![]() ![]()
This brief is part of the Social Science in Humanitarian Action Platform (SSHAP) series on social science considerations relating to COVID-19 vaccines. Based on this, the brief proposes strategies to guide policy makers, public health officials, vaccine developers, health workers, researchers, advocates, communicators, media actors and others involved in vaccine development, communication and deployment to boost confidence in COVID-19 vaccines. The messaging from these sources can be conflicting, which helps to undermine vaccine confidence and trust in public health authorities. This brief draws on social science literature and informal interviews with experts to illustrate that vaccine hesitancy is more complex and context-specific, and often reflects diverse, everyday anxieties – not just, or even primarily, exposure to misinformation or anti-vaccine campaigners. Evident in the emergence of the new discipline of ‘infodemiology’ and ‘misinfodemic debates’, there is an assumption that this reticence is primarily driven by people’s exposure to misinformation and that this can be countered by ‘inoculating’ publics with facts. One challenge is ‘vaccine hesitancy.’ Evidence suggests that the public health benefits of approved COVID-19 vaccines will be undermined by hesitancy from populations to be vaccinated. While this provides hope as part of a solution to the pandemic it also raises concerns over how vaccines will be deployed and accepted. A substantial number of vaccine candidates are in development, and several are undergoing clinical trials, with the first promising results recently published. #BE VACCINE MISINFORMATION UNDERMINE EFFORTS IMMUNIZE DRIVERS#It recommended priority groups should include health and care workers and other high-risk occupations such as teachers, bus drivers and retail workers, as well as vulnerable groups in crowded situations such as the homeless and people in prisons.COVID-19 vaccine has been framed as the ultimate solution needed to end the pandemic. The report also said governments should plan now for a “phased and ethical” vaccine deployment based on transparent principles that are “sufficiently debated with the public to build understanding”. “We must learn from lessons of history and move away from the one-way provision of information and instead generate an open dialogue that addresses misinformation and does not dismiss people’s real vaccine concerns and hesitancy,” Mills said. Opinion polls carried out before and during the COVID-19 pandemic across many countries show that confidence in vaccines is volatile, and that political polarization and online misinformation are likely to affect rates of uptake. To achieve the estimated 80% of uptake of a vaccine required for community protection, we need a serious, well-funded and community-based public engagement strategy,” said Melinda Mills, an Oxford University professor and expert in demographic science who led the report. “Vaccines and vaccination are two very different things. Investment and collaboration among stakeholders must support all pro-vaccine advocacy groups that are able to effectively counter misinformation by employing standard social media influencing strategies and tactics already used to great effect by anti-vaccine groups (e.g., rapid messaging, integrated stakeholder network, emotional response. ![]() ![]() It said an “open dialogue” is critical to building public support for COVID-19 vaccination, and called for a “frank conversation” to manage public expectations that life will not immediately get back to normal when vaccines arrive. LONDON (Reuters) – An 80% uptake of a COVID-19 vaccine may be needed to protect communities from the novel coronavirus, but volatile levels of misinformation and vaccine mistrust could undermine efforts to tackle the pandemic, British scientists said on Tuesday.Ī report by scientific institutions the British Academy and the Royal Society found that, in part due to circulating misinformation and behavioural factors, around 36% of people in Britain say they are either uncertain or very unlikely to agree to be vaccinated against COVID-19. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |