The Impact of the Pandemic Experience on Future Vaccine-Related Intentions and Behaviours (2022) - Final Report

Prepared for the Public Health Agency of Canada

Supplier name: Earnscliffe Strategy Group
Contract number: CW2244294-6D145-225103
Contract value: $171,545.30 (including applicable taxes)
Award date: October 12, 2022
Delivery date: January 20, 2023

Registration number: POR 062-22
For more information on this report, please contact the Public Health Agency of Canada at: hc.cpab.por-rop.dgcap.sc@canada.ca

Ce rapport est aussi disponible en français.

The Impact of the Pandemic Experience on Future Vaccine-Related Intentions and Behaviours (2022) - Final Report

Prepared for the Public Health Agency of Canada

Supplier name: Earnscliffe Strategy Group
January 2023

This public opinion research report presents the results of an online survey and focus groups conducted concurrently by Earnscliffe Strategy Group on behalf of the Public Health Agency of Canada. The fieldwork for the qualitative research was conducted in November 2022 and in December 2022 for the quantitative research.

Cette publication est aussi disponible en français sous le titre : L'impact de l'expérience de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les intentions et les comportements futurs liés aux vaccins (2022).

This publication may be reproduced for non-commercial purposes only. Prior written permission must be obtained from the Public Health Agency of Canada. For more information on this report, please contact the Public Health Agency of Canada at: hc.cpab.por-rop.dgcap.sc@canada.ca or at:

Public Health Agency of Canada
130 Colonnade Rd.
A.L. 6501H
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0K9

Catalogue Number: H14-432/2023E-PDF

International Standard Book Number (ISBN): 978-0-660-47667-4

Related publications (registration number): H14-432/2023F-PDF

L'impact de l'expérience de la pandémie de COVID-19 sur les intentions et les comportements futurs liés aux vaccins (2022) (Final Report, French) ISBN 978-0-660-47668-1

©His Majesty the King in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Health, 2023

Table of contents

Executive summary
Introduction
Detailed findings
Section A: Quantitative research
COVID-19 experience and vaccination status
Perceptions of pandemic fatigue
Future intention and behaviours
Section B: Qualitative research
COVID-19 experience
Perceptions of pandemic fatigue
Future intentions and behaviours
Communications needs and preferences
Conclusions
Appendix A: Quantitative methodology report
Appendix B: Qualitative methodology report
Appendix C: Survey questionnaire
Appendix D: Recruitment screener (general population)
Appendix E: Recruitment screener (health care professionals)
Appendix F: Discussion guide (general population)
Appendix G: Discussion guide (health care professionals)

Executive summary

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) summarizing the results of quantitative and qualitative research undertaken to understand the impact of the pandemic experience on future vaccine-related intentions and behaviours.

Vaccines are a core public health tool to protect the population's health. Public sentiment around COVID-19 vaccines has been even more dynamic and rapidly changing than with other vaccines, reflecting evolving epidemiology and anxieties about the newness of COVID-19 vaccines and emerging variants, reported risks of side-effects, misinformation circulating, vaccine and public health measure fatigue, and increased distrust of government and science.

Research prior to the pandemic established various key factors and determinants that impacted vaccine confidence and resulting vaccine behaviours. However, the pandemic experience has been novel to this generation and has necessitated the general population to engage with intense and ongoing adaptation. The consequences of this burden are still unknown and as society transitions towards recovery, it was critical that PHAC gain insight into how these events are processed and what this might mean for vaccine confidence (that is, routine and/or boosters for COVID-19) going forward.

To that end, the primary objective of this research was to provide PHAC with insights into Canadians' overall awareness, perceptions, and concerns about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including mental health impacts, government relief efforts and expectations, recovery, public health measures, and vaccines in order to develop targeted communications strategies and products. The contract value for this project was $171,545.30 including HST.

To meet the current objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a two-phased research program involving both quantitative and qualitative research that ran concurrently.

The quantitative phase involved an online survey of 2,088 Canadians aged 18 and older. The online survey was conducted using Leger's opt-in panel between December 1 and 6, 2022. The online survey was completed in either English or French and took an average of 16 minutes to complete.

Respondents for the online survey were selected from among those who have volunteered to participate in online surveys. The data was weighted to reflect the demographic composition of the Canadian population aged 18 and older. Because the online sample is based on those who initially self-selected for participation in the panel, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated, and the results cannot be described as statistically projectable to the target population. The treatment here of the non-probability sample is aligned with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research - Online Surveys. Appendix A provides full details on the survey methodology and Appendix C provides the survey instrument used.

At the same time, qualitative research was undertaken, which included a series of sixteen (16) focus groups between November 21 and 24, 2022 with adults aged 18 and older, adults 18-39, Indigenous adults aged 18 and older who live off-reservation, and health care professionals. A maximum of ten (10) individuals were recruited for each group. In total, 144 people participated in the focus group discussions. One discussion group among each target audience was conducted with residents of Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick), Quebec, Ontario, and the West/North (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). Those living in official language minority communities (OLMCs) were invited to participate in a group in their preferred language at a date and time that was convenient to them. The sessions were approximately 90 minutes in length.

It is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy, and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences, and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved, the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn, and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number. As such, results are directional only.

The key findings from the research are presented below.

Key quantitative findings

• Roughly half of respondents say they have personally been infected with COVID-19 (51%) and/or a member of their household has (52%).
• Current uptake of COVID-19 vaccinations is quite high in that the majority of respondents (93%) say they have received two doses (primary series) (22%) or one booster dose (that is 3 or more doses) (71%) of COVID-19 vaccines. The remainder (7%) say they have received a single dose (1%) or none (6%).
• Nearly two-thirds of respondents are likely (65%) to get additional doses in the future including half (49%) who are very likely to or definitely will.
  • Among those likely to get a future COVID-19 vaccine dose, the vast majority (80%) are likely to get a flu shot as well.
• Respondents 40 years and older are more likely to say that they have received all the recommended doses as compared to respondents 18 to 39 years (53% versus 41%). Similarly, they are more likely (58% versus 32%) to get additional doses in the future.
• The most common reasons respondents say they are not likely to get future COVID-19 vaccine doses are concerns over the long-term side effects of the vaccines (32%), the belief that the vaccine is not effective enough (29%), and the perception that they themselves are protected enough by the doses they already have (20%).
• Pandemic fatigue varies widely. However, more respondents say they are experiencing higher levels of pandemic fatigue (rating between 6 and 10; 48%) than those who rate their pandemic fatigue lower or non-existent (rating between 0 and 4; 36%). The remaining respondents (16%) would mark their pandemic fatigue at the mid-point between no fatigue and the worst possible fatigue.
• Fewer than half say their pandemic experience has impacted their future vaccination intentions for themselves or their child(ren), for either the COVID-19 vaccine doses (45% for themselves) or routine vaccines (36% for oneself and 37% for their child(ren)).
  • Among those who say it has, more say their experiences have made them more likely to get future vaccinations than less likely.
• While most do not say their pandemic experience has impacted their trust in any of the sources tested, among those for which it has the impact on trust varies among the sources.
  • More say they are more likely to trust healthcare workers (34% vs. 9%) and scientists (31% vs. 12%) than less likely to, whereas the reverse is true for social (4% vs. 25%) and traditional (11% vs. 22%) media.
• The majority of respondents support the proof-of-vaccination system (64%) and say they always adhere to the most recommended public health measures, including:
  • Staying at home when they are sick (70%), using individual public health measures around vulnerable people (62%), wearing a mask indoors when they're feeling sick (60%), and wearing a mask indoors when in public or around people from outside their household (56%).
  • If required to prevent widespread outbreak, most respondents would support reimplementing most of the public health measures except stay-at-home orders (47% support), closing schools or daycares (44% support), and closing businesses (31% support).

