CASE STUDY: THE STORY OF AN UNVACCINATED

__________________________________________________

A Research Conducted
In partial fulfillment of the requirements for the subject
PRACTICAL RESEARCH
(QUALITATIVE RESEARCH)

_________________________________________________

By:
RAINHEART S. DUARTE
ISABELITO F. BLANCHA IV
ALJOHN M. FABROS
ANGEL ZAIDY S. DOMINGO
CHRISTINE JANE V. SAN MIGUEL
JOHN CARL C. JULAQUIT
JOSHUA GEPILA
LANDER GOROSPE
JUSTIN BATALLONES
REYMAR MANERA
MARK F. CABACUNGAN
 Chapter 1

PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND

Introduction:

Amongst all public health interventions, vaccines top the list in efficacy and saving

millions of lives each year. The Coronavirus Disease or Covid-19 has a great impact not just in

health of many people, but also in their lifestyle. But despite everything, the government,

doctors, and other health organizations have found a way to prevent the spread of this disease to

humans, and it is the vaccine against covid-19, but there are still problems in its

implementations.

In some particular reasons, there are specific groups of people here at Cagayan who are

unsure or having an unknown fear of getting vaccinated. Vaccine safety perception as a well-

known fact that parents hesitating for a vaccine are more concerned about the immediate side

effects or adverse events due to a vaccine, but the hesitancy spectrum extends to long lasting

complications including neurologic conditions as well. Additional concerns regarding vaccine

safety are the number and timing of recommended vaccines. Recently, many new vaccines have

been introduced and additional new vaccines are in the pipe line which will be included in the

recommended vaccination schedule and this number is likely to grow in the future. This has

alarmed the parents about the overloading of the immune system by receiving too many antigens

in a short span of time which may be harmful instead of doing good to their children. The

pandemic continues to affect our lives, including our relationships with family, friends,

colleagues and others.

We may still feel wary about the risks of visiting or being visited by loved ones, visiting

shops, gyms or cafes, or even leaving our homes. This maybe especially true if we have a
disability or long-term health condition that makes us more vulnerable to the effects of

coronavirus.

Losing face-to-face contact with people can feel stressful and maybe worrying,

frightening, or even unbearable. Not getting enough contact can leave us the feeling lonely and

alone with our problems.

At the time when we all face ongoing uncertainly about coronavirus, it’s worth trying to

extra patient and understanding with each other and ourselves.

Vaccination has always been the subject of many controversies which have affected vaccine

acceptance of various vaccines to varying degrees in the past as well as in the present. Almost all

governments around the world have so far resisted making covid vaccination mandatory for their

citizens, although many have introduced forms of covid vaccinations certificates, passes or

passports that allow the immunized bearer more freedoms and work opportunities than

unvaccinated people. Aspects of daily life are increasingly complicated for anyone who is not

vaccinated against covid, and there is a rising sense of anger and injustice among those who

reject the vaccine. Vaccine are the most important subject despite protests among groups against

such moves, the freedom to travel, work, socialize and engage in leisure activities is increasingly

determine by our covid vaccination status. Given the limited global supply of vaccines for

COVID-19, the Inter-Agency Task Force for the Management of Emerging Infection Diseases

(IATF) has adopted the prioritization frame work and criteria of the Interim National

Immunization Technical Advisory Group (NITAG) in allocating first tranches of vaccines

against COVID-19 that will arrive in the country.

According to the statistical data published by the Robert Koch institute as well as various

scientific institutions and professional bodies on the benefit/risk balance of Covid-19 vaccines,
there is no doubt that vaccinations significantly benefit people across all population groups. The

risk of infection is roughly three times lower for vaccinated people, and the likelihood of

suffering serious illness or even death from Covid-19 is about 30 times lower than for

unvaccinated people. And while it is true that the new Omicron variant is set to re-shuffle the

cards, people who have received a booster vaccination are still substantially better protected that

unvaccinated individuals.

The zero-risk option is favored by people who feel that they cannot trust either side in

this debate: neither the official sources from science and government nor the professional anti-

vaccination campaigners, who have attracted a strong following online and off-line. Their

reasoning is as follows: if you can’t trust one side or the other, it seems better to do nothing at all

than what could turn out to be the wrong thing. What if the vaccine is riskier than the

government claims? Wouldn’t it then be better to err on the side of caution? And the other side

also seems suspect: they play down the threat posed by the virus and appear to be pursuing their

own (possibly political) ends. Viewed from this perspective, it seems more advisable to adopt a

strategy that minimizes individual risks: social distancing, testing, and wearing a mask.

We know from other studies that this attitude is widespread as those referred to as

“vaccine hesitant”: they have either had bad experiences with vaccinations, feel that vaccinations

undermine their bodily integrity, or prefer alternative medical treatments and are generally

skeptical of so-called orthodox medicine. At the same time, people from this group distance

themselves from the conspiracy stories disseminated on the Internet and understand the

importance of preventing contagion.

Vaccination protects the vaccinated persons and those around them who are vulnerable to

the diseases, reducing the risk of diseases spreading among family members, school mates or
colleagues, friends, neighbors, and other people in the community. When enough people in a

population are immune to an infectious disease, the disease is then unlikely to spread from

person to person. This is known as ‘community immunity’ (also referred to as ‘herd immunity’).

In this way, vaccines indirectly protect others who are vulnerable to disease. These include

babies, children, the elderly, people with weak immune systems, cancer patients, and people who

cannot be vaccinated for medical reasons.

It means that people who cannot be vaccinated, for instance because they are too young

or allergic to vaccines components, benefit from others being vaccinated, because the disease

cannot easily spread in the community.

The purpose of the study is to know what are the concerns and limitations to those people

who has not been vaccinated. This study will reflect to the discriminations and problems among

the unvaccinated, are facing right now.

Statement of the Problem

General:

Generally, the study aims to determine the story of the unvaccinated people.

Specifically:

Specifically, it seeks to answers the following:

1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of:

a. Gender:

b. Age:

c. Occupation

d. Marital Status
2. What are the factors of not being able to receive the vaccine?

3. What are the discrimination experiences of the unvaccinated?

4. What are the impacts of these discrimination in terms of:

a. Social

b. Behavioral

c. Mental

5. What are the coping mechanisms of the unvaccinated about the discrimination encountered?

Significance of the study

To the business establishments. This study is very important to encourage your

employees to get vaccinated, however, if they refuses to be vaccinated shall not be discriminated

in their work place.

To the government and private officials. This study is important to know, to build, to

extent, and also to maintain the public confidence in the effectiveness and safety of the vaccines;

the competence and reliability of the institutions against this pandemic.

