What can lead to vaccine reluctance and how can it be addressed?
TORONTO  Change has been a constant throughout the pandemic, whether it be our habits or instructions from public health officials, Canadians have had to adapt and learn over the past 18 months, but the change in information has led some people to disbelieve what they listen. . The COVID-19 pandemic has put the scientific process at the center of attention, and as guidelines and recommendations have been constantly updated along the way, some Canadians have been left behind and pulled away from misinformation. Usually, citizens do not see how science is not a final fact, but it is a process by which over time and through increasing levels of security, we are able to rely on facts that we can then use, Steven Hoffman, director of the Global Strategy Laboratory and a professor of global health, law and political science at York University, told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview Wednesday. With so many studies on COVID-19 being conducted worldwide, there is an abundance of information that can then be difficult to incorporate into simple public health messages. It can be difficult to integrate all this knowledge together and communicate it in clear and unambiguous ways to the public because everyone wants a very clear statement of facts, he said. Celia Du, a scientific communications expert, says communicating the risks of COVID-19 is a good balance. It is not easy because it is all about risk communication, being able to communicate something that negatively affects a lot of people and walk that line. You do not want to be intimidated, but we also want to make sure everyone understands the level of consideration they need to have regarding the issue, Du told CTVNews.ca in a telephone interview Wednesday. These types of communication strategies take time, which was something we did not provide during the rapid spread of the pandemic. This is really difficult and it takes time to strategize. We really do not have the benefit of time during the pandemic, she said. The changing instruction and information that has played out in Canada throughout the pandemic is real-time knowledge development, which many Canadians are usually unable to prove so easily. What public health officials are trying to do is be honest and truthful with everyone about what we currently know, while knowing people at the same time they have to make decisions in the absence of complete evidence. So they are giving the best evidence and advice available, Hoffman said. The COVID-19 guidelines and the distribution of vaccines have been political since the beginning of the pandemic. Anti-mask and anti-vaccine groups continue to march and hold rallies in Canadian cities to this day, but for Hoffman, that is not too surprising. Public health has always been political, he said. This is not necessarily a bad thing, he added, public health is the way the government works to protect its citizens. Where is it bad when political actors can sometimes be stimulated to make statements that can earn them political points but at the expense of peoples health. Canadian officials have been good, Hoffman said, but the biggest issue lies on social media where misinformation and misinformation can spread quickly with little control. I think social media and the internet enabled misinformation to spread faster and wider than ever before, he said. The phenomenon itself is not new, think of a snake oil seller. THE ROLE OF SOCIAL MEDIA  Some doctors and experts have taken to social media to share their advice and guidance and as a result have become household names in Canada, gathering thousands of followers, but Du warns against having a favorite doctor and hopes people will expand the scope of tire. I think the whole downside of celebrities and influencers is that we want to follow the individual, but the point is that even though these individuals have a lot of expertise, they are still an individual. No one will get all the information properly, she said. While being able to use a doctor or expert quick-thinking on Twitter may be helpful to some, it has also led to some analogues that do not quite fit the bill, or even minimize the seriousness of some peoples concerns with hesitation. vaccines. Vaccination reluctance is different between different communities, even different age groups, different ethnicities, different languages, all have different reasons, Du said. A common analogy used by some experts on Twitter to combat concerns about vaccine interchangeability was that they are like Coke and Pepsi, i.e. they are the same. But if you ask any Pepsi or Coke fan, the two drinks could not be more different, and some do not drink the other. Thats why we really need to aim with this message because it will be hard to get an analogy that works literally for everyone, she said. Social media also acts as a kind of echo room. As different platform algorithms recognize us based on what we like and share, it presents us with more and more similar posts. The algorithms know us quite well and almost very well, Du said. If you are looking for and liking and sharing very specific types of posts, the algorithm will tell you more. And even when experts go viral for heavy posts, they usually reach and convince only those accounts that have similar interests and beliefs. Social media has these bubbles, she said. This is the thing with medical experts on social media, they often go viral, but how many people are reaching out to those who are not already on board. Social media can be a bit preaching about the choir situation. Some experts and officials who were once sharing their expertise behind closed doors were suddenly found on TV and quoted in digital and print news as they tried to learn about the coronavirus novel. Its a learning process and sometimes we misunderstand, Du said. We are usually on the right track, but we have to admit that we are working in an area of uncertainty. WHAT TO TDB DNI P HR HESITANCN Vaccines  Communication about the delivery of Canada vaccines has not been exactly perfect, there have been setbacks and changes in dosing schedules, mixing and compliance and which vaccines are highly recommended, and Hoffman says now is the time to focus on the hesitant vaccine. Lets focus on Canadians who are either accepting vaccines, or would be after a respectful conversation with their healthcare professionals, he said. Du agrees that vaccine reluctance should be a priority. You are really more concerned about the people who are on the fence because they can become more anti-vax, Du said. Making vaccines easier to reach and respectful conversations with a healthcare provider can help give people who get vaccinated hesitant the last push they need to hit, Hoffman said. I do not think energy should be concentrated on the 3 percent of Canadians who are ardent anti-vaccines, he added. There is little that governments and public health officials will be able to do to convince them otherwise. Incentives may be one way to get people to take the last step and get their first dose, but the jury is still clear how effective they are. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, whether good or bad, but on the plus side it is how to provide that little push, which helps not only the person being vaccinated, but also anyone with whom they come in contact. But on the other hand, accidentally, it can inadvertently raise questions about why the government thinks it should stimulate. It can also make people feel like they have been forced or cheated to get the vaccine and Du says efforts should be made to allow people to give their full consent and make the decision themselves. It is a more effective way for someone to fully support a decision they have made when they feel like they have reached the conclusion themselves.