COVID-19 Vaccines: Community Myths Vs Facts

4Citations
Citations of this article
14Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

Abstract

Objective: To determine the reasons for hesitancy regarding COVID-19 vaccines. Study Design: Cross-sectional study. Place and Duration of Study: Combined Military Hospital, Rawalpindi Pakistan, from Feb to Jun 2021. Methodology: After Ethical Committee approval, 100 respondents were recruited, regardless of vaccination status, and requested to respond to 27 different myths and queries circulating about COVID-19 vaccines. Results: Mean age of participants was 36.25 ± 5.77 years, ranging from 15-80 years. Fifty-three were males and 47 females. 41% of subjects trusted the Sino-pharm vaccine, and 25% preferred Pfizer Bio N Tech, while 34% could not answer due to the lack of knowledge. 55% subjects showed concern about catching the infection from Vaccination. 54% considered vaccines unsafe for pregnant and breastfeeding women. 29% believed it unsafe for the elderly and those with comorbidities. 14% believed it could cause autism in children and infertility in adults. 62% individuals acknowledged that vaccines have no nano chips to track patients. 46% opined that vaccines were rushed through trials and had doubtful efficacy. 11% individuals thought vaccines could alter DNA, while most were aware of this false concept. 28% considered that vaccines were needless because recovery from COVID-19 was excellent, while 63% emphasised the need for Vaccination. 23% deemed the side effects of vaccines more dangerous than the disease itself. 85% individuals favoured use of mask and social distancing after getting the vaccine. Conclusion: Strong efforts are needed to support the COVID-19 vaccine and to eliminate negative propaganda on media outlets.

Author supplied keywords

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Abbas, S. W., Zareen, S. F., Nisar, S., Farooq, A., Rasheed, A., & Saleem, M. U. (2022). COVID-19 Vaccines: Community Myths Vs Facts. Pakistan Armed Forces Medical Journal, 72(2), 497–500. https://doi.org/10.51253/pafmj.v72i2.6970

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free