TITLE Resistance to COVID 19 Vaccines: A Case Study at Bongabong, Oriental Mindoro

DISSCUSSION:
The outbreak of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), spreads globally. Vaccine is a crucial
preventive approach that can halt this pandemic, a vaccine is being developed to control the disease as a
solution to hygiene measures and as well as by implementing a socially preferable alternative solution, social-
distancing. Despite a growing body of data that vaccinations are safe, vaccine skepticism is on the rise. Vaccine
apprehension has resulted in lower vaccine uptake and a rise in the prevalence of vaccine-preventable illnesses.
The COVID-19 pandemic has created a new reality in which people are confronted with a previously unknown
disease and its consequences, offering a unique chance to study vaccination attitudes at a time when disease
awareness is high. The current paper presents data, a case study undertaken during the COVID-19 health crisis,
in which we tracked number of the residences at Bongabong Oriental Mindoro, toward to the hesitance and
refusal to vaccination as well as the general vaccine data views.
The present systematic review was aimed to assess the number of people who hesitate toward taking a
vaccine against COVID-19 and to determine the variables affecting the likelihood of refusal. The present
systematic review includes all data being conducted, which include the total number of populations from
different Barangay at Bongabong, Orienatal Mindoro and also the record of the number of populations who
have and does not have vaccine against Covid-19.

MAJOR PROBLEMS
Hesitation towards acceptance of vaccination is steadily growing due to various factors or problem that
influence the choices of the general public.
In the study of Sheldenkar et al. (2019), science, religious belief, culture and politics pose the underlying
reasons for the behavior of the public to either delay or outwardly refuse vaccine uptake leading to vaccine
hesitancy. This is concurrent with the wide range of elements that affect decision-making like distrust in
corporations and public health agencies, foreignness of diseases that can be prevented with vaccine, essential
nature of vaccines and the controversial relationship of vaccination to negative side effects which may be
coincidental (Salmon et al., 2015). Because of the lack of awareness and necessary information about
immunization practices, misguided conclusions are attained by the public.
There had been issues that complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) hinders acceptance of
vaccination but according to Hornsey et al. (2020), CAM cannot be equated to vaccine hesitancy because its
chief cause is the lack of trust in treatments that are conventional. Supporting the abovementioned cause is the
study conducted by Salmon et al. (2015) which stated that parents are distressed upon seeing their infants being
administered with several injections, fearing that they would be harmed. They would rather choose adverse
health effects brought about by the disease instead of those caused by vaccination. Vaccine hesitancy built on
the confidence that they have strong immunity, teachings taught by their religious beliefs are proven based on
some studies. A large population supposed that they are healthy and not anymore at risk of contracting
Influenza hence, directing them to the decision to refuse vaccination (Sheldenkar et al., 2019).
Social norms, traditions, and social standing also affected acceptance of vaccines. Kalok et al. (2020) stated
that there are various negative preconceived notions among Muslim parents such as the use of vaccines to
weaken Muslims and spread disease throughout non-Western countries. There is also a recurrent belief in Asia
about adverse reactions from vaccination which is seen through the uptake of vaccines by the general public
which remains stagnant at low levels with a range of 0.8% to 45% and a median of 14.3% (Sheldenkar et al.,
2019). Contrary to the previous research, there exists a study done by Reyes et al. (2020) that presented the data
that 193 out of 202 respondents are open to the idea of vaccination for their children or wards ranging from 9–
14 years old but with the condition that the Philippine government will be providing it with no accompanying
fees. This shows that the costs of the vaccines significantly affect vaccine hesitancy.
Among healthcare workers, there is also a prevalent hesitation regarding vaccines. According to Karafillakis
et al. (2016), the considerable apprehension for acceptance of This study source was downloaded by
100000791074093 from CourseHero.com on 11-11-2021 12:07:15 GMT -06:00
https://www.coursehero.com/file/99728132/Chaps-1-3-jen-partsdocx/ This study resource was shared via
CourseHero.com vaccines by health workers in Croatia, France, Greece, and Romania are caused by the
supposed negative effects of the vaccine and distrust in the pharmaceutical companies who are producing the
vaccine solely due to financial gains and lack of transparency in the complete efficacy and consequences of the
vaccines. Due to situations such as this, Grech & Gauci (2020) are alarmed because the key players in the
immunization challenge themselves are those who are primarily hesitant in believing in the efficacy of vaccines.
