Submitted Successfully!
To reward your contribution, here is a gift for you: A free trial for our video production service.
Thank you for your contribution! You can also upload a video entry or images related to this topic.
Version Summary Created by Modification Content Size Created at Operation
1
Yulan Lin
 + 1674 word(s) 1674 2021-11-10 05:12:16 |
2 ref. added
Beatrix Zheng
 Meta information modification 1674 2021-11-17 02:20:08 |

Video Upload Options

Do you have a full video?
Send video materials Upload full video

Confirm

Are you sure to Delete?
Yes No
Cite
If you have any further questions, please contact Encyclopedia Editorial Office.
Lin, Y. COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments. Encyclopedia. Available online: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16065 (accessed on 26 April 2024).
Lin Y. COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments. Encyclopedia. Available at: https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16065. Accessed April 26, 2024.
Lin, Yulan. "COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments" Encyclopedia, https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16065 (accessed April 26, 2024).
Lin, Y. (2021, November 17). COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments. In Encyclopedia. https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/16065
Lin, Yulan. "COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments." Encyclopedia. Web. 17 November, 2021.
COVID-19 Anti-Vaccine Sentiments
Edit
This entry is adapted from the peer-reviewed paper 10.3390/healthcare9111530

The analyses uncovered several major issues concerning COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy. The production of the COVID-19 vaccine at an unprecedented speed evoked the fear of skipping steps that would compromise vaccine safety. The unknown long-term effects and duration of protection erode confidence in taking the vaccines. There were also persistent concerns with regard to vaccine compositions that could be harmful or contain aborted foetal cells. The rate of COVID-19 death was viewed as low. Many interpreted the 95% effectiveness of the COVID-19 vaccine as insufficient. Preference for immunity gains from having an infection was viewed as more effective. Peer-reviewed publication-based data were favoured as a source of trust in vaccination decision-making. 

antivaccine social media vaccine hesitancy

1. Introduction

The SARS-CoV-2 vaccine development efforts began with the onset of the novel coronavirus outbreak, which first emerged in Wuhan, China, in late December 2019. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) eventually became an ongoing pandemic with no specific treatments or vaccines available for prevention. The COVID-19 vaccine is likely to be the most effective and sustainable approach for controlling the pandemic. Unprecedented research effort and global coordination resulted in the rapid development of vaccine candidates and the initiation of many clinical trials worldwide. As of 12 November 2020, according to the World Health Organisation’s draft landscape of COVID-19 vaccines, there were 48 candidate COVID-19 vaccines in clinical trial evaluation and 164 in preclinical evaluation stages [1]. The acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine has been reported in several studies worldwide. An early study of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in France conducted 10 days after the nationwide lockdown revealed 74% acceptance [2]. A higher acceptance rate was found among the Asian population. Evidence from two studies from Southeast Asian countries conducted in April 2020 reported higher COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates of 94.3% [3] and 93.3% [4], respectively. A large sample study in China reported 83.3% acceptance among the public in China in May 2020 [5]. A relatively lower acceptance rate (67.0%) was reported in a study in the U.S. conducted in May 2020 [6]. A recently published global survey of 19 countries conducted in June 2020 reported acceptance rates ranging from 54.95% to 88.6%, with the lowest reported in Russia and the highest in China [7]. Potential adverse events and negative consequences from COVID-19 trials have begun to emerge in various news media outlets since May 2020, refs. [8][9][10][11][12] although published clinical evidence from COVID-19 trials has indicated that the vaccines are well-tolerated with mild or moderate severity adverse effects [13][14]. A recently conducted survey in October 2020 in the US showed a further decline in people’s willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine, with only 51% having expressed vaccination intention [15].
Vaccine hesitancy is a growing threat to global health security. The World Health Organization has named vaccine hesitancy as one of the top 10 threats to global health in 2019 [16]. Tracking public responses to COVID-19 vaccination is crucial to understanding any concerns and acceptance regarding the forthcoming vaccines. Often, anti-vaccine viewpoints are widespread in social media [17]. Of late, there has been remarkable popularity in international news channels broadcasting using social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram. As global social media usage continues to grow, the potential to harness data generated from social media users has also grown [18]. In particular, the activities of social media users, by commenting or messaging, serve as new research avenues with which to harvest empirical insights on public perception. We, therefore, examined public opinion on social media following the first press releases of data showing the high effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines and the announcement that they would soon be available.

