










































AGORA International Journal of Economical Sciences, http://univagora.ro/jour/index.php/aijes 

ISSN 2067-3310, E-ISSN 2067-7669 

Vol. 18, No. 2 (2024), pp. 334-343 

 

334 
 

THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 60 

AND OVER THE AGE OF 60 IN COVID-19 VACCINATION RATES 

AND VACCINE BRAND PERCEPTION 

 

D. TOMŠE, R. STRAŠEK, J. TOROŠ 
 

Denis Tomše¹, Rok Strašek², Jani Toroš³ 

¹ B2 Ljubljana School of Business, Slovenia 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6702-2018, E-mail: denis.tomse1@gmail.com  

² University of Primorska, Slovenia 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2616-7151, E-mail: rok.strasek@upr.si 

³ B2 – Gea College, Slovenia 

https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0896-9804, E-mail: jani.ivan.toros@gmail.com 

 

Abstract: This article deals with differences in users’ perception towards COVID-19 

vaccination and towards individual COVID-19 vaccine brands. Since COVID-19 is much more 

dangerous to the elderly population, this article deals with differences between those under the age of 

60 and those over the age of 60. The results show that there are some differences between those two 

groups. For the group of people under the age of 60, the duration of protection is more important 

(39%), while the brand of vaccine is less important (25%). In contrast, the vaccine brand is of much 

greater importance (34%) and the duration of protection less important (25%) for the group of people 

over the age of 60. The study also showed differences in relation to individual brands of COVID-19 

vaccines, with both groups preferring Pfizer to other brands, which is not surprising, since there was 

the least amount of negative media coverage about Pfizer, especially compared to AstraZeneca. The 

vaccine brand is surprisingly more important to those over the age of 60 than to those under the age of 

60, while the effectiveness of the vaccine is equally important for both groups and both groups are 

equally sensitive to duration and side effects of the vaccine. 

  Keywords: COVID-19, vaccination, perception 

 

INTRODUCTION 

Coronavirus disease 2019 (“Covid – 19,” 2022), also known as the coronavirus, or 

COVID, is a contagious disease caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 

2 (SARS-CoV-2). Most people (81%) develop mild to moderate symptoms (up to 

mild pneumonia), while 14% develop severe symptoms (dyspnoea, hypoxia, or - more than 

50%-lung involvement on imaging). 5% suffer critical symptoms (respiratory failure,  shock, 

or multiorgan dysfunction) (“Covid – 19,” 2022). More than 704 million cases were confirmed 

from December 2019 until April 2024 and 7.01 million people died because of the disease, 

which brings us to 0,99 % mortality (“Mortality Risk of COVID-19,” 2024). In Slovenia, there 

have been as at 11 April 2024 a total of 1.356.546 confirmed cases of COVID-19, and 7,100 

deaths were caused by the disease, which means a 0,52 % mortality (“Slovenia COVID - 

Coronavirus statistics,” 2024). Within less than a year of the pandemic’s outbreak, several 

successful vaccines have already been announced and approved for use  (“Coronavirus 

(COVID-19) Vaccinations,” 2024). In Slovenia Pfizer, AstraZeneca, Moderna, and Johnson & 

Johnson (Janssen) vaccines have been approved and used. 59,8% of population in Slovenia 

https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6702-2018
mailto:denis.tomse1@gmail.com
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2616-7151
mailto:rok.strasek@upr.si
https://orcid.org/0000-0003-0896-9804
mailto:jani.ivan.toros@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contagious_disease
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Severe_acute_respiratory_syndrome_coronavirus_2
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pneumonia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyspnea
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypoxia_(medical)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Respiratory_failure
file:///C:/Users/dtomse/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/shock
file:///C:/Users/dtomse/AppData/Roaming/Microsoft/Word/multiorgan%20dysfunction


Denis TOMŠE, Rok STRAŠEK, Jani TOROŠ 
 

335 
 

received at least one dose of until July 5 2022 (“Share of people who received at least one dose 

of COVID-19 vaccine,” 2024). 