To the health workers. This study is important among health care personnel will not

only reduce the spread of covid-19 but also reduce the harmful toll this virus is taking within the

health care workforce and those we are striving to serve and for the sake of others.

To the unvaccinated individuals. This study is important to know the policies of the

government in distributing the vaccines to your area, and to encourage you to get vaccinated.

To the researchers. This study is very important to the researchers to know the

effectiveness and basis of the vaccines and the unvaccinated person.

 To the future researchers. This study will be a references to their similar study in the

future.

Scope and Delimitation

The research is designed particularly to know or determine the story of the unvaccinated

individuals of Sto. Domingo, Piat, Cagayan.

This case study shall focus on the unvaccinated individual. The study will involve

unvaccinated individual. It will be conducted at Piat Academy during the second semester, S.Y.

2021-2022.

Definition of Terms

Covid-19 - is a disease caused by a new strain of corona virus. ‘CO’ stands for corona, ‘VI’ for

virus, and ‘D’ for disease. Formerly, this disease referred to us ‘2019 novel corona virus’ or

‘2019-nCoV’.

Pandemic - An outbreak of a disease that occurs over a wide geographic area and typically

affects a significant proportion of the population: a pandemic outbreak of a disease.

Vaccine – A substance used to stimulate the production of antibodies and provide immunity

against one or several diseases, prepared from the causative agent of a disease, its products, or a

synthetic substitute, treated to act as an antigen without inducing the disease.

Vaccinated- Treat with a vaccine to produce immunity against a disease; inoculate.

Unvaccinated- Not having receive a vaccine: not vaccinated.

IATF Protocols (Inter-Agency Task Force Protocols) - They are the authority that

implementing policies under the health sectors and for improving, disseminating guidelines and

limitations under the covered area.

Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Corona Virus Disease 2019 (COVID-19), caused by SARS-CoV-2 infection (Lamer,

Wang, Yan, Shang, 2020) has spread around the world and become a global pandemic declared

by World Health Organization since March 11, 2020 (Sica, WHO, 2020) Currently, there is no

specific vaccine and antiviral drugs for COVID-19. Precise diagnosis and subsequent proper

treatment according to the course was important. Currently, the diagnosis of COVID-19 mainly

relies on symptoms, laboratory tests, and chest computerized tomography. Symptom, an

indicator reflecting discomfort of patients, was one of the most important clinical manifestations,

although it was subjective and affected by self-sensitivity and expressing willingness. The

variety and frequency of symptom can reflect the severity of the diseases (Kroenke, 2020)

Studies including Zhou et al. and Chen et al. have revealed that most COVID-19 patients

exhibit fever. Cough, expectoration, and myalgia are also commonly symptoms in the COVID-

19 patients. Dyspnea was also reported in COVID-19 confirmed cases (Zhou, Chen, 2020).

Additional studies have showed that COVID-19 may cause symptoms related to the nervous

system (Helms, 2020) cardiovascular system (Fried, Zheng, Clerkin, 2020) urinary system (Lin,
2020) skin (Diaz-Guimaraens, Casas CG, 2020) taste and smell (Spinato G, 2020). Li et al.

disclosed the occurrence rate of fever, cough, expectoration, headache, and other symptoms in

COVID-19 cases from Zhejiang, China. The results suggested that the cases in Zhejiang were

mainly mild and moderate cases, which was significantly different from Wuhan (Xu XW, 2020)

However, studies on symptoms of COVID-19 are only descriptive now (Young BE, Wang DW,

2020). With the global spread of COVID-19, more comprehensive and systematic studies were

needed.

The corona virus pandemic plunged the whole world into a state of health-related,

economic, and social stress. The stress makes clear what is working, and what is not. Although

the corona virus pandemic is undoubtedly a global threat, it has not led to the resuscitation of

multilateralism. Once the COVID-19 crisis has not been passed, we must realize that pandemics,

climate change, extinction, and artificial intelligence are challenges that can only be solved once

and for all through multilateral efforts. Although individuals may try to make a name for

themselves in the fight for the best approach, and although it may not always be easy to

understand why a restriction applies in one place but not in another, Philippines’ leaders and

parliamentarians have acted appropriately and prudently. They have kept the populace informed

and involved, and have avoided looking for scapegoats, vaccines are effective interventions that

can reduce the high burden diseases globally. However, public vaccine hesitancy is a pressing

problem vaccines, little information is available on the public acceptability and attitudes towards

the COVID-19 vaccines in Philippines. (El – Elimat et al., Jordan, April 23, 2021).

Vaccine Development
 The world expects a SARS-CoV-2 vaccine (against the COVID-19 disease) to appear so

that life can return to a near-normal condition. All social, economic, and healthcare system plans

have built in such a discovery. Vaccine safety and efficacy requires meticulous testing and

oversight; under the current development, testing, and production schedules, however, vaccines

may prove to be ethically dubious, medically dangerous, and socially volatile. The purpose of

this paper is to better inform the public to be able to assess vaccine promises about the novel

vaccines being produced and to tolerate delays and uncertainty.

Most experts agree that having a safe, effective, affordable, and widely available vaccine

will be the only way to end the pandemic, both medically and socially. The pandemic’s medical

end will come when about 70% of the world’s population—roughly 5.6 billion people—is

immune, through either natural immunity or vaccination. To end the pandemic’s social effects,

people will need confidence that they can again participate in their work and recreational

activities without fear of contracting the disease. However, repeated promises of a rapidly

produced vaccine, ethically and scientifically dubious routes being taken to develop a vaccine,

and planned distribution systems favoring rich countries may strengthen the anti-vaccination

movement, ultimately lengthening, rather than shortening, the pandemic. We can overcome these

deficiencies by making the entire process transparent to the public and the healthcare

community. This entails providing consistent honest assessments of vaccine development

progress, disseminating sophisticated pro-vaccination education, and developing an equitable

distribution program.

Producing vaccine for a new disease or for a disease for which a vaccine does not exist

(i.e., novel vaccine) requires completing the same steps to ensure safety and efficacy that are

required for other vaccines and most medications. The normal steps in vaccine development are:
exploratory stage, preclinical (laboratory and animal testing) stage, clinical development (three

separate human testing steps), regulatory review and approval, manufacturing, and quality

control. 1 All steps must succeed to produce a successful vaccine. It is analogous to running the

bases in baseball. Even if you round all the bases, you must ultimately cross home plate safely

(i.e., U.S. Food and Drug Administration [FDA] approval).

