![]() ![]() Ineffective, poorly worded messaging confused people and pushed them to access information from less credible sources. Engaging with the press and media was also a challenge for many doctors and scientists. But communicating medical and scientific information at the population level is a much different skillset than communicating to individual patients or families. Scientists and clinicians attempted to educate and inform the public using a variety of methods. Previous “known knowns” in science and medicine were now blurred and in question. Clinicians faced threats of litigation or violence for refusing to prescribe various ineffective medications promoted on social media. The result was a considerable amount of “noise” introduced into important and consequential Covid-19 treatment and prevention discussions. Validating the credibility of information sources during the pandemic was also a challenge for the public writ large. As a result, the public’s standards for vaccine safety and effectiveness were impossible to meet. Most people are not aware how vaccines are made, tested or the intense scrutiny given to every step of the process before regulatory approval or authorization for use is granted. The same can also be said about enclaves of medical and scientific professionals. The impact of disinformation and misinformation on individual beliefs and behaviors during the pandemic hinted that medical and scientific literacy among the general population was likely overestimated. ![]() The benefits of immunity from natural infection may be on par with those from vaccination with original vaccine formulations, while hybrid immunity (infection plus vaccination) may offer greater protection than either alone. Vaccination is associated with a reduced risk of long Covid-19 in some studies and is safe and beneficial in multiple special populations (e.g., pregnant women, immunosuppressed people). Covid-19 vaccines reduce the risk of severe disease, hospitalization and death but are less impactful in preventing infection or mild disease. Those at low risk of a bad outcome from Covid-19 benefit less from vaccination. Further complicating the risk-benefit analysis of vaccination in this population were the significant effects of an “endless” pandemic (e.g., virtual learning and social isolation) and the evolving story of very rare vaccine side effects (e.g., heart inflammation) in young males.ĭespite the clear clinical benefit of Covid-19 vaccination, the benefit is not the same for everyone. It’s not that these perceptions were incorrect, but the risks of Covid-19 in young people (e.g., inflammatory syndromes, long Covid-19 and very rarely death) were underappreciated. Just as perceptions of increased risk drove older adults to get vaccinated, perceptions of decreased risk caused many younger people to forgo vaccination and most parents to pass on vaccinating their children. Vaccine uptake decreased as the potential recipients’ ages decreased. ![]() Older individuals were the most likely to be vaccinated, likely driven by their self-perceptions of increased risk for severe disease and death from Covid-19. Booster doses were implemented using original formulation vaccines first, but then variant-specific vaccines were tested and eventually a bivalent formulation targeting the original and more recently circulating strains (BA.4/.5) were recommended. The occurrence of new and evasive SARS-CoV-2 variants were met with attempts to “boost” immunity by administering additional vaccine doses. As more people were infected, observations of the protective abilities of naturally acquired immunity also challenged the rationale for vaccination. The term “breakthrough infection” became all too familiar. People also had concerns that vaccine effectiveness was quickly declining.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |