SUMMERY

As is known, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a series of social limitations to break the spread of the infection. These limitations have not only generated severe complaints by groups of citizens, but moreover have resulted in the reinforcement of some populist activities, which are in general cynical of strategies like vaccinations, which help to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus. While even before the occurrence of COVID-19 immunization was a conflicting topic, a number of surveys have emphasized that the sociopolitical orientation of people has a direct effect on outlooks regarding inoculation [1]. Undoubtedly, vaccinations are among the greatest successes of contemporary medicine, and presently, immunization is the most reliable method for prevention of the current pandemic, though it is not a perfect approach with unbreakable protection. But, however, the anti-vaccination effort has caused a distressing decline in immunization rates. So, it is necessary to comprehend the causes of vaccine uncertainty, and to find working policies to undo the propaganda of antivaccine believers [2]. In the present article, disregard for lack of information or anxiety as the main causes of hesitation about refusal or deferring vaccination, politicization or party-political polarization of immunization, as an astonishing integration of two unlike subjects in the contemporary epoch, has been looked over, concisely, to analyze the interrelated dynamics of vaccine resistance.

Keywords: Politics; Immunization; Vaccination; Inoculation; Conspiracy Theory; Policymaking; Ideology; Beliefs; COVID- 19

Introduction

Currently, the COVID-19 pandemic has forced all domestic administrations to enact major limitations on personal liberty to break the spread of the infection. These limitations have not only generated severe complaints by groups of inhabitants, but moreover have resulted in the reinforcement of some populist activities and their radical representatives, who are in general cynical of strategies that help to stop the spread of the COVID-19 pandemic - a phenomenon that is termed ‘medical populism’ [3]. While even before the occurrence of COVID-19 inoculation was a conflicting topic, a number of surveys have emphasized and revealed empirically that the sociopolitical orientation of people has a direct effect on outlooks toward injections [1]. No doubt, vaccinations are among the greatest successes of contemporary medicine, and there is optimism that they can generate a solution to break the ongoing COVID-19 disease. But the anti-vaccination effort is presently on the rise and is spreading online propaganda about vaccine side effects and has caused a distressing decline in immunization rates. So, it is necessary to comprehend the causes of vaccine uncertainty, and to find working policies to undo the hoopla of anti-vaccination admirers [2]. Though the dilemma of vaccine antagonism [4] and mask non-adherence [5] had been talked over before [4,5], in the present article, politicization or party-political polarization of immunization, as an astonishing integration of two unlike subjects in the contemporary epoch, has been looked over concisely to analyze the interrelated dynamics of vaccine resistance and the made-up relationship between politics and vaccination, which has been one of the most important outcomes of science and systematic method in the recent epochs.

Background

Immunization and Public Attitude: Inoculations are among the greatest medical successes of the last century, due to their essential aid in dropping the incidence of infectious diseases and in decreasing mortality. In spite of the existing proof and the scientific agreement on the safety and the requirement of inoculations, an anti-vaccination activity has been developing over the past years [6], with an ensuing drop in immunization proportions and the likely resurrection of infections such as measles [7]. The said movement, which has added energy after the notorious publication of Andrew Wakefield’s study, which linked inoculations to autism [8], has been, recently, increasing its power, by misusing social media as communication networks [9,10]. Till now, it has been presented that immunization selection is influenced by morality, religion and personal ideology, the belief in conspiracy theories, emotive appeals or the lack of trust in authorities, the confidence in alternative medicine, in addition to the readability of pro- vs. anti-vaccination literature [11,12]. Most surveys principally focus on two aspects, the role of the internet and particularly social media, and the psychological approach connected to immunization [13,14].

While it seems that the majority of persons don’t consider the reliability of the source of data [15], anti-vaccination accusations are based mainly on personal practices and attitudes and provaccination supporters have the tendency to quote professionals and refer to scientific works when sharing their opinions online [16,17]. It is shocking that while some activists believe that their sperm is unpolluted by the vaccine, they express themselves as ‘purebloods’ [18]. Besides, some Far-right political figures and societies have taken advantage of fast alteration and experiences of financial disaster during the COVID-19 epidemic to endorse dogmas about protecting traditional family principles and Western values. In this regard, anti-vaccination movements have proven especially pleasing to white people who feel disadvantaged by rapid alterations in Western society, which have undermined their monetary and social dominant situation [19]. So, some recognized adherents of pro-fascist, white supremacist and neo-Nazi groups have been existent at anti-vaccination meetings [18]. Furthermore, the essential doctrine of the anti-vaccine philosophy is that vaccines cause autism and other evil health effects, and that regimes and the pharmacological commerce perceptively suppress this info. Besides, according to their “natural immunity theory”, barricades to microbes, like physical distancing and masks, deteriorate our immune system, and vaccines are just one more artificial loaded weapon that has targeted our immune system [19]. Nonetheless, while the emergent political polarization on scientific matters has caused the COVID-19 vaccine-related feeling to be separated across sociopolitical lines [20], COVID-19 continues to contaminate and kill; so, extensive immunization becomes indispensable for combating the virus [21]. Alternatively, using inoculation to battle the COVID-19 illness will not work effectively unless the majority of the people get immunized [22], whose hesitancy may derive from specific concerns about side effects, distrust of medical professions, conspiratorial beliefs [23-25], low levels of trust in political institutions, a low degree of education, and a feeling of alienation [1].