This is a complex and enormously expensive undertaking. In the United States, the

National Institutes of Health’s (NIH) Accelerating COVID-19 Therapeutic Interventions and

Vaccines (ACTV) initiative, the Warp Speed project, and the Coalition for Epidemic

Preparedness Innovations are each leading separate efforts in conjunction with pharmaceutical

manufacturers to rapidly produce a vaccine. The U.S. programs have announced their intention

to provide the U.S. population with their products before anyone else. The World Health

Organization (WHO) and other groups are working through the Access to COVID-19 Tools

Accelerator program to coordinate vaccine production and equitable global access. Other

pharmaceutical companies, especially in India and China, are moving forward alone. 2

Vaccine Testing

Candidate vaccines developed in the laboratory normally must demonstrate that they can

safely provide long-term immunity, first in laboratory animals, and then in progressively larger

groups of human volunteers. Many current SARS-CoV-2 vaccine developers are skipping,

abbreviating, or dangerously modifying these steps. The U.S. Warp Speed project has said that it

is doing animal testing of its eight candidate vaccines in parallel with human testing. 3 Other

groups are using methods that have never produced a successful vaccine, such as messenger

RNA encoding the coronavirus surface protein or using an adenovirus to deliver the same

protein’s gene. 4 Such ethically and medically dubious shortcuts will eventually engender fear
and mistrust in potential vaccine recipients, especially because few people are aware of how

these procedural changes may affect the vaccine’s safety and efficacy. When they ultimately find

out, this may dissuade many people from being immunized.

Animal Testing

An initial and vital step in designing vaccine studies is to define the safety, efficacy, and

other criteria, called a “target product profile” (TPP), that must be met for the test vaccine to

progress to the next stage. Most new medications fail to meet their targets during testing (Table

1). A major TPP is assuring the compatibility and stability of the vaccine’s adjuvant (used to

improve the immune response) and antigen. This is normally done through in vivo tests in

animals, and can take months, if not years, to complete. If the results demonstrate that the

vaccine is dangerous, it does not move on to human testing. For example, animal testing of some

non-COVID-19 coronavirus vaccines has shown an increased risk of the animals getting the

disease rather than preventing it. 5, 6. Other animal tests reveal that vaccines are ineffective; that

is, they do not trigger antibody production. In fact, medications often fail to demonstrate that

they can successfully modify the disease or health concern they are designed to address. Only

about 12% of pharmaceutical candidates that go through this rigorous evaluation, including

vaccines, make the transition from the laboratory to clinical trials. 7, 8

Human Vaccine Trials

If a candidate vaccine meets its TPPs in animal tests, human testing begins. Such

clinical trials follow established guidelines from the European Medicines Agency, the WHO, the

FDA, and other national and supranational bodies. Clinical testing progressively assesses the

vaccine’s safety and efficacy while producing the least foreseeable harm in test subjects.
 The first tests (Phase I) are done with a small group (20–100) of healthy volunteers. This

phase usually lasts several months, during which scientists determine the vaccine’s safety and the

effect of different vaccine doses on side effects and efficacy (antibody and T-cell production).

10, 11 In the current rush to produce a vaccine, some Phase I trials have lasted no more than 3

weeks before being rushed into much larger Phase II trials (normally using hundreds to

thousands of volunteer human subjects). 12 This interval is far too brief to assess whether TPPs

have been achieved. It is reasonable to assume that many of these Phase II vaccines will be

unsafe or ineffective since, in recent years, only about 10% of all drugs entering Phase I trials

eventually gained FDA approval. 13

Ethics of abbreviating animal and human testing and the government approval methods.

The basic moral concern is the potential danger to the health of human test subjects and,

eventually, the large number of vaccine recipients. In truth, the risk–benefit ratio is acceptable

for fully informed volunteer test subjects, even when they are knowingly receiving a potentially

lethal virus. Without transparency to the public, however, it is ethically dubious to expose the

public to the possible risk of harm from unsuspected side effects or ineffectiveness; this may

outweigh any potential benefits of abbreviated vaccine production. Any such results will feed the

inherent distrust of vaccination among the anti-vaccination community, diminishing the chance

to ultimately immunize at least 70% of the world to achieve herd immunity. To ameliorate this

issue, we ought, at the least, to publicly describe the risks human-challenge study (HCS) subjects

are taking, make the criteria for vaccine approval transparent to the public and healthcare

community, and admit what still is not known about any vaccine before it is released, including

the chance of recipients having complications or not being immune to SARS-CoV-2.

Human Trial Subjects

 Little has been said publicly about the volunteer subjects being used in SARS-CoV-2

vaccine trials. While Institutional Review Boards normally monitor how trial subjects are

selected, consented, and protected, it is unclear what ethical oversight if any is in place for many

of the current trials. In some cases, the process has been so rapid that it is unlikely that much

monitoring has been done.

How will the public react if, given the omission of so many safety steps in the process,

some trial subjects become ill (ineffective vaccine) or die (unsafe vaccine)? If the vaccines

merely fail to provide protection, the population may get “vaccine fatigue,” tiring of constant

promises, and not wish to participate in trials. If deaths occur among vaccine trial subjects, we

should expect that volunteer enthusiasm for other vaccine trials will diminish, especially after the

publication of exposés that detail the process’s failings. The public also may be wary of

accepting a vaccine, even if authorities say that it is safe and effective, given the mixed messages

issued during this pandemic (e.g., advice to ingest Clorox and use hydroxychloroquine. Also,

since only 69% of medications undergoing Phase II trials meet their TPPs (Table 1) and only

about 10% of new drugs eventually gain FDA approval, the first successful SARS-CoV-2

vaccine will most likely be the 42nd or even the 90th one to complete human testing. (About 110

vaccines are in development as of mid-2020.)

The normal trial method for both Phase II and the subsequent, generally much larger

Phase III tests is randomized control trials (RCTs). This takes significant time as well as

volunteer subjects’ willingness to possibly receive the placebo. So much publicity now surrounds

the test vaccines that obtaining valid informed consent may be problematic. Magical thinking

(“my test vaccine will work”) will invariably attract participants who may enroll in the trial to be
a hero: a member of the test of a vaccine that could save the world from SARS-CoV2 and

prioritize their country for receiving the vaccine. 14

While RCTs are considered to be the most reliable method to assure that the resulting

vaccine is safe and effective, because these trials take so long, it is highly unlikely that most

novel SARS-CoV-2 vaccine trials will use RCTs with standard TPPs (i.e., proving long-lasting

antibody production, minimal side effects, and appropriate dosing schedule).

Ethics of overstating the chance of obtaining a safe and effective vaccine in a short period

of time. Even if all testing and manufacturing steps work well, producing a safe and effective

SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will probably be a long process. Because trust is essential to maintain

viable leadership, truth telling is a key element in the fight against COVID-19, while dishonesty

and hyperbole will undermine all other efforts. This includes full disclosure about uncertainty

around vaccine availability, which will greatly disappoint for those unfamiliar with medical

science. For politicians, it will be ego challenging. Pharmaceutical company stockholders will

fear for the enormous investments being made. On balance, the public will tolerate the truth

much better than repeated unfulfilled promises. Thus, we ought to clearly and consistently state

that no one knows when a safe, effective SARS-CoV-2 vaccine will be available, although we

are using all available resources to make that happen.

