Uniquely Uncertain: The impact of COVID-19 on vaccine hesitancy

Banner image: Shutterstock / Alexxndr
Uniquely Uncertain: The impact of COVID-19 on vaccine hesitancy

This article is part of a series in which OECD experts and thought leaders — from around the world and all parts of society — address the COVID-19 crisis, discussing and developing solutions now and for the future. It aims to foster the fruitful exchange of expertise and perspectives across fields to help us rise to this critical challenge. Opinions expressed do not necessarily represent the views of the OECD.

To keep updated on all of the OECD's work supporting the fight against COVID-19, visit our Digital Content Hub.

Vaccine hesitancy refers to people who are uncertain about vaccination, and they may delay or refuse some or all vaccines. They are not the “anti-vaxxers” who oppose vaccination and can be quite vocal about their opposition. Those who are vaccine hesitant are of most interest to public health authorities, as a potentially large group with the possibility to be persuaded to vaccinate.

COVID-19 presents a unique situation of mass vaccination during a pandemic, with new vaccines — some using novel technologies — likely to undergo emergency authorisation. Due to expected initial scarcity, guidance has been issued by the World Health Organization and government advisory groups for vaccine prioritisation. The targets are older adults, health and social care workers and those with comorbidities. Involving the public in this process of prioritisation may be crucial for buy-in and perceptions of fairness. For example, France is currently engaging in a citizen consultation via several advisory groups (le Conseil scientifique and le Comité analyse, recherche et expertise), to avoid the problems with vaccine uptake they faced with 2009 H1N1 pandemic.

We can also learn from previous vaccine campaigns, where certain sections of the population have been the focus for influenza, shingles and pneumococcal vaccinations. While uptake based on influenza vaccination by older adults in some countries looks promising, those in older groups have also tended to be more supportive in polling. The at-risk groups are more problematic to vaccinate, and may need more tailored messaging and help with access. For the COVID-19 vaccines deployed, while there may be a high demand on one hand by people who want to be protected and return to normality, low vaccine uptake is still a threat.

Also on the Forum Network: Novel Virus, Novel Vaccine: Communicating clearly and honestly around a COVID-19 vaccine by Sandra Kanthal, Producer of How to Vaccinate the World, BBC Radio 4, BBC Radio 4

Indications are that people may be hesitant because of the newness of the vaccine; the technologies used; and speed of development that has caused concerns about side effects, including in the long term. There is also misinformation and disinformation circulating about mRNA vaccines being able to change DNA, and about bad intentions of governments, pharmaceutical companies and international organisations. One popular conspiracy theory argues that Bill Gates intends to microchip and control people with a vaccine.

While it is important to remove such false information online, proactive messaging is also needed in order to counter alternative views and fill information voids. Where people have legitimate questions and concerns, these should be answered. The content should include the process of vaccine development, how vaccines are tested for safety and effectiveness, how ongoing monitoring occurs and how deployment will happen fairly. Such messaging should start early to engage with communities and understand their views.

Where people have legitimate questions and concerns, these should be answered.

Health professionals and scientists tend to be more highly trusted than governments and pharmaceutical companies, so it should be these groups — along with community and religious leaders and media personalities — that deliver messages. The role of respected public institutions, such as universities and research institutes, and the integrity of regulatory bodies should be highlighted.

If vaccine hesitancy has a significant impact on uptake, at the extreme we may see governments deciding to make vaccination mandatory. This possibility is already emerging as a concern for those hesitant or opposed to vaccination, and may be counterproductive if it produces a backlash or weakens trust between the public and the government. What is more likely is the occurrence of “conditional mandatory vaccination”, where vaccination is required in certain situations. For example, vaccination can sometimes be attached as a condition of employment in some institutions. It remains to be seen whether health and social care workers will be compelled to be vaccinated by their employer. In addition, vaccination is required for travel for some diseases and countries and even for particular events, such as the pilgrimage of Muslims to Mecca.

Also on the Forum Network: From Vaccines to a Global Cure: Why international co-operation is so important for stopping COVID-19 by Mark Pearson,  Deputy Director of Employment, Labour and Social Affairs, OECD

What is known currently is that as vaccines are being deployed, it will take time to manufacture and distribute them. While problems may also be faced in vaccine uptake, there is a danger of complacency and fatigue with public health measures. There will be a continued necessity to adhere to handwashing, mask-wearing and social distancing in the meantime before the promises of vaccines become a reality.

Find out more about the OECD’s work on The race to vaccinate

Find out more about the OECD’s work on The race to vaccinate

Related topics

Tackling COVID-19 Health Trust Vaccines

Whether you agree, disagree or have another point of view, join the Forum Network for free using your email or social media accounts and tell us what's happening where you are. Your comments are what make the network the unique space it is, connecting citizens, experts and policy makers in open and respectful debate.

Please sign in

If you are a registered user on The OECD Forum Network, please sign in

Go to the profile of Peter Kraneveld
over 2 years ago

I am disappointed at how this approach focusses on "educating" the public. While all the relevant points are made, this allows minimisation of the role of the vaccine producers.

In particular Astra Zeneca (AZ) has from the beginning shown a disastrous lack of understanding on how good communications build trust. Its testing programme was considered incomplete. It announced higher efficiency for 1½ doses than for 2 doses, only to retract that later, it made delivery promises it could not keep by a long shot, it was found out too late that the vaccine was not tested on the elderly who were to be injected in the first wave, it did not became clear on how efficient the medication was against new strains - causing large lots to slosh from India to South Africa to ... where, in the end? The garbage can?

Its crude communication on what amounts to re-directing vaccines produced in the EU to the UK showed an unbelievable political ineptness that threatens free trade between what should be natural trading partners. It reacted to the current flap on blood clots by a curt denial that by this time had zero credibility. There is no evidence that AZ learns or improves. This is no way to build trust. On the contrary, it is an explanation of why there are now reports coming out of Germany in particular that people opt out of vaccination altogether, rather than get an AZ shot.