Even though vaccination is the only way to overcome the COVID-19, there are negative 

anti-vaccination campaigns going on all over the world, which are nearly identical to the 

claims made about smallpox immunizations 120 years ago, e.g. the ingredients are toxic and 

unnatural, the vaccines are insufficiently tested, the scientists who produced them are quacks 

and profiteers, the cell cultures involved in some shots are an affront to the religious, the 

authorities working to protect public health are guilty of tyrannical overreach  (“Anti-vaxxers 

Think This Is Their Moment, ” 2022), etc. However, the authors believe, that the terms negative 

publicity and brand perception should also be taken into consideration when discussing beliefs, 

attitudes, and behaviours towards different brands of vaccines.  

The authors believe that in this case, it is not just negative publicity against vaccination 

in general but negative publicity about individual brands of vaccines. In Slovenia, the National 

vaccination strategy, which determines the types of vaccines and priority groups for 

vaccination, is being changed frequently. Thus, in Slovenia it was not allowed to vaccinate 

elderly consumers with AstraZeneca for some time, then vaccination with AstraZeneca was 

stopped due to verification of possible connections between the vaccine and blood clots and 

some other negative side effects. AstraZeneca also has, compared to Pfizer, Moderna, and 

Johnson & Johnson, more common mild side effects, such as fever, headache, muscle aches, 

etc., which are otherwise completely harmless and go away in a day or two. It is known 

although, but not much has been reported in media, that other vaccine brands can also have 

similar side effects. AstraZeneca has also been faced with several restrictions, especially in 

terms of who can receive AstraZeneca’s vaccine and under what conditions. The restrictions 

have changed frequently, which also didn’t have a positive effect on consumers’ trust in the 

AstraZeneca’s vaccine. This and other similar things brought a great deal of distrust in the 

AstraZeneca brand as compared to other vaccine brands and led to the result that consumers 

started to refuse vaccination with AstraZeneca.  

The purpose of this study was to determine the differences in vaccine brand perception 

and vaccination in general between people under the age of 60 and people over the age of 60.  

 

Purpose and objectives of the research 

The purpose of this study was to find the differences in vaccine brand perception and 

vaccination in general between people under the age of 60 and people over the age of 60.  

The objectives of this study were to determine whether: 

- the vaccine brand is more important to those under the age of 60 or to those over the age of 60 

- the vaccine’s effectiveness is equally important for both groups, and 

- both groups are equally sensitive on duration and side effects of the vaccine 

 

Literature review and the research hypotheses 

A concerted effort to develop effective drugs and vaccines against existing and potential 

future coronavirus infections and other highly pathogenic virus outbreaks is necessary to 

reduce overwhelming impacts on human life and worldwide healthcare systems (Liu et. al., 

2020). But considerable effort is also needed in communications, to convince people of the 

benefits of vaccination.  

https://www.historyofvaccines.org/content/articles/history-anti-vaccination-movements


THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 60 AND OVER THE AGE 

OF 60 IN COVID-19 VACCINATION RATES AND VACCINE BRAND PERCEPTION 
 

336 
 

In emergencies, such as an epidemic, people behave differently than in normal times. 

The authors even believe that we can draw some parallels with states of war. Namely, just like 

in times of war, when a country’s spending on defence increases significantly, countries in 

Africa must view the COVID-19 pandemic as a ‘war’ to be won and must be prepared to 

increase public health spending significantly (Atakuba, 2020). Even the Nazis in World War II 

were already aware of the important role propaganda plays in achieving goals. Their 

propaganda employed a range of strategies in its presentation of self and the other, which aimed 

to increase in-group cohesion and also create fear towards the other (Kohl, 2011). And the side 

effects of AstraZeneca’s vaccine have been highlighted the most in media, leading those 

consumers to fear AstraZeneca’s vaccine and to begin refusing vaccination with it. As Staut 

(2011) mentioned, even before Hitler came to power, he described in Mein Kampf how much 

the Nazi Party would rely on propaganda. Goebbels and the Reich Ministry of Public 

Enlightenment and Propaganda (Pro-Mi) expedited Hitler’s rise to power, and Nazi control of 

all German media ensured near-complete control on what the German people heard and knew 

about the war and about both national and international affairs (Staut, 2011). 