Moreover, local and county officials have also been providing information through the

local press on a regular basis, often turning to social media. If ever there were a need to prove

how important a functioning government with a legitimate claim to power from the very top of

the chain to the very bottom is, then the corona virus has done so. The rapid pace of development
of vaccines against COVID-19 is enabled by several factors prior knowledge of the role of the

spike protein in corona virus pathogenesis and evidence that neutralizing antibody against the

spike protein is important for immunity; the evolution of nucleic acid vaccine technology

platforms that allow creation of vaccines and prompt manufacture of thousands of doses once a

genetic sequence is known; and development activities that can be conducted in parallel, rather

than, without increasing risks for study participants. The benefit of getting vaccinated against

COVID-19 can lower your risk of getting and spreading the virus that causes COVID-19.

Vaccines can also help prevent serious illness and death. All steps have been taken to ensure that

vaccines are safe and effective for people ages 5 years and older.

In 1859, Charles Darwin published “On the Origin of Species”, in which he outlined the

principles of natural selection and survival of the fittest. The world presently has the unwelcome

opportunity to see the principles of evolution as enumerated by Darwin play out in real time, in

the interactions of the human population with SARS-COV-2. The world could have easily

skipped this unpleasant lesson, had there not been such large numbers of the human population

unwilling to be vaccinated against this disease. (John Murray, London, 1859). An unvaccinated

pool of individuals provides a reservoir for the virus to continue to grow and multiply, and

therefore more opportunities for such variants to emerge. When this occurs within a background

of a largely vaccinated population, natural selection will favor a variant that is resistant to the

vaccine.

Humanity today is facing one of the biggest challenges of the century. The novel

coronavirus is spreading rapidly to the extent of being declared as a pandemic across the world.

The spread of the COVID-19 pandemic has raised concerns of everyone across the globe. People

are in dismay for what is happening with them and at the same time are disturbed to see the
conditions of others, particularly the marginalized. There is a sudden shift in people's daily

routines. Apart from the fears, anxiety, and sadness, people's sense of irritability has started

piling up. Amid such a deranged spread of COVID-19, one of the important concerns that is even

more deleterious than all the above highlighted negative impacts and needs to be urgently

attended to is stigmatization associated with the pandemic.

People have been witnessed to undergo a dramatic shift from their willingness to live in

mutual association to an urge to practice stigmatization (CDCP, 2020) of individuals, groups, and

nations who are comprehended as potential sources of virus contagion to others. In other words,

the pandemic seems to be causing othering (Cohen J. Unveiling, 2020) manifesting at the

global as well as at the local context leading to a tremendous loss of social capital. The

stigmatizing behaviors in the present context are being guided by the famous adage “better safe

than sorry” (Cohen J. Unveiling, 2020) that explain that how the fear of something unknown

and uncertain (Cohen J. Unveiling, 2020) accounts for the negative attitudinal reactions

directed toward the people who are infected or are suspected and the ones considered responsible

for the spread of the virus.

The present article takes a look at the increasing cases of “othering” that are

characterizing the societal response at large. The focus will be on different social groups that are

the targets of prejudice and discrimination so rampant during the COVID-19 crisis in India. It

includes prejudice based on religion, occupation, race, and economic class.

The Psychology of Stigma

The term stigma was first introduced by Goffman (Takano T, et al., 2019) to refer to

visible characteristic features (such as cut of burnt) of the individuals that make the society
devalue and consider them unfit for their inclusion in the mainstream society. Subsequent

scholars have attempted to define the term from their unique perspectives ( Kam YW, et al.,

2007) explaining the term with respect to relationship between mark and discrediting

dispositions (Singh K, Mehta S, 2016), a sociocultural-driven phenomenon (APR, 2016),

intertwined in the nexus of power dynamics (Thompson SA, 2020), which function to

reinforce the preexisting power differentials (CDCP, 2020, Singh K, Mehta S 2016).

The stigmatization phenomenon has been the intriguing areas of exploration pertaining to

the specific context in which it unfolds. The evolutionary approach to stigmatization provides a

convincing answer to the origin of stigmatization (APR, 2020). Stigmatization is practiced as an

adaptation (Thompson SA, 2020) following a principle of discriminate sociality (Link BG,

Cullen FT, 1983, 1999, 1987) in the perception of danger, threat, or challenges to one's social

living, and attempts are made henceforth to safeguard oneself from various such foreseen or

unforeseen impediments such as getting prone to infectious diseases, being advocated to the

values contrary to their own, and having an intimidating out-group, etc. ( Kurzban R, Leary

MR, 2001, Butz DA, Yogeeswaran K, 2011, Gilead M, Liberman N, 2014). The stigma of

COVID-19, in the present context, could be comprehended as a social process that sets to

exclude those who are perceived to be a potential source of disease and may pose threat to the

effective social living in the society (Barreto M, 2015, Phelan JC, et al., 2008).

Several theoretical approaches provide explanations to the phenomenon of

stigmatization and the way it folds. In the following sections, we will try to explain the origin of

stigmatization, theoretical approaches, highlighting the unfolding of the phenomenon, the

purpose it serves for the stigmatized, and the effects the stigmatized reap out of their experiences

of negative attitudinal reactions of the society toward them.

One of the earliest theories, the social interactionist theory of stigma (Goffman E.

Stigma, 1963), talks about the negative self-conceptualizations held by the stigmatized when

they comprehend a discrepancy, during social interactions, between what the society expects

them to be and what they truly are. As a result, the stigmatized experience shame for not being

able to meet the expectations of the society and experience anxiety and fear of being rejected by

the society.

The labeling theory by Becker (Becker HS, 1963) explains that people attach labels to

others in order to ease their understanding of their social world around. The theory explains

stigmatization as a phenomenon unfolding against those who are labeled as deviant based on

their specific attributes or behaviors perceived as contrary to the acceptable standards in the

particular sociocultural framework. As a result, stereotypes are attached to the deviant labels

(Goffman E. Stigma, 1963, Link BG, Phelan JC, 2001, Simmons JL, 1965), and the targets

become the recipients of negative psychosocial and emotional reactions of the society, hence

stigmatized (Paternoster R, Iovanni L, 1989 ). The chances of stigmatization are direct

functions of power and resources of the targets, level of tolerance for the deviance by the society,

social distance between the two, and visibility of the deviance (Scheff TH, 1966).