Key qualitative findings

• Virtually every participant had firsthand experience with COVID-19 infection and were very forthcoming in sharing their experience(s). The stories shared varied widely and tended to focus on descriptions of symptoms, their severity, and the length of time it took to recover from infection.
• The stated impacts on non-health care professionals' lives included: their work or income being negatively impacted; the struggle to deal with the logistics of quarantining themselves or others in their household; being unable to do things they needed or wanted to do; and, for parents, the challenges of trying to work from home while caring for children.
• While the impacts on the personal lives of health care professionals were very consistent, the additional impacts on their work, included: for family physicians, the move to virtual care, and concern for the quality of care; for nurses, the emotional toll associated with being one of the primary points of care and information in a highly uncertain environment; and, for pharmacists, especially those owning their own businesses, a surge in the success of their businesses as pharmacies became a go-to location for just about everything pandemic-related.
• When prompted to discuss how they coped, responses ranged widely and seemingly in correlation with the severity of the illness. For some, their experience with the infection was insignificant, and the notion of "coping" felt overstated; while for others, their lives were far more disrupted and stressful including beyond infection.
  • Some Indigenous participants in the West/North and Quebec raised Indigenous-specific aspects to coping. These included traditional medicine, spiritual resilience, and interacting with elders or others in the community to provide or receive help.
• Some participants reflected on, or explained when prompted, that one of the reasons they felt their symptoms were milder than anticipated was because they had received (at least one dose of) the COVID-19 vaccine. However, there were also participants who felt the fact they were vaccinated did little or nothing for them.
• Provided with a definition of pandemic fatigue participants expressed varying degrees of fatigue though there was a sense that their rating would have been higher had they been asked at the beginning of the pandemic.
• For non-health care professionals, the imposition of public health recommendations and requirements and/or dealing with the social pressures of complying or being vaccinated were higher sources of fatigue. Parents also appeared to have higher degrees of pandemic fatigue given the challenges of juggling work from home, home schooling, and caring for children.
• On a personal level, health care professionals shared all of these same feelings and challenges and described their pandemic fatigue in much the same way. On a professional level, however, there was a certain amount of fatigue and concern about the long-term impact of the pandemic on the health care system.
• The overwhelming majority of non-health care professionals acknowledged that their pandemic experience would have an influence on their behaviours going forward. For some, they will be at least as committed to vaccines and/or other public health measures. Others will be less committed and cited the milder than anticipated symptoms, inconsistency in recommendations, and/or counter-intuitive changes that were seen as unhelpful.
• Health care professionals spoke of relaxing some of their own behaviours over the course of the pandemic, but in contrast to non-health care professionals, they had not relaxed on mask-wearing and felt that guidelines surrounding mask-wearing were relaxed too early.
• On the topic of vaccines, non-health care professionals' perspectives ranged from being absolutely committed to receiving the COVID-19 vaccines doses whenever they are recommended to being absolutely committed to never getting a dose. The rationale for not continuing to get doses included concern about unknown long-term side effects and/or a sense the vaccine was not as effective as they had expected. When the vaccine was assumed to be effective and the risk of infection seen as having very dire consequences, some seemed to find it easier to set aside nagging thoughts they had about side effects.
• For nearly all, the pandemic had no effect on their intentions regarding routine vaccines. The distinction tended to be around the certainty of routine vaccines at blocking the possibility of contracting a certain illness, whereas the COVID-19 vaccine seemed to only lessen the severity of the symptoms.
• The discussion around how their trust in information sources had been affected by their pandemic experience, there were few who indicated that their trust in any source had increased and many who indicated having lost trust in one or more sources.
  • One sentiment that came up during this discussion was that some non-health care professionals stopped looking for or accessing information – sometimes because it had become overwhelming, or difficult to reconcile, or too heated an issue.
• Some non-health care professionals felt less trust in one level of government or another (or multiple) – this much was echoed by health care professionals who indicated their patients' trust in at least one level of government had waned. Health care professionals explained that information from the government was fast evolving (too fast), not always clear, and at times contradictory.
• Health care professionals also often blamed social media for the misinformation over the course of the pandemic. Mirroring this, at least one non-health care professional in each group noted that social media was one source in which they had less trust now.
• Asked what the remedy might be for restoring trust, participants suggested being honest and admit your mistakes about the trials and tribulations faced.
  • Participants want factual, balanced, unbiased, and politically neutral information that includes source attribution (especially scientific evidence); laying out the reasoning behind the recommended guidelines; the pros and cons of COVID-19 vaccines; different side effects of the vaccines; how many people experienced side effects; and the positive results/impact of vaccines on addressing the COVID-19 pandemic (though they appreciated this would be difficult to do).

Research firm: Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe)
Contract number: CW2244294-6D145-225103
Contract value: $171,545.30 (including applicable taxes)
Contract award date: October 12, 2022

I hereby certify as a representative of Earnscliffe Strategy Group that the final deliverables fully comply with the Government of Canada political neutrality requirements outlined in the Communications Policy of the Government of Canada and Procedures for Planning and Contracting Public Opinion Research. Specifically, the deliverables do not include information on electoral voting intentions, political party preferences, standings with the electorate or ratings of the performance of a political party or its leaders.

Signed: Stephanie Constable, Principal, Earnscliffe

Date: January 20, 2023

Introduction

Earnscliffe Strategy Group (Earnscliffe) is pleased to present this report to the Public Health Agency of Canada (PHAC) summarizing the results of quantitative and qualitative research undertaken to understand the impact of the pandemic experience on future vaccine-related intentions and behaviours.

Vaccines are a core public health tool to protect the population's health. Public sentiment around COVID-19 vaccines has been even more dynamic and rapidly changing than with other vaccines, reflecting evolving epidemiology and anxieties about the newness of COVID-19 vaccines and emerging variants, reported risks of side-effects, misinformation circulating, vaccine and public health measure fatigue and increased distrust of government and science.

Research prior to the pandemic established various key factors and determinants that impacted vaccine confidence and resulting vaccine behaviours. However, the pandemic experience has been novel to this generation and has necessitated the general population to engage with intense and ongoing adaptation. The consequences of this burden are still unknown and as society transitions towards recovery, it was critical that PHAC gain insight into how these events are processed and what this might mean for vaccine confidence (that is, routine and/or boosters for COVID-19) going forward.

To that end, the primary objective of this research was to provide PHAC with insights into Canadians' overall awareness, perceptions, and concerns about the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic, including mental health impacts, government relief efforts and expectations, recovery, public health measures, and vaccines in order to develop targeted communications strategies and products. The contract value for this project was $171,545.30 including HST.

The quantitative research will be used to:

• Support the renewal of the National Immunization Strategy;
• Plan for future vaccination campaigns and programming to bolster Canadians' trust in the science of using vaccination; and,
• Provide and inform current evidence synthesis in the Vaccine Confidence Division.

To complement the survey, qualitative research was conducted to:

• Elicit further insights from specific populations;
• Further explore emerging vaccine-related events; and,
• Identify and characterise vaccine-related motivations and behaviours.

To meet the current objectives, Earnscliffe conducted a two-phased research program involving both quantitative and qualitative research that ran concurrently.

The quantitative phase involved an online survey of 2,088 Canadians aged 18 and older. The online survey was conducted using Leger's opt-in panel between December 1 and 6, 2022. The online survey was completed in either English or French and took an average of 16 minutes to complete.

Respondents for the online survey were selected from among those who have volunteered to participate in online surveys. The data for the general population sample was weighted to reflect the demographic composition of the Canadian population aged 18 and older. Because the online sample is based on those who initially self-selected for participation in the panel, no estimates of sampling error can be calculated, and the results cannot be described as statistically projectable to the target population. The treatment here of the non-probability sample is aligned with the Standards for the Conduct of Government of Canada Public Opinion Research - Online Surveys.

The final data were weighted to replicate actual population distribution by region, age, and gender according to the most recent Census data available. Appendix A provides full details on the survey methodology and Appendix C provides the survey instrument used.

Within the tables included in the body of the report, letters below percentages indicate results that are significantly different than those found in the specific comparison columns indicated by the letter. Unless otherwise noted, differences highlighted are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The statistical test used to determine the significance of the results was the Z-test. Due to rounding, results may not add to 100%. Throughout the report, the acronym "DK/NR" represents responses of either "don't know" or "prefer not to respond."

At the same time, qualitative research was undertaken, which included a series of sixteen (16) focus groups between November 21 and 24, 2022, with adults aged 18 and older, adults 18-39, Indigenous adults aged 18 and older who live off-reservation, and health care professionals. A maximum of ten (10) individuals were recruited for each group. In total, 144 people participated in the focus group discussions. One discussion group among each target audience was conducted with residents of Atlantic Canada (Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick), Quebec, Ontario, and the West/North (Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia, Yukon, Northwest Territories, Nunavut). Those living in official language minority communities (OLMCs) were invited to participate in a group in their preferred language at a date and time that was convenient to them. Please refer to the recruitment screeners in the Appendix D and E of this report for all relevant screening and qualifications criteria.

The sessions were approximately 90 minutes in length. Focus group participants were given an honorarium as a token of appreciation for their time ($100 for adults 18 and older, $200 for Indigenous adults, $350 for nurses and pharmacists, and $400 for general practitioners). Appendix B provides greater detail on how the groups were recruited, while Appendices F and G provide the discussion guides used for the focus groups and Appendices D and E provide the screeners used for recruiting the focus group participants.

It is important to note that qualitative research is a form of scientific, social, policy, and public opinion research. Focus group research is not designed to help a group reach a consensus or to make decisions, but rather to elicit the full range of ideas, attitudes, experiences, and opinions of a selected sample of participants on a defined topic. Because of the small numbers involved, the participants cannot be expected to be thoroughly representative in a statistical sense of the larger population from which they are drawn, and findings cannot reliably be generalized beyond their number. As such, results are directional only.

The detailed findings from this research are presented in subsequent sections of this report. Appended to this report are the research instruments and data tables (presented under a separate cover).

Detailed findings

The following report presents the analysis of the quantitative and qualitative research to understand the impact of the pandemic experience on future vaccine-related intentions and behaviours. While the two phases of research were led concurrently, the results of each phase of research are presented separately beginning with the quantitative results which provides an understanding of the public's pandemic experience, intentions, and behaviours. This is followed by the qualitative results which provide the nuance to understand what and how those views are informed.

The term "respondent" is typically used when quantitative (survey) results are discussed, and "participant" when qualitative (focus group) results are discussed.

Section A: Quantitative research

The following quantitative results are divided into three sections: COVID-19 experience and vaccination status; Perceptions of pandemic fatigue; and Future intentions and behaviours.

These results are based on the findings of the online survey with percentages reported for respondents overall, and by key audiences.