2. Current Insights

Despite the enormous global effort to develop a vaccine for COVID-19 as rapidly as possible, the COVID-19 vaccine is not spared from skepticism. This study uncovered a broad range of barriers to COVID-19 vaccine acceptance that may hinder the aim of achieving herd immunity through vaccination.
The urgency of having a vaccine in response to the unprecedented COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in many academic institutions and pharmaceutical industries expediting their respective vaccine development. Nevertheless, the rush for a vaccine created fear among some members of the public as many believed that speeding up the process may imply skipping essential steps, which undermine public confidence in the vaccines. This suggests that it is important to improve communication to debunk the fear among the public surrounding the expedited COVID-19 vaccine development timelines. Furthermore, the public needs to be convinced that the production of COVID-19 vaccines in such a short time does not imply skipping steps that would compromise safety. Researchers are accelerating the entire development process due to the catastrophic impact of the pandemic. The new mRNA vaccine technology enables rapid development and large-scale production of the vaccines in an expedited timeframe alternative to conventional vaccine approaches [19]. Nonetheless, it remains a great challenge in introducing the new mRNA technology that neither has been used in commercially available vaccines nor tested in large-scale human trials [19][20]. The benefits of the mRNA vaccine along with its safety [19][21][22][23] should be highlighted to demystify the unfounded conspiracy theories, especially with regard to misinformation about mRNA vaccines potentially altering or resulting in human genetic modification.
It remains a challenge to convince the public to accept a new vaccine with the unknown long-term sequelae of vaccination and duration of protection. As most of the concern regarding the long-term side effects of the vaccine surrounds the issues of the constituent of the vaccines, it is of utmost importance to ensure the public about the safety record of the vaccine constituents. The vaccine compositions should be made known to gain the public’s trust in its safety and to address the concern of people who are allergic to certain vaccine constituents, for example, egg proteins. Likewise found in this study, the use of thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative, has been subjected to intense concern as it was thought to cause autism. Mounting evidence shows that the amount of thimerosal in vaccine is small and the risks of serious complications from preventable infections outweigh the risks of its adverse consequences [24]. Hence, the introduction of the COVID-19 vaccines should also be accompanied by messages to demystify the rumors around the mercury-based vaccine preservative. Additionally, hesitancy is also rooted in the ethical concerns of the use of human fetal cells in COVID-19 vaccine development. People with religious convictions expressed hesitancy about COVID-19 vaccines due to ethical concerns that human fetal cells were used in its development [25]. This finding highlight the key role of faith leaders as they are highly trusted individuals in communities [25].
Most importantly, the safety of the vaccine composition needs to be highlighted during vaccine promotion [26]. Another stream of concern identified is the belief that protection after vaccination may be inferior to that acquired after a natural infection. Uncertainties surrounding vaccine protection is one of the fundamental new vaccine development conundrums yet to be adequately addressed. It is currently unknown if any of the candidate COVID-19 vaccines will elicit a better immune protection response than that of the natural infection. Relatively little has been published comparing vaccination-acquired immunity versus immunity acquired following natural infection. To date, there is insufficient evidence comparing the immunity acquired following vaccination versus natural infection. While preliminary results from the ongoing vaccine clinical trials suggest good protection against SARS-CoV-2 infection, it is not yet established whether vaccination may also prevent transmission of the virus. Similarly, it is not known if the acquisition of a natural infection would limit transmission. Nevertheless, the public should be enlightened that vaccines in general have been largely successful in eradicating many infectious disease threats and that the risks of building up immunity to the coronavirus through natural infection outweigh the risks of immunisation. While studies on anti-SARS-CoV-2 antibodies are still ongoing, current evidence is suggestive that protective immunity against SARS-CoV-2 infection is short-lasting [27][28], hence, there is little evidence supporting the benefit of reliance solely on natural immunity in protection against COVID-19.
The mutations of SARS-CoV-2 have been speculated to adversely affect the efficacy of most vaccines, resulting in fear around the need for repeat vaccination, similar to that of seasonal influenza vaccines. Nonetheless, recent evidence indicates that vaccines are unlikely to be affected by the ‘D614G’ mutation (Aspartate-to-Glycine change at position 614) of the SARS-CoV-2 spike protein [29]. Engagement with vaccine sceptics highlighting the well-established scientific data is important as they may lack access to trusted sources of vaccine information, hence, becoming more susceptible to anti-vaccine theories [30]. Highlighting these evidence-based facts will be useful to counteract the misinformation.
According to a recent meta-analysis, the global aggregated estimate of COVID-19 infection fatality rate was 0.68% (0.53–0.82%) [31]. Furthermore, claims circulating on social media stating the CDC reported that the coronavirus has a high survival rate of 99.997%, 99.98%, 99.5%, and 94.6% for the age groups of 0–19, 20–49, 50–60, and 70 years old and above; this has perhaps undermined the public perception of the severity of COVID-19. This is especially misleading if the mortality is calculated simply over the total number of cases ignoring the high mortality rates among those that are vulnerable, such as the elderly and those with co-morbidities. The public should be enlightened that measuring the impact of COVID-19 goes beyond mortality statistics [32]. The severe effects of SARS-CoV-2 infection should not be underestimated although the survival rate is high among those who are otherwise healthy and receive sufficient medical care. On the other hand, the long-term health consequences of SARS-CoV-2 infection remain unknown. Significant pulmonary sequelae such as persistent respiratory symptoms and lung abnormalities have been evidenced months after infection with SARS-CoV-2 [33][34][35] Evidence of post-recovery negative effects in younger patients implies that the potential long-term effects of COVID-19 should be a concern, even for children [36].
The public should also be made aware that no vaccine confers 100% protection against SARS-CoV-2. A recent study reported that the COVID-19 vaccine has to have an efficacy of at least 70% to 80% to end the pandemic [37]. Lastly, as trustworthy information is warranted, providing research-based evidence of vaccine effectiveness would greatly improve COVID-19 vaccine confidence and reduce controversies. Findings of the COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials should be published in order to cease the widespread concerns about the safety and effectiveness of the vaccine. Concerted efforts of the pharmaceutical industries and health authorities on local, national, and international levels are needed for improving or restoring vaccine confidence [38].

