Drive for 75: Week 9 Resources
Regulation | April 30, 2021 | by Jill Schumann
LeadingAge Coronavirus Update Calls feature brief segments called “Drive for 75” to promote the successful vaccination of at least 75% of our aging services providers’ workforce, and as needed, residents, by June 30. We will cover developments in the news, research, and innovative practices that support our members in attaining high vaccination rates.
This Week’s Highlights:
Volume Twenty Two: Air Date 4.26.21 “COVID-19 Vaccines and Pregnancy”
We know that one reason some women have chosen not to receive a COVID-19 vaccine is concerns about pregnancy.
This article summarized the recently published study looking at pregnant women who received the vaccine that indicates that they vaccines appear safe for pregnant women and side effects are similar to those experienced by non-pregnant people. In addition, incidence of reported adverse maternal and neonatal outcomes were similar to those reported prior to the pandemic. This most recent study was published last week in the New England Journal of Medicine and examined the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines.
The results published last week were an extension of a study presented by the CDC's Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices last month. Based on the data from these studies, the CDC is recommending Covid-19 shots for pregnant women and that the Pfizer and Moderna vaccines appear safe for the women as well as their babies.
Pregnant women are more likely to be hospitalized and run a higher risk of death when infected with Covid-19, making vaccination especially important to this demographic. So let’s spread this word of reassurance.
Volume Twenty Three: Air Date 4.26.21. “Updated CDC Guidance”
This was a more lengthy segment and the content can be found in the weekly recaps.
Volume Twenty Fout: Air Date 4.29.21. “Bad News Bias”
Bruce Sacerdote, an economics professor at Dartmouth College, noticed something about the Covid-19 television coverage that he was watching. It almost always seemed negative, regardless of what was he seeing in the data or hearing from scientists he knew.
When COVID-19 cases were rising in the U.S., the news coverage emphasized the increase. When cases were falling, the coverage focused on those places where cases were rising. And when vaccines began showing positive results, the coverage downplayed the value of vaccines.
He worked with other researchers to build a database of COVID coverage from every major network as well as hundreds of other sources in the U.S. and beyond. The researchers analyzed it with a technique that characterized the language as positive, neutral or negative.
The coverage by national U.S. publications was far more negative than coverage by any other source. About 87% of COVID coverage in national U.S. media was negative, compared to 51% in international media and 64% in scientific journals. The coverage was negative in both media outlets with liberal audiences and those with conservative audiences.
So why does this matter as we Drive for 75? Recognizing this negative media bias we need to make sure we are presenting the positives – vaccines save lives, vaccinated people reduce everyone’s risk, vaccines are safe, vaccines will help us open up…