Vaccination and Party-political Schism: Despite the fact renowned parts of the anti-vaccine effort are on the political lefthand, anti-vaccine feeling is more manifest on the right [19]. By and large, it seems that “the more ideologically extreme, the more negative toward injections and immunization” [1]. Politically inspired rejection of COVID-19 vaccine usefulness is driven from a melodramatic politicization of confidence in science, doubt in public organizations and supposed threats to one’s sociocultural characteristics, and it seems that maybe political philosophy, like sentiment to right-wing absolutism, or social power orientation with “superior” groups controlling “inferior” groups, is now the main predictor of anti-science outlooks [26]. While political polarity is explicitly and implicitly influencing daily lives of people around the world [27], preceding studies have indicated that conservative persons, compared to liberal people, are, in general, less positive about immunization, and have a tendency to find higher levels of vaccine side effects and lower levels of its usefulness [28]. There are a number of motives for conservatives’ predisposition to experience less favorable feelings toward immunization.

First, investigation has delivered proof of conservative-liberal psychological dissimilarities, with traditionalists having sturdier cynicism toward systematic confirmation [29]. Conservatives also tend to favor more instinctual, heuristic-driven processing methods over methodical, purposeful manners of thinking [30]. In various means, the COVID-19 infection has become more politicized, with bigotry affecting persons’ outlooks toward preventive measures and trust in the soundness of COVID-19 data [31]. Likewise, inquiry has exhibited that those who are more conformist are less likely to have confidence in medical professionals [32,33], and are more expected to confirm conspiracy schemes such as vaccine threats are being censored by pharmaceutical corporations [34]. Also, analysis has shown that while liberal people seem to emphasize vaccine development and its role in termination of contagion, conservative persons discuss the probable wrongdoing in vaccine studies and related broadcasts [20].

Conspiracy Theory, Sketchily: According to a survey, antivaccination enthusiasts, in comparison with pro-vaccination groups, have more faith in conspiracy theories [2]. Based on the insecurity and absence of coping plans at the primary stage of the contagion, it is likely that conspiracy thinking provides a mechanism for keeping a sense of security, control and meaning during an ambiguous period [35]. It seems that intriguing concepts of various types, along with anti-vaccination dogmas and political radicalism tend to be linked with each other [36,37]. While the particulars of the conspiracy theories from the left and the right are markedly dissimilar, all of them see malevolent or hidden motives in diverse groups of persons and administrations behind immunization progression and distribution [20]. A common allegation is that the vaccination programs and lockdown measures are part of a great plot to establish an innovative universal totalitarian system [New World Order], which is going to be shaped by a secret group of influential elites. So, many anti-vaccine devotees believe they are fighting back immoral globalist powers who want to corrupt them and their children by tracking devices, microchips and other stealthy technology supposedly concealed in COVID-19 shots, to protect civil liberties [18]. Thus, while its appearance is medical, its core intention is political hegemony, all over the world, and citizens’ control, on a national scale. But the attainment of such an aspiring plot is not effortlessly. As a result, it demands a series of changes in the thinking and manners of citizens. For example, while digitalization, the internet and social media can prepare the background for enhancement of interaction and communication, it can arrange for monitoring of individuals’ beliefs and their social network, too.