For the purposes of this report, the key audiences are respondents' Indigenous identity (that is, Indigenous and non-Indigenous) and age (that is, 18 to 39 years, and 40 years or older). Some questions include additional tables that display the results by respondents' COVID-19 vaccination status (that is, 0 or 1 dose, 2 doses, or 3 or more doses). In this context, 3 or more doses is also described as "receive one or more booster doses." Further, analyses were conducted to see what, if any, differences exist beyond the demographic characteristics identified above, including gender identity, region, and household income inter alia. Analysis revealed strong correlation between income and education, so only differences by income are detailed herein.

Column labels have been provided to identify statistically significant results within the included tables. Letters that are depicted under percentages indicate results that are significantly different than those found in the specific comparison columns indicated by the letter in the Column Labels. Unless otherwise noted, differences highlighted are statistically significant at the 95% confidence level. The statistical test used to determine the significance of the results was the Z-test. Due to rounding, results may not add to 100%. The response options "Don't know" and "prefer not to respond" are denoted by DK/NR. Results with a base of fewer than 30 responses have been removed due to the unreliability of the result.

Details about the survey design, methodology, sampling approach, and weighting of the results may be found in the quantitative methodology report in Appendix A. Appended data tables (under separate cover) provide results of findings across a much broader range of demographics and attitudes.

COVID-19 experience and vaccination status

To better understand the range of experiences with COVID-19 and vaccinations, respondents were asked a series of questions related to their behaviour, attitudes, and perceptions.

When asked, the majority of respondents (71%) say they have received at least one booster dose of a COVID-19 vaccine (that is 3 or more doses). One-fifth (21%) say they have received two doses and the remainder (7%) say they have received a single dose (1%) or none (6%).

Looking at the key audiences, respondents who are non-Indigenous and 40 years or older are more likely to have received all the available vaccine booster doses.

Exhibit A1. Q5: How many doses of a COVID-19 vaccine have you received?
Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

• At 76%, respondents who do not have any kids at home are more likely than their counterparts (61%) to have received at least one COVID-19 vaccine booster dose.
• Respondents whose household income is $80,000 or more are more likely to have received at least one booster dose (77%), compared to respondents whose household income is lower (64% for households with income under $40,000 and 69% for households with income between $40,000 and under $80,000).
• Those who have not been infected with COVID-19 are more likely to have received at least one booster dose (at 76%), compared to 68% among respondents who say they have been infected or think they have.

When respondents who have received at least two doses were asked why they have not received additional COVID-19 vaccine doses beyond the ones they have received, the most common response was the impression that they have already received all the recommended doses for their age group (49%). The next most common responses were the perception that they are protected enough (10%) or that they recently were infected with COVID-19 and therefore have to wait before getting additional doses (8%). All other reasons were cited by 5% or fewer respondents.

Fewer Indigenous responses said they received all the recommended doses (32% compared to 50% among non-Indigenous) or felt they were protected enough (3% compared to 10% among non-Indigenous), which led to more variance across the remaining reasons; including 13% who indicated that they recently contracted COVID-19 and needed to wait to get additional doses, 13% who expressed concern over the long-term effects of the vaccine and 11% who feel that the vaccine does not provide much protection since you can still contract COVID-19 if you have been vaccinated.

Looking at the results among the two age groups, there are also notable differences. Respondents 40 years and older are more likely to say that they have received all the recommended doses (53% versus 41%), and that they recently contracted COVID-19 (9% versus 7%). Conversely, respondents 18 to 39 years are more likely to say that they feel protected enough (14% versus 8%) or that the vaccine does not provide much protection since you can still contract COVID-19 if you have been vaccinated (5% versus 3%). All other differences are among responses with fewer than 5% of respondents.

Exhibit A2. Q6: What is the top reason you have not gotten additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine?
Base: Respondents who have received at least two doses in Q5 (n=1,925).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Respondents who do not have children at home are more likely to say that they have already received all the recommended doses (53% versus 39% among those who have children at home), or that they recently had COVID-19 (9% versus 8%). Respondents with children at home are more likely to say they feel protected enough (13% versus 9%) of that the vaccine does not provide enough protection (6% versus 3%).

Compared to those born in Canada, respondents who were not born in Canada are more likely to feel that they are protected enough with the doses they have already received (14% versus 9%).

Respondents were asked to consider the list of factors provided to them in the current COVID-19 context and select up to three that would motivate them to get additional doses of a COVID-19 vaccine.

Motivating factors varied widely among respondents and no single motivator is shared among a majority of respondents. One-fifth say they would be motivated by knowing they could help protect vulnerable members of society (22%) or if variant-specific formulations were offered (20%). Rounding out the top five factors are: helping to get things back to normal (17%), advice from a primary health care provider (16%) and being able to more safely spend time with friends and family in-person (15%). Another one in five (19%) say none of the factors listed would motivate them to get additional doses.

Looking at the key audiences, non-Indigenous respondents are more likely to be motivated than Indigenous respondents by vaccine formulations that are specific to latest variants (20% versus 11%), helping to get things back to normal (17% versus 9%), being required to be able to travel internationally (15% versus 6%), and knowing that additional doses reduce the risk of hospitalization (15% versus 6%).

There are notable differences in the motivational factors by age as well. Most notably, respondents 40 years or older are more likely to be motivated by helping to protect vulnerable members of society (24% versus 18%), new vaccine formulations (23% versus 13%), and recommendations by a primary health care provider (18% versus 11%). Conversely, respondents who are 18 to 39 years are more likely to be motivated by requirements to travel, both internationally (17% versus 14%) and in Canada (13% versus 6%), as well as getting additional doses at convenient times and location (12% versus 9%).

Exhibit A3. Q7: Amongst the following factors and thinking about the current COVID-19 context, what would motivate you to get additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine? Please select up to 3.
Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Analyses of these results by respondents' vaccination status reveals that the extent to which each of these factors motivate respondents is correlated with the number of vaccinations received. For nearly all of them, respondents with at least one booster dose are the most likely to say any of these reasons would be motivating, followed by those who have received two doses, and least by respondents with one dose or who are not vaccinated at all.

Exhibit A4. Q7: Amongst the following factors and thinking about the current COVID-19 context, what would motivate you to get additional doses of COVID-19 vaccine? Please select up to 3.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088)

Other demographic differences:

Compared to respondents in other areas of the country, respondents in Quebec are less motivated by a recommendation by a primary health care provider (10%) but are more likely to be motivated by being able to spend time more safely with family and friends indoors (19%).

A plurality (47%) of children 12 to 17 years of age have received two COVID-19 vaccine doses, and more than a third (36%) have received at least one booster dose. Compared to parents who are between the ages of 18 and 39, parents 40 years or older are more likely to say that their child(ren) have received at least one booster dose (22% versus 39%).

Exhibit A5. Q10: Thinking about your child(ren) aged 12-17, how many doses of a COVID-19 vaccine have they received? Please select all that apply.

Base: Respondents who have a child that is between the ages of 12 and 17 (n=230).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes for this question, results should be regarded with caution.

There are no other demographic differences.

The largest proportions of children 5 to 11 years of age have received two COVID-19 vaccine doses (42%) or none at all (33%). One-fifth (18%) have received a booster dose. Parents between the ages of 18 to 39 are more likely to say their child(ren) between the ages of 5 to 11 are unvaccinated (42%), whereas parents 40 years or older are more likely to say their child(ren) has received a booster dose (22%).

Exhibit A6. Q11: Thinking about your child(ren) aged 5-11, how many doses of a COVID-19 vaccine have they received? Please select all that apply.

Base: Respondents who have a child that is between the ages of 5 and 11 (n=282).

Other demographic differences:

Respondents who identify as male are more likely than those who identify as female to say their child(ren) between the ages of 5 and 11 years have received a booster dose (24% versus 10%).

Respondents in Ontario and in the West or North are more likely to say that their child(ren) between the ages of 5 and 11 have received a booster dose (19% and 24%, respectively), compared to those in Atlantic Canada (9%) and Quebec (6%).

Respondents whose household income is under $80,000 are more likely to say their child(ren) in this age group are unvaccinated (48% for $40,000 to $79,999; 47% for under $40,000).

Three-quarters of respondents (74%) who are a parent of at least one child between the ages of 6 months and under 5 years say their child(ren) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine. There are no notable differences among the key audiences.

Exhibit A7. Q12: Thinking about your child(ren) between the ages of 6 months and under 5, have they received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine?

Base: Respondents who have a child that is between the ages of 6 months and 4 years (n=272).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes for this question, results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Respondents who identify as male are more likely than those who identify as female to say their child(ren) between the ages of 6 months and under 5 years have received at least one dose (34% versus 18%).

Those who reside in an urban area (as defined by them) are more likely to say their child(ren) in this age range has received at least one dose (36%) compared to those who live in a suburban area of small city (20%).

Respondents were asked if they have or believe they have been infected with COVID-19 and/or if anyone in their household has. A slight majority of respondents say they have/believe they have themselves been infected by COVID-19 (51%) and have had someone in their household (excluding themselves) infected with COVID-19 (52%). More respondents that are Indigenous and those between the ages of 18 to 39 say they have/believe they have been infected (66% and 59%, respectively), compared to 50% of respondents who are non-Indigenous and 46% of respondents who are 40 years or older. Younger respondents are also more likely to say that someone in their household (excluding themselves) has been infected with COVID-19 (62%), compared to respondents who are older (47%).

Exhibit A8. Q13: Have you ever been infected with COVID-19?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Exhibit A9. Q14: Has anyone ("else" for respondents who said "no" or "DK/NR" in Q13) in your household ever been infected with COVID-19?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Those who have a household income of under $40,000 are the most likely to say they have not contracted COVID-19 (55%).

