新冠肺炎疫苗分配所存在的不公平正義，歸咎主因為疫苗供應不足，研究動機係依據KEYPO大數據關鍵引擎及關鍵評論網統計調查網路聲量，討論度及對於疫情不滿，都集中在3+11及缺疫苗(供貨量與疫苗種類選擇不足)等2個議題上，研究工具採用內容分析法進行，並以公平理論Leventhal所提出之6個評判程序的標準，進行3+11事件、第2類施打對象順序爭議、採購疫苗政策失策、民間團體採購捐贈疫苗、10大類疫苗接種對象、疑涉施打對象不符及疫苗預約平台等7個輿情事件，執行疫苗分配程序之公平標準，研究結果如下，以橫向分析發現3+11事件與疑涉施打對象不符事件缺乏一致性、不偏私及資訊正確等公平標準，第2類施打對象爭議未符合一致性、不偏私及倫理等公平標準，採購疫苗政策失策及民間團體採購疫苗同樣未有一致性、不偏私及代表性等公平標準，10類疫苗接種對象爭議未符合一致性及代表性等公平標準，疫苗預約平台未有一致性及矯正等公平標準。另以3+11、第2類施打對象順序爭議、採購疫苗政策失策、民間團體疫苗採購及疑涉施打對象不符等5個事件皆超過3項不符合公平標準，輿論爭議顯較大，另10類疫苗接種對象及疫苗預約平台等3個事件超過2項不符合公平標準，在爭議上比前5個事件上顯較不顯著。縱向分析結果發現7個事件皆違反一致性公平標準，不偏私次之，代表性佔第三。

The purpose of this study is to explore whether the Coronavirus vaccine distribution event is in line with fairness and justice, and what principles should be used as the basis for distribution? This is the topic of concern in this article. Policy makers must decide who should be hit first among the targets of hits. This is an ethical problem, and it is difficult to reach a consensus in society. Therefore, the current method of distributing vaccines against Coronavirus includes different ethical values and fairness, and tries to strike a balance.
The unfairness and justice in the distribution of the Coronavirus vaccine is mainly due to insufficient vaccine supply. The research motivation is based on the KEYPO big data key engine and the key comment network to investigate the network volume. The degree of discussion and dissatisfaction with the epidemic are concentrated in 3+ 11 and lack of vaccines (insufficient supply and selection of vaccine types), the research tools were carried out by content analysis, and the 3+11 event, the third 7 public opinion events, including 2 types of vaccinated object sequence disputes, missteps in purchasing vaccine policies, non-governmental organizations purchasing donated vaccines, 10 categories of vaccinated targets, and suspected vaccinating targets that do not conform to the vaccine reservation platform. Fairness standards for the implementation of vaccine distribution procedures. The results are as follows. The horizontal analysis found that the 3+11 incident and the suspected beating target were inconsistent with fairness standards such as consistency, impartiality, and correct information. The second type of beating object dispute did not meet the fairness such as consistency, impartiality, and ethics. Standards, policy mistakes in the procurement of vaccines and the procurement of vaccines by non-governmental organizations also do not have fair standards such as consistency, impartiality, and representativeness. The disputes over 10 types of vaccine recipients do not meet fairness standards such as consistency and representativeness, and there is no consistency in vaccine reservation platforms. and fairness standards such as correction. Longitudinal analysis found that all seven events violated the standard of consistency and fairness, followed by impartiality, and representativeness was the third.

