Changing the Conversation about COVID to Get More People Vaccinated
This article talks about the type of messaging that is most effective at changing minds about vaccination and how we can provide that messaging through discussion about long COVID-19.
How can we help stop the spread of COVID-19? The question isn’t so much about what we need to stop the spread, we know we need people to get vaccinated, wear masks, and practice social distance, but how do we convince people whose minds seem to be made up against doing any of these things?
The misinformation and political rhetoric have made this feel like an impossible task. We need our patients to listen to us, and we can feel defeated when they would rather believe a radio host than their health care providers. Giving up is not the answer. We need to change the way we speak about COVID-19 and the benefits of getting vaccinated.
The messaging everyone has heard over and over again has been about full hospitals and ICU’s. We have talked about overworked and exhausted healthcare providers and the danger for patients this creates. We have begged people to wear masks to stop the spread and protect their community. We have told the heartbreaking stories of people who are asking for the vaccine just before they are intubated, and of the COVID-19 deniers that reverse their stance when they become seriously ill. It baffles us that, with all this information, people continue to deny that COVID-19 is a problem, or refuse to follow public health guidelines. It’s not personal to them, it doesn’t affect them, and it’s not a problem until it becomes personal.
When we talk to our patients we need to make it personal. Research on messaging to increase COVID-19 vaccination rates found that emphasizing personal benefits of vaccination increased participants' intention to get vaccinated more than any other type of messaging1. One way we can make the message personal is by talking about the long-term consequences of COVID-19 infection. There is more than ICU’s, and ventilators to talk about with our patients. How many times have you heard someone say they don’t have to worry about COVID because they are young, or healthy? In the context of severe illness and hospitalization, they are probably right. The majority of people infected with COVID-19 experience mild illness.
Of course anyone can experience severe illness, but for younger people, people without pre-existing conditions the threat of hospitalization or death is not personal. We need to educate our patients about the long-term effects of COVID-19 on their personal health. A study completed by the University of Arizona Health Sciences found that 68% of patients with mild or moderate covid experienced long COVID, only slightly less than those hospitalized with COVID2. Long COVID or Post COVID is defined as experiencing one or more symptoms lasting four or more weeks3. The most commonly reported symptoms from the University of Arizona study were: fatigue, shortness of breath, brain fog, and stress or anxiety4.
The following is a list of the most common post-COVID symptoms5:
Difficulty breathing or shortness of breath
Tiredness or fatigue
Symptoms that get worse after physical or mental activities (also known as post-exertional malaise)
Difficulty thinking or concentrating (sometimes referred to as “brain fog”)
Cough
Chest or stomach pain
Headache
Fast-beating or pounding heart (also known as heart palpitations)
Joint or muscle pain
Pins-and-needles feeling
Diarrhea
Sleep problems
Fever
Dizziness on standing (lightheadedness)
Rash
Mood changes
Change in smell or taste
Changes in menstrual period cycles
While there are limitations to the data, it seems the prevalence of these symptoms is high and may affect a large number of people. It remains to be seen how long these symptoms may last and how COVID-19 infection may impact a person’s overall health. It is important for healthcare providers to relay this information to patients who may not know that COVID 19 may have a long-term impact on their health or cause disability. Perhaps then we can change some people’s minds about getting vaccinated to protect themselves from infection and the long-term consequences of that infection.
And yet, there is the subject of this question asked by the OP. So like it or not their feelings irrational or not will eventually have to be considered, in order to get more and more people vaccinated. The mandates will work to an extent and then they will fail to work. People will get jobs from employers who don't have mandates. Not to mention after a person lost their due to a mandate, do you think that rhetoric like yours is going to convince people to get vaccinated?
So what is the point of this thread? Seriously? Eventually people will have to consider the unvaccinated concerns.
This has been a frequent argument, that more people would get vaccinated if we "consider" their reasoning for not getting vaccinated. As though this section hasn't been non-stop "considering" of people's stated reasons.
It seems that by "consider" what you're referring to is that we should accept or at least not disagree with people's stated reason for non getting vaccinated, as though that would somehow then cause these folks to decide to get vaccinated.
Why ask about changing the conversation on vaccination in order to get more people vaccinated, when the people asking don't want to change their conversation. What exactly does the OP want to change?
If nothing is broke, no change of conversation is needed.
Why ask about changing the conversation on vaccination in order to get more people vaccinated, when the people asking don't want to change their conversation. What exactly does the OP want to change?
If nothing is broke, no change of conversation is needed.
What is it you're suggesting should be different about the conversation?
I've already learned that constructive conversations with your kind is impossible.
You outed yourself when you attempted to paint the wonderful and absolutely necessary immunity and legal liability enjoyed by the vaccine makers are something to be suspicious of and to scare people with.
My "kind"? You mean people who disagree with you? So you are not willing to talk to anyone who has a different opinion?
Bigot-a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
I’m going to throw a crazy idea out - try searching on the phrase you mention above. I’m thinking you just might find your answer on your own.
I understand that you think I should go and look for it. It most have been a long time since you have been in school. But in an academic discussion which this is supposed to be (if you want to be taken seriously), you should provide references. I have been doing that all through out our discussion. The point of a reference is so people can look at the same reference you are using and judge for themselves the quality of the reference. There is a big difference between referencing a news article made by journalist and a peer reviewed research publication.
Don’t hold your breath. He flat out refused to look at information that would have placed his originally cited statistics in context. So much for honest discussion.