Another explanation for stigmatization comes from social identity theory ( Tajfel H,

1978, Tajfel H, Turner JC, 1979), which draws it from the self-categorization theory (Turner,

1979). According to this theory, self-concept of individuals draws heavily from their

belongingness to social groups (Tajfel H, Turner JC, 1979), which gives rise to intergroup
comparison (Festinger L, 1954). Emphasizing upon the superiority of one's own group, a

phenomenon called ethnocentrism (Sumner WG, 1976), people set to positively evaluate and

favor the members of their own group (in-group) and engage in derogatory attitudinal reactions

(stigmatization) against the out-group for it reaps them benefits of elated sense of self-esteem.

As against the previous theories that talk about the explanations for the unfolding of

stigmatization in a particular sociocultural context, the model of stigma-induced identity threat

(Major B, O'Brien LT, 2005) highlights the reactions of the stigmatized on being exposed to

the derogatory treatments of the society. In addition to experiencing stress, the reactions of the

stigmatized are influenced by the way they appraise or evaluate the stigmatizing situations based

on their collective representations (awareness about one's stigmatized status in the society, the

dominant stereotypes associated, and the recognition of being discriminated against) (Crocker

Major J, Steele B C, 1998 ), immediate situational cues (the characteristics of the presenting

situation that could be perceived in terms of the amount of threat it brings to the social identity of

the stigmatized) (Steele CM, et al., 2002), and individual characteristics (the personal

characteristics of the stigmatized that catalyze the influence of the stressful situations on the

stigmatized, like the extent to which they identify themselves with their stigmatized group–

( Sellers RM, Shelton J, 2003 )). Identity threat results when the situation is appraised by the

stigmatized as harmful and exceeds the coping resources available with them to overcome it,

resulting in several voluntary and involuntary reactions.

The process of stigmatization has several benefits for the stigmatizers ( Snyder ML,

Miene P, 1994) that serve to explain why people stigmatize others. Stigmatization not only

helps perceivers to form a holistic and a simplified understanding of the targets ( Allport GW,
1954, Hamilton DL, 1981, Fiske ST, Neuberg SL, 1990, Macrae CN, 1994 ), but also

allows them to go beyond the available information about the targets and make judgments about

their personality and behaviors (Mackie DM, 1996). Stigmatizers strive to cultivate their

biological and reproductive fitness through stigmatizing the diseased ( Phelan JC, 2008),

dominating and exploiting others (Parker R, Aggleton P, 2003, Maluwa M, et al., 2002 ), for

example, which aids a successful transfer of genes to the offspring ( Neuberg SL, et al., 2000,

Mittal S, Singh T, 2020).

Stigmatization also helps stigmatizers in maintaining inequality through power

differentials (Phelan JC, 2008), preserving important resources for themselves (Kurzban R,

Leary MR, 2001, Lewin K, 1948, Sidanius J, 1993 ), such as wealth, power, and a reputed

status (Phelan JC, 2008), exploiting the stigmatized to serve their purpose ( Phelan JC, 2008,

Klinker PA, Smith RM, 1999, Fields BJ, 1990 ) and emphasizing control over them by

practicing derogatory behaviors against them (Dovidio JF, et al., 2000). These practices serve

to boost the self-esteem and well-being of the stigmatizers, as well as serve to reduce their

existential anxiety [Terror management theory by (Solomon S, 1991)].

Several studies in the past have studied the negative attitudinal reactions of the society

against the stigmatized in relation to a number of physical and psychological health problems,

such as AIDS (Herek G, Capitanio J, 1999), mental illnesses (Link BG, 1987, Link BG,

1989, Corrigan P, 2004), facial disfigurement (Yang L, Kleinman A, 2008), cancer, leprosy,

and physical disfigurement (Stuber J, 2008), and in relation to various sociological factors,

such as homelessness (Herek GM, Capitanio JP, 1996), sexual orientation (Meyer I, 1995),
social class (Granfield R, 1991), caste (Bhanot D, Verma S, 2020), etc., where the

stigmatized become the passive recipients of negative emotional reactions from the powerful

others (Mackie DM, et al., 2000).

Prejudices and discriminatory reactions against the stigmatized have also been the area of

concern in the context of epidemics such as severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) ( Person

B, et al., 2004) and H5N1 (Barret R, Brown P, 2008). Fear of contracting has been

understood as one of the major precursors for the people to indulge in stigmatizing the infected

(Das V, 2013) and the suspected because of their close-knit association with the spread of the

disease [(Person B, et al., 2004), p. 359]. Hatred is witnessed to be a common reaction of the

society against the stigmatized during epidemics, particularly during modern times ( Cohn SK,

2012).

Although the stigma associated with pandemic has been a well-established phenomenon

[(Person B, et al., 2004), p. 359], due to its contextual nature (Kurzban R, Leary MR, 2001,

Barreto M, 2015, Crocker Major J, 1998, Hebl MR, 2005 ), the way it unfolds might vary

depending on the context it finds its existence in.

The present ongoing situation of COVID-19 pandemic and its impact not only on the

physical and psychological health but also on the way people are interacting with others are

compelling enough to initiate analytical examination of stigma and discrimination related with

COVID-19. This seems essential for the effective control of the disease, and the negative

consequences of stigma aligned with being infected with coronavirus are extremely pernicious,

the same way those were evident during SARS [( Siu JYM), p. 729] and H5N1 outbreak (Barret
R, Brown P, 2001). The psychological burden of such treatments strongly influences people's

willingness to seek treatment or even let others know about ( McGrath JW, 1993). This not only

impedes the process of effective management and minimization of the spread of the disease but

also brings debilitating consequences for the overall well-being of the survivors and their

relatives (Wesselmann ED, 2013).

Chapter 3

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

This chapter deals with the methods and procedures in the gathering of needed data for

the present day. This includes the research design, respondents of the study and sampling

procedure, locale of the study, research instruments, data gathering tools, data gathering

procedures, and the analysis of data.

Research Design

The study will utilize descriptive qualitative research. This design will describe the

variables under the study. This approach will describe the experience of the unvaccinated

individuals. According to Calderon (1993) descriptive method of research ascertain to prevailing

conditions affecting a given group, hence, this study calls for this method. It is a study

component to serve as a direction in reaching the goal. He pointed out that the descriptive
method tells “what is”, that which leads to information about experience and other situation”. He

further described it as a fact-finding with adequate interpretation usually beyond fact-finding.

The Descriptive Method of research involves as a certain data gathering process on prevailing

conditions and practice or description of objects, process or persons as they exist for about a

certain educational phenomenon, predicting for identifying relationship and differences among

and between variables.