References

  1. WHO. . Draft Landscape of COVID-19 Candidate Vaccines. Available online: https://www.who.int/publications/m/item/draft-landscape-of-covid-19-candidate-vaccine (accessed on 23 January 2021).
  2. Peretti-Watel, P.; Seror, V.; Cortaredona, S.; Launay, O.; Raude, J.; Verger, P.; Fressard, L.; Beck, F.; Legleye, S.; L’Haridon, O.; et al. A future vaccination campaign against COVID-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 769–770.
  3. Wong, L.P.; Alias, H.; Wong, P.F.; Lee, H.Y.; AbuBakar, S. The use of the health belief model to assess predictors of intent to receive the COVID-19 vaccine and willingness to pay. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 2204–2214.
  4. Harapan, H.; Wagner, A.L.; Yufika, A.; Winardi, W.; Anwar, S.; Gan, A.K.; Setiawan, A.M.; Rajamoorthy, Y.; Sofyan, H.; Mudatsir, M. Acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine in southeast Asia: A cross-sectional study in Indonesia. Front. Public Health 2020, 8, 381.
  5. Lin, Y.; Hu, Z.; Zhao, Q.; Alias, H.; Danaee, M.; Wong, L.P. Understanding COVID-19 vaccine demand and hesitancy: A nationwide online survey in China. PLoS Negl. Trop. Med. 2020, 14, e0008961.
  6. Malik, A.A.; McFadden, S.M.; Elharake, J.; Omer, S.B. Determinants of COVID-19 vaccine acceptance in the US. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 26, 100495.
  7. Lazarus, J.V.; Ratzan, S.C.; Palayew, A.; Gostin, L.O.; Larson, H.J.; Rabin, K.; Kimball, S.; El-Mohandes, A. A global survey of potential acceptance of a COVID-19 vaccine. Nat. Med. 2021, 27, 225–228.
  8. Cao, S. . Here Are All the Side Effects of Every Top COVID-19 Vaccine in US. Observer. Available online: https://observer.com/2020/10/vaccine-side-effects-moderna-pfizer-johnson-astrazeneca/ (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  9. Farr, C.; Lovelace, B., Jr. . Coronavirus Vaccine Trial Participants Report Day-Long Exhaustion, Fever and Headaches—But Say It’s Worth It. CNBC. Available online: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/10/01/coronavirus-vaccine-trial-participants-exhaustion-fever-headaches.html (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  10. Heidt, A. . COVID-19 Vaccine Trial Pauses After Adverse Reaction. The Scientist. Available online: https://www.the-scientist.com/news-opinion/covid-19-vaccine-trial-pauses-after-adverse-reaction-67917 (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  11. Herper, M. . He Experienced a Severe Reaction to Moderna’s COVID-19 Vaccine Candidate. He’s Still a Believer. STAT. Available online: https://www.statnews.com/2020/05/26/moderna-vaccine-candidate-trial-participant-severe-reaction/ (accessed on 24 January 2021).
  12. Taylor, N.P. . AstraZeneca’s COVID-19 Vaccine Adverse Event Has NIH ‘Very Concerned’. Fierce Biotech. Available online: https://www.fiercebiotech.com/biotech/astrazeneca-s-covid-19-vaccine-adverse-event-has-nih-very-concerned (accessed on 25 January 2021).
