Latest News Archive

Please select Category, Year, and then Month to display items

They who hesitate are lost – the psychology of vaccine hesitancy and refusal

08 October 2021 | Story Angie Vorster | Photo Supplied

AngieVorster copy — 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

Weideman focuses on misconceptions with regard to survival of Afrikaans

2006-05-19

From the left are Prof Magda Fourie (Vice-Rector: Academic Planning), Prof Gerhardt de Klerk (Dean: Faculty of the Humanities), George Weideman and Prof Bernard Odendaal (acting head of the UFS Department of Afrikaans and Dutch, German and French).
Photo (Stephen Collett):

Weideman focuses on misconceptions with regard to survival of Afrikaans

On the survival of a language a persistent and widespread misconception exists that a “language will survive as long as people speak the language”. This argument ignores the higher functions of a language and leaves no room for the personal and historic meaning of a language, said the writer George Weideman.

He delivered the D.F. Malherbe Memorial Lecture organised by the Department Afrikaans at the University of the Free State (UFS). Dr. Weideman is a retired lecturer and now full-time writer. In his lecture on the writer’s role and responsibility with regard to language, he also focused on the language debate at the University of Stellenbosch (US).

He said the “as-long-as-it-is spoken” misconception ignores the characteristics and growth of literature and other cultural phenomena. Constitutional protection is also not a guarantee. It will not stop a language of being reduced to a colloquial language in which the non-standard form will be elevated to the norm. A language only grows when it standard form is enriched by non-standard forms; not when its standard form withers. The growth or deterioration of a language is seen in the growth or decline in its use in higher functions. The less functions a language has, the smaller its chance to survive.

He said Afrikaans speaking people are credulous and have misplaced trust. It shows in their uncritical attitude with regard to the shifts in university policies, university management and teaching practices. Afrikaners have this credulity perhaps because they were spoilt by white supremacy, or because the political liberation process did not free them from a naïve and slavish trust in government.

If we accept that a university is a kind of barometer for the position of a language, then the institutionalised second placing of Afrikaans at most tertiary institutions is not a good sign for the language, he said.

An additional problem is the multiplying effect with, for instance, education students. If there is no need for Afrikaans in schools, there will also be no need for Afrikaans at universities, and visa versa.

The tolerance factor of Afrikaans speaking people is for some reasons remarkably high with regard to other languages – and more specifically English. With many Afrikaans speaking people in the post-apartheid era it can be ascribed to their guilt about Afrikaans. With some coloured and mostly black Afrikaans speaking people it can be ascribed to the continued rejection of Afrikaans because of its negative connotation with apartheid – even when Afrikaans is the home language of a large segment of the previously oppressed population.

He said no one disputes the fact that universities play a changing role in a transformed society. The principle of “friendliness” towards other languages does not apply the other way round. It is general knowledge that Afrikaans is, besides isiZulu and isiXhosa, the language most spoken by South Africans.

It is typical of an imperialistic approach that the campaigners for a language will be accused of emotional involvement, of sentimentality, of longing for bygone days, of an unwillingness to focus on the future, he said.

He said whoever ignores the emotional aspect of a language, knows nothing about a language. To ignore the emotional connection with a language, leads to another misconception: That the world will be a better place without conflict if the so-called “small languages” disappear because “nationalism” and “language nationalism” often move closely together. This is one of the main reasons why Afrikaans speaking people are still very passive with regard to the Anglicising process: They are not “immune” to the broad influence that promotes English.

It is left to those who use Afrikaans to fight for the language. This must not take place in isolation. Writers and publishers must find more ways to promote Afrikaans.

Some universities took the road to Anglicision: the US and University of Pretoria need to be referred to, while there is still a future for Afrikaans at the Northwest University and the UFS with its parallel-medium policies. Continued debate is necessary.

It is unpreventable that the protest over what is happening to Afrikaans and the broad Afrikaans speaking community must take on a stronger form, he said.

Back

Economic and Management Sciences

Education

Health Sciences

The Humanities

Law

Natural and Agricultural Sciences

Theology and Religion

Open Distance Learning

Business School

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