Locale of the Study

The study will be conducted at Barangay Sto. Domingo, Piat, Cagayan during the second

Semester of the School Year 2021-2022

Respondents and Sampling Procedures

The respondents of this study will be the unvaccinated residents of Sto. Domingo Piat,

Cagayan. Purposive sampling will be used in identifying the samples. This procedure is the most

appropriate since the researchers have pre-identified those who have not received the COVID-19

vaccines.

Data Gathering Instrument

The researchers will utilize interview schedule which will be administered to the

respondents. The interview schedule consisted a set of interview that is related to the study. Part

1 contains the profile of the respondents. The part 2 contains about the experience of the

unvaccinated individuals. Interview provides information which maybe confidential that may not

ordinarily be given in writing. The interview according to Vockell (2000) is a technique in which

the researcher stimulates the respondents to give the needed information for the study.
Data Gathering Procedure

Before the conduct of the study, the researchers will seek permission from the School

Director of Piat Academy about the conduct of the study. After approval, the researchers will

explain the purpose and objectives of the study before the interview schedule will be

administered personally to the respondents.

Data Analysis

The data that will be acquired from interview will be analyzed using data analysis. This is

the type of research in which data is divided into themes and sub-themes so that it may be

compared. One of the key benefits of data analysis is that it aids in the reduction and

simplification of data while also producing outcomes that can be measured using quantitative

methods. Furthermore, data analysis allows researchers the ability to organize qualitative data in

a way that satisfies the achievement of study objectives. Human error, on the other hand, is

heavily engaged in data analysis, as there is a possibility that researchers would misinterpret the

data acquired, resulting in incorrect and erroneous results.

Bibliography

Alenichev A. Ethics and etiquette in an emergency vaccine trial: The orchestration of

