Pandemic preparedness also means strengthening trust in our institutions

COVID-19 vaccines are plentiful in developed countries, yet many people remain unvaccinated. Some studies show that those who are reluctant to get a vaccine also harbor feelings of mistrust or dissent. Such insights underscore the importance of boosting trust, so we are better prepared to overcome vaccine hesitancy in the future. 

We have seen countless displays of selflessness throughout the pandemic, particularly from courageous scientists, medical professionals and front-line workers whose dedication has helped keep the fabric of society intact. 

As we enter year three of the pandemic, however, we also continue to watch it divide us. Demonstrations and protests continue to erupt against measures taken by governments that are aiming to slow the virus's spread and save lives.

The drivers of this division are complex, and we do not want to oversimplify the challenge of understanding individual motivators. By focusing on what we can learn when we take a human-centred approach to research, like we do at Swiss Re, we will arrive at a more nuanced understanding of the behavioral forces driving vaccine hesitancy, or by now, vaccine refusal.

Early in the pandemic, when vaccines were  becoming more widely available, my colleague, Francesca Tamma, shared her thoughts on how behavioral science may help explain vaccine hesitancy. One of the drivers that she looked at was so-called "ambiguity aversion," where humans tend to steer away from making decisions about things associated with uncertain outcomes.

There are other factors to consider, as well, especially now that clinical data overwhelmingly shows COVID-19 vaccines are very safe and protect people from infection, hospitalisation and death.

For instance, some compelling research conducted in Britain and Ireland concluded people reluctant to receive a vaccine were also more likely to mistrust traditional and authoritative information sources when compared to those willing to be vaccinated. 

Separately, in a larger analysis of U.S. Census Bureau data, scientists found those who rejected vaccines were likely to invoke reasons of "dissent" (drawing from categorial beliefs against vaccination) or "distrust" (expressing cynicism or suspicion towards the government or medical establishment).

In short, the studies both indicate people with deeper skepticism of institutions may be less likely to get a vaccine. As we know, institutions are only as strong as the people who make them up. 

Moreover, it also reinforced for us the important role that public-private partnerships should play in helping to mitigate risks associated with future pandemics, which we know are rare but will inevitably revisit us. Though we have the ability to model pandemics – Swiss Re has had an evolving pandemic model since 2006 that considers 50,000 scenarios – we also know the sheer scale of such events means there are limits to how much any one actor can contribute.

That's why collaborations between governments and industry – the kind we do regularly to help protect vulnerable regions from many forms of natural catastrophes – are a potential tool we should consider as we look to manage pandemic threats that are still over the horizon. We're already helping provide insurance aimed at bolstering the viability of the World Health Organization-backed COVAX programme delivering vaccines to developing countries.

Compounding the challenge, consumer research has also shown trust in institutions and experts continues to wane. 

One study found  43% of Americans said they would get vaccinated if Dr. Anthony Fauci, the director of the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases, advised them to. Surprisingly, an even higher 46% of Americans said they would listen to the advice of a family member. 

Author and professor Tom Nichols explains this phenomenon in his 2017 book The Death of Expertise, in which he explains more people claim their personal opinions carry equal weight with those of experts. While experts are by no means infallible, it merits pointing out that the principle of probabilistic thinking posits that experts are more likely to be right than non-experts due to the amount of time they spend studying their area of focus as compared to the average person.

Perhaps this sign, found commonly around Washington, D.C., is not so far off the mark. 

As institutions struggle to convince more people to get vaccinated, some have stepped in to mandate vaccines. We have seen vaccine mandates in both Austria and the United States, where mandates have been challenged, and at least partially overturned in court, as well as with individual corporations. 

While coercion may be effective to some extent, examining this approach from the perspective of behavioral science reveals fundamental pitfalls. An analysis from the Harvard Business Review explains the natural human response, of a mandate, being connected to a violation of the autonomy principle, which happens to be one of the five most important intrinsic drivers of threat and reward in the brain. 

Some people simply resent being told what to do, especially by institutions and experts who have not been able to earn their trust, even if the public good hangs in balance.

So, considering such hurdles, how do we move forward and rebuild trust? 

While it will not be easy, public health strategies must include timely and thoughtful communication and relatable education to earn trust on both institutional and expert levels. This approach will be essential to manage the current pandemic's long tail and to prepare for future crises, save lives, limit disruptions, and strengthen societal resilience. 

Another important conclusion we can draw from the studies I have cited is that a deep commitment to human-centered customer research is essential to understanding the behavioral nuances of why people think the way they do and how they arrive at decisions. 

For governments, the process of building trust requires listening to understand their citizens' concerns and responding with improved transparency. This approach will thereby strengthen the integrity of reputable institutions. For society, it means working to foster sentiment that their voices are being heard, even if respectfully disagreed with.

And for companies like Swiss Re, building trust means including the customer’s voice early in product ideation and development, to ensure customer needs are being met with timely and effective solutions. We're working actively on trust standards, as well, to ensure a consistent approach in particular on advances in digitalization.

Indeed, there is nothing more critical for an insurance company than earning and keeping the trust of its clients. After all, insurance offers peace of mind that protection will be provided when needed.