Respondents who do not have children at home are more likely than those who don't say they have not been infected with COVID-19 (50% versus 35%) nor has anyone in their household (47% versus 28%).

Respondents were shown a series of public health measures that were recommended or implemented at various points during the COVID-19 pandemic and were asked how often they followed each. A majority of respondents say they always stay at home when they are sick (70%), use individual public health measures around vulnerable people (62%), wear a mask indoors when they're feeling sick (60%), and wear a mask indoors when in public/around people from outside their household (56%). Three in ten say they always improve ventilation (29%) or wear a mask when outdoors (28%).

Exhibit A10. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Looking at those who follow the public health guidelines often or more among the key audiences reveals some differences. Those results, which are ranked descending, are provided in the tables that follow.

The vast majority of respondents say they have always or often stayed home and away from others if they feel sick. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely than those who at 18 to 39 years to say they always or often stay home and away from others if they feel sick (90% versus 84%).

Exhibit A11. Q15a: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Staying home and away from others if you feel sick.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Three quarters of respondents (75%) who have received one or more booster doses say they always stay home and away from others when they feel sick; 16% say they often do. All told, at 91%, respondents with at least one booster dose are significantly more likely to always or often stay home (91%), compared to those with two (82%) or fewer vaccines (77%).

Exhibit A12. Q15a: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Staying home and away from others if you feel sick.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who identify as females are more likely than those who identify as males to say they always or often stay home and away from others when they are sick (92% versus 84%)

Respondents who say they live in a rural area are the least likely to say they always or often stay home and away from others when they are sick (81% versus 88% nationally).

Over eight in ten respondents (83%) say they always or often use public health measures when interacting with someone who is at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to always or often follow that guideline (at 87%) than those who are 18 to 39 years (78%).

Exhibit A13. Q15b: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Using individual public health measures when interacting with someone who is at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

There is a correlation between vaccination status and the extent to which an individual followed the guideline to use individual public health measures when interacting with someone who is at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19. Specifically, those who have received three or more doses are the most likely to always or often follow that guideline (at 90%), followed by those who have received two doses (73%). Slightly more than half of respondents (54%) who have received a single dose or none say they always or often follow this public health guideline.

Exhibit A14. Q15b: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Using individual public health measures when interacting with someone who is at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who identify as females (86%) are more likely than those who identify as males (81%) to say they always or often use individual public health measures when interacting with someone who is at risk of more severe disease or outcomes from COVID-19.

Respondents who do not have children at home are more likely to follow this public health guideline always or often (85%), compared to 81% among respondents who do have children at home.

Those who reside in the West coast or in the North are the least likely to say they always or often follow the guideline (80%).

Respondents who were not born in Canada are more likely to say they always or often use individual public health measures when interacting with vulnerable individuals (88%), than those who were born in Canada (82%).

When it comes to wearing a mask inside with others when feeling sick, three-quarters (77%) of respondents say they always or often do this. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely than younger respondents to always or often follow this guideline (79% versus 73%).

Exhibit A15. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask inside with others when you're feeling sick.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Vaccination status also has an impact on whether an individual is likely to wear a mask indoors around others when they are feeling sick. Specifically, respondents who have received at least one booster dose are almost twice as likely to say they always or often follow this guideline compared to those who have received zero or one dose (83% versus 45%).

Exhibit A16. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask inside with others when you're feeling sick.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who are retired (70% versus 60% nationally) or unable to work (74% versus 60% nationally) are more likely to say they always wear a mask inside when feeling sick.

Those who were not born in Canada (82%) or whose first language is neither English nor French (89%) are more likely to say they always or often wear a mask inside when feeling sick.

Those living in urban areas (80%) are more likely to say they always or often wear a mask inside when feeling sick than those living in suburban areas or small cities (76%).

When it comes to following the guideline to wear a mask indoors in a public space or in a space with people outside immediate household members, eight in ten respondents (79%) say they do this always or often. Looking at the key audiences, both non-Indigenous (80%) and those who are 40 years of age or older (83%) are significantly more likely to always or often follow this guideline than their counterparts (69% among Indigenous respondents and 73% among respondents 18 to 39 years of age).

Exhibit A17. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask when indoors in a public space or in an indoor space with people from outside your immediate household.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Vaccination status is correlated with how often an individual is likely to wear a mask when indoors in a public space or in an indoor space with people from outside their immediate household. Specifically, respondents who have received at least one booster dose are the most likely to say they always or often follow this guideline while those who have received zero or one dose are the least likely to (85% versus 53%).

Exhibit A18. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask when indoors in a public space or in an indoor space with people from outside your immediate household.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those unable to work (87%) or retired (89%) are more likely to always or often wear a mask indoors in a public space or in a space with people outside immediate household members.

Those who were not born in Canada (88%) or whose first language is neither English nor French (90%) are more likely to always or often follow this guidance.

Those whose first language is French (83%) are also more likely to always or often follow this guidance

When it comes to improving ventilation (even if just temporarily, such as when people from outside your immediate household are in your home), half (52%) of respondents say they do this always or often. Looking at the key audiences, Indigenous respondents are more likely than non-Indigenous respondents to say they always follow this guideline (42% versus 28%). Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely than younger respondents to say they always or often improve ventilation as well (54% versus 47%).

Exhibit A19. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Improving ventilation (even if just temporarily, such as when people from outside your immediate household are in your home).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Vaccination status is correlated with how often an individual improves their ventilation. Specifically, respondents who have received at least one booster dose are the most likely to say they always or often follow this guideline while those who have received zero or one dose are the least likely to (55% versus 36%).

Exhibit A20. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Improving ventilation (even if just temporarily, such as when people from outside your immediate household are in your home).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Ontario (55%) are more likely to say they always or often have been improving ventilation.

Those who were not born in Canada (67%) or whose first language is neither English nor French (79%) are more likely to always or often follow this guidance.

Those living in an urban area (57%) are also more likely to always or often do this.

Those who identified as White (47%) are less likely than everyone else to be doing so.

Nearly half (48%) of respondents say they always or often wear a mask when outside. Respondents who are 40 years or older are significantly more likely than those who are 18 to 39 years to say they always or often do so (50% versus 43%).

Exhibit A21. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask when outside.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Vaccination status is correlated with how often one wears a mask while outside. Specifically, respondents who have received at least one booster dose are the most likely to say they always or often follow this guideline while those who have received zero or one dose are the least likely to (51% versus 24%).

Exhibit A22. Q15: During the pandemic, how often have you followed the public health measures listed below? Wearing a mask when outside.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who were not born in Canada (67%) or whose first language is neither English nor French (71%) are more likely to always or often follow this guidance.

Those living in an urban area (52%) and those with household incomes of less than $40,000 (53%) are also more likely to always or often do this.

Those who identified as White (42%) are less likely than everyone else to be doing so.

Respondents were asked to reflect on the pandemic and express to what extent they have supported or opposed the proof-of-vaccination system required for certain activities. Slightly more than half (52%) of respondents say they have strongly supported or supported the proof-of-vaccination status. One-quarter (26%) say they have somewhat supported or neither supported nor opposed the system, while a similar proportion (23%) say they have opposed it (in varying degrees).

Non-Indigenous (53%) and respondents 40 years or older (59%) are more likely to say they have strongly supported or support the proof-of-vaccination system. Conversely, one-in-five Indigenous respondents (21%) say they have strongly opposed it.

Exhibit A23. Q16: During the pandemic so far, to what extent have you supported or opposed the proof-of-vaccination system where Canadians have been required to provide proof of vaccination status for certain activities such as attending large public events or travel.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

When looking at the support or opposition of the proof-of-vaccination system, there is a strong correlation between that level of support (or opposition) and vaccination status. That is, a strong majority (65%) of respondents who have at least one booster dose say they strongly support or support that system, with only 13% who feel some level of opposition to it. Conversely, respondents who have fewer than two doses have the opposite position. In fact, seven in ten (70%) of respondents who have no doses or just one say they have strongly opposed the proof-of-vaccination system, with only 7% who have supported it to some degree. Among respondents who have two doses (and would likely have been permitted at any event or activity that required a proof-of-vaccination), support and opposition is fairly evenly divided: 23% say they have strongly supported or supported the system, while 28% have strongly opposed or opposed it.

Exhibit A24. Q16: During the pandemic so far, to what extent have you supported or opposed the proof-of-vaccination system where Canadians have been required to provide proof of vaccination status for certain activities such as attending large public events or travel.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those with household incomes of $80,000 or more (69%), those with university degrees (71%), those with no child at home (67%) and those who are retired (80%) are all more likely to indicate having been in support of the proof-of-vaccination requirement.

Those who are self-employed (34%), those living in rural areas (30%), those with household incomes of less than $40,000 (27%), and those with a child at home (28%) are all more like to say they have been opposed to the requirement.

A list of potential public health measures was shown to respondents, and they were asked to consider the extent of support or opposition they would have for each if they were implemented to prevent a widespread outbreak.

If required to prevent a widespread outbreak, a majority of respondents would support (that is, strongly support or support) reimplementing a mask mandate (67%), a proof-of-vaccination system (58%), gathering limits (56%), travel restrictions (52%) and avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside one's household (51%). Fewer than half of respondents say they would support stay-at-home orders (47%), closing school or daycares (44%), or businesses (31%). Notably, opposition to closing business (26%) is stronger than support of it (31%).

