and other religious establishments
frequently depend on gifts and proceeds from festivals. For many, these monies are essential to the
upkeep of sacred locations and the sustenance of religious practitioners' livelihoods. The government
must strike a balance between promoting public health and spurring economic growth. This is known
as the "balancing act" and "government responsiveness." To prevent the spread of COVID-19 instances,
it must take into account the advice of medical professionals while also being receptive to the needs of
the populace.

Lastly, phased approach and guidelines of a phased approach to easing lockdown measures, with strict
adherence to health protocols, can be a middle ground. Implementing guidelines for social distancing,
mask-wearing, and vaccination campaigns can help mitigate the risks associated with the return to work
and the celebration of religious festivals.

In conclusion, the push from Indian citizens and religious groups to ease lockdown rules is a reflection
of the intricate interplay between health, economic, and cultural considerations. A well-informed and
balanced approach, guided by scientific evidence and community engagement, is essential for
addressing the diverse needs of the population while managing the ongoing challenges posed by the
COVID-19 pandemic.

5
4.0 DECISIONS BY INDIA GOVERNMENT (BAN EXPORTATION OF VACCINES)

The government of India prioritizing the domestic needs over the global needs. In this situation
proponents thinks that it is the responsible of the government to protect their people’s health and well-
being. In the other hand, it is a tricky issue, this is because Covid-19 affected everyone in the world. By
ban export of vaccines to the other country, it might make it harder for the world to stop the spreading
of the virus. It may be a hard choice to choose either take care of your own people or helping the world.
Any of the decision that make by India maybe will affect on how other country see or work with India.
It is hard to choose either helping the world or balance your own needs.

People who support India also thinks that they need to take care of their own peoples who are affected
by the pandemic. They think is important to fulfil the immediate needs of their own citizens. But on the
other side, some of the people thinks that India should fair to everyone in the world. Even though the
vaccines is owned by them, they should fairly treat everyone in the world. They should not just limit in
their own country. No matter how rich, how powerful their country is, they should share with the
vaccines globally.

Next, some of the people thinks that government of India should open how the vaccines being
distributed. This is because it is important to keep the public trust. By being honest, people in the country
will feel a shared responsibility. This is because being open is not only the right things to do, but also
helps to build the trust among the peoples and make them obey the health rules. On the other hand,
people does not trust government, they think that when government not honest or have hidden motives,
people will not trust government. The argue that this kind of tactics will makes people doubt or sceptical.

The openness of vaccination distribution is another aspect of this ethical quandary. To retain public
trust, some say that the Indian government should provide information regarding how vaccinations are
allocated and administered. They argue that transparency is not just an ethical requirement, but also a
pragmatic strategy to instilling a feeling of shared responsibility among citizens. Open communication
regarding the decision-making process and the criteria for vaccination distribution can help to reduce
scepticism and keep the public informed.

Sceptics, on the other hand, are concerned that transparency may not necessarily convert into trust,
particularly if there are concerns about the government's honesty or potential hidden agendas. This
viewpoint emphasises the tight balance between the government's obligation to be open and the inherent
difficulties in establishing public trust. It emphasises the importance of authentic and open
communication devoid of political considerations in order to bridge the trust gap.

Lastly, people thinks that government should help their own citizens first. By ban export vaccines,
government of India can respond quickly and effectively. They believe that the main objectives of
government is to protect their own citizens compare to the others. They also argue that, prioritize own
citizen does not mean that, they do not help other countries, but they can help them later. This is about
ranking which is not an yes or no question. On the other side, people also thinks that we should work
together to overcome this big health problem. They argue that, if we think about ourselves first,
collaborations between other countries will be a big problem to us in the future. From this view point,
we should balance our own needs and collaborations with other countries in the long run.

6
5.0 DECISIONS BY VACCINE MANUFACTURERS

a) Government's Instruction to Breach Contracts

In my opinion, government instructions to violate contracts are unethical for other countries, but ethical
for their Indian country. Other countries will wait for vaccines to save their people facing covid-19.
When they sign the contract, they will be happy to have a vaccine to save the lives of their people. But
the Indian government suddenly stated that it did not want companies producing vaccines to export to
other countries when facing the second wave of covid-19. It is unethical for the government to breach
the contract instructions as India faces second wave of covid-19 due to government holding rallies and
events for state elections from April to November 2021 and not conducting religious festivals properly
as per standard Covid-19 program. Logically speaking, the Indian government cannot force vaccine-
producing companies to ban the export of vaccines to other countries, especially countries that have
signed contracts. This is because vaccine companies are obliged to execute the contract, otherwise they
will have to pay heavy liquidated damages.