They are proposing for further education of future healthcare professionals about the nature of vaccines.
Expecting mothers are also hesitant in topics such as vaccination. This can be seen in the study of Sheldenkar
et al. (2019) which specified that the fear of these mothers is doubled because they believe that the fetus and
themselves will be harmed by vaccines. Educational attainment also influences vaccine hesitancy among
mothers of different social classes. Incomplete knowledge and information about vaccination led to the distrust
in vaccines in mothers with secondary school qualification and below (Kalok et al., 2020). Additionally,
Cunningham et al. (2018), stated that the probability of vaccine hesitancy is 2.2 times lesser in mothers with
more than a 4-year degree as compared to those with college educational attainment or less.
With the advent of various social media platforms where spread of information, factual or not, is rapid and
extensive, misconceptions continuously transpire in this digital age. Salmon et al. (2015) mentioned that the
progressing popularity of Internet permitted claims that can negatively affect the benefits of vaccination.
Moreover, Xiao & Wong (2020) appealed for substantial evidences-based data and information to interfere with
the misperceptions of the populations.
We generated three recommendations for how to effectively apply this theory to reduce vaccine hesitancy in
one nation now confronting a bigger vaccine demand than supply crisis.
ALTERNATIVE SOLUTION OUTLINE, EVALUATING ADVANTAGES AND DIS-ADVANTAGES
1. Widen one’s knowledge and dispel misinformation
Thinking about Thinking step, inquiring as to why individuals are hesitant, delaying, and rejecting the
vaccination. According to research, one of the main reasons is that such patients are more inclined to assume the
vaccine's development and approval process was hurried, with unreported adverse effects. Local leaders may
handle this by proactively reaching out to skeptics and educating them using media including phone calls, direct
mail, television, billboards, and internet platforms. To combat vaccination disinformation, more proactive
tactics are also required, particularly on social media. By having medical experts actively rebut false claims
online is highly successful. To assist medical, public health, and non-profit organizations in actively responding
to disinformation with science-based evidence, training and financing are required.
ADVANTAGE: It help the citizens become informed about vaccination fact information. There will be less
confusion of misinformation among individual citizens. Possible to understand individual information
processing and acceptance by taking into account providing easy source skeptics and education that can be
easily seen in media including phone calls, direct mail, television, billboards, and internet platforms.
DISADVANTAGE: This is time Consuming. Public Attention must be reach into account.
2.Enhancing Emotions
The population of hesitancy about vaccine has established strong attitudes against the vaccination, so leveraging
information sources that they trust might help them feel better about it. According to research, persons who are
cautious to trust medical experts, political, and religious leaders to give "think"-based information about
medical issues are more inclined to rely on their communities for "feel" or emotion-based conviction.
ADVANTAGE: Improve vaccine sceptics’ feelings is to play into a fear of missing out both socially and
economically. Individual may feel they are being cared by knowing their reasons, therefore, they can give their
trust, leading to acceptance.
DISADVANTAGE: There May be some Individual who felt out of control when expressing their emotion,
cause their responses may be disruptive or inappropriate. Time Consuming.
3.Action should be made easier.
Patients who wish to be vaccinated need access to mass vaccination venues. Reaching out to those who are
hesitant about vaccinations, on the other hand, will necessitate proactive strategies. For starters, rewards can be
effective. To encourage vaccines, some governments and localities in the United States provide monetary
incentives and free transportation, as well as lotteries and massive block celebrations. Businesses could be
enticed to participate by offering paid time off, free products, and lottery prizes. We believe that using the
patient-centered strategy of "think, feel, do" to the COVID-19 vaccination communication dilemma will help to
accelerate global herd immunity.
ADVANTAGE: It required to ensure a safe economic reopening and recovery, as well as to overcome this
enormous health and economic problem about hesitation when it comes to getting vaccinated.
DISADVANTAGE: The tools and material that should be needed is taken into account based on the
population, so there must be a data of computation. Very time consuming.