The tables that follow details the results by key audiences and are ordered by the largest proportion of those who strongly support the measure to the least.

Exhibit A25. Q27: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

When it comes to implementing a requirement to wear a mask in indoor public settings, two-thirds (67%) of respondents say they would support it, with 16% who say they would have a neutral position. Seventeen percent (17%) would oppose implementing that measure to prevent widespread outbreak. Respondents 40 years or older are more likely than those 18 to 39 years old to support implementing the measure (73% versus 54%).

Exhibit A26. Q27g: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? A requirement to wear a mask in indoor public settings.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Support of a requirement to wear a mask in indoor public settings is correlated with vaccination status. Respondents with at least one booster dose are over three times more likely to support implementing this measure to prevent widespread outbreak than those who have fewer than two doses (78% versus 24%). Among those who have two doses, support (45%) outweighs opposition (33%), but not to the same degree as those who have at least one booster dose.

Exhibit A27. Q27g: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? A requirement to wear a mask in indoor public settings.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those with no children at home (69%), those with a university degree (72%), those not born in Canada (76%) and those who are retired (84%) are all more likely to support a return to requiring masks to be worn in indoor public settings if necessary, in the future.

Those who identify as male (20%), those with children at home (22%), those born in Canada (19%), those who identify as White (19%) and those living in rural areas (24%) are all more likely to say they would oppose that requirement.

When it comes to implementing a proof of COVID-19 vaccination status for certain activities to prevent widespread outbreak, a slight majority (58%) say they would support the measure. The remaining respondents hold a more neutral position (17%) or would oppose it (25%). Respondents 40 years or older are more likely (at 64%) to say they would support the measure, compared to respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age (47%).

Exhibit A28. Q27h: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Requirements to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination status for certain activities (for example, travel or attending large public events).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

When looking at the support or opposition of implementing a proof-of-vaccination system, there is a strong correlation between that level of support (or opposition) and vaccination status. That is, a strong majority (72%) of respondents who have at least one booster dose say they would strongly support or support that system, with only 14% who would feel some level of opposition to it. Conversely, respondents who have fewer than two doses have the opposite position. In fact, over three-quarters (77%) of respondents who have no doses or just one say they would strongly oppose the proof-of-vaccination system, with only 5% who would support it (none strongly). Among respondents who have two doses, support, and opposition more divided: 28% say they would support the system, while 44% would oppose it.

Exhibit A29. Q27h: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Requirements to provide proof of COVID-19 vaccination status for certain activities (for example, travel or attending large public events).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those aged 65 years and older (75%), those with no children at home (61%), those with a university degree (65%), those not born in Canada (65%), those who are retired (75%) and those living in urban (62%) or suburban areas/small cities (57%) are all more likely to support a return to requiring proof-of-vaccination, if necessary.

Those who are self-employed (42%), those living in rural areas (35%), those who identify as White (27%), those born in Canada (27%), those whose first language is French (31%), and those with a child at home (32%) are all more like to say they would oppose a return to this requirement.

When it comes to implementing gathering limits to prevent widespread outbreak, over half (56%) of respondents say they would support the measure, while one-quarter (25%) would oppose it. One in five respondents (19%) say they would neither support or oppose its implementation. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to say they would support the measure (63%), compared to 43% of respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age.

Exhibit A30. Q27a: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Gathering limits.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

When looking at the support or opposition of implementing gathering limits, there is a strong correlation between that level of support (or opposition) and vaccination status. That is, two-thirds (67%) of respondents who have at least one booster dose say they would support that measure, with 17% who would feel some level of opposition to it. Conversely, respondents who have fewer than two doses have the opposite position. Specifically, six in ten (62%) of respondents who have no doses or just one say they oppose gathering limits, with 17% who would support it. Among respondents who have two doses, support and opposition more divided: 36% say they would support the limits, while 41% would oppose them.

Exhibit A31. Q27a: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Gathering limits.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those with no children at home (59%), those who are unemployed (61%), unable to work (66%) or retired (72%), those not born in Canada (67%) those living in urban areas (59%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to gathering limits, if necessary.

Those with children at home (31%) – and particularly, those with a child under 6 months (45%) – those living in Quebec (30%), those whose first language is French (30%), those who were born in Canada (27%) and those who identify as White (27%) are all more like to oppose a return to gathering limits.

When it comes to implementing travel restrictions or border closures to prevent widespread outbreak, half (52%) of respondents say they would support the measure, while three in ten (30%) would oppose it. One in five respondents (19%) say they would neither support nor oppose its implementation. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to say they would support the measure (58%), compared to 40% of respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age.

Exhibit A32. Q27d: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Travel restrictions/border closures.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

When looking at the support or opposition of implementing travel restrictions, there is a correlation between that level of support (or opposition) and vaccination status. That is, six in ten respondents (61%) who have at least one booster dose say they would support that measure, with 22% who would feel some level of opposition to it. Conversely, respondents who have fewer than two doses hold the opposite position. Specifically, nearly two-thirds (64%) of respondents who have no doses or just one say they oppose travel restrictions, with 13% who would support it. Among respondents who have two doses, support and opposition are more divided: 36% say they would support the restrictions, while 41% would oppose them.

Exhibit A33. Q27d: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Travel restrictions/border closures.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who did not complete a high school education (73%), and those who are unemployed (63%), unable to work (67%) or retired (63%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to travel restrictions, if necessary.

Those with children at home (33%), those with household incomes of $80,000 or more (32%), those who are employed fulltime (32%), those who are self-employed (44%) and those who identify as White (31%) are all more like to oppose a return to travel restrictions.

When it comes to avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside of one's household to prevent widespread outbreak, half (51%) of respondents say they would support the measure, while three in ten (29%) would oppose it. One in five respondents (20%) say they would neither support nor oppose that measure. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to say they would support the measure (59%), compared to 35% of respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age.

Exhibit A34. Q27e: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside of your household.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Support of a requirement to avoid indoor gatherings with people outside of one's own household is correlated with vaccination status. Respondents with at least one booster dose are nearly five times more likely to support implementing this measure to prevent widespread outbreak than those who have fewer than two doses (61% versus 13%). Among those who have two doses, opposition (46%) outweighs support (29%), but not to the same degree as those who have received one or no doses.

Exhibit A35. Q27e: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside of your household.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those with a university education (56%), those who are unable to work (61%) or retired (68%), those not born in Canada (60%), those whose first language is English (54%) or some language other than English of French (61%), and those living in an urban area (55%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside of their home, if necessary.

Those with children at home (36%), those living in Quebec (39%), those whose first language is French (40%), those born in Canada (31%), and those who identify as White (31%) are all more like to oppose a return to avoiding indoor gatherings with people outside of their home.

With fewer than half of respondents expressing support for closing school or daycares in order to prevent widespread outbreak, the variation between support and opposition is smaller (44% versus 29%). One-quarter (26%) say they would neither support nor oppose implementing the measure. Half (51%) of those who are 40 years of age or older say they would support the measure, which is significantly higher than respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age (33%).

Exhibit A36. Q27f: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? School or daycare closures.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Support of school or daycare closures to avoid widespread outbreak is correlated with vaccination status. Respondents with at least one booster dose are nearly five times more likely to support implementing this measure to prevent widespread outbreak than those who have fewer than two doses (52% versus 11%). Among those who have two doses, opposition (43%) outweighs support (31%), but not to the same degree as those who have received one or no doses.

Exhibit A37. Q27f: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? School or daycare closures.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who are unemployed (54%), unable to work (56%) or retired (55%), those not born in Canada (50%), those living in an urban area (48%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to school or daycare closures, if necessary.

Those with children at home (39%) – and particularly, those with children under 6 months (48%) – those who are self-employed (41%), those living in Quebec (39%), those whose first language is French (40%), those born in Canada (32%), and those who identify as White (32%) are all more like to oppose a return to school or daycare closures.

When it comes to implementing stay-at-home orders to prevent widespread outbreak, support and opposition are nearly balanced. Specifically, fewer than half (47%) of respondents say they would support the measure, while over one-third (35%) would oppose it. The remaining respondents (18%) say they would neither support nor oppose that measure. Respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to say they would support the measure (54%), compared to 34% of respondents who are 18 to 39 years of age.

Exhibit A38. Q27b: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Stay-at-home orders.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

When looking at the support or opposition of implementing a stay-at-home order, there is a correlation between that level of support (or opposition) and vaccination status. That is, over half of respondents (56%) who have at least one booster dose say they would support that measure, with 28% who would feel some level of opposition to it. Conversely, respondents who have fewer than two doses hold the opposite position. Specifically, seven in ten respondents (72%) of respondents who have no doses or just one say they would oppose a stay-at-home order, with 12% who would support it. Among those who have two doses, opposition (50%) outweighs support (27%), but not to the same degree as those who have received one or no doses.

Exhibit A39. Q27b: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Stay-at-home orders.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those aged 65 years or older (61%), those who are unemployed (52%), unable to work (61%) or retired (59%), those with no children at home (49%) or those whose children at home are aged 12-17 (48%), those not born in Canada (53%), those whose first language is English (50%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to stay-at-home orders, if necessary.

Those with children at home (41%) – and particularly, those with children under 6 months (55%) – those living in Quebec (46%), those whose first language is French (48%), those born in Canada (38%), and those who identify as White (39%) are all more like to oppose a return to stay-at-home orders.