The fear part can be said to have been achieved, as people grew more and more afraid 

of becoming infected as the pandemic progressed, as people’s perception of the government’s 

performance in addressing the pandemic worsened and finally, having relatives and loved ones 

who contracted COVID-19 had a huge impact. The above explanation even led to people’s 

willingness to pay for a vaccine (Cerda & Garcia, 2021 ). Even more, as became evident, people 

in general behaved irrationally during the COVID-19 pandemic (Sofi et. al., 2020). 

It was found by Sago & Hinnenkamp (2014) that negative corporate news impacts 

consumers’ behaviour – even towards consumers’ favourite brands. The results of the survey 

(de Matos & Veiga, 2004) show that the group that received no negative news obtained a higher 

average (positive) in the three variables (Corporate image, Product image, and Behavioural 

intention) of the analysis. Younger people follow the modern media, in which there have been 

frequent announcements about vaccines and their side effects, more often than older people. 

Older people are also more worried about their health and therefore are not so selective about 

the brand of vaccine. Besides that, there is the fact that older adults are at greater risk of 

requiring hospitalization or dying if they contract COVID-19  (“What’s the chance of dying if 

you get COVID-19,” 2024).   

 

Figure 1. Risk for COVID-19 infection, hospitalization, and death by age group (“What’s the 

chance of dying if you get COVID-19,” 2024). 

 



Denis TOMŠE, Rok STRAŠEK, Jani TOROŠ 
 

337 
 

As shown in Figure 1, the risk of serious consequences and death due to COVID-19 

infection increases with age. Therefore, the authors presume that older people are less sensitive 

regarding vaccine brand than younger people. 

People are now living a greater number of healthy years, but also have an increased risk 

of illness, which increases the needs for health care. Knowing the foundations of the aging 

process is such a challenge that each of us wonders what should be done to live as long as 

possible, but also to live full, active, vital lives to the end of our days (Werntoft et. al., 2005; 

Milavec Kapun 2011). It was also found that older people care more about their health than do 

younger ones (“Starejši Bolj Skrbijo Za Svoje Zdravje,” 2024). This is logical, as older people 

are aware that their quality of life and life expectancy depend on their psychophysical well-

being. Therefore, the authors formulated the first hypothesis H1: the vaccine brand is more 

important to those under the age of 60 than to those over the age of 60.  

The Authors also anticipate that both those under the age of 60 and those over the age 

of 60 want maximum possible vaccination efficacy. Therefore, the Authors formulated the 

hypothesis H2: the efficacy of vaccination is equally important for both those under the age of 

60 and those over the age of 60. However, the Authors anticipate that both those under the age 

of 60 and those over the age of 60 want as long-lasting protection from COVID-19 and as few 

side effects as possible. Therefore, the Authors formulated the hypothesis H3: both those under 

the age of 60 and those over the age of 60 are equally sensitive regarding the vaccine’s duration 

and its side effects. 
 

Data and research methodology 

Conjoint analysis was used in the study, a survey statistical technique that helps 

determine how people evaluate different characteristics, such as the benefits, functions, and 

properties that make up a particular product or service. It is used in a variety of market research 

areas (i.e. healthcare, economics, human resources, computing, machine learning and other 

tasks (Steiner & Meißner, 2018).  

In this case, CBC (conjoint-based conjoint) was used, which has also been the most 

commonly used method lately. We created a questionnaire in the SSI Web module of the 

Sawtooth software program (Green & Rao, 1971; Orme 2006)  

Based on the question, the respondents chose the most appropriate option, which 

consisted of four attributes:  

Vaccine brand (Pfizer-BioNTech, Modern, Johnson & Johnson, Sputnik, AstraZeneca), 

Duration of protection (1 year, 6 months, 3 months),  

Efficacy (100%, 80%, 60%), and  

Side effects (blood clots, memory impairment, headache, muscle, and joint pain) 

Online question display: Which option would you most likely choose, if possible?  

It was repeated 10 times for each respondent, but each time with different combinations 

of features, among which we asked the respondents to individually choose the most preferred 

one. In each presentation, respondents were shown three computer-generated combinations 

with different combinations of four attributes (Figure 2). 