compliance. Global Bioethics 2020:31(1):13–28. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google
Scholar]
Allport GW. The Nature of Prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley: (1954). [Google Scholar]
American Pharmaceutical Review. Preclinical development: The safety hurdle prior to human
trials. American Pharmaceutical Review 2016 April 30; available
at https://www.americanpharmaceuticalreview.com/Featured-Articles/187349-
Preclinical-Development-The-Safety-Hurdle-Prior-to-Human-Trials/ (last accessed 15
May 2020).
Barreto M. Experiencing and coping with social stigma. In M. Mikulincerand P. R. Shaver,
editors. APA Handbook of Personality and Social Psychology: Group Processes, Vol. 2.
American Psychological Association: (2015). p. 473–506. [Google Scholar]
Barret R, Brown P. Stigma in the time of influenza: social and institutional responses to
pandemic emergencies. J Infect Dis. (2008) 197:S34–37. 10.1086/524986 [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Becker HS. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. New York, NY: Free Press: (1963).
[Google Scholar]
Bhanot D, Verma S. Lived experiences of the indian stigmatized group in reference to socio-
political empowerment: a phenomenological approach. Qualitat Rep. (2020) 25:1414–35.
[Google Scholar]
Biotechnology Innovation Organization, Biomedtracker, Amplion. As cited in: Thompson SA.
How long will a vaccine really take? Available
at https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/04/30/opinion/coronavirus-covid-
vaccine.html?
campaign_id=57&emc=edit_ne_20200430&instance_id=18115&nl=evening-
briefing&regi_id=88426177&segment_id=26333&te=1&user_id=698624f6bce25e600ce
6522455a17609 (last accessed 30 Apr 2020).
Butz DA, Yogeeswaran K. A new threat in the air: Macroeconomic threat increases prejudice
against Asian Americans. J Exp Soc Psychol. (2011) 47:22–7.
10.1016/j.jesp.2010.07.014 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Casas CG, Catala A, Hernandez GC, et al. Classification of the cutaneous manifestations of
COVID-19: a rapid prospective nationwide consensus study in Spain with 375 cases. Br J
Dematol. 2020; 183:71-77.
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Vaccine testing approval process; available
at https://www.cdc.gov/vaccines/basics/test-approve.html (last accessed 29 Apr 2020)
Chen HJ, Guo JJ, Wang C, et al. Clinical characteristics and intrauterine vertical transmission
potential of COVID-19 infection in nine pregnant women: a retrospective review of
medical records. Lance. 2020; 395:809-815.
Clerkin KJ, Fried JA, Raikhelkar J, et al. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) and
cardiovascular disease. Circulation. 2020; 140:1648-1655.
Cohen J. Unveiling “Warp Speed,” the White House’s America-first push for a coronavirus
vaccine. Science Magazine 2020 May 12; available
at https://www.sciencemag.org/news/2020/05/unveiling-warp-speed-white-house-s-
america-first-push-coronavirus-vaccine (last accessed 13 May 2020).
Cohn SK. Pandemics: waves of disease, waves of hate from the Plague of Athens to AIDS.
Historical Res. (2012) 85:535–55. 10.1111/j.1468-2281.2012.00603.x [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Corrigan P, Markowitz F, Watson A. Structural levels of mental illness stigma and
discrimination. Schizophrenia Bull. (2004) 30:481–91.
10.1093/oxfordjournals.schbul.a007096 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Crocker Major J, Steele B C. Social stigma. In: Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G, editors.
Handbook of Social Psychology. Boston, MA: McGraw- Hill; (1998). p. 504–53.
[Google Scholar]
Das V, Goffman E. Stigma, Contagion, Defect: Issues in the Anthropology of Public Health
(2013). [Google Scholar]
Diaz-Guimaraens B, Dominguez-Santas M, Suarez-Valle A, et al. Petechial skin rash associated
with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 infection. JAMA Dermatol. 2020;
157: 820-822.
Dovidio JF, Major B, Crocker J. Stigma: introduction and overview. In: Heatherton TF, Kleck
RE, Hebl MR, Hull JG, editors. The Social Psychology of Stigma. New York, NY: The
Guilford Press; (2000). p. 1–28. [Google Scholar]
Earnshaw V. Don't let the fear of Covid-19 turn intoStigma. Economics and Society. (2020).
Available online at: https://hbr.org/2020/04/dont-let-fear-of-covid-19-turn-into-stigma
(accessed April 06, 2020).
Festinger L. A theory of social comparison processes. Hum Relations. (1954) 7:117–40.
10.1177/001872675400700202 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Fields BJ. Slavery, race, and ideology in the United States of America. New Left Rev. (1990)
181:95–118. [Google Scholar]
Fiske ST, Neuberg SL. A continuum model of impression formation: from category based to
individuating processes as a function of information, motivation, and attention. In: Zanna
MP, editor. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 23. San Diego, CA:
Academic Press: (1990). p. 1–74. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
Fried JA, Ramasubbu K, Bhatt R, et al. The Variety of Cardiovascular Presentations of COVID-
19. Circulation. 2020; 141:1930-1936.
Gilead M, Liberman N. We take care of our own: caregiving salience increases out-group bias in
response to out-group threat. Psychol Sci. (2014) 25:1380–7.
10.1177/0956797614531439 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Gilmore N, Somerville M. Stigmatization, scapegoating and discrimination in sexually
transmitted diseases: Overcoming ‘them' and ‘us'. Soc Sci Med. (1994) 39:1339–58.
10.1016/0277-9536(94)90365-4 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Goffman E. Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Englewood Cliffs, NJ:
Prentice-Hall: (1963). [Google Scholar]
Granfield R. Making it by faking it: working-class students in an elite academic environment. J
Contemp Ethnogr. (1991) 20:331–51. 10.1177/089124191020003005 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
Hamilton DL. (Editor). Cognitive Processes in Stereotyping and Intergroup Behaviour. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum; (1981). [Google Scholar]
Hebl MR, Dovidio JF. Promoting the social in the examination of social stigmas. Pers Soc
Psychol Rev. (2005) 9:156-82. 10.1207/s15327957pspr0902_4 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Helms J, Kremer S, Merdji H, et al. Neurologic Features in Severe SARS-CoV-2 Infection. N
Engl J Med. 2020; 382:2268-2270.
Herek G, Capitanio J. AIDS stigma and sexual prejudice. Am Behav Sci. (1999) 42:1130–47.
10.1177/0002764299042007006 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Herek GM, Capitanio JP. Some of my best friends: Intergroup contact, concealable stigma, and
heterosexual's attitudes toward gay men and lesbians. Pers Soc Psychol Bull. (1996)
22:412–24. 10.1177/0146167296224007 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
[Internet] Lin W, Hu LF, Zhang Y, et al. 2020;
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.02.08.939892v1#disqus_thre ad.
[Internet] World Health Organization. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) situation report
2020. https://covid19.who.int/.
Jones EE, Farina A, Hastorf AH, Markus H, Miller DT, Scott RA. Social Stigma: The
Psychology of Marked Relationships. New York, NY: W.H. Freeman; (1984). [Google
Scholar]
Kam YW, Kien F, Roberts A, Cheung YC, Lamirande EW, Vogel L, et al. Antibodies against
trimeric S glycoprotein protect hamsters against SARS-CoV challenge despite their
capacity to mediate FcγRII-dependent entry into B cells in vitro. Vaccine 2007;
25(4):729–40. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Klinker PA, Smith RM. The Unsteady March: The Rise and Decline of American Commitments
to Racial Equality. New York, NY: Free Press: (1999). [Google Scholar]
Kroenke K. Studying symptoms: sampling and measurement issues. Ann Intern Med. 2001;
1:844-853.
Kurzban R, Leary MR. Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: the functions of social exclusion.
Psychol Bull. (2001) 127:187–208. 10.1037/0033-2909.127.2.187 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Lamers MM, Beumer J, van der Vaart J, et al. SARS-CoV-2 productively infects human gut
enterocytes. Science. 2020; 369: 50-54.
Lewin K. Resolving Social Conflicts: Selected Papers on Group Dynamics. New York, NY:
Harper & Row: (1948). [Google Scholar]
Link BG, Cullen FT, Frank J, Wozniak F. The social rejection of former mental patients:
understanding why labels matter. Am J Sociol. (1987) 92:461–1500. 10.1086/228672
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Link BG, Cullen FT. Reconsidering the social rejection of ex mental patients: levels of
attitudinal response. Am J Commun Psychol. (1983) 11:261–73. 10.1007/BF00893367
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Link BG, Cullen FT, Struening E, Shrout P, Dohrenwend BP. A modified labeling theory
approach in the area of the mental disorders: an empirical assessment. Am Soc Rev.
(1989) 54:400–23. 10.2307/2095613 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Link BG, Cullen FT. The labeling theory of mental disorder: a review of the evidence. In:
Greenly J, editor. Mental Illness in Social Context. Greenwich, CT: JAI Press; (1999). p.
75–106. [Google Scholar]