Support of implementing the closing of businesses to prevent widespread outbreak is the lowest, as 31% of respondents. In fact, opposition (46%) to this measure outweighs the support by fifteen percentage points. The remaining one-quarter respondents (24%) say they would neither support nor oppose the measure.

Overall support for the measure among Indigenous (32%) and non-Indigenous (31%) respondents is the same, however, Indigenous respondents' support has greater intensity, with 24% indicating that they would strongly support the measure, compared to 11% of non-Indigenous respondents. Compared to those who are 18 to 39 years of age (20%), respondents who are 40 years are more likely to support this measure (37%).

Exhibit A40. Q27c: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Closing of businesses.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Support of the closing of businesses to avoid widespread outbreak is correlated with vaccination status. Respondents with at least one booster dose are the most likely to support this measure (at 38%), despite opposition (at 38%) being as significant among this group overall. Conversely, only a handful of respondents who have fewer than two doses would support closing business (5%), while the vast majority (81%) would oppose it. Among those who have two doses, opposition (60%) outweighs support (17%), but not to the same degree as those who have received one or no doses.

Exhibit A41. Q27c: In the future, if the following public health measures had to be implemented or reintroduced to prevent a widespread outbreak, to what extent would you support or oppose them? Closing of businesses.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those aged 65 years or older (46%), those living in Atlantic Canada (42%), those who are retired (43%), and those who have not completed a high school education (49%) are all more likely to say they would support a return to the closing of businesses, if necessary.

Those with children at home (50%) – and particularly, those with children under 6 months (61%) – those living in Quebec (51%), those whose first language is French (51%), and those born in Canada (47%) are all more like to oppose a return to the closing of businesses.

Perceptions of pandemic fatigue

Respondents were asked a question related to pandemic fatigue, which was defined to them as:

Pandemic fatigue can be defined as the stress you may be feeling as a result of spending extra time and energy dealing with what has been your pandemic experience (e.g., illness, job, family, or other lifestyle changes).

Respondents were asked to use the definition provided to rate their individual level of pandemic fatigue, from zero being no fatigue at all, to ten being the worst possible pandemic fatigue. Respondents are fairly evenly divided along this pandemic fatigue scale, with one-fifth (20%) providing a rating between eight and ten (described as "very fatigued" herein, but left unlabeled for respondents), and three in ten respondents (28%) providing a rating between six and seven (described herein as "somewhat fatigued"). On the opposite end of the scale, one quarter (24%) would rate their level of pandemic fatigue between zero and two (described as "not fatigued at all") and 12% give a rating of three or four ("not very fatigued").

Looking at the key audiences, respondents between the ages of 18 and 39 are more likely to suggest they are fatigued, with 24% who are very fatigued and 35% who are somewhat fatigued. In contrast, 18% and 25% of respondents who are 40 years or older would say they are very or somewhat fatigued, respectively.

Exhibit A42. Q17: Using the definition above, on a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate your individual level of pandemic fatigue overall, with 0 being no fatigue experience at all and 10 being the worst possible fatigue experience?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

There is not a strong correlation between pandemic fatigue and vaccination status, though there are some differences. Specifically, respondents who do not have a booster dose are significantly more likely to be described as very fatigued (31% for zero or one dose, and 25% for two doses). This is in contrast to respondents who have at least one booster dose, of which 17% can be described as very fatigued. At the other end of the pandemic fatigue scale, the statistical difference lies between those with at least one booster dose and those who have received two doses; 27% of respondents with three or more doses can be described as not fatigued at all, compared to 16% of respondents who have two doses.

Exhibit A43. Q17: Using the definition above, on a scale of 0 to 10, how would you rate your individual level of pandemic fatigue overall, with 0 being no fatigue experience at all and 10 being the worst possible fatigue experience?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who identify as female (22%), those with children at home (25%) – and particularly, those with children between 6 months and 5 years of age (30%) – are more likely to provide ratings of 8 to 10, indicating being "very fatigued."

Those aged 65 years and older (39%), those with no children at home (27%), those are self-employed (34%) or retired (37%), those who identify as White (26%) and those living in rural areas (32%) are all most likely to provide the lowest ratings (0 to 2) on pandemic fatigue.

Future intention and behaviours

Survey respondents were asked a series of questions about their intentions regarding receiving additional COVID-19 vaccine doses offered in the future, in addition to the impact the pandemic has had on their impression of routine vaccinations and trust with various sources.

When asked how likely they are to get additional doses of a COVID-19 vaccine in the future, half (49%) say they are very likely to or definitely will. In the middle of the scale, 16% of respondents say they are somewhat likely and 10% are somewhat unlikely to. The remaining respondents (19%) are very unlikely to or say they definitely will not.

Exhibit A44. Q18: As additional COVID-19 vaccine doses are offered to you in the future, how likely are you to get one?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Likelihood of getting additional doses of COVID-19 in the future is correlated with current vaccination status, where those who already have at least one booster dose are the most likely to (65% are very likely to or definitely will), while those who have one dose or are unvaccinated are the least likely to (2% are very likely to or definitely will). Furthermore, three-quarters (74%) of respondents who have zero or one dose say they definitely will not get a COVID-19 vaccine dose in the future and one-quarter of those with two doses say the same. Only 2% of respondents who have at least one booster dose say they will definitely not get another in the future.

Exhibit A45. Q18: As additional COVID-19 vaccine doses are offered to you in the future, how likely are you to get one?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those aged 65 years or older (72%), those with no children at home (53%), those unable to work (56%) or retired (74%), those who identify as White (52%) are all more likely to say they will get additional doses as they are offered.

Those with children at home (24%), those who identify as Black (32%), and those who live in rural areas (29%) all indicate being unlikely more often than others to get additional doses as they are offered.

Respondents who said they were unlikely to get a future dose or who were uncertain were asked to provide the main reason(s) for their position. Reasons vary, though the top mentions center on how safe or unsafe the vaccines are and protection. Specifically, 32% of respondents say they are concerned about the long-term side effects and 17% are concerned about the safety of additional doses. Three in ten (29%) believe that the vaccine does not provide much protection since you can still contract COVID-19 and one-fifth (20%) say they feel protected enough by the doses they have already received.

Other respondents appear fatigued, with 16% who indicate that they are fed up with getting vaccinated, 14% who say they are tired of being told what to do to protect their health, and 11% who say they already received additional doses and do not want more. All other reasons are cited by 10% or fewer of respondents.

Compared to their counterpart, respondents who are 40 years or older are more likely to be uncertain or unlikely to get future doses due to the concern over long-term effects (36%) or because they have read or seen information about the vaccine safety that has scared them (13%). In turn, respondents 18 to 39 years of age are more likely to feel that they are protected enough with the current number of vaccine doses (25%).

Exhibit A46. Q21: What is/are the main reason(s) you are unlikely or uncertain about getting an additional COVID-19 vaccine dose?

Base: Respondents who are unlikely or uncertain about getting a future COVID-19 vaccine dose in the future from Q20 (n=844).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Among those who describe themselves as unlikely to get additional doses of the vaccine as they are offered, those who identify as male (33%) and those living in rural areas (43%) are more likely to say that it is because the vaccine doesn't offer much protection.

Those identifying as men (24%), those living in Quebec (24%), and students (30%) skew higher than others on feeling they are already adequately protected.

Those who identify as female (36%) and those living in rural areas (44%) are more likely than others to cite worry of long-term side effects as a reason for not getting additional doses.

Those who identify as female (12%) are also more likely than others to say they prefer to wait a while.

Those with household incomes of $80,000 or more (15%), those living in urban areas (14%), and people who do not identify as Black or White (18%) have a higher tendency to say they already received additional doses and do not want to receive more.

When asked if their pandemic experience has affected their intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines going forward, fewer than half of respondents 45% say their pandemic experience has impacted their intentions toward COVID-19 vaccines going forward, with one-third (33%) who say they are more likely to get recommended doses and 12% who say they are less likely to do so. Non-Indigenous respondents are more likely than Indigenous respondents to say their experience has made them more likely to get the recommended COVID-19 vaccines (34% versus 22%), as are respondents who are 40 years or older (37% compared to 28% of respondents 18 to 39).

Exhibit A47. Q22: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines going forward?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

One's vaccination status has an impact on whether the pandemic has impacted intentions toward COVID-19 vaccines going forward and to what extent. To begin, there is a significant difference between those who have zero or one dose and those with at least one booster in on each of the answers provided. Respondents who have three or more doses are also more likely than those who have two doses to be more likely to get the recommended vaccines (42% versus 14%). Whereas respondents who have zero or one dose are more likely than those with two doses to say that they never planned to get a COVID-19 vaccine and the pandemic did not change that.

Exhibit A48. Q22: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your intentions towards COVID-19 vaccines going forward?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those aged 65 years or older (43%), those with university level education (38%), those who are retired (41%), and people who do not identify as Black or White (42%) are all more likely to say the pandemic experience has made them more likely to get vaccines going forward.

Those who identify as male (14%) and those who identify as Black (33%) say the pandemic experience has made them less likely to get vaccines going forward.

Those living in Ontario (10%) or West/North (10%), those who are self-employed (18%) and those who living in rural areas (17%) are all more likely than others to say the pandemic experience has them no less likely to get vaccines going forward because they were never going to get vaccinated anyway.

