Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items
Previous Archive
08 October 2021 | Story Angie Vorster | Photo Supplied
Angie Vorster is a Clinical Psychologist in the School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Free State (UFS), and believes that the only way to get rid of COVID-19, or at least to continue our lives alongside it, is for all of us to be vaccinated against this deadly virus

Opinion article by Angie Vorster, Clinical Psychologist in the School of Clinical Medicine, University of the Free State.


The World Mental Health Day campaign has chosen ‘Mental Health in an Unequal World’ as the theme for 2021. This is partly to raise awareness of the distinct polarisation between countries and individuals that has been highlighted by the COVID-19 pandemic over the past two years.  Access to health-care resources is significantly impinging the ability of countries across the world to address the effects of the pandemic, and stark inequality regarding pivotal elements such as access to vaccines has become visible. Obtaining, storing, and distributing vaccines has proven to add another burden to countries that are already financially and resource-impeded. Yet, once South Africa was lucky enough to secure adequate amounts of vaccines, we were faced with a baffling dilemma. How to get our residents to actually take it? In trying to understand the psychology behind vaccine hesitancy, it is interesting to note that the World Health Organisation listed vaccine hesitancy (delaying or refusing vaccination) as one of the top ten threats to global health – well before the outbreak of the COVID-19 virus. 

Understanding why people refuse or resist vaccination

To understand why people – who are otherwise reasonable, conscientious, and informed individuals – would refuse or resist vaccination, it is helpful to look at the 5C model. The first aspect is confidence – the extent to which the person trusts that the vaccine is safe and will in fact do what it is said to do. Confidence is also affected by the level of trust that the individual has in the system that dispatches the vaccine – consequently, individuals who are hesitant to vaccinate are likely to be suspicious of authority figures and structures. Another factor is the number of constraints that individuals face in accessing the vaccine. If there are many barriers (e.g., unable to afford transport to the vaccination site, unable to take time off work, etc.) in terms of the calculation of costs versus benefits, obviously it would be easier to delay or refuse vaccination. Interestingly, perceived scarcity makes items/events more desirable. Perhaps it is the very fact that the vaccine is free and available that makes people not interested in receiving it. 

Having a sense of collective responsibility and altruism are important characteristics in those who submit to vaccination. People who refuse vaccination tend to be more individualistically orientated and less motivated by the greater good of all, than by their own personal preferences. And this brings us to the final C, which is complacency. People who perceive the risk of COVID-19 as low tend to feel less urgency to vaccinate. Unfortunately, these are the patients who admit to COVID ward front-line workers that they now regret not getting vaccinated when they had the chance; instead, they frequently come to this realisation once their prognosis is terminal and they are facing the harrowing reality of dying, separated from their loved ones. 

And then we all know someone who believes in an ‘alternative’ explanation for the COVID-19 virus and its vaccine. There are many hypotheses as to why people prefer conspiracy theories over scientific truth – some of which include the fact that the science behind understanding viruses and their prevention is quite abstract and too complicated for lay people to understand. Unless they witness the devastating impact of the virus first-hand – it may be difficult to comprehend that an invisible entity can do so much damage. Another explanation is that the truth of a natural disaster such as a pandemic, which can occur at any time, randomly, and without warning, catching humanity off guard, is just too frightening to accept. So, it makes us feel safer to believe that humans ARE in fact in control and actually created COVID-19 for some larger sinister goal. Otherwise, we are left to contemplate how utterly vulnerable we all really are. Instead, we deny reality and substitute it with something that makes us feel a bit better. 

How to encourage all citizens to get vaccinated

So, how do we encourage all citizens to get vaccinated in order for our society to regain some pre-pandemic normality? Force, anger, and frustration (which are undoubtedly justified, particularly by those who work on the front line, and by those who have lost loved ones due to this virus) are not going to get us there. Instead, we need religious and other leaders to set the example and publicly advocate for vaccination. We need to tailor the information to the vast majority of South Africans who are not science-literate, making it accessible and understandable in their home language. Unfortunately, there is a significant percentage who will not be swayed by these actions, and for these fellow South Africans I have the following message:

It does not matter anymore whether or not COVID-19 is in fact the product of a global conspiracy and whether or not the companies that create vaccines do so only for financial gain. It does not matter that this all happened very fast and that we all realised how terribly weak and vulnerable the human body is. What does matter is that this virus is here. In our homes, our schools, cities, and country. And the only way to get rid of it, or at least to continue our lives alongside it, is for all of us to be vaccinated. We have science – facts, not opinions or feelings or theories or beliefs – to tell us that vaccines are safe and effective. In ten years from now, this will be the plague of 2020. I hope that you will be able to say that you were brave, even though you were scared, even though you were unsure, even though you might have been fine without the vaccine, but that you were strong enough and kind enough and human enough to do this small thing for the greater good of humanity. And our children will thank you for restoring connection and hugs, concerts, and playtime at school without distancing and sanitiser and masks. You will have done something important. For your community and your country and in fact, the world. This is your chance to be part of a great victory of humanity over a seemingly insurmountable tide of death and suffering. Our hope lies in you. Take this great responsibility, wear it with pride and importance, and meet us at the other side of COVID-19.