b) Manufacturer's Compliance with Government Orders

Let’s discuss manufacturers’ compliance with government orders. The ethical question involved in this
case is whether vaccine manufacturers should prioritize government directives over contractual
commitments. In my view, companies have a huge ethical responsibility to follow government
directives during a crisis, such as public health and safety and the social contract. Companies have a
fundamental ethical responsibility to prioritize public health and safety. Following government
directives during a crisis is one way to promote the collective well-being of society by preventing the
spread of disease or mitigating other crisis-related risks. Companies operate within the framework of a
social contract, implicitly agreeing to abide by the laws and regulations of the society in which they
operate. This social contract may be even more important during a crisis, as government directives are
often aimed at protecting the public and maintaining social order. However, a vaccine manufacturer's
decision to breach its contract at the behest of the Indian government could have a significant impact
on its reputation and credibility. The most serious impact is the erosion of trust. Contract breaches can
lead to the erosion of trust between domestic and international stakeholders. Trust is an important asset
for any company, especially those involved in producing life-saving vaccines. When a company is
perceived not to be fulfilling its contractual commitments, stakeholders including governments, partners
and the public may question its reliability and integrity.

c) Legal Consequences for Vaccine Manufacturers

Let’s discuss whether there should be legal protection or immunity for companies facing such
government orders. I think there would be legal protection or immunity in this situation. This is because
the most important thing during a crisis is to prioritize public health and encourage collaboration. In
times of crisis, particularly when public health is at risk, there is a compelling argument that priority
should be given to the wider public interest rather than strict compliance with contractual obligations.
Legal protections or immunities can enable companies to take action in the interest of public health
without facing severe legal consequences. Legal protections or exemptions can also provide incentives
for companies to cooperate with governments during a crisis. Knowing that they will not face serious
legal consequences for complying with government directives may encourage businesses to proactively
contribute to solving the crisis.

7
6.0 DECISIONS BY OTHER COUNTRIES

In pandemic, , certain countries' decision to ban the export of raw materials to India in retaliation for
the acts of Indian vaccine producers presents serious ethical issues that are beyond boundaries. This
decision arises from the urgent necessity to address vaccination shortages within the country, a problem
that countries all over the world face.As the world struggles with the the complexity of vaccine
distribution, this scenario raises significant considerations about the balance to be found between a
nation's duty to protect its citizens and the greater responsibility to contribute to the global effort to end
the pandemic. However, other countries decide to ban the export of raw materials to India in retaliation
for actions by Indian vaccine manufacturers, various ethical issues come to the forefront. There are
several ethical issue involved in this matter.

a) Diplomatic and Accountability

By taking such a step, the country can convey its displeasure and hold Indian vaccine manufacturers
accountable for actions deemed to have diplomatic ramifications. Export restrictions become a tool to
influence behaviour and convey discontent. It highlights the responsibility of governments to carry out
global norms and hold actors accountable for their actions. Diplomatic pressure is considered as a
measured response to encourage responsible behaviour on the world stage, illustrating the need of
accountability in global relations. The ethical standpoint here underscores that the use of diplomatic
pressure is not only permissible but can be seen as a measured and justifiable response to encourage
responsible behaviour on the international stage. This perspective reinforces the importance of
accountability in global relations, highlighting the ethical imperative for nations to navigate diplomatic
challenges with a sense of responsibility and consideration for broader global norms.

b) Fair Distribution and Cooperation

To export bans may argue that imposing such a measure is necessary to ensure a fair distribution of
resources, especially in the context of vaccine production. They argue that cooperation between
countries is essential to effectively address the complexity of the global health crisis. This point of view
is consistent with the ethical ideal of fairness. It highlights the need of preventing unfair benefits and
promotes the notion that resources, in this case raw materials for vaccine manufacture, should be
distributed properly. The ethical responsibility is to promote global collaboration and avoid situations
in which certain nations receive disproportionate advantages, particularly during a common crisis in
when unity and cooperation are essential. These ethical viewpoints emphasize the dual function of
diplomacy and fairness in the context of raw resource export limits. While diplomacy is viewed as a
tool for holding players accountable, fairness develops as a guiding principle and fostering collaboration
among nations facing with a common world crisis.

In summary, Diplomacy and Accountability argue that banning raw material exports is an acceptable
kind of diplomatic pressure, holding Indian vaccine producers responsible for their perceived actions
with diplomatic implications. However, ethical position is consistent with the notion of fairness,
highlighting the avoidance of unfair benefits and the encouragement of global collaboration in
addressing common concerns. To effectively handle global health crises, these viewpoints stress the
delicate interplay between diplomatic tactics, ethical duties, and the requirement of equitable resource
allocation.