What information are you referring to? I am trying to have an honest discussion as to how to get more people vaccinated. Do you have any better ideas than what I have proposed? Obviously mandating vaccines is not going to work in regards to getting everyone vaccinated. It's going to create new problems such as lack of employees in critical positions. Firefighters, police officers, and nurses for example are leaving New York, and heading to Florida. People are leaving states that are mandating vaccines and going to states not mandating it. The vaccine mandate at this very moment is being litigated in courts. People have very strong opinions in regards to what is put in their body. Education has always been the most effective approach towards public health issues. For example has the war on drugs been effective in stopping drug use? I think not. Countries that have used education as a means of stopping drug use, have had better outcomes. Vaccine mandates are only going to lead to mistrust of the medical community by the people not wanting to get vaccinated.
A. Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection.
B. Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.
Nobody cares if you do not take them seriously. Your so-called “academic discussion “ isn’t, no matter how wordy and condescending you get. Faux intellectual gobbledegook doesn’t work with this crowd.
" The irrational fears, twisted science and crazy data analysis has been regurgitated and heard again and again and again. "
How is the science "twisted" and the data analysis "crazy"? Your opinion bears no weight in the scientific community unless you have a data set proving the contrary. This "crazy and twisted science" is coming from the international community not just American right ring "antivaxers".
Here is a real peer reviewed article published in a real scientific journal discussing the international communities report of myocarditis/pericarditis which you label as "crazy and twisted".
Pepe, S., Gregory, A. T., & Denniss, A. R. (2021). Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 30(10), 1425–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2021.07.011
A. Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection.
B. Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.
Nobody cares if you do not take them seriously. Your so-called “academic discussion “ isn’t, no matter how wordy and condescending you get. Faux intellectual gobbledegook doesn’t work with this crowd.
" Refused to consider the comparison between the vaccine dose effects you listed and the incidence and severity of the same conditions occurring as complications of Covid infection"
OK that is your assumption. All I have been saying is that people should have a choice to receive medical treatment which has risks regardless of how small that risk is. What else should we mandate in the future because it is in the best interest of public health? If you think government public mandates will stop with this vaccine you are mistaken. Will vaccines in the future with higher risk profiles be acceptable to you in the name of public health? What other medical interventions will be mandated in the name of public health? If we go down this path of mandating medical treatments patients will no longer have autonomy. I don't understand why that is so difficult to understand. If you really want people to get vaccinated educate them on different risk profiles you are talking about instead of treating them as crazy "antivaxers".
Did not have a clue that there already exists a mechanism for compensating those who experience a “vaccine injury” that does not require a lawsuit.
OK so because I don't know something that automatically discredits me. So with that logic med surge nurses who don't know how to use vasoactive drips discredit themselves as nurses. Lack of knowing something does not discredit an individual. Claiming to know something when in reality you don't does. I am still waiting for the reference regarding the vaccine injury compensation mechanism. I have no idea as to the quality of your reference until you provide a reference.
LOL wordy and condescending? I have not been using ad hominem attacks to prove my position.
My "kind"? You mean people who disagree with you? So you are not willing to talk to anyone who has a different opinion?
Bigot-a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.
A "bigot" is someone who holds views of others that are not reasoned; believing someone is dangerous simply because of the color of their skin is bigoted, believing someone is dangerous because they admitted to being a serial killer is not bigoted.
15 minutes ago, Sciencedude1 said:
How is the science "twisted" and the data analysis "crazy"? Your opinion bears no weight in the scientific community unless you have a data set proving the contrary. This "crazy and twisted science" is coming from the international community not just American right ring "antivaxers".
Here is a real peer reviewed article published in a real scientific journal discussing the international communities report of myocarditis/pericarditis which you label as "crazy and twisted".
Pepe, S., Gregory, A. T., & Denniss, A. R. (2021). Myocarditis, pericarditis and cardiomyopathy after COVID-19 vaccination. Heart, Lung and Circulation, 30(10), 1425–1429. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hlc.2021.07.011
That's an editorial and not actually a peer-reviewed study, but it references peer reviewed studies.
It points out that myocarditis caused by vaccination is typically mild and "is resolved rapidly". But myocarditis caused by Covid infection is generally more severe and often permanent, and occurs far more commonly (the risk of myocarditis due to covid infection is 9 to 10 times that of the risk following vaccination). And that's just one of many serious and often long-term sequalae of Covid infection.
A "bigot" is someone who holds views of others that are not reasoned; believing someone is dangerous simply because of the color of their skin is bigoted, believing someone is dangerous because they admitted to being a serial killer is not bigoted.
That's an editorial and not actually a peer-reviewed study, but it references peer reviewed studies.
It points out that myocarditis caused by vaccination is typically mild and "is resolved rapidly". But myocarditis caused by Covid infection is generally more severe and often permanent, and occurs far more commonly (the risk of myocarditis due to covid infection is 9 to 10 times that of the risk following vaccination). And that's just one of many serious and often long-term sequalae of Covid infection.
So why should anyone be forced to take the risk of myocarditis again if they have already been infected with covid19 and can prove immunity with an antibody titer? Especially considering the actual infection with covid19 provides a more robust and longer acting immunity.
MunoRN, RN
8,058 Posts
This has been a frequent argument, that more people would get vaccinated if we "consider" their reasoning for not getting vaccinated. As though this section hasn't been non-stop "considering" of people's stated reasons.
It seems that by "consider" what you're referring to is that we should accept or at least not disagree with people's stated reason for non getting vaccinated, as though that would somehow then cause these folks to decide to get vaccinated.