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

Questions about racial integration in residences answered

2007-07-31

Answers to frequently asked questions about the racial integration of student residences at the UFS

1. Why does the UFS want to change the current situation in the student residences?

There are many reasons why a new approach to placement in the student residences is necessary. However, the main reason is of an educational nature. As a university, the UFS should create an environment in its residences where students can learn to appreciate and respect the rich diversity that is on offer at the university. A university accommodates students from many different backgrounds in terms of race, language, religion, economic status, culture and other aspects. If a student can learn to appreciate the value in this rich diversity at university, he or she will also be able to appreciate the value of this diversity in the workplace and broader society.

The current situation of predominantly white and predominantly black residences has not been able to cultivate such an appreciation for diversity and respect for one another as human beings, and will not equip students with the knowledge and skills required to manage diversity.

Besides this, there are many other areas of life in the residences that need attention. For one, we need to urgently establish a human rights culture in the residences so that the rights of all students can be respected. We need to address the abuse of alcohol, provide disabled students with their rightful place, and last but not least, really entrench a culture of learning in student residences.

Let us make the residences places we can be proud of – places of learning, of diversity, of respect; places of growth and development. This is the ideal we should all strive to achieve.

2. Why does the management want to force us to integrate?

It is a false argument to debate the issue in terms of “force”. Any decision by a University, or any other organisation, regarding matters of policy, rules and regulations implies a restriction on the choice of an individual and an obligation to comply. What we should focus on is whether this decision of the Council is in the best interests of our students.

The management of the university believes that it has a responsibility to give students the best education possible, not only in terms of what you learn in the lecture rooms, but especially in the residences as well. The residences can be very powerful places of learning about matters of great importance, both academic and non-academic.

The parallel-medium language policy separates students into largely white/Afrikaans and black/English classes. Efforts are being made to bridge this divide in the classroom, but we can also try to eliminate it in the residences.

The university is committed to building a new culture for the entire institution that is based on values and principles – such as an academic culture, non-racialism, respect for human rights and diversity – among staff and students.

In the context of student residences, the application of these values and principles still allows substantial room for the voluntary exercising of choice by individuals as well as by Residence Committees, notably with regard to the placement of students (they can still place 50 percent of first-year students), as well as the determination of the future character and traditions of a diverse residence.

Furthermore, students can still choose their residences (subject to availability of places), can choose a roommate, and so forth.

3. What about freedom of association?

The rights we enjoy in a democracy must be balanced against other rights, as well as the laws of the country. This means that the right to freedom of association must be balanced against laws that make it illegal to discriminate against other people on the basis of race, language or religion, for instance.

Freedom of association pertains to the right of individuals to form voluntary organisations such as clubs or private boarding houses, or their right to join or not join existing organisations. You exercise that right when you decide to become a student of the UFS, and again when you choose to live in one of its residences.

However, once you have decided to join an organisation voluntarily, you cannot subsequently demand that that organisation should provide a “club” or residence to your liking where, for instance, you only associate with your choice of co-members. You must accept the policies of that organisation.

In any case, how would that right of yours be balanced against the right of another individual who wishes to associate with a different set of co-members? (For instance – what about the freedom of a student to associate with students NOT from his own background, but indeed from another language, cultural, racial or economic background?)

The constitutional right to freedom of association can, in any case, not be used to exclude or discriminate on the basis of race or religion (Section 18 of the Bill of Rights).

Besides, the new policy guidelines will still make provision for freedom of association. This right can be exercised freely within a diverse residence with regard to friendships, joint academic work, socialising, sport, etc.

4. Will residences not lose their traditions?

The University appreciates that there are many valuable elements of tradition in residences. However, we must bear in mind that the traditions and character of student residences have evolved and changed over time, and they will continue to evolve and to change. In addition, we do not need to accept all aspects of residence life purely on the basis of tradition, including the unacceptably high level of alcohol abuse and unsavoury, humiliating and discriminatory orientation practices. The new approach to integrated residences provides the opportunity to retain the positive aspects of the current traditions and character, but also to develop new traditions and give residences a new character.

We can now establish a tradition and a character for each residence that are reconcilable with the values of the University as a place of scholarship and are aligned with the human rights approach of our country’s Constitution, the laws of our country and the strengths and diversity of the students in a particular residence.

5. Have students been involved in this process? Is there a role for them to play after the decision has been taken by the Council of the UFS?

In the first semester of 2007, during two rounds of consultations, the primes, SRC and student organisations were consulted about the proposed new placement policy to increase diversity in residences. Some residences also made written submissions on the matter (such as Madelief, Soetdoring, Wag-'n-bietjie, Vergeet-my-nie, Emily Hobhouse). Other residences requested and were granted more time, but did not make any submissions in the end (such as Reitz and Armentum).

Management also had several meetings with the above-mentioned structures to hear first-hand from students their concerns and solutions regarding possible challenges presented by integration in residences.

During these interactions, several excellent ideas and proposals were put forward by students. These views had a definite impact on the eventual proposal that was taken to the University Council, in particular regarding the minimum level of diversity (30%) in junior residences and the fact that residences still want to have a say in the placement of students, rather than the placement decision being left in the hands of Management alone (hence the 50% placement portion of residences). Management values the effort that was put into the process by the primes and residence committees, and thanks them for their contributions.

However, it should be stressed that consultation should not be understood as a process of negotiation, nor does it imply that consensus must be reached. What it means is that Management must take a considered decision after hearing the views of stakeholders.

Management would like students to continue to provide input and ideas regarding the implementation details of the policy guidelines. Task teams have been established and students will be informed about how they can interact with the task teams on an ongoing basis.

6. But integration in the residences was tried in the past (in the late 1990s), and then it failed. Why will it work now?

Yes, the University of the Free State did integrate its residences as far back as 1993, and for a few years it worked. The UFS did it at that time and is now doing so again, because it is the right thing to do. Yet it is important to understand why the previous attempt at racial integration in residences was not successful.

Firstly, both black and white students were much polarised because of the apartheid past. Secondly, there was insufficient management support for students in the residences, the student leaders generally as well as residence heads, in terms of dealing with diversity and related issues. Thirdly, the institutional culture of the UFS and the residences in particular was not addressed as part of broader transformation and integration in residences, whereas it is now being addressed.

In addition, the current decision to integrate residences has the benefit of being implemented after several more years of integration in schooling, sport, workplaces and other aspects of life.

This decision is also based on Management’s commitment to give all the possible support it can to this process.

This is a very important initiative that the UFS is undertaking. Management, in co-operation with students, must ensure that it succeeds. Integrated residences that produce high-quality graduates equipped to deal with the challenges of the workplace and our society is a worthwhile ideal we should all strive to achieve.

If you would like to make a proposal regarding the implementation and practical aspects of the new policy, please send it to the following email address: rector@ufs.ac.za

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