  13. Zhang, Y.; Zeng, G.; Pan, H.; Li, C.; Hu, Y.; Chu, K.; Han, W.; Chen, Z.; Tang, R.; Yin, W.; et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of an inactivated SARS-CoV-2 vaccine in healthy adults aged 18–59 years: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase 1/2 clinical trial. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2021, 21, 181–192.
  14. Zhu, F.C.; Li, Y.H.; Guan, X.H.; Hou, L.-H.; Wang, W.-J.; Li, J.-X.; Wu, S.-P.; Wang, B.-S.; Wang, Z.; Wang, L.; et al. Safety, tolerability, and immunogenicity of a recombinant adenovirus type-5 vectored COVID-19 vaccine: A dose-escalation, open-label, non-randomised, first-in-human trial. Lancet 2020, 395, 1845–1854.
  15. Lewis, J.R. . What Is Driving the Decline in People’s Willingness to Take the COVID-19 Vaccine in the United States? JAMA Health Forum. Available online: https://jamanetwork.com/channels/health-forum/fullarticle/2773320?utm_source=silverchair&utm_campaign=jama_network&utm_content=covid_weekly_highlights&utm_medium=email (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  16. WHO. . Ten Threats to Global Health in 2019. Available online: https://www.who.int/vietnam/news/feature-stories/detail/ten-threats-to-global-health-in-2019 (accessed on 29 January 2021).
  17. Stolle, L.B.; Nalamasu, R.; Pergolizzi, J.V.; Varrassi, G.; Magnusson, P.; LeQuang, J.; Breve, F.; The NEMA Research Group. Fact vs fallacy: The anti-vaccine discussion reloaded. Adv. Ther. 2020, 37, 4481–4490.
  18. Golder, S.; Ahmed, S.; Norman, G.; Booth, A. Attitudes toward the ethics of research using social media: A systematic review. J. Med. Internet Res. 2017, 19, e195.
  19. Abbasi, J. COVID-19 and mRNA Vaccines—First large test for a new approach. JAMA 2020, 324, 1125–1127.
  20. Doshi, P. Will COVID-19 vaccines save lives? Current trials aren’t designed to tell us. BMJ 2020, 371, m4037.
  21. Chauhan, G.; Madou, M.J.; Kalra, S.; Chopra, V.; Ghosh, D.; Martinez-Chapa, S.O. Nanotechnology for COVID-19: Therapeutics and vaccine research. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 7760–7782.
  22. Chung, Y.H.; Beiss, V.; Fiering, S.N.; Steinmetz, N.F. COVID-19 vaccine frontrunners and their nanotechnology design. ACS Nano 2020, 14, 12522–12537.
  23. Le, T.T.; Andreadakis, Z.; Kumar, A.; Román, R.G.; Tollefsen, S.; Saville, M.; Mayhew, S. The COVID-19 vaccine development landscape. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 2020, 19, 305–306.
  24. Hurley, A.M.; Tadrous, M.; Miller, E.S. Thimerosal-containing vaccines and autism: A review of recent epidemiologic studies. J. Pediatr. Pharmacol. Ther. 2010, 15, 173–181.
  25. Giubilini, A.; Minerva, F.; Schuklenk, U.; Savulescu, J. The ‘Ethical’COVID-19 Vaccine is the One that Preserves Lives: Religious and Moral Beliefs on the COVID-19 Vaccine. Public Health Ethics 2021, phab018.
  26. Edwards, K.M.; Hackell, J.M. Committee on Infectious Diseases, Committee on Practice and Ambulatory Medicine. Countering vaccine hesitancy. Pediatrics 2016, 138, e20162146.