The relationship between a virus, which does not seem to be natural or to act aimlessly, and earlier suspicious backups or doubtful forecasts by recognized globalist figures, is mysterious enough to endorse the actuality of a deceitful arrangement. Anyhow, the result of such a pandemic could be nothing except guaranteeing the physical separateness of citizens and further individualization, which may cut structured political protest and increase social amenability, via digitalized apparatuses and networks that can edify persons, individually and repetitively. On the other hand and consistent with the said egoistic intrigue, while the covid-19 virus and its changeable variants could reduce surplus and impractical inhabitants, new invented vaccines, too, could exterminate other leftover crowds and change masses by their side effects. Moreover, while in the last decades scientists were practically unsuccessful with respect to provision of an effective vaccine against human immune deficiency virus (HIV), the manufacturing of multiple registered vaccines against the greatest pandemic of recent century in less than a year can not be without question; vaccines with indeterminate doses. Furthermore, a new vaccine permit, along with a representative identification number and classic domestic passport, can be the inauguration of newer social and political IDs. The outcome of such an unpleasant recording of decisions and doings is nothing except superfluous monitoring of inhabitants and further restriction of civil liberties. Consequently, refusal of vaccinations may neutralize or interrupt the said unfair plot, which tries to retract, sooner or later, others’ belongings and authorities. Since the skeptics are not from the same national, religious or ethnic group, their faith in the above-mentioned assumed treachery or plot, as well, is erratic and their outlooks are not automatically alike. For instance, there are skeptics, who see globalization as an immoral conspiracy but don’t resist immunization. Even some of the pessimists who introduce themselves as anti-globalists don’t have a precise understanding of principles of contemporary globalization and ascribe that to Marxian thinkers, who are innately the antagonist to neoliberal policies of globalization and declare that as a shambolic and worldwide renewal of capitalism. Thus, there are diverse doubters with diverse worries, though their share point is typically vaccine antipathy. According to a survey, persons who recounted more conspiratorial views tended to be more antivaccine [19].

Discussion

The COVID-19 virus has forced states to execute major social limitations to stop the spread of infection. At this time, because of the production of effective vaccines, these limitations are expected to become obsolete if people get immunized. But some people have uncertainty about inoculation. Though this is not a new occurrence, it can be a serious one with respect to management of COVID-19 contagion. Therefore, the task of planning suitable policies for achievement of high levels of immunization asks for better attention [1]. Anyway, as has been mentioned earlier [4], an adequate number of fans for promotion of stunning or conflicting philosophies are always existent in every society, whether in developed or developing countries, thanks to adequate prevalence of personality disorders (schizotypal (3% of the population), paranoid personality (1-2.5% of the population), dependent personality (2.5% of personality disorders), avoidant personality (1-10% of the population), histrionic personality disorders (2-3%), and antisocial personality disorder (1% in women, 3% in men)) and traits, which are very more prevalent than disorders per se, cognitive deficiencies ((borderline intellectual functioning = 6% of the population, mild mental retardation (1% of the population)), depression (5% of the population), and delusional disorder (0.025 – 0.03% of the population). So, disregard to metaphysical, theoretical or cultural explanations, psychopathology can, directly or indirectly, play an important role in the spreading of gossip or unreasoned, but fascinating, ideas.

For example, a depressed person with nihilistic ideas and conscious or unconscious self-harm impulses may reject immunization with no trouble. Similarly, a delusional person with paranoid distrust may ascribe erratic attributions to the vaccine, which could be imagined as a secret armament that has been invented by his recognized or anonymous and interminable antagonists. Also, it seems that supernatural interest in schizotypal traits provides an ample framework for the proliferation of antivaccine propaganda, which can be boosted impressively by illiteracy. On the other hand, though knowledge is an important buffer against unscientific proposals, it cannot guarantee nonstop logical thinking when it is challenged by inner emotional preferences. For instance, the antipathy of anti-vaccine protagonists against physicians and medical authorities may be driven mostly from their inner resentment, not insightful perspectives or scientific evidence. Similarly, while the usefulness of the automobile cannot be denied due to accidents or mechanical impairment, the helpfulness of vaccines, science or the medical profession, as well, cannot be denied due to exposed deficiencies or existent forensic files. No sensible mind can deny the essential role of medical science in the prolongation of human survival, due to its methodical discoveries and researches during the last epochs. Vaccine-antagonists have forgotten that most of them have been inoculated by a series of vaccines during their childhood, which has let them be alive and healthy at the moment. Maybe they don’t know anything about smallpox, which has been eradicated in the last century by wideranging immunizations. Having faith in the fallaciousness of press releases and data about CID-19 for deception of the masses is another shocking belief that shows that anti-vaccine supporters don’t want to see the real mess, due to COVID-19, in hospitals and medical facilities during the last months; maybe, till their own septicity and decease.

