(First of two parts)

As expected, I received varied reactions to my commentary last week regarding the advisability of getting the COVID-19 vaccination. To my surprise, though, an overwhelming majority have negative sentiments at this point about receiving vaccination against COVID-19, even if it’s given for free.

There is obviously some communication problem which the government must promptly address. The government must look at it with objective lenses, rather than hastily concluding that it is the product of misinformation from politicking dissenters.

The concern is truly understandable, as I myself am also struggling to set aside questions about vaccination that are still begging for answers. But as I also pointed out in my column last week, the vaccination route appears to be the only way we could quickly stop the massive bleeding we’re currently experiencing.

Painful as it would seem, we may have no other choice but to adopt the “damn the torpedos” attitude, and just go ahead with the vaccination roll-out—but with a methodical, rational manner of assessing who should be vaccinated, and who’re better not vaccinated.

70-percent goal

The goal is to have at least 70 percent of the population vaccinated or infected. We don’t have to bat for 100-percent vaccination.

If the government insists that it’s one-size-fits-all, and everyone should get whatever vaccine is available, we’re likely to have serious problems, which should already be apparent, with a little introspection of the national psyche, and also some consideration of available scientific evidence.

Let me categorically state that, all things considered, it’s for the best interest of all that suitable individuals get vaccinated. The long-term questions may still be bothersome to think about, but when we’re already wrestling with an imminent problem of survival beyond the midterm, whatever questions we have about long-term effects are not so relevant anymore.

This is one instance when one should not only think of one’s welfare but of the public good (salus populi), as well. Although I’ve opined in another commentary that the current fear and paranoia about COVID-19 are exaggerated and fueled by a fearful imagination, it has already dented our national confidence severely, and the vaccination route may be the only means for us to quickly restore our confidence of ever living near-normal lives and reviving what’s left of our economy. That being so, it can be considered our patriotic duty to be part of the 70 percent of the population that will provide the herd immunity that can make us confident again in resuming near-normal activities, and ensure our long-term survival as a nation.

It’s useless crying over spilled milk now on how we should have managed the pandemic. We just need to get a good hold of our present situation, and decide how we can stop the bleeding from wounds inflicted by this infectious saber-toothed tiger, which our exaggerated fears and panic partly made robust.

I think it’s a no-brainer: Vaccinating to create the 70-percent immune “herd” is the quickest and most viable option at this point.

I also still have qualms about the long-term effects of the vaccine; hence, I strongly oppose any recommendation that even adolescents and teenagers be included in those receiving vaccination. If there should turn out later to be long-term adverse complications of COVID-19 vaccination, these young adults and their respective future families are likely to suffer the brunt.

None of the scientists credited with the development of current vaccines can declare with reasonable confidence that there will be no side effects or complications in the long term. Short- to midterm effects are already known to be beneficial, but long-term effects are still uncharted territory for these novel vaccines.

Now that we know of the short- to midterm benefits, we are relatively certain that the benefits are not only placebo effects but real. The placebo effect is defined as the benefit one receives from a treatment because of one’s positive expectation of the benefit.

Credibility of vaccine developers

But the problem is, because of the uncertainty of long-term effects, we can have the reverse nocebo effects, defined as negative health outcomes because of the perception that a treatment might be potentially harmful.

This is where the credibility of the vaccine developers and marketers come in. If they’re perceived to be fully transparent and responsible in continuing the long-term studies on the vaccine, and promptly report on these studies, then confidence in the vaccine increases. If a lack of credibility and transparency is perceived, the acceptability of the vaccine and the risk of nocebo effects suffer markedly.

But even with the unresolved long-term issues, I’m willing to be vaccinated just to fulfill my duty to the country, to help in my own small way to get it back on track. We may not have another chance in this lifetime to show our collective patriotism.

Unless we can figuratively and literally give our collective confidence in fighting this virus a shot in the arm, the national and global economies will continue to spiral down to alarming levels. Although I believe a mindset revision is still necessary, the vaccine appears to be the quickest way we can patch the confidence hole.

The challenge now, though, is how we can also convince at least 70 percent of the population, who are suitable to be vaccinated, to take the shot.

(To be continued)