The subtle art of motivating people to get another covid vaccine

For the past several months, health experts and policymakers have been telling the world that there is light at the end of the pandemic tunnel for people who are “fully vaccinated.” For most formulations, this means two doses of a double-shot regimen. Countries like India have done a good job of vaccinating their intended target audience with at least one dose. But the proportion of those who take their second dose in India is less than half of those who take the first dose. Our vaccination rate was to be expected.

The human brain has a tremendous capacity to adapt to any situation, including risky situations. As humans interact with any given risk on an ongoing basis, the sense of danger associated with that source of risk diminishes over time. Gradually, they begin to interact with that source of risk in a more casual way. This is the reason why experienced workers suffer more from factory accidents than trainees. For almost two years now, the world has been in the grip of a pandemic that does not seem to end. After an initial encounter with fear, the perception of risk began to decline rapidly as the first wave of infections subsided. It was only the disastrous second wave that took the risk sentiment back to higher levels.

It is easier to motivate people to take corrective or preventive measures when they perceive a high level of risk. The tragic consequences of the second wave prompted many fence-sitters to vaccinate. After that brutal experience earlier this year, people were slowly moving towards normalcy. The seemingly endless months of restrictions left people eager to get back to their lives as usual, with much outrage usually expressed. At this juncture, asking common citizens to be super-vigilant once again is not going to be an easy task in India. This is because the cases of infection and death are very less right now. Therefore, getting most of the citizens to take up another job would be a difficult task. If, after rigorous analysis, our health officials conclude that existing vaccines are sufficient to fight omicrons, there is no cause for concern. We could all go back to shopping malls and theaters with confidence. But what if health officials learn that omicrons are indeed a serious threat and that another round of vaccinations is the only way to preserve our health? What can policy makers do to better prepare the world for such a scenario?

Many patterns of human behavior are influenced by subliminal cues. The term we build around an event or object is an unconscious signal that influences our behavior. For example, calling a road an ‘expressway’ and expecting drivers to drive slowly is a problem. So if another dose of vaccine is needed to provide the required protection, one may call this a ‘booster’ dose or a ‘third dose’. Which terminology would largely provide the subliminal motivation people need to take another dose?

The term ‘booster dose’ evokes the notion of incrementalism. Its use would create the feeling that Omicron is another type of virus and all that is needed is a slight addition to the existing protection offered by the previous two doses. When the dominant current mood is to recover from our pre-pandemic lives and restriction-free days, the ‘booster’ terminology will not do much to make people more alert to getting infected. Most people would probably conclude that taking a ‘booster shot’ is optional, just an act of extreme caution.

On the other hand, the term ‘third dose’ would better communicate the need for an additional layer of protection from the COVID virus. The word unconsciously evokes the feeling that this dose is different from the first and second doses. Of course, the term ‘third dose’ will also stir up more intense social conversations. That is the purpose. Many questions are likely to be stirred up. Why do we need a third dose? Why are the first two doses ineffective against the newer version? Questions like these would provide an ideal opportunity to explain to health experts how important this new version is, should it be dangerous. But they should not make the same mistakes they did in the early stages of the pandemic.

In the initial phase of Kovid, there were many cases of discrepancy in expert recommendations. At one point, some experts said that “masks are not needed. Soon, they changed their opinion. Such fluctuations, especially at the highest levels of policymaking, should always be avoided. Humans should always Will hold on to any message that assures them that everything is fine and no further action is needed. Once such a message of reassurance is absorbed, it is difficult to get people out of that mindset Therefore, before issuing reassuring statements to policy makers, they need to carefully examine the possibility of their retraction later.

It will not be easy to persuade people to take another coercion. Policy makers will need to be more innovative in their thinking.

Biju Dominic is Chief Promoter, Fractal Analytics and President of Final Mile Consulting