In vaccine messaging, we're repeating the mistakes we made with masks

[Kokeshi123]

www.nytimes.com/2021/01/18/briefing/donald-trump-pardon-phil-spector-coronavirus-deaths.html?fbclid=IwAR3uw9iQlX6d0wVh2zMBPf6zEiRBBzFFq423ML2OCjXjKqt1dODRrjCrUG8 I really recommend reading this excellent article, which sets out the very promising nature of the vaccines and talks about some of the problems with the current messaging.

The vaccines appear to be highly effective and safe. And it is looking extremely likely that they block or more-or-less block transmission as well. We should be shouting the good news from the rooftops and urging people to get vaccinated because guess what, IT'S A GREAT IDEA.

Yet the messaging on vaccines continues to be incredibly negative in tone. Endless caveats, emphasis on things that it might not be able to do, a list of don't and can't, and above all, an endless drumbeat of "You basically can't do anything after the vaccine that you couldn't do before."

We're repeating the same mistakes on vaccines as we did on masks--overcaution and underselling.

And more than anything else, inability to trust people. Part of the reason for the weird reluctance to push masks in the beginning lay in an assumption that people are both stupid and irresponsible-"They will take masks that should be worn by HCPs, and then use this as an excuse to stop social distancing." With vaccines, we're doing the same thingparalysed by dread that "people will stop social distancing," people in public health are casting doubt on the vaccine's efficacy by using over-timorous language. Why would anyone even bother to have this vaccine, one is tempted to ask?

Overcautious language is being used, and then misinterpreted by the media. "They have not yet carried out full trials to show the extent to which transmission is blocked" is getting interpreted as "It doesn't stop transmission" (spoiler: actually, it almost certainly does). I can guarantee that versions of this myth will be floating around the internet for years, just as the mask myths ("They don't protect the wearer" "You have to perform elaborate sterilization routines and change the mask every few minutes otherwise they INCREASE risk!!") are still circulating months after these were refuted.

And people need to start hearing about end points, even if these are conditional and hedged about with caveats-Restrictions A, B and C can probably be peeled back once Groups X, Y and Z are vaccinated-that kind of thing. The endless doomy hints that "we'll be wearing masks and avoiding each other for years on end" because the vaccine is not going to be all that effect are not helping compliance. People who think that the rules are going to require them to stop seeing elderly parents for years are, at some point, going to say "Fuck the rules. I'm going to see them now, then."

I agree OP!

I spoke with a patient today who was in contact with her son last weekend and he has now tested positive. He had symptom when he visited her (should have been self-isolating). She's 84. She had her first vaccine a couple of days before. She hadn't realised that she wouldn't be covered straight away after one jab. It's an anxious wait for her now to see what happens. In a few more weeks she'd have hey second jab and be as protected as she can be a week later, if she gets ill now then what a waste! It's sensible to be cautious.

I agree OP.

@Expulsocorona I think this message has been lost in the doom mongering. Much more important than many of the crap stories that have been reported.

I haven’t read anything negative in tone apart from a few threads on here. Other social media might be unhelpful, I wouldn’t know, but the vast majority of the information on television, in the press and on the radio is straightforward and factual in tone, or focuses, if anything, on the positive.

I almost think it's the opposite though, people (like the example of the 84 yr old given above) think "had one jab of vaccine" = skip around the town hugging everyone!

I think it's the opposite, too.

It’s a balance though isn’t it, like everything else. Some people will think everything is ok the second after they have had the jab and others will still hide away in case they somehow are responsible for spreading it anyway.
I generally think the news is being vaccine positive though and I haven’t really said that about anything else in this whole pandemic. I think the media generally have been awful

One thing this board shows, is that people will take ANY information and twist it to fit their own agenda.

In almost all cases the agenda is an emotional one (that is, not a deliberate, reasoned agenda) with some people needing their negativity/fear reinforced and some needing their hopefulness reinforced. This need to reinforce an emotional bias happens in even otherwise intelligent people without them even noticing.

For example, if someone posts something quite factual, half the readers will screech 'doom-mongering' and half will accuse the poster of encouraging reckless covid-spreading behaviour.

So any message will get filtered by these unseen biases. Whilst I personally sneer at - for example - Boris Johnson using slogans instead of rational and reasoned argument, the sad fact is that they are effective and necessary. You really do need to aim for the lowest denominator.

Chat with local vaccine hub at 4pm ... they said they had one no-show all day. Looks like enthusiastic uptake to me. And agreed, many people will assume one jab = "I'm safe now!"

Masking back in April 2020 was different because very difficult to prove they make a difference AND there was/is a global shortage of surgical grade.

www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/19/researchers-warn-of-another-covid-spike-if-people-mix-after-vaccine

It's important to get the messaging right.