  27. Edridge, A.W.; Kaczorowska, J.; Hoste, A.C.; Bakker, M.; Klein, M.; Loens, K.; Jebbink, M.F.; Matser, A.; Kinsella, C.M.; Rueda, P.; et al. Seasonal coronavirus protective immunity is short-lasting. Nat. Med. 2020, 26, 1691–1693.
  28. Kellam, P.; Barclay, W. The dynamics of humoral immune responses following SARS-CoV-2 infection and the potential for reinfection. J. Gen. Virol. 2020, 101, 791.
  29. McAuley, A.J.; Kuiper, M.J.; Durr, P.A.; Bruce, M.P.; Barr, J.; Todd, S.; Au, G.G.; Blasdell, K.; Tachedjian, M.; Lowther, S.; et al. Experimental and in silico evidence suggests vaccines are unlikely to be affected by D614G mutation in SARS-CoV-2 spike protein. NPJ Vaccines 2020, 5, 1–5.
  30. Lee, C.H.; Sibley, C.G. Attitudes toward vaccinations are becoming more polarized in New Zealand: Findings from a longitudinal survey. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 23, 100387.
  31. Meyerowitz-Katz, G.; Merone, L. A systematic review and meta-analysis of published research data on COVID-19 infection-fatality rates. Int. J. Infect. Dis. 2020, 101, 138–148.
  32. Beaney, T.; Clarke, J.M.; Jain, V.; Golestaneh, A.K.; Lyons, G.; Salman, D.; Majeed, A. Excess mortality: The gold standard in measuring the impact of COVID-19 worldwide? J. R. Soc. Med. 2020, 113, 329–334.
  33. Fraser, E. Long term respiratory complications of COVID-19. BMJ 2020, 370.
  34. Salehi, S.; Reddy, S.; Gholamrezanezhad, A. Long-term pulmonary consequences of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19): What we know and what to expect. J. Thorac. Imaging 2020, 35, W87–W89.
  35. Yelin, D.; Wirtheim, E.; Vetter, P.; Kalil, A.C.; Bruchfeld, J.; Runold, M.; Guaraldi, G.; Mussini, C.; Gudiol, C.; Pujol, M.; et al. Long-term consequences of COVID-19: Research needs. Lancet Infect. Dis. 2020, 20, 1115–1117.
  36. Ahmed, M.; Advani, S.; Moreira, A.; Zoretic, S.; Martinez, J.; Chorath, K.; Acosta, S.; Naqvi, R.; Burmeister-Morton, F.; Burmeister, F.; et al. Multisystem inflammatory syndrome in children: A systematic review. EClinicalMedicine 2020, 26, 100527.
  37. Bartsch, S.M.; O’Shea, K.J.; Ferguson, M.C.; Bottazzi, M.E.; Wedlock, P.T.; Strych, U.; McKinnell, J.A.; Siegmund, S.S.; Cox, S.N.; Hotez, P.J.; et al. Vaccine efficacy needed for a COVID-19 coronavirus vaccine to prevent or stop an epidemic as the sole intervention. Am. J. Prev. Med. 2020, 59, 493–503.
  38. Badur, S.; Ota, M.; Öztürk, S.; Adegbola, R.; Dutta, A. Vaccine confidence: The keys to restoring trust. Hum. Vaccines Immunother. 2020, 16, 1007–1017.
More
© Text is available under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license; additional terms may apply. By using this site, you agree to the Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy.
Upload a video for this entry
Information
Subjects: Health Care Sciences & Services
Contributor MDPI registered users' name will be linked to their SciProfiles pages. To register with us, please refer to https://encyclopedia.pub/register :
Yulan Lin
View Times: 489
Entry Collection: COVID-19
Revisions: 2 times (View History)
Update Date: 18 Nov 2021
Table of Contents
    1000/1000
    Hot Most Recent
    Feedback