Correction to: BMC Public Health23, 515 (2023)
Following publication of the original article, the authors identified several typo’s. The correct and incorrect information is listed below, the original publication has been updated. This does not affect the results & conclusions of the publication.
Incorrect
-
We divide not by the population eligible for vaccines but rather by the total population because, as explained below, the exact demographic variable for both eligible and non-eligible for vaccines, i.e., the cohorts aged 12 or younger and aged older than 12, are not available; we instead control for this group using a proxy variable.
-
As for those without vaccine entitlement, we are unable to capture this particular cohort, i.e., those aged 12 or younger, because the Registrar divides age categorization by every five years.
-
Positive, if the proliferation is assumed to have an effect of convincing people to get vaccinated sooner. A rise in COVID-19 spread implies these people (those who died due to COVID-19 infection and those who were infected with COVID-19) will not be available to or lose motivation to receive the vaccines, hence leading to a fall in the number of people who would have received the vaccines.
Correct
-
We divide not by the population eligible for vaccines but rather by the total population because, as explained below, the exact demographic variable for both eligible and non-eligible for vaccines, i.e., the cohorts aged 11 or younger and aged older than 11 are not available; we instead control for this group using a proxy variable.
-
As for those without vaccine entitlement, we are unable to capture this particular cohort, i.e., those aged 11 or younger, because the Registrar divides age categorization by every five years.
-
Positive, if the proliferation is assumed to have an effect of convincing people to get vaccinated sooner. Negative, on the other hand, if a rise in COVID-19 spread implies that those who died due to the infection will no longer be available or those who were infected will lose motivation to receive vaccines, hence leading to a fall in the number of people who would have received the vaccines.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
The online version of the original article can be found at https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15376-6.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
About this article
Cite this article
Kikuchi, M., Ishihara, S. & Kohno, M. Correction to: Politics of COVID-19 vaccination in Japan: how governing incumbents’ representation affected regional rollout variation. BMC Public Health 23, 781 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15744-2
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12889-023-15744-2