Such an obvious divergence between ability to see realities and sightlessness drives from lack of objective perspective, which is not scarce among lay people. On the other hand, though evidence-based inquiry is the usual method of approach among specialists and researchers, objectiveness is not always the preferred method of rationalization among sophisticated people, because a remarkable number of cultivated people, even medics, can be found among anti-vaccine supporters. This shows that insight is not always dependent on existing proofs, if inner wishes or antagonisms challenge peripheral actualities, and unconscious emotions subjugate conscious pondering. The same pattern can be seen in denial (or distortion), which is a narcissistic defense mechanism in psychoses, passive-aggressive (negativistic) behavior, which is an immature defense mechanism and can be found in unspecified personality disorder, and oppositional-defiant disorder, which is a disruptive condition in children and adolescents. Also, there are some cults or fundamental groups, which are typically characterized by conservatism, idealism, dependence on destiny [38], unwavering attachment to a set of irreducible beliefs, a strong sense of importance of maintaining in-group and out-group peculiarities [39], emphasis on purity and the wish to return to a former model from which sponsors believe followers have drifted [40], and refusal of multiplicity of opinion and rejection of criticism about their established standpoints and interpretations within the group [41]. So, due to secretive or incomprehensible reasons, disavowal of inoculation, as well, can be one of their inflexible and indubitable dogmas. Also, some of the supporters of the antivaccine movement refer to the likely relationship between autism and immunization. In this regard, while considerable controversies have arisen over the question of whether exposure to the measles– mumps–rubella (MMR) immunization might be a causative factor for autism, this assumption rests largely on case reports that link the onset of autism with the immunization; however, it has long been known that a small number of children with autism present with a developmental regression, and the bulk of the available evidence does not support a causative association with immunization.

On the other hand, the potential danger and negative effect of an increase in children not immune to measles, mumps and rubella is considerable [42]. Though malleability of public opinion is always one of the wishes of every administration, public opinion commonly acts upon inner and cultural consent that are different from civil laws, which are typically based on rational and peripheral determining factors. So, since the said conflict is not, at all times, solvable with no trouble, it may demand force or cost. Regarding the conspiracy theory, it is interesting that while the present data is not enough for approval of the aforementioned schemes, the current state of affairs, as well, doesn’t permit governments to wait for more documents or surveys with respect to the political intentions of unnationalistic philosophers and the rightness or wrongness of globalization. Management of existing pandemics and mess demands urgent endeavors for protecting innocent people, who have suffered, so far, many discomforts. Approval of the above accusations can be an extra step that demands systematic and legal inquiry for finding proper and convincing evidence; a process that needs more patience, time and effort. On the other hand, the presence of the mafia is clear in some anti-vaccine activities, which condemns vaccination, by highlighting its side effects or underperformance, but then admires unsanctioned remedies, which don’t have any value more than placebo, on behalf of private profits. Illiteracy, holiness, or magical tendencies of hoi polloi, which is explicit for the said mafia, forms the necessary milieu for such a nasty business or misuse. Moreover, uncertainties about the aptness of the existent administrative systems can support, reflexively, the mafia’s tricks.

Protagonists of alternative medicine, as well, may take advantage of the present condition for aggrandizement of their own attitudes, though many of them don’t condemn usage of standard medical approaches, and recommend their followers to use routine therapeutic tactics together with nonstandard alternative approaches. While vaccine antagonism is not a new phenomenon, its politicization seems to be an innovative tactic that is theorized discordantly. Though politics is an all-inclusive subject, politicization of non-political issues, like immunization, seems to be more a byproduct of dogmatism, and not political mindfulness. No politician, whether conformist or open-minded, can endanger people due to party-political challenges, and no admirer is obliged to yield to irrational recommendations. Evidence-based perspectives is not limited to medical sciences and no field in the modern era can survive without rational attitudes. The current civilization, competencies, healthiness and relief cannot be constructed by illusions or recklessness. It demanded sound reality-testing and scientific rationalization. So, no reasonable correlation can exist between political affairs and immunization, except in biased conditions. If decision makers, as well, cannot polish up their strategies in line with external realities and are unable to take evidence-based decisions, then they cannot master challenges realistically and may use fascistic tactics [43]. Though policymakers may use or abuse science for gaining hegemony, they are not merited to falsify facts. If they misrepresent proof, knowingly or insentiently, then they are not politicians and they are charlatan or ill-informed, respectively.