8
7.0 ETHICAL WAY TO HANDLE SAME SITUATION IN MALAYSIA

Foremost, Malaysia's government should prioritize citizens' well-being over political interests.
Communication transparency is pivotal, ensuring the public is well-versed in the gravity of the situation
and governmental initiatives. Any decisions regarding easing lockdowns or hosting religious events
should hinge on scientific advice, strictly adhering to COVID-19 protocols to thwart a surge in cases.
Addressing vaccine shortages ethically requires meticulous management and collaboration. Rather than
abruptly halting vaccine exports, the Malaysian government should closely collaborate with vaccine
manufacturers to assess both domestic and global needs. Collaborative efforts with other nations and
global health organizations can be explored to ensure equitable vaccine distribution while meeting local
demands.

In addressing potential legal challenges faced by vaccine manufacturers, the government should
embrace a collaborative and supportive approach. Fostering open discussions with manufacturers,
comprehending their obstacles, and extending assistance rather than punitive measures aligns with
ethical considerations. Negotiations can be pursued to extend deadlines or modify terms to
accommodate the unprecedented circumstances. On the global stage, Malaysia should uphold ethical
principles by engaging in transparent communication with partner countries. If the necessity arises to
restrict vaccine exports, the government should offer timely and candid explanations, emphasizing the
paramount importance of safeguarding public health.

Confronting possible trade constraints from other nations, Malaysia should champion worldwide unity
in addressing the pandemic. Engaging in diplomatic conversations, articulating distinctive challenges,
and suggesting cooperative solutions can alleviate tensions and encourage a joint approach to the global
health crisis. Nationally, cultivating cohesion is paramount. Political factions should prioritize public
health above electoral advantages, refraining from hosting sizable events that might fuel virus
transmission. Promoting responsible conduct and adherence to health directives should be a mutual
objective for both political figures and religious entities.

In preparation for a possible resurgence, the Malaysian authorities must learn from past errors and
implement stricter measures for both elections and religious gatherings. Forward-thinking strategies,
transparent communication, and the rigorous implementation of COVID-19 guidelines can lessen the
adverse effects of these assemblies on public health. Tackling vaccine shortages demands exploring
alternatives like boosting local vaccine manufacturing, engaging in technology transfer deals with other
producers, or seeking assistance from global organizations. Cooperative endeavors involving the private
sector, civil society, and the international community can strengthen the country's ability to confront
vaccine-related challenges.

If legal challenges emerge for vaccine manufacturers, the Malaysian government should handle the
situation with compassion and adaptability. Evaluating each case on a case-by-case basis and helping
as needed, rather than opting for a punitive stance, would be in harmony with ethical values. On the
global stage, Malaysia should actively participate in diplomatic endeavors to secure essential resources
for vaccine production. Partnering with other countries and championing equitable distribution of raw
materials can play a role in a worldwide resolution to vaccine shortages.

It is vital for Malaysia to uphold transparent communication channels with its populace, ensuring they
stay abreast of the changing scenario and government measures. Building and sustaining public trust is
crucial, and openness can assuage apprehensions while nurturing a shared sense of duty in combatting
the pandemic. Furthermore, Malaysia should play an active role in worldwide endeavors targeting
vaccine inequality. Backing initiatives like COVAX and contributing to global campaigns for equitable
vaccine distribution not only adheres to ethical standards but also showcases a dedication to
international unity. In a nutshell, an ethical response in a crisis like this involves prioritizing public
health, transparent communication, collaborative decision-making, and empathetic engagement with all
stakeholders. By adhering to these principles, Malaysia can navigate the complexities of the pandemic
while fostering trust, unity, and responsible governance.

9
8.0 CONCLUSION

As discussed in the preceding sections, the complicated tapestry of events surrounding India's reaction
to the COVID-19 outbreak provides a complex tale loaded with ethical quandaries, political concerns,
and global ramifications. As we look into the decisions taken by the Indian government, individuals,
vaccine makers, and other nations, a more nuanced view of the complex issues confronting nations in
the middle of a global health catastrophe emerges.

In declaring triumph against the virus, India's government handled the difficult junction of politics and
public health. The decision, which was motivated by electoral motives, prompted concerns about the
ethical consequences of prioritising political objectives over the duty to deliver accurate information to
individuals. Following the disastrous second wave, the ensuing prohibition on vaccine exports
demonstrated the complexities of reconciling home demands with global obligations. The ethical
quandary of choosing between safeguarding one's population and helping to the global fight against the
virus highlighted the difficulties governments have when dealing with such disasters.

