"Given reports such as the rise in COVID-19 cases and deaths in countries like Australia post-vaccine rollout (post-Feb 2020), is it time to reconsider how vaccine hesitancy is framed in scientific and public discourse — as a risk or a rational response demanding deeper engagement with data?"
General public is not in a position to oppose vaccine vehemently. But faith and belief are to be established in the mind of individuals. Remember, smallpox was eradicated through vaccination. Similar is rabies having proper vaccination.Remember, both are viral diseases.
Three tips for talking to a vaccine sceptic
Research gives specific advice for conversations about vaccine hesitancy...
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-025-02105-9
Vaccine hesitancy is not monolithic; it ranges from dangerous misinformation to legitimate concern.
Addressing it requires nuanced public health strategies and a shift from authority to dialogue.
Vaccine hesitancy is extremely complex and shaped by a range of social, and psychological factors. I reject the notion of a binary classification - as either simply "a risk" or "a rational response demanding deeper engagement with data". Rather, hesitancy often arises in contexts where individuals are repeatedly exposed to misinformation, such as claims that vaccines cause autism (I've seen a lot of this again recently), contain harmful toxins, or were insufficiently tested due to the rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines. When people lack the necessary knowledge or access to credible sources to effectively debunk such information, then I'd argue vaccine hesitancy can be understood as a rational response to the information environment they are situated within. Addressing vaccine hesitancy, therefore, requires nuanced engagement that acknowledges these complexities rather than reducing the issue to a simple risk calculation or rationality judgement.
In the current era of information, even misinformation spreads like wildfire. Given easy access to public especially social media where accountability is still missing, anyone with partial knowledge has power to influence public at large. Even scientific research is found divided in pro and against the vaccine. Although most of the research papers are credible and covers scope of the study including limitations, 'suitable' part is taken out from such papers for making bias claims. While acceptability of vaccine is in question, the solution is complex and only suitable authorities should provide full information to medical practitioners and to public in common.
University staff criticised for fire ant treatment and vaccine misinformation
University of Queensland researchers have spread misinformation around the safety of vaccines and fire ant treatments...
"In the case of vaccines, children's lives can be lost because the public is exposed to unbalanced articles dressed up as scientific papers."
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-07-29/uq-staff-fire-ant-treatment-and-vaccine-misinformation/105582572
- Badges
- Science topic
- Similar topics
- Linguistics
- Composition Studies
- Writing