News Archive

Bloemfontein's quality of tap water compares very favourably with bottled water
2009-08-04

The quality of the drinking water of five suburbs in Bloemfontein is at least as good as or better than bottled water. This is the result of a standard and chemical bacterial analysis done by the University of the Free State’s (UFS) Centre for Environmental Management in collaboration with the Institute for Groundwater Studies (IGS).

Five samples were taken from tap water sources in the suburbs of Universitas, Brandwag, Bain’s Vlei, Langenhoven Park and Bayswater and 15 samples were taken of different brands of still and unflavoured bottled water. The samples were analysed at the laboratory of the IGS, while the interpretation of the analysis was done by the Centre for Environmental Management.

“We wanted to evaluate the difference in quality for human consumption between tap water and that of the different brands of bottled water,” said Prof. Maitland Seaman, Head of the Centre for Environmental Management.

“With the exception of two samples produced by multinational companies at their plants in South Africa, the different brands of bottled water used for the study were produced by South African companies, including a local small-scale Bloemfontein producer,” said Prof. Seaman.

According to the labels, the sources of the water vary from pure spring water, to partial reverse osmosis (as an aid to standardise salt, i.e. mineral, content), to only reverse osmosis (to remove salts). (Reverse osmosis is a process in which water is forced under pressure through a pipe with minute pores through which water passes but no – or very low concentrations of – salts pass.)

According to Prof. Seaman, the analysis revealed some interesting findings, such as:

• It is generally accepted that drinking water should have an acceptable level of salt content, as the body needs salts. Most mineral contents were relatively higher in the tap water samples than the bottled water samples and were very much within the acceptable range of drinkable water quality. One of the bottled samples, however, had a very low mineral content, as the water was produced by reverse osmosis, as stated on the bottle. While reverse osmosis is used by various producers, most producers use it as an aid, not as a single method to remove nearly all the salts. Drinking only such water over a prolonged period may probably have a negative effect on the human physiology.

• The pH values of the tap water samples (8,12–8,40) were found to be slightly higher (slightly alkaline), like in all south-eastern Free State rivers (from where the water is sourced) than the pH of most of the bottled water samples, most of which are sourced and/or treated in other areas. Two brands of bottled water were found to have relatively low pH levels (both 4,5, i.e. acidic) as indicated on their bottles and as confirmed by the IGS analysis. The health implication of this range of pH is not significant.

• The analysis showed differences in the mineral content given on the labels of most of the water bottles compared to that found by IGS analysis. The possibility of seasonal fluctuation in content, depending on various factors, is expected and most of the bottling companies also indicate this on their labels. What was a rather interesting finding was that two pairs of bottled water brands claimed exactly the same mineral content but appeared under different brand names and were also priced differently. In each case, one of the pair was a well-known house brand, and the other obviously the original producer. In one of these paired cases, the house brand stated that the water was spring water, while the other (identical) “original” brand stated that it was spring water treated by reverse osmosis and oxygen-enriched.

• Nitrate (NO3) levels were uniformly low except in one bottled sample, suggesting a low (non-threatening) level of organic pollution in the source water. Otherwise, none of the water showed any sign of pollution.

• The bacterial analysis confirmed the absence of any traces of coliforms or E.coli in any of the samples, as was also indicated by the bottling companies. This is very reassuring. What is not known is how all these waters were sterilised, which could be anything from irradiation to chlorine or ozone treatment.

• The price of the different brands of bottled water, each containing 500 ml of still water, ranged between R3,99 and R8,99, with R5,03 being the average price. A comparison between the least expensive and the most expensive bottles of water indicated no significant difference in quality. In fact, discrepancies were observed in the most expensive bottle in that the amount of Calcium (Ca) claimed to be present in it was found to be significantly different from what the analysis indicated (29,6 mg/l versus 0,92 mg/l). The alkalinity (CaCO3 mg/l) indicated on the bottle was also found to differ considerably (83 mg/l versus 9,4 mg/l). The concentration of Total Dissolved Salts (TDS) was not given on the product.

“The preference for bottled water as compared to Bloemfontein’s tap water from a qualitative perspective as well as the price discrepancy is unjustifiable. The environmental footprint of bottled water is also large. Sourcing, treating, bottling, packaging and transporting, to mention but a few of the steps involved in the processing of bottled water, entail a huge carbon footprint, as well as a large water footprint, because it also requires water for treating and rinsing to process bottled water,” said Prof. Seaman.

Media Release
Lacea Loader
Deputy Director: Media Liaison
Tel: 051 401 2584
Cell: 083 645 2454
E-mail: loaderl.stg@ufs.ac.za  
3 August 2009

 

We use cookies to make interactions with our websites and services easy and meaningful. To better understand how they are used, read more about the UFS cookie policy. By continuing to use this site you are giving us your consent to do this.

Accept