The Strategies to Support the COVID-19 Vaccination with Evidence-Based Communication and Tackling Misinformation

"[T]he typical communication limited to national authorities and health institutions will not be sufficient to successfully reach the general public and decrease vaccine hesitancy, because COVID-19 by itself is not a typical situation..."

As of this writing, COVID-19 vaccinations are about to begin in various countries or are underway. This is massive operation is being met with a vocal response from anti-vaccine communities, who are using all available channels to shape public opinion. This article suggests that strategies to educate people about vaccination, to explain their mechanism of action, and to build trust in science need to go beyond vaccine promotion campaigns that provide information from health institutions and national authorities. Rather, the authors argue that independent experts need to take part in efforts to counteract anti-vaccine propaganda and to provide evidence-based information.

As noted here, some world regions are expected to wait longer for the broad availability of vaccines; in such places, the spread of misinformation and fake news may have disastrous effects on people's decision-making process about whether to accept the COVID-19 vaccine. This may be particularly true for less developed regions, e.g., Africa, where science communication regarding COVID-19 has been subdued, and where strong cultural and religious beliefs, as well as limited access to education, could exacerbate the spread of myths and misconceptions among the public and even political leaders. "Therefore, it is high time to act now, regardless of the status of the vaccine in a particular country and its social and economic development level."

The actions outlined here include:

• Organising an expert group to communicate about the science behind COVID-19 vaccines: Such a group should be made up of independent experts hailing from a wide range of scientific areas, including primary care physicians, without any conflicts of interest and with professional support from experienced public relations agencies and local media. The authors suggest that their first action should be development of a white paper whose contents are strictly based on the newest scientific data but presented in plain language. More specifically, it should provide accurate yet understandable information - regularly updated - for non-specialists that covers the mechanism of vaccines' action, the research process, approval regulations, and individual and public benefits of vaccinations against COVID-19, as well as their safety profile. It should be made available online and also disseminated through social and traditional media. To increase its impact, the white paper could be accompanied by infographics, explanatory videos, and Q&A sessions made available online. It should be translated into local languages as necessary and distributed to local authorities and health institutions, who can then share it with the general public.
• Tracking and tackling emerging and circulating fake news: The expert group could, for example, cooperate with fact-checking agencies and local media, providing them with assistance in addressing the circulating fake news. It is advised to avoid personal attacks on individuals spreading the false claims, to provide commentaries from diverse experts, and to support the information with high-quality scientific references. The emphasis should be put on providing facts and explanations in plain language, not engendering highly emotional reactions to the fact-checking materials that can subsequently generate distrust.
• Equipping celebrities and politicians with scientific information to ensure the quality of messages they communicate: Given their influence on public opinion, celebrities could be convinced and supported to promote pro-vaccine campaigns and vaccination programmes. They could do so by making official statements via online social or national media, as well as taking their vaccine in public. The expert group should recruit these individuals from different age groups to reach the public in the broadest manner. Another recommendation is to engage politicians representing different sides of the political scene to support vaccination. However, in both the case of celebrities and politicians, "extreme care must be taken to ensure the highest quality of the message conveyed by these individuals."
• Expressing support for COVID-19 vaccination through public letters and statements: Vaccinated scientists, medical practitioners, and very important persons (VIPs) could write signed, open letters of support for vaccination. These statements, some of which have already been made during the COVID-19 pandemic by scientific communities, can be used by media outlets to positively shape public opinion.
• Adopting a no-tolerance policy about false and manipulated claims on vaccination spread via traditional and social media, as well as by health professionals, scientists, and academics: Such claims "must be considered as unethical and treated as such on a legal level by medical councils, universities, and scientific institutes. Democracy does allow for free speech, but it does not exempt those who spread false claims from its consequences." Other players in this no-tolerance policy include social media companies, who could add a tool allowing users to specifically report content they suspect is "fake news" on COVID-19 and vaccines. The social media operators could then consult with the group of experts to verify the accuracy of the reported content. Traditional media also needs to communicate information and news on vaccinations in a responsible manner, avoiding hysteria-inducing headlines and click-bait techniques to generate higher revenue. Cases of severe adverse reactions to vaccinations should always be put in the context of the general frequency of such events in the population and potential background causes in order to prevent the risk of false impressions that might increase fears about the vaccination and fuel anti-vaccine movements.

In conclusion: "If we are about to control the pandemic for the sake of public benefit, it is high time to collectively speak out as academic and medical societies with support from decision-makers. Otherwise, the battle will be lost to those who stand against scientific evidence while offering no feasible solution to the problem."