 

 

 



THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 60 AND OVER THE AGE 

OF 60 IN COVID-19 VACCINATION RATES AND VACCINE BRAND PERCEPTION 
 

338 
 

Figure 2. Presentation of one page of the questionnaire with the given combinations, among 

which the respondents chose the most suitable one 

 

Respondents had to choose the combination that they felt was most appropriate, and 

they also had the option to answer with: “None of the above”. 

The web questionnaire was completed by 369 respondents, of whom 50.7% were 

female. The educational demographics of the sample was 44% secondary school, 43.5% 

college degree, and 12.5% master’s degree or doctorate. 

To compare the behaviour of the under-60 and over-60 group in vaccination decisions 

against COVID- 19, the whole sample was divided into two groups. The group of younger 

people included respondents up to 60 years of age, who make up 183 or about 50% of the total 

sample. The second group, aged 60 and over, numbered 186 respondents, which is also about 

50%. All analyses were continued for both groups and will be described and compared below. 

 

Results and discussion 

The relative impact of the individual attribute level was first counted in the display in 

the table. Counting offers an intuitive measurement of the impact of each attribute level. 

Counting represents proportions from 0 to 1. For example, counting 0.31 for an attribute level 

Pfizer-BioNTech means that respondents chose it 31% of the time the Pfizer-BioNTech 

displayed, including that particular level. 

Table 1. The relative impact of the individual attribute level 
Choice Tasks Included:   All Random 

 respondent under 60 years  respondent 60 years and over 

Vaccine brand  

 Total  Total 

Total Respondents 183  186 

Pfizer-BioNTech 0.31  0.47 

Moderna 0.23  0.27 

Johnson & Johnson 0.20  0.19 

Sputnik 0.20  0.14 

AstraZeneca 0.20  0.17 

    

Within Att. Chi-Square 45.63  323.74 

D.F. 4  4 

Significance p < .01  p < .01 

On average, both groups chose Pfizer-BioNTech. However, the probability of choosing 

this vaccine compared to Moderna was almost twice as high among the elderly, namely 47% 

for Pfizer-BioNTech and 27% for Moderna. There is a significantly smaller difference for 

under-60s, 31% versus 23%. In the last place in terms of vaccine popularity in both groups is 

Astra Zeneca. 



Denis TOMŠE, Rok STRAŠEK, Jani TOROŠ 
 

339 
 

Table 2. Preferences regarding the length of duration 

 

Duration of protection  

 Total  Total 

Total Respondents 183  186 

1 year 0.36  0.36 

6 months 0.22  0.23 

3 months 0.11  0.15 

    

Within Att. Chi-Square 261.82  170.27 

D.F. 2  2 

Significance p < .01  p < .01 

 

Preferences regarding the length of duration is almost identical in both groups of respondents. The range 

of importance, however, is very linear between the periods of 1 year, 6 months, and 3 months. 

 

Table 3. Preferences regarding protection efficiency 

 
Protection efficiency  

 Total  Total 

Total Respondents 183  186 

100% 0.36  0.32 

80% 0.22  0.25 

60% 0.11  0.18 

    

Within Att. Chi-Square 261.82  69.99 

D.F. 2  2 

Significance p < .01  p < .01 

 

As expected, the level of protection is an important variable and both groups showed 

the same order. In most cases, 100% protection was chosen, followed by 80%, and lastly 60% 

protection. However, there are significant differences in the assessment of materiality between 

the groups. For younger people, the level of protection is more important, as the ratio of those 

choosing 100% and 60% protection is about 3 to 1, or 36% of respondents vs. 11%. In the 

elderly, it is just under 2 to 1, or 32% of respondents to 18%. 

 

Table 4. Preferences regarding side effects 
 

 

Side effects  

 Total  Total 

Total Respondents 183  186 

muscle and joint pain 0,32  0,30 

 headache 0,30  0,32 

memory impairment 0,15  0,20 

blood clots 0,14  0,17 

    

Within Att. Chi-Square 170,24  91,49 

D.F. 3  3 

Significance p < .01  p < .01 

 



THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 60 AND OVER THE AGE 

OF 60 IN COVID-19 VACCINATION RATES AND VACCINE BRAND PERCEPTION 
 

340 
 

For adverse reactions, the opposite should be considered, as for the previous variables. 