Link BG, Phelan JC. Conceptualizing stigma. Annual Rev Sociol. (2001) 27:363–85.
10.1146/annurev.soc.27.1.363 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Liu A. China's CanSino Bio advances COVID-19 vaccine into phase 2 on preliminary safety
data. FiercePharma 2020 Apr 10; available
at https://www.fiercepharma.com/vaccines/china-s-cansino-bio-advances-covid-19-
vaccine-into-phase-2-preliminary-safety-data (last accessed 17 Apr 2020).
Mackie DM, Devos T, Smith ER. Intergroup emotions: Explaining offensive action tendencies in
an intergroup context. J Personal Soc Psychol. (2000) 79:602–16. 10.1037/0022-
3514.79.4.602 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mackie DM, Hamilton DL, Susskind J, Rosselli F. Social psychological foundations of
stereotype formation. In: Macrae N, Stangor C, Hewstone M, editors. Stereotypes and
Stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press; (1996). p. 41–78. [Google Scholar]
Macrae CN, Milne AB, Bodenhausen GV. Stereotypes as energy-savind devices: a peek inside
the cognitive toolbox. J Personal Soc Psychol. (1994) 66:37–47. 10.1037/0022-
3514.66.1.37 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Major B, O'Brien LT. The social psychology of Stigma. Ann Rev Psychol. (2005) 56:393–421.
10.1146/annurev.psych.56.091103.070137 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Maluwa M, Aggleton P, Parker R. HIV and AIDS related stigma, discrimination, human rights.
Health Hum Rights. (2002) 6:1–18. 10.2307/4065311 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
McGrath JW. The biological impact of social responses to the AIDS epidemic. Med Anthropol.
(1993) 15:63–79. 10.1080/01459740.1992.9966082 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
Meyer I. Minority stress and mental health in Gay Men. J Health Soc Behav. (1995) 36:38–56.
10.2307/2137286 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Mittal S, Singh T. Gender-based violence during COVID-19 pandemic: a mini-review. Front.
Glob. Womens Health. (2020) 1:4 10.3389/fgwh.2020.00004 [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
Neuberg SL, Smith DM, Asher T. Why people stigmatize: toward a biocultural framework. In:
Heatherton TF, Kleck RE, Hebl MR, Hull JG, editors. The Social Psychology of Stigma.
New York, NY: Guilford Press; (2000). p. 31–61. [Google Scholar]
Parker R, Aggleton P. HIV and AIDS-related stigma and discrimination: a conceptual framework
and implications for action. Soc Sci Med. (2003) 57:13–24. 10.1016/S0277-
9536(02)00304-0 [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Parker RG. Stigma, prejudice, and discrimination in global public health. Cadhealth Public rio de
Janeiro. (2012) 28:164–9. 10.1590/S0102-311X2012000100017 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Paternoster R, Iovanni L. The labeling perspective and delinquency: an elaboration of the theory
and assessment of the evidence. Justice Q. (1989) 6:359–94.
10.1080/07418828900090261 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Person B, Sy F, Holton K, Govert B, Liang A. The NCID/SARS Community Outreach Team.
Fear and stigma: the epidemic within the SARS outbreak. Emerg Infect Dis. (2004)
10:358–63. 10.3201/eid1002.030750 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google
Scholar]
Phelan JC, Link BG, Dovidio JF. Stigma and prejudice: one animal or two? Soc Scie Med.
(2008) 67:358–67. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.022 [PMC free article] [PubMed]
[CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Scheff TH. Becoming Mentally Ill. Chicago, IL: Aldine: (1966). [Google Scholar]
Sellers RM, Shelton J. The role of racial identity in perceived racial discrimination. J Personal
Soc Psychol. (2003) 84:1079–92. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.5.1079 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Sica A, Vitiello P, Caccavale S, et al. Primary cutaneous DLBCL non-GCB type: challenges of a
rare case. Open Med (Wars). 2020; 19:119-125.
Sidanius J. The psychology of group conflict and the dynamics of oppression: a social
dominance perspective. In: Iyengar S, McGuire W, editors. Explorations in Political
Psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press; (1993). p. 183–219.
10.1215/9780822396697-009 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Singh K, Mehta S. The clinical development process for a novel preventive vaccine: An
overview. Journal of Postgraduate Medicine 2016:62(1):4–11. [PMC free
article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Simmons JL. Public stereotypes of deviants. Soc Problems. (1965). 13:223–32.
10.1525/sp.1965.13.2.03a00110 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Siu JYM. The SARS-associated stigma of SARS victims in the post-SARS era of Hong Kong.
Qualitat Health Res. 18:729–38. 10.1177/1049732308318372 [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Shang J, Ye G, Shi K, et al. Structural basis of receptor recognition by SARS-CoV-2. 2020;
581:221-224.
Sng O, Williams K, Neuberg S. Evolutionary approaches to stereotyping and prejudice. In: F. K.
Barlow and C. G. Sibley, editors. The Cambridge Handbook of the Psychology of
Prejudice. Padstow Cornwall, UK: Cambridge University Press; (2018). p. 40–68.
[Google Scholar]
Snyder ML, Miene P. On the function of stereotypes and prejudices. In: Zanna MP, Olson JM,
editors. The Ontario Symposium Vol. 7: The Psychology of Prejudice. Hillsdale, NJ:
Erlbaum; (1994). p. 33–54. [Google Scholar]
Spinato G, Fabbris C, Polesel J, et al. Alterations in Smell or Taste in Mildly Symptomatic
Outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. JAMA. 2020; 323:2089-2090.
Solomon S, Greenberg J, Pyszczynski T. A terror management theory of social behavior: The
psychological functions of self-esteem and cultural worldviews. In: MP Zanna, editor.
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, Vol. 24. San Diego, CA: Academic Press:
(1991). p. 93–159. 10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60328-7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Spinato G, Fabbris C, Polesel J, et al. Alterations in Smell or Taste in Mildly Symptomatic
Outpatients with SARS-CoV-2 Infection. JAMA. 2020; 323:2089-2090.
Stafford MC, Scott RR. Stigma deviance and social control: some conceptual issues. In: Ainlay
SC, Becker G, Coleman LM, editors. The Dilemma of Difference. New York, NY:
Plenum; (1986). [Google Scholar]
Steele CM, Spencer SJ, Aronson J. Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype
and social identity threat. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. (2002) 34:379–440. 10.1016/S0065-
2601(02)80009-0 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Stuber J, Meyer I, Link B. Stigma, prejudice, discrimination and health. Soc Sci Med. (2008)
67:351–7. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.023 [PMC free article] [PubMed] [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Sumner WG. Folkways. New York, NY: Ginn: (1906). [Google Scholar]
Tajfel H. Differentiation Between Social Groups. Studies in the Social Psychology of Intergroup
Relations. London, UK: Academic Press; (1978). [Google Scholar]
Tajfel H, Turner JC. An integrative theory of intergroup behavior. In: WG, Austin, S Worchel,
editors. The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole;
(1979). p. 33–47. [Google Scholar]
Takano T, Yamada S, Doki T, Hohdatsu T. Pathogenesis of oral type I feline infectious
peritonitis virus (FIPV) infection: Antibody-dependent enhancement infection of cats
with type I FIPV via the oral route. Journal of Veterinary Medical Science 2019;
81(6):911–5. [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
Wang QH, Zhang YF, Wu LL, Niu S, et al. Structural and Functional Basis of SARS-CoV-2
Entry by Using Human ACE2. Cell. 2020;181:894-904.
Wang DW, Hu B, Hu C, et al. Clinical characteristics of 138 hospitalized patients with 2019
novel coronavirus- infected pneumonia in Wuhan, China. JAMA. 2020; 323:1061-1069.
Wesselmann ED, Wirth JH, Pryor JB, Reeder GD, Williams KD. When do we ostracize? Soc
Psycholog Personal Sci. (2013) 4:108–15. 10.1177/1948550612443386 [CrossRef]
[Google Scholar]
Williams J, Gonzalez-Medina D, Le Q. Infectious diseases and social stigma. Appl Technol
Innov. (2011) 4:58–70. 10.15208/ati.2011.7 [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Xu XW, Wu XX, Jiang XG, et al. Clinical findings in a group of patients infected with the 2019
novel corona virus (SARS-Cov-2) outside of Wuhan, China: retrospective cases series.
BMJ. 2020; 368:m606.
Yang L, Kleinman A. Face and the embodiment of stigma: schizophrenia and AIDS in China.
Soc Sci Med. (2008) 67:398–408. 10.1016/j.socscimed.2008.03.011 [PMC free article]
[PubMed] [CrossRef] [Google Scholar]
Yan RH, Zhang YY, Li YN, et al. Structural basis for the recognition of SARS-CoV-2 by full-
length human ACE2. Science. 2020; 367:1444-1448.
Young BE, Ong SWX, Kalimuddin S, et al. Epidemiologic Features and Clinical Course of
Patients Infected With SARS-CoV-2 in Singapore. JAMA. 2020; 323:1488-1494.
Zheng YY, Ma YT, Zhang JY, et al. COVID-19 and the cardiovascular system. Nature reviews
Cardiology. 2020; 17:259-260.
Zhou F, Yu T, Du RH, et al. Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with
COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet. 2020; 395:1054-1062.