Media Coverage of COVID-19 Vaccine Risks in Australia During 2021: Risk Communication During a Rapidly Evolving Situation

Background: Vaccines are one of the cornerstones of the COVID-19 pandemic public health strategy. In Australia during 2021, there was much focus on the two widely-available vaccines – tozinameran (Comirnaty) and ChAdOx1-S (Vaxzevria). As early as March 2021, less than a month after approval, there were concerns about possible blood clots associated with ChAdOx1-S. Public communication of benefits and risks of these vaccines was complex, given competing pressures relating to constraints on supply, urgent need to provide protection against COVID-19 infections, and the need to address serious risks and ensure appropriate use. Given its accessibility and ability to act as a public forum for discussion of important issues, the media was vital in providing timely information as health advice rapidly changed.

Objectives: To examine the media response in Australia to emerging evidence of COVID-19 vaccine risks.

Methods: This was a retrospective analysis of the content of media reports on vaccine risks. Relevant articles were identified in Factiva by searching for vaccines which were available in Australia in 2021 combined with key terms including “clot”, “death”, and “myocarditis” in the title or lead paragraph. Press releases, medical press, and letters to the editor were excluded. We carried out a content analysis to examine the types of evidence cited by reporters, position on harms (accepted; minimised; no position/unknown), and how reporting changed as the pandemic and scientific evidence evolved

Results: We identified 1085 potentially relevant news reports published in 2021. After removing duplicates (syndicated/republished) and those not meeting inclusion criteria, 634 reports remained. Data were extracted for a random sample of 200. Most mentioned ChAdOx1-S (94.5%) followed by tozinameran (40.5%). Other COVID-19 vaccines were mentioned in less than 5%. Reports on ChAdOx1-S usually provided information on blood clot risk (97%) and 30% also mentioned risk of death. Reports on both ChAdOx1-S and tozinameran did not often mention benefits of vaccination (30% and 27% respectively). Government actions and regulator decisions were included in 46.5% and 52% of reports respectively and politicians were the most commonly quoted individuals (39.5%). Published research was only mentioned in 2% of media reports.

Conclusions: Vaccine risk communication is a complex issue, further complicated by a global pandemic. While the Australian media frequently reported on harms of COVID vaccines, scientific evidence was rarely cited and information on benefits was usually omitted. Health professionals and consumers need accurate information to make an informed decision about vaccine options. This study highlights the role of the media and key gaps in information quality.