A higher percentage means that the level of this attribute was more desirable because they are 

less afraid of the selected side effect. In both groups, the result is quite similar. Slightly more 

unpopular are the possible effects of memory loss or blood clots in younger people than in 

older people. 

In the next step of the conjoint analysis, a multinominal logit analysis was performed, 

and the calculation of the part-worth utilities indicated the preference levels of the individual 

level of attributes, representing the probability of choice (desirability) if a combination of two 

levels of attributes was calculated. The results already described in the count analysis are shown 

as part-worth utilities in the graphs. 

 

Figure 3. The preference levels of the individual level of attributes 

 

To calculate the t-value for the first and second attribute, the following equitation (1) was used: 

 𝑡 =
𝛽1𝑖−𝛽2𝑖

√𝜎1𝑖
2+𝜎2𝑖

2
 (1) 

where β1i/ β2i is part-worth utility of the level Pfizer-BioNTech/ Moderna and 1i /2i is a 

standard error of part-worth utility of the Pfizer-BioNTech/Moderna. 

For the under-60 group, part-worth utility for Pfizer-BioNTech was 76.34 points higher 

than Moderna. The result proves that the difference is significant (p<0.001), wherefore it could 

be concluded that the Pfizer-BioNTech vaccine is more preferred than Moderna. In the same 

way, the t value was calculated for the over-60 group, where Pfizer-BioNTech is by 42.69 

-100,00
-80,00
-60,00
-40,00
-20,00

0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00

100,00

Vaccine brand 

under 60 60 and over

-100,00
-80,00
-60,00
-40,00
-20,00

0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00

100,00

1 year 6 months 3 months

Protection efficiency 

under 60 60 and over

-100,00
-80,00
-60,00
-40,00
-20,00

0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00

100,00

100% 80% 60%

Duration of protection 

under 60 60 and over

-100,00
-80,00
-60,00
-40,00
-20,00

0,00
20,00
40,00
60,00
80,00

100,00

muscle and
joint pain

 headache memory
impairment

blood clots

Side effects 

under 60 60 and over



Denis TOMŠE, Rok STRAŠEK, Jani TOROŠ 
 

341 
 

utility points more preferable than Moderna, and, as in the previous group, that difference is 

significant (p<0.001). 

The hypothesis H1, which says that the vaccine brand is more important to those under 

the age of 60 than to those over the age of 60, was rejected. 

As regards the duration of protection against infection, the difference between utilities 

for 1 year and 6 months was 53.69 points for the under-60 group and 62.66 points for the 

over-60 group in favour of protection. In both cases, the calculation of the t value proves that 

the difference is significant (p <0.001), so it can be concluded that a longer duration of 

protection is important to our respondents. 

The hypothesis H2, which says that the vaccine’s efficacy is equally important for both 

those under the age of 60 and those over the age of 60, was accepted. 

Both the under- and over-60 groups were equally sensitive regarding the vaccine’s 

duration and side effects. 

In the final part of the analysis, the relative importance of the attributes was also 

calculated, predicting which of them is more or less important when respondents decided about 

their selection of property combinations in assessing vaccination conditions.  

The relative importance (RI) of an attribute is calculated according to Equation 2 as the 

difference between the highest and lowest part-worth utility (most and least preferred level) 

relative to the sum of these differences across attributes (Equation 2): 

 𝑅𝐼𝑖 =  
𝛽(𝑚𝑎𝑥)𝑖−𝛽(𝑚𝑖𝑛),𝑖

∑ (𝛽(𝑚𝑎𝑥)−𝛽(𝑚𝑖𝑛))𝑛
𝑖=1

∙ 100 (2) 

where RIi is a relative importance of an attribute i, β(max)i/β(min)i is the highest/lowest part-worth 

utility of level within attribute i, β(max)/β(min) is the highest/lowest part-worth utility of a level 

within any attribute from i=1 to n, and n is the number of attributes.  

