How to inform, persuade and remind about COVID-19 vaccination

Pedro Rey
 

@varelalaf

After a year in which the fight to control the transmission of COVID-19 has set the agenda, the debate is now focused on how to get a sufficient percentage of the population vaccinated to achieve the so-called "group immunity" as soon as possible. The objective now goes to the supply side: it is about establishing the sequence in which different population groups should be vaccinated (and with which vaccine each one) and making sure that the prioritization is fulfilled. We must also resolve as soon as possible how to eliminate bureaucratic obstacles so that vaccines are more easily accessible, more operational from a logistical point of view and can be purchased by the states at a reasonable price. However, solving the supply problem will be futile if we fail to stimulate demand so that the effective vaccination rate is as high as possible. For this, it is essential to understand both how the potential vaccination subjects behave ‒guided by their beliefs, their perceptions about safety and risk and by their cognitive biases‒ and in what way we can influence that behaviour to guide them towards the socially desirable direction that allows the reduction of disease incidence. 

Risk-based medicine, a hieroglyph full of traps

Jordi Varela
Editor

 

Gerd Gigerenzer, Director of the Harding Center for Risk Literacy at the Max Plank Institute for Human Development in Berlin, was featured in this blog in 2016 following the publication of "Risk Savvy. How to make good decisions." Gigerenzer's crusade against risk manipulation and its consequences are consistent and tenacious, and that's why we should use more of his materials to help overcome the traps of malicious numbers if we want to practice proportionate medicine to address the real risks to peoples health. The following video which was edited in February 2020 by the Gigerenzer factory,  turns out to be essential in differentiating between absolute risk and relative risk.

Care for chronic patients during the pandemic. 5 proposals from hospitals

Nacho Vallejo

Image by Parentingupstream from Pixabay

Faced with the difficulties of a third wave of the pandemic, clinicians again need to express their concerns. And not only because of the exponential increase in the number of COVID-19 patients but also because of the feeling of once again leaving behind the care of patients with chronic health problems. It’s a situation sadly favoured by the collapse of primary care and hospitals.

The pandemic of medical errors

Salvador Casado

George Ștefănescu - Cosmos, 1992

The death of a young person from undiagnosed cancer often comes as a shock to those around them. In recent weeks there has been a lot of controversy on social networks following the death of the journalist Olatz Vazquez, who documented her illness to the end with photos, which has encouraged me to reflect on medical error, to be self-critical of my own and to try to make proposals from a broad vision that includes all the actors. The Sarscov2 pandemic has caused another pandemic of unavoidable medical errors both by action and, above all, by omission, because the collapse of health systems around the world has caused them to stop attending sufficiently to other pathologies for many months. In the following text I approach the subject from the point of view of a healthcare professional who tries to explain it to his patients and colleagues and not from a technical approach, for which I provide a list of suggestions for further reading at the end.