中文文獻
1.王培瑋、璩大成、邱婷芳（2021年3月31日)。新冠肺炎口罩風波：醫療資源分配倫理原則及挑戰。北市醫學雜誌，18，20-31。
2.朱高正（1993 )。新社會-邁向公平正義。天下文化。
3.吳坤財、李瑞騰、洪孟楷、董育奇、廖學志、蘇清泉、吳彬安、陳信水、薛承泰、呂建德、王育敏、張世雄、簡明哲、陳益興、邱文嵐、陳育恬、盧宓承、陶幼慧、陳弘宙、柯健全、馬祥祐、王元章、朱耀祥、雲林縣政府、莊淑瓊、陳綠蔚、馬財專、黃煥彰（2013 )。分配與公平正義：南部觀點。財團法人新台灣人文教基金會。
4.洪蘭（2011)。理所當為成就公平正義的社會。遠流。
5.John, Rawls. (2002).作為公平的正義：正義新論（姚大志譯)。左岸文化事業有限公司。（原著出版於1921年）
6.葉明叡（2021)。大COVID時代的疫苗分配與接種政策倫理考量。應用倫理評論，71，119-136。
7.楊志良（2015) 。於分配正義救臺灣。時報文化出版地。
8.臺北市政府廉政透明委員會（2021年7月30日)。臺北市政府衛生局配發好心肝等診所COVID-19疫苗爭議調查報告資料。https://reurl.cc/Kpdk1M。
9.衛生福利部疾病管制署（2022年1月17日)。COVID-19疫苗統計資料引自1月17日，2022年，https://www.cdc.gov.tw/Category/Page/9jFXNbCe-sFK9EImRRi2Og。
10.衛生福利部疾病管制署（2022年1月17日)。COVID-19全球死亡統計資料。https://www.cdc.gov.tw/。
11.BBC news（2020年4月8日)。時間軸：武漢「封城」的76天。https://www.bbc.com/zhongwen/trad/chinese-news-52197004
12.CTWANT新聞網（2021年5月28日)。3＋11放寬3+11召集人竟是他！ 民眾黨轟：竟無醫學專業背景資料。https://reurl.cc/9O6Exv

英文文獻
1.Adams, J. S. (1963). Towards an understanding of inequity. The Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67(5),422.
2.Adams, J. S. (1965). Inequity in Social Exchange. In L. Berkowitz(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology. Academic Press.
3.Danies, N. (2000). Accountability for reasonableness. BMJ, 321(7272), 1300-1301.
4.Freitas, A. R. R., Napimoga, M., & Donalisio, M. R. (2020). Assessing the severity of COVID-19. Epidemiol Serv Saude, 29(2), e2020119. https://doi.org/10.5123/S1679-4974020000200008(Analise da gravidade da pandemia de Covid-19.)
5.Huppertz, J. W., Arenson, S. J., & Evans, R. H. (1978). An application of equity theory to buyer-seller exchange situations. Journal of Marketing Research, 15(2), 250-260.
6.Leventhal, G. S. (1980). What Should Be Done with Equity Theory? New Approaches to the Study of Fairness in Social Relationships. In K. J. Gergen, M. S. Greenberg & R. H. Willis(EDs.), Social Exchange: Advances in Theory and Research. Pienum Press.
7.Nozick, R. (1974). Anarchy, State and Utopia. Basic Books.
8.Reed, C., Biggerstaff, M., Finelli, /L., Koonin, L. M., Beauvais, D., Uzicanin, A., Plummer, A., Bresee, J., Redd, S. C., & Jernigan, D. B. (2013). Novel framework for assessing epidemiologic effects of influenza epidemics and pandemics. Emerg Infect Dis, 19(1), 85-91. https://doi.org/10.3201/eid1901.120124
9.Smith, A. K., Bolton, R. N., & Wagner, J. (1999). A model of customer satisfaction with service encounters involving failure and recovery. Journal of Marketing Research, 356-372.
10.Scheunemann, L. P., & White. D. B. (2011). The ethics and reality of rationing in medicine. Chest, 140(6), 1625-1632.
11.White, D. B., Katz, M. H., Luce, J. M., & Lo, B. (2009). Who should receive life support during a public health emergency ? Using ethical principles to improve allocation decisions. Ann Intern Med, 150(2):132-138.
12.World Health Organization. (2021, May 22). SARS-CoV-2 Variant-United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. https://reurl.cc/Mb6v54
13.World Health Organization. (2021, May 22).WHO Coronavirus Disease(COVID-19) Dashboard. https://covid19.who.int/
14.Tax, S. S., Brown, S. W., & Chandrashekaran, M. (1998). Customer evaluations of service complaint experiences: implications for relationship marketing. The journal of marketing, 60-76.
15.Williams, A.( 1997). Intergenerational equity: an exploration of the ‘fair innings’ argument. Health Econ, 6(2),117-132.