India's inhabitants, motivated by economic concerns and cultural traditions, demanded that the
lockdown restrictions be eased. This created a difficult ethical situation in which the necessity for
economic stability collided with the requirement of protecting public health. Indian residents' selections
reflected the delicate interaction of health, economic, and cultural issues, emphasising the significance
of a balanced and educated approach.

The vaccine manufacturers, caught between government directives and contractual commitments, faced
ethical dilemmas of their own. The government's instruction to breach contracts raised questions about
the ethics of prioritizing domestic needs over international obligations. The manufacturers' compliance
with government orders, while driven by the imperative to prioritize public health, also carried potential
legal and reputational consequences. The discussion on legal protection or immunity underscored the
need for a delicate balance between public health imperatives and contractual obligations during a crisis.

Other nations' reactions, represented by raw material export sanctions to India, added another degree of
complication. The ethical issues of diplomatic pressure, accountability, and equitable sharing
underlined the difficulties governments confront in balancing their obligation to protect their
populations with the larger responsibility to contribute to global initiatives. The interdependence of the
worldwide response to the epidemic highlighted the importance of international collaboration and
ethical decision-making.

The suggested ethical strategy for Malaysia highlighted concerns for the government, citizens, vaccine
makers, and global participation. The cornerstones of an ethical response to the pandemic's persisting
issues were transparency, teamwork, and a commitment to global solidarity.

In conclusion, the narrative of India's response to the COVID-19 pandemic serves as a poignant
reminder of the complex ethical considerations inherent in managing a global health crisis. The
decisions made by governments, citizens, and stakeholders reverberate globally, emphasizing the need
for a coordinated, ethical, and collaborative approach to navigate the challenges posed by the pandemic.
As the world continues to grapple with the ongoing crisis, the lessons drawn from these experiences
underscore the imperative of placing human well-being, transparency, and global solidarity at the
forefront of decision-making.

10
REFERENCES

Andrews MA, Areekal B, Rajesh KR, Krishnan J, Suryakala R, Krishnan B, et al. First Confirmed
Case of COVID-19 Infection in India: A Case Report. Indian J Med Res (2020) 151(5):490–
2.

Garg A, Ghoshal U, Patel SS, Singh DV, Arya AK, Vasanth S, et al. Evaluation of Seven Commercial
RT-PCR Kits for COVID-19 Testing in Pooled Clinical Specimens. J Med
Virol (2021) 93(4):2281–6.

Gettleman J, Schultz K. Modi Orders 3-Week Total Lockdown for All 1.3 Billion Indians. The New
York Times (2020). ISSN 0362-4331.

Gidengil CA, Parker AM, Zikmund-Fisher BJ. Trends in Risk Perceptions and Vaccination
Intentions- a Longitudinal Study of the First Year Ofthe H1N1 Pandemic. Am J Public
Health (2012) 102(4):672–9.

La Marca A, Capuzzo M, Paglia T, Roli L, Trenti T, Nelson SM. Testing for SARS-CoV-2 (COVID-
19): a Systematic Review and Clinical Guide to Molecular and Serological In-
Vitro Diagnostic Assays. Reprod Biomed Online (2020) 41(3):483–99.

Larson HJ, Clarke RM, Jarrett C, Eckersberger E, Levine Z, Schulz WS, et al. Measuring Trust
Invaccination- A Systematic Review. Hum Vaccin Immunother (2018) 14(7):1599–609.

Masthi R, Gangaboraiah BBP, Kulkarni P. An Exploratory Study on Socio Economic Status Scales in
a Rural and Urban Setting. J Fam Med Prim Care (2013) 2(1):69–73.

Ritchie H, Mathieu E, Rodes-Guirao L, Appel C, Giattino C, Ortiz-Ospina E, et al. Coronavirus

Pandemic (COVID-19). Our World in Data (2020-2021).

Rajni K, Gaurav D, Kamran Z, Rima RS. Serendipitous COVID-19 Vaccine-Mix in Uttar Pradesh,
India: Safety and Immunogenicity Assessment of a Heterologous Regime. medRxiv preprint.
10.1101/2021.

Sapkal GN, Yadav PD, Ella R, Deshpande GR, Sahay RR, Gupta N, et al. Neutralization of Delta
Variant with Sera of Covishield™ Vaccinees and COVID-19-Recovered Vaccinated
Individuals. J Trav Med (2021) 28(4):taab119.

Yadav PD, Sapkal GN, Abraham P, Ella R, Deshpande G, Patil DY, et al. Neutralization of Variant
under Investigation B.1.617 with Sera of BBV152 Vaccinees. Clin Infect Dis (2021) 74:366.

11