The hypothesis H3, which says that both those under and over the age of 60 should be 

equally sensitive as regards the vaccine’s duration and side effects, was therefore accepted. 

In this calculation, we find that certain differences are shown. For the under-60 group, 

the duration of protection was more important (39%), whereas the brand of vaccine was less 

important (25%).( Inner circle in the graph). In contrast, the vaccine brand is of much greater 

importance (34%) although with much shorter duration of protection (25%) for the group of 

people aged “60 and over”, which is evident from the outer circle of the graph. 

 

Figure 4. Average importances of individual attributes  

 

25%

19%

17%

39%

34%

26%

24%

16%

Average importances

Duration of protection

Side effects

Protection efficiency

Vaccination brand



THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN PEOPLE UNDER THE AGE OF 60 AND OVER THE AGE 

OF 60 IN COVID-19 VACCINATION RATES AND VACCINE BRAND PERCEPTION 
 

342 
 

CONCLUSIONS 

In professional and lay circles, the COVID-19 virus and related issues are a central topic 

of conversation. Vaccination has been an especially burning issue in the last six months. While 

the professional public predominantly advocates the positive effects and necessity of 

vaccination against COVID-19, several groups have formed that see everything surrounding 

COVID-19, especially regarding vaccination, as only a conspiracy theory. Those, let us say 

conspiracy theory groups, are also very loud and they spread their views through all possible 

media outlets. In the media, the side effects of vaccines are mentioned much more frequently 

in connection with certain brands of vaccines, especially AstraZeneca.  

These facts raise the question of how people perceive individual brands of vaccines. 

Especially interesting are the differences between the under-60 and over-60, as on the one hand 

young people are more likely to follow social networks, through which topics about COVID-

19 and vaccination against it were widely discussed, and on the other hand, the over-60 group 

is much more at risk if they become infected with COVID-19. Despite the fact that COVID-19 

is a very “popular” topic in all circles, the authors of this study, are according to their 

knowledge the first ones to investigate the differences in the perception of vaccination between 

the under-60s and over-60s.  

The results of this research clearly show that, on average, both groups chose Pfizer-

BioNTech. However, the probability of choosing this vaccine compared to Moderna is almost 

twice as high among the over-60s, with 47% opting for Pfizer-BioNTech and 27% for 

Moderna. There is a significantly smaller difference for under-60s, namely 31% versus 23%. 

In the last place in vaccine popularity for both groups is Astra Zeneca. We can say that this 

finding is surprising, as the under-60s follow the modern media more and we concluded that 

they would prefer brands that received more positive opinions in the media, while the over-60 

were expected not to place such importance on the brand of vaccine, but rather on getting 

vaccinated as quickly as possible so as to protect themselves from the possible consequences 

of the disease.  

For the duration of protection and side effects of the vaccine, and also its efficacy, we 

can conclude based on the results of this research that there are no differences between those 

under the age of 60 and those over the age of 60, which is not surprising, since it is logical that 

people want as long a duration as possible, maximum effectiveness, and minimum side effects, 

regardless of the age.  

The main limitation of the paper is the fact that the study was conducted only in one 

country. The question arises as to whether the results would be the same if the study had been 

conducted in countries with different political, social, economic, and cultural backgrounds. The 

second limitation of this paper, as predicted by the authors, is the fact that a relatively small 

sample was used. Nevertheless, the authors believe that the sample is still big enough to 

confirm the results and, even more, the authors believe that, had a bigger sample been gathered, 

would have yielded the same results. 

In light of these findings the authors recommend further research in several different 

countries, as well as extending the research to identifying differences between several different 

age groups and educational structures. 

  



Denis TOMŠE, Rok STRAŠEK, Jani TOROŠ 
 

343 
 

REFERENCES 

1. Anti-vaxxers Think This Is Their Moment. (2022, May 15). In The Atlantic. 

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2020/12/campaign-against-vaccines-already-under-

way/617443/ 

2. Ataguba, J.E. COVID-19 Pandemic, a War to be Won: Understanding its Economic Implications 

for Africa. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18, (2020) 325–328. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-

020-00580-x 

3. Cerda, A.A., García, L.Y. Willingness to Pay for a COVID-19 Vaccine. Appl Health Econ Health 

Policy. 2021 May;19(3):343-351. doi: 10.1007/s40258-021-00644-6. Epub 2021 Feb 23. PMID: 

33619688; PMCID: PMC7899739. 