We are being that the one jab does cover us up to 90% or so, that the 2nd jab is only to extend that cover over time, however it can 3 weeks for our immunity to respond fully to it, so can still very much catch it during that time.

I do agree thought that a lot of people have taken the message that we don't yet have the evidence to say they reduce transmission to mean that they don't reduce transmission. The same goes for how long the immunity lasts. Of course you can't say it lasts longer than the time from the date that the first vaccines were administered.

We should be making sure that the message is clear that just because we don't have the evidence that doesn't mean that they don't.

We should also be making it clear that it takes time for immunity to kick in after a vaccine (2-3 weeks) and in all likelihood one dose wouldn't be as protective as two (the government may be downplaying this due to the decision to spread the doses out to 12 weeks apart).

To which "We" do you refer @Kokeshi123?
I thought you lived in Japan?

Those giving the vaccine in England are giving a clear message with the injection- do not change your behaviour, continue to distance and not mix with other households.

We are being that the one jab does cover us up to 90% or so

So for every 100 people who assume one jab = enough protection and get high exposure to Rona, 10 will get sick after all. Whose story do you think will end up in the tabloid press -- the 90 or the 10?

And can you just see the Covid marshalls who may tend to be persons of mature years themselves --

"Oi! You can't gather here! Disperse! What's with you hooligans?"

-Don't worry! We're all over 80 and had our vaccinations. Isn't it lovely to go out wherever we like now.

"Oh that's alright then. Me too. Let me just see your covid passport paperwork..."

@Kokeshi123

So basically you are in favour of the public being lied to

If the message is cautious in relation to the unknowns it's for a reason

I haven't seen any underselling, exactly the opposite

I agree

However some of the reason is they can't 100% say anything about transmission until they finish the research on that. I have heard then say it is looking good so far.

I still think more could be said to reassure people and inform about a cart load of things.

Personally I seem to spend a lot of time on here and in real life correcting people that have jumped to conclusions.

The BAME population for example is expected to have a very low take up of the vaccine. The way information could have been delivered I am sure doesn't help at all. It just concrete misinformation and misinformation and misconceptions.

Also, a vaccine is irreversible medical treatment.

A mask is a piece of material that you can take on and off.

put on and take off I mean

Yabu!
I think lots will go hugging people and there is no guarantee. Lets wait and see if hcp catch it after both jabs etc.
People need to keep wearing masks as they may still be contagious.

We in uk were told not to wear masks as gov were going for herd immunity. and they didnt want private people to buy them all up.
Unfortunately some people believed gov and cant adjust so now wont wear them.
They probably think cheltenham was safe. And schools...

@NavyFlask

Those giving the vaccine in England are giving a clear message with the injection- do not change your behaviour, continue to distance and not mix with other households.

Are they giving the time scale? Surely that's the important part of the message.

If you say to someone 'It takes 2-3 weeks for the vaccine to work, so don't mix during that time', that's easily understood and followed. If they just say 'Don't mix even though you've had the vaccine' it doesn't seem unreasonable for the person to think the vaccine was pointless and just to mix anyway (or not if they are that way inclined).

The misinformation is going to cause a real problem.

We had someone here giving us a quote for some work last week and she asked if we were planning on having the vaccine then launched in to all the conspiracy theory reasons why she wasn't. We politely made a few comments about how she might want to look elsewhere for some other information but she was adamant her "biological chemist" daughter knew more than anyone else and she wasn't going to have her DNA altered.

We sent her on her way and when the quote came in, politely declined her services. If she is going in to homes spreading this kind of mis-information, that will cause a real problem.

Are they giving the time scale? Surely that's the important part of the message

It's hard to give a timescale as they aren't certain how the vaccine will stop the spread. Until that information is available they have to be cautious with the message.

I agree! When I saw the headline 'dont hug your kids, even with the vaccine' I thought, 'christ, I thought they want people to get vaccinated. Why would someone bother if they are saying it doesnt give you the basic of touching the people you love'. Its all fear and misery and scaring people into not seeing anyone. I get we are still in the cautious zone and those who are vaccinated cant just go back to normal life, but the rhetoric has been nothing but misery and death and 'you are killing granny by hugging your mother' for a solid year. They need to give people some vague semblance of hope and happiness. If they dont, people will just become angry and do what they want anyway because the idea they are putting out is the vaccine wont work anyway.

@MintyMabel

Are they giving the time scale? Surely that's the important part of the message

It's hard to give a timescale as they aren't certain how the vaccine will stop the spread. Until that information is available they have to be cautious with the message.

'Have a vaccine (to which there is always a risk, albeit small), which may or may not protect you or stop spread. We just don't know.'

Not exactly a helpful message is it? No wonder in the absence of anything better - even 'we think it may take 2-3 weeks to take effect, so don't mix for that long' - people are just hoping that they can mix and getting on with doing just that.