Respondents who indicated that their pandemic experience has made them less likely to get future COVID-19 vaccines were asked what their reasons are. The most common response, at four in ten respondents (40%) is the belief that vaccines need to have long term studies. Between three in ten and one-third of respondents say they do not trust Pharma or the Government (33%), that vaccines do not work very well (33%), believe that vaccines in general do not have much benefit in stopping the spread of viruses (32%), and say they have concerns about the safety of vaccines in general.

One-fifth of respondents say that COVID-19 vaccines have negatively impacted their view of on vaccines in general (21%), that we have strong immune systems without vaccines (18%), and that vaccines do not have as much benefit in preventing severe outcomes (18%).

Respondents who are 40 years of age or older are more likely than those who are 18 to 39 years to say that they are unlikely to get future doses due to their pandemic experience because they do not trust Pharma or Government (41% versus 23%), they do not think vaccines work very well (39% versus 25%), they do not believe that vaccines have as much benefit in stopping the spread of viruses (39% versus 23%), and they have concerns about the safety of vaccines in general (36% versus 22%).

Exhibit A49. Q23: If you are less likely to get the recommended COVID-19 vaccines, what are some reasons?

Base: Respondents who are less likely to get additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in the future in Q22 (n=287).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Relative to those who have two or more doses, those who have one or less doses of a COVID-19 vaccine are much more likely to say that there needs to be more long term testing (57%), that they do not trust Pharma or the Government (56%), and that the pandemic has shown that vaccines do not work very well (45%) when explaining why they are less likely to get additional doses in the future.

Exhibit A50. Q23: If you are less likely to get the recommended COVID-19 vaccines, what are some reasons?

Base: Respondents who are less likely to get additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in the future in Q22 (n=287).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Because the number of respondents asked this question was relatively low, most demographic differences are not statistically significant.

However, those who identify as male are more likely to say they do not trust pharma or government (38%) and that the pandemic has shown that vaccines do not work well (41%).

Those with household incomes of less than $40,000 are more likely to say the pandemic has shown that we have strong immune systems without vaccines (31%).

Compared to those whose first language is French, those whose first language is English respondents are more likely to say they have more concerns about the safety of vaccines in general (32%), that pandemic has shown that we have strong immune systems without vaccines (20%), and that they now believe that vaccines do not have as much benefit in preventing severe outcomes (20%).

Respondents who indicated that their pandemic experience had made them at least somewhat likely to get an additional COVID-19 vaccine dose were asked if, now that the COVID-19 vaccine is recommended at the same time as the flu shot, how likely they were to get it. Overall four in five (80%) of respondents said that they were at least somewhat likely to do so, with over half (57%) saying that they were very likely to do so.

Two thirds (64%) of those aged 40 years or older said they were very likely to get the COVID-19 vaccine now that it was recommended at the same time as the flu shot, this compared with two in five (41%) of those aged 18 to 39 who said the same.

Exhibit A51. Q24: Now that the COVID vaccine is recommended at the same time as a flu shot, how likely are you to get it?

Base: Respondents who are at least somewhat likely to get additional COVID-19 vaccine doses in Q18 (n=1,244).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Those aged over 65 years (86%), residents of Atlantic Canada (90%), those who are retired (86%) and those whose first language is English (82%) are all more likely to say they will get the regular, seasonal flu shot.

Residents of Quebec (13%) and those whose first language is French (12%) skew a little higher on saying they are unlikely to get the regular, seasonal flu shot.

When asked how the pandemic affected their intentions towards routine vaccinations, 28% of respondents say they are now more likely to get recommended vaccines; 43% say that the pandemic has not affected their decision making and that they are just as likely to get routine vaccinations as before; 8% say they are less likely to get the recommended vaccinations; and 14% say they were never intending to get any of those types of vaccinations even prior to the pandemic.

When compared with non-Indigenous respondents, three in ten (28%) of whom say they are more likely to get recommended vaccines as a result of their pandemic experience, Indigenous respondents are less likely to say the same at 16%. Indigenous respondents are also the most likely to say that they are less likely to get recommended vaccines at 19%.

If older respondents are the most likely to say they are more likely to get recommended vaccines at three in ten (29%), younger respondents are the most likely to be uncertain about their future vaccine intentions at one in ten (10%).

Exhibit A52. Q25: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your intentions towards routine vaccines (e.g., shingles, flu, polio) going forward?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Those living in Atlantic Canada (39%), those with university education (32%), and those who people who do not identify as Black or White (37%) are all more likely than others to say the pandemic experience has made them more likely to get recommended routine vaccines going forward.

Those with children at home are a little more inclined than others to say the pandemic experience has made them less likely to get routine vaccines.

Respondents who have at least one child between the ages of 12 and 17 years were asked whether they would get their child(ren) vaccinated as additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine become available. Three in five (60%) of respondents said they were at least somewhat likely to get their child(ren) additional doses, with 22% saying they definitely will, 17% saying they are very likely to do so, and 22% saying they are somewhat likely to do so. Only three in twenty (15%) said they definitely would not get their children additional COVID-19 vaccines.

Exhibit A53. Q19: As additional COVID-19 vaccine doses are offered to your child(ren) in the future, how likely are you to get one for your child(ren) aged 12-17?

Base: Respondents who have a child that is between the ages of 12 and 17 years (n=230).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Because the number of respondents asked this question was relatively low, most demographic differences are not statistically significant.

However, residents living in the West/North are more inclined than others to say they are less likely to get their children aged 12-17 vaccinated against COVID-19 as additional doses are offered.

The same question – whether parents would get their child(ren) additional doses of the COVID-19 vaccine – was asked of respondents between the ages of 5 and 11. Compared with those with older children, 60% of whom say they were at least somewhat likely to get their children additional doses, just over half (52%) of those with younger children said the same. Respondents with younger children were less likely to say that they definitely would (17%) get their child(ren) vaccinated with additional doses, and more likely to say they definitely would not (18%), than those with older child(ren) (at 22% and 15% respectively).

Exhibit A54. Q20: As additional COVID-19 vaccine doses are offered to your child(ren) in the future, how likely are you to get one for your child(ren) aged 5-11?

Base: Respondents who have a child that is between the ages of 5 and 11 years (n=282).

Other demographic differences:

Because the number of respondents asked this question was relatively low, most demographic differences are not statistically significant.

However, those who identify as male are more inclined to say they will likely get their children aged 5-11 vaccinated against COVID-19 as additional doses are offered (44%).

Conversely, those who identify as female are more inclined to say they are unlikely get their children aged 5-11 vaccinated against COVID-19 as additional doses are offered (35%).

Those with children under the age of 18 years were asked how they felt about giving their children routine vaccines going forward in light of their experiences over the pandemic. Over a quarter (28%) of parents surveyed said that they are now more likely to have their child(ren) get the recommended vaccines while almost half (46%) say they are just as likely to do so as they were prior to the pandemic. One in ten (9%) said that they are less likely to have their child get the recommended vaccines, or that they were never intending to have their child get the vaccines, respectively.

Exhibit A55. Q26: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your intentions towards routine vaccines for your children (e.g., measles, mumps, rubella or flu vaccines) going forward?

Base: Respondents who have a child that is under 18 years (n=679).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Other demographic differences:

Because the number of respondents asked this question was relatively low, most demographic differences are not statistically significant.

However, those born outside of Canada are more likely to say the pandemic experience has made them more likely to have their children receive the routine vaccines (35%).

Those who identify as male are more inclined than others to say the pandemic experience has made them less likely to have their children receive the routine vaccines (12%).

Respondents were asked about how the experiences they lived over the course of the pandemic affected their trust in a range of sources that provided information related to vaccines and public health advice.

The sources that were most likely to be perceived by respondents as more trustworthy due to their pandemic experience are healthcare workers (34%) and scientists (31%). Respondents were also the most likely to say that their level of trust in these two sources had not been affected, and that it was just as high as it was at the beginning of the pandemic at 44% and 42% respectively – a number only eclipsed by those who said that their trust in friends and family remained as high as it was previously (46%).

On the other end of the spectrum, respondents were most likely to say that their trust in newspapers, radio, podcasts, and other forms of journalism (22%), as well as social media (25%), declined relative to their levels of trust prior to the pandemic.

When it comes to websites or briefings administered by the federal of provincial/territorial governments, just over a third (35% and 34% respectively) said their level of trust was just as high as it was at the beginning of the pandemic.

Exhibit A56. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice?

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

When it comes to trust in scientists, almost a third (31%) of respondents say they are more likely to trust them as a source of information related to vaccines and public health advice. This compared with one in ten (12%) who say their trust in scientists have declined. At a quarter (24%), Indigenous respondents are more likely to say that they are less likely to trust scientists as a source of information than non-Indigenous respondents (11% who say the same).

Exhibit A57. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Scientists.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

The number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine a respondent received is correlated to their level of trusts in scientists as a source of information on vaccine and public health information. One third (33%) of those with one dose or less are say they are less likely to trust scientists, compared with 21% of those with two doses, and only 7% of those who have three or more doses.

The fewer the doses a respondent has, the more likely they are to say that they did not trust scientists as a source of information even prior to the pandemic with 19% who have one dose or less saying so, and 12% of those with two doses saying the same.

Those with two doses are less are also the most likely to be uncertain about their levels of trust in scientists, with 15% of those with two doses saying so and 19% of those with one dose or less saying the same.

Exhibit A58. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Scientists.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who have not completed high school (51%) and residents of Quebec (37%) are more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust scientists.

Those who identify as male (14%) and those whose first language is English (13%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust scientists less.

A third (34%) of respondents say that their trust in healthcare workers as a source of public health information increased over the pandemic, a plurality (44%) responded that, while their trust had not increased, it remained just as high as it was pre-pandemic. Those most uncertain were respondents aged 18 to 39, one in ten (10%) of whom reported being unsure.

Exhibit A59. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Healthcare workers (e.g., doctors, nurses).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

The number of doses of a COVID-19 vaccine that a respondent received again is correlated with levels of trust in healthcare workers as a source of information about vaccines and public health advice. One third (31%) of those who had one dose or less say they are less likely to trust healthcare workers, compared with 14% of those with two doses and only 6% of those with three or more doses who say the same.

Echoing the findings with the levels of trust in scientists, those with one dose or less of a COVID-19 vaccine were the most likely at one in five (19%) to say that they never trusted healthcare workers even prior to the pandemic.

Exhibit A60. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Healthcare workers (e.g., doctors, nurses).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those who have not completed high school (54%) are more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust healthcare workers.

Those who identify as male (11%), those with children at home (12%) and those whose first language is English (10%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust healthcare workers less.

A quarter (24%) of respondents reported that they were more likely to trust international health authorities such as the World Health Organization as a purveyor of public health advice and vaccine information as a result of their pandemic experiences, whereas one in five (19%) say that they are less likely to trust this source. A plurality (34%) say their level of trust is just as high as it was pre-pandemic, while 10% say they never trusted this source and another 12% say they are uncertain.

Exhibit A61. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? International health authorities (e.g., World Health Organization [WHO]).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Those with two or less doses of a COVID-19 vaccine are the most likely to report losing trust in international health authorities as a source of information: 28% of those with two doses saying so, and 34% of those with one dose or less saying the same.

If a plurality (39%) of those with three or more doses say that their levels of trust in international health authorities remain unaffected by the pandemic, almost a third (31%) of those with one dose or less say that they never vested any trust in such organizations.

Exhibit A62. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? International health authorities (e.g., World Health Organization [WHO]).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Quebec (32%), those who have not completed high school (44%), and those whose first language is French (32%) are more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust the WHO.

Those who identify as male (23%), and those whose first language is English (20%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust the WHO less.

While a plurality (35%) of respondents reported that their trust in the websites and briefings of the Canadian federal government remained the same as its pre-pandemic levels, roughly similar proportions noted that they were more likely to trust this source (22%) as they were less likely to trust it (17%). Respondents between the ages of 18 and 39 were the most likely to report being uncertain at 17%.

Exhibit A63. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Canadian federal government briefings and/or websites.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Those who have received two or fewer doses of a COVID-19 vaccine were less likely than those who received three or more doses to express trust in Canadian federal government briefings and websites. Over one third (36%) of those with one or less doses, and a quarter (25%) of those with two doses or less, say that they are less likely to trust this source.

In comparison, just over a quarter (27%) of those with three or more doses say that they are more likely to trust this source, while a plurality (41%) say that their levels of trust remain just as high as they were prior to the pandemic.

Exhibit A64. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Canadian federal government briefings and/or websites.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Atlantic Canada (32%), Quebec (25%) and Ontario (23%) are all more likely than residents of West/North (17%) to say they are now more likely to trust Canadian federal government briefings/website.

As well, those who identify as Black (34%) or people who do not identify as Black or White (28%) are more likely than those who identify as White (20%) to say they are now more likely to trust Canadian federal government briefings/website.

Those who are self-employed (26%) or unemployed (23%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust Canadian federal government briefings/website less.

When it comes to trust in provincial and territorial government websites and briefings, the overall breakdown is similar to that of the federal government: 21% say they are more likely to trust this source, 19% say they are less likely to do so, 34% say their trust remains unaffected, 13% say they never trusted this source, and 13% say they are unsure.

Echoing what was seen above with the federal government, those aged 18 to 39 are the most likely to report not being certain at 17%.

Exhibit A65. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Provincial/Territorial government briefings and/or websites.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Respondents with one or fewer doses are even more likely to report losing trust in provincial or territorial governments as source of public health information over the course of the pandemic (41%) than they are to say the same of the federal government (36%). In contrast, the proportion of respondents who say they did not trust the federal government prior to the pandemic (34%) is higher than those who say the same of provincial or territorial governments (22%).

Again, echoing patterns seen above with the federal government, a plurality of those with three or more doses (38%) say that their levels of trust in provincial and territorial governments as sources of public health information remains just as high as it was prior to the pandemic.

Exhibit A66. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Provincial/Territorial government briefings and/or websites.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Atlantic Canada (31%), Quebec (27%) and Ontario (21%) are all more likely than residents of West/North (15%) to say they are now more likely to trust provincial/territorial government briefings/websites.

Those who have not completed high school (45%), those living in urban areas (21%) or in suburbs/small cities (23%) and those whose first language is French (26%) are more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust provincial/territorial government briefings/websites.

Those who identify as male (21%), and those whose first language is English (21%) and residents of Ontario (22%) and West/North (22%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust provincial/territorial government briefings/websites less.

Overall respondents were more likely to say they had lost (22%) trust in various journalistic mediums as sources of public health information than say they had gained trust (11%) in these sources. A plurality of just over a third (36%) reported that their trust remained just as high as it was prior to the pandemic.

Exhibit A67. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Newspapers, radio, podcasts and other journalism.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Those with one dose or less of a COVID-19 vaccine are more likely to report losing trust in various journalistic mediums as sources of public health advice (41%) with virtually none (3%) saying that their levels of trust had increased. Almost a third (30%) of this same group of respondents reported never placing any trust in journalistic sources in this regard, while a quarter (24%) of those with two doses say the same.

Paralleling patterns seen above, those with three or more doses are the most likely to indicate that their levels of trust in newspapers, radio, podcasts, and other journalism remains unchanged at 41%.

Exhibit A68. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Newspapers, radio, podcasts and other journalism.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Atlantic Canada (21%), those who identify as Black (20%), people who do not identify as Black or White (15%), and those living in urban areas (12%) or in suburbs/small cities (11%) are all more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust newspapers, radio, podcasts, and other journalism>.

Those whose first language is English (23%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust newspapers, radio, podcasts, and other journalism> less.

At almost half (46%), respondents were the most likely to say that the pandemic had not affected their level of trust in their friends and family compared to other potential sources of information about vaccines and public health advice. While 14% of respondents nationwide say that they are less likely to trust friends and family as a result of their pandemic experiences, this number jumps to 18% among respondents aged 18 to 39 – this in comparison with 12% of those aged 40 or more.

Exhibit A69. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Friends and family.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

While 16% of respondents reported being unsure how their experiences over the pandemic had affected their levels of trust in friends and families as sources of public health advice, this number climbs to 21% among those with one or fewer doses and 20% of those with two doses.

Exhibit A70. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Friends and family.

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Those whose first language is English (15%) or something other than French or English (22%) are all more likely than those whose first language is French (9%) to say they are now more likely to trust friends and family on this topic.

Those who have not completed high school (34%) are also more likely than others to say they are now more likely to trust friends and family on this topic.

Among all the potential sources of information tested, overall levels of trust in social media was the lowest with over two in five (44%) saying they did not trust social media for information even prior to the pandemic.

There are differences by age, however, with half (49%) of those aged 40 or more saying they never trusted social media, compared with a third (34%) of those aged 18 to 39 who say the same. That being said, those aged 18 to 39 were more likely to report that their trust in social media had declined relative to their older counterparts (at 28% and 24% respectively).

Additionally, three in twenty (16%) non-Indigenous respondents say that their trust in social media remained unchanged whereas only 7% of Indigenous respondents say the same.

Exhibit A71. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

*Bear in mind the small sample sizes. Results should be regarded with caution.

Unlike other potential sources of information which proved to be more polarizing a plurality of respondents – regardless of the number of COVID-19 doses they reported receiving – said they did not trust social media as a source of public health advice even pre-pandemic. This was true of two in five (39%) of those with two doses or less, as well as almost half (46%) of those with three doses or more.

Exhibit A72. Q28: Have your experiences during the pandemic affected your trust in each of the following sources for information related to vaccines and public health advice? Social media (e.g., Facebook, Twitter).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).

Other demographic differences:

Residents of Ontario (7%), those who live in urban areas (6%) and those with children at home (6%) to say they are now more likely to trust social media on this topic.

Those whose first language is English (26%) or something other than English or French (37%), those who identify as White (24%) or people who do not identify as Black or White (29%) and those with children at home (29%) are more inclined than others to say they now trust social media less on this topic.

When asked which measures might be useful in the future to help guide personal decision making about vaccines and other public health measures, over half (51%) of respondents opted for clear communications from the government and public health officials. This was followed by information on the spread of COVID-19 in the respondent's community (45%); information on the effectiveness of individual public health measures (43%); information about potential risks to themselves (42%); and information on the spread of a cold, flu, or other respiratory illness going around in their community (40%). Just under a third (29%) of respondents opted to rely on their own common sense.

Respondents over the age of 40 were more likely than those between the age of 18 and 39 to select any of the options presented.

Exhibit A73. Q29: Based on your experiences during the pandemic, which of the following do you think would be useful in the future to help your decision making about vaccines and other public health measures (e.g., wearing a mask).

Base: All respondents (n=2,088).