4. Coronavirus (COVID-19) Vaccinations. (2024, September 15). In Our World in Data. 

https://ourworldindata.org/covid-vaccinations 

5. Covid-19. (2022, May 15). In Wikipedia. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19 

6. de Matos, C. A., Veiga, R.T. (2004). The Effects of  Negative Publicity and Company Reaction on 

Consumer Attitudes. SSRN Electron Journal. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/228150911 

_The_Effects_of_Negative_Publicity_and_Company_Reaction_on_Consumer_Attitudes  

7. Green, P. E., Rao, V. R. Conjoint Measurement for Quantifying Judgmental Data. Journal of 

Marketing Research, 8(3), (1971) 355–363. https://doi.org/10.2307/3149575 

8. Kohl, D.M. (2011). The Presentation of "Self" and "Other" in Nazi Propaganda. 

9. Liu, C., Zhou, Q., Li, Y., Garner, L. V., Watkins, S.P., Carter, L.J. (2020. Research and Development 

on Therapeutic Agents and Vaccines for COVID-19 and Related Human Coronavirus Diseases. ACS 

Cent. Sci. 2020, 6, 3, 315–33. https://pubs.acs.org/doi/epdf/10.1021/acscentsci.0c00272? 

ref=article_openPDF 

10. Milavec Kapun, M. Starost in staranje. Zavod IRC, 2011. http://www.impletum.zavod-

irc.si/docs/Skriti_d okumenti/Starost_in_staranje-Milavec.pdf.  

11. Mortality Risk of COVID-19 (2024, September 15). In Statistics and Research – Our World in Data. 

https://ourworldindata.org/mortality-risk-covid 

12. Orme, B.K. Getting started with conjoint analysis : strategies for product design and pricing 

research. Research Publishers, LLC, (2006).  

13. Sago, B., Hinnenkamp, C. The Impact of Significant Negative News on Consumer Behavior 

Towards Favorite Brands. Global Journal of Bussines Research, (2014) 65–73. 
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323643961_The_impact_of_significant_negative_news_on_consu

mer_behavior_towards_favorite_brands/link/5e0f7be192851c8364b00228/download?_tp=eyJjb250ZXh0Ijp

7ImZpcnN0UGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIiwicGFnZSI6InB1YmxpY2F0aW9uIn19 
14. Share of people who received at least one dose of COVID-19 vaccine. (2024, September 15). 

https://ourworldindata.org/grapher/share-people-vaccinated-covid?country=~SVN 

15. Slovenia COVID - Coronavirus statistics. (2024, September 15). In Worldometers. 

https://www.worldometers.info/coronavirus/country/slovenia/#google_vignette 

16. Soofi, M., Najafi, F. & Karami-Matin, B. Using Insights from Behavioral Economics to Mitigate the 

Spread of COVID-19. Appl Health Econ Health Policy 18, (2020) 345–350. 

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40258-020-00595-4 

17. Starejši bolj skrbijo za svoje zdravje. (September 15, 2024). In Siol.net https://siol.net/raziskava-

starejsi-bolj-skrbijo-za-svoje-zdravje-223268 

18. Steiner, M., Meißner, M. A. User’s guide to the galaxy of conjoint analysis and compositional 

preference measurement. Mark Zeitschrift fur Forsch und Prax. (2018) 3–25.  

19. Stout, M. J. "The effectiveness of Nazi propaganda during World War II" (2011). Master's Theses 

and Doctoral Dissertations. 314. https://commons.emich.edu/theses/314 

20. Werntoft, E., Hallberg, I.R., Elmståhl, S. et al. (2005). Older people’s views of prioritization in 

health care. Aging Clin Exp Res 17, 402–411. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03324630 

21. What’s the chance of dying if you get COVID-19 (September 15, 2024). Smith, E. In COVID-101. 

https://covid-101.org/science/whats-the-chance-of-dying-if-you-get-covid-19/ 

 

 

 