For sure, no selfless political figure advises their fans and folks to act ridiculously and generally let them decide knowingly and liberally; otherwise it cannot be recognized as a party-political participation and it seems to represent a sectarian atmosphere [44], which may, sooner or later, jeopardize civil liberties. Therefore, policymakers must depoliticize immunization in order to increase trust in and public support for the vaccines in general and for vaccines against COVID-19 in particular [1]. So, it is important for officials who are planning an immunization policy against infections like COVID-19 or ones that might appear in the future to discern the dynamics of cynicism and resistance against inoculation [1]. Also, some intellectuals have described participatory community engagement as vital for successful COVID-19 immunization, which consists of working with communities and their leaders to help with bottom-up approaches [45]. They proposed that COVID-19 has drawn attention to the basic violence that is implanted within society, with the pandemic fostering the marginalization of traditionally excluded and oppressed groups. So, people who might have been neglected by the system and suffered disproportionate monetary and health costs from COVID-19 are now being asked “to trust the same structures” [45]that could not give suitable incomes and social protection during the pandemic. Failure to address these issues can worsen distrust and vaccine antagonism. Anyhow, participatory community engagement may engage more people with vaccine hesitancy, than persons with anti-vaccine beliefs [46]. Enlightening people about real threats and serious health care complications, proper use of the media, intelligible advertising billboards, healthful conferences, scientific criticism of unprincipled strategies by specialists and supporting community participation in the said discourses, encouragement of nongovernmental organizations and social activists to act reasonably in response to anti-vaccine agitators, are useful policies for strengthening immunization programs [47,48].

Conclusion

Though, traditionally, science and statistics have been used and abused by politicians for the attainment of hegemony and personal advantages, an evidence-based approach is a necessity for every person, whether as a specialist or as an average person; otherwise the outcome can be messy and unfavorable. So, no direct or indirect relationship can be assumed to exist between politics and immunization; two non-combinable objects. Though conspiracy theory can be a hypothesis that needs acceptable proof and investigation, the current pandemic is a real threat that demands instant and proper response. Disregard to lack of information or anxiety, as the main causes of hesitation for refusal or deferring vaccination, politicization of immunization drives mostly from subjective judgment, which can be pushed by leader’s, cult’s, kin’s, or media’s standpoints, as plausible sources of data for hoi polloi, in comparison with scientific texts or bulletins, as authentic resources for professionals. On the other hand, neither pro-vaccine groups nor anti-vaccine crowds have unconditional aficionados. Both of them consist of different people with unlike viewpoints. Presently, vaccination is the best approach for decreasing natural vulnerability and augmenting bodily defense. Though it is not a perfect approach with unbreakable protection, at the moment immunization is the most reliable method for management of the present pandemic. Survival is everybody’s right and its increase is a blessed objective and duty in public health and medical practice.

References

1. Debus M, Tosun J (2021) Political ideology and vaccination willingness: implications for policy design. Policy Sciences 54(3): 477-491.
2. Germani F, Biller Andorno N (2021) The anti-vaccination infodemic on social media: A behavioral analysis. Plos One 16(3): e0247642.
3. Lasco G (2020) Medical populism and the COVID-19 pandemic. Global Public Health 15(10): 1417-1429.
4. Shoja Shafti S (2021) Vaccine Antipathy thru SARS-CoV-2 Pandemic: A Systematic Review of Roots and Results. Journal of Virology Research & Reports 2(2): 1-5.
5. Shoja Shafti S (2021) A Systematic Review of Dynamic Forces as Regards Mask Non-Adherence in Healthcare and Community Settings. Mental Health & Human Resilience International Journal 5(1): 1-7.
6. Tafuri S, Gallone MS, Cappelli MG, Martinelli D, Prato R, et al. (2014) Addressing the anti-vaccination movement and the role of HCWs. Vaccine 32(38): 4860-4865.
7. Hammond J (2020) Vaccine confidence, coverage, and hesitancy worldwide: A literature analysis of vaccine hesitancy and potential causes worldwide. Senior theses 344: 1-24.
8. Destefano F (2007) Vaccines and autism: evidence does not support a causal association. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics 82(6): 756-769.
9. Johnson MF, Velasquez N, Restrepo NJ, Rhys Leahy, Nicholas Gabriel, et al. (2020) The online competition between pro- and anti-vaccination views. Nature 582: 230-233.
10. Burki T (2020) The online anti-vaccine movement in the age of COVID-19. The Lancet Digital Health 2(10): 504-505.
11. Kata A (2010) A postmodern Pandora’s box: Anti-vaccination misinformation on the Internet. Vaccine 28(7): 1709-1716.
12. Xu Z, Ellis L, Umphrey LR (2019) The easier the better? Comparing the readability and engagement of online pro- and anti-vaccination articles. Health Education and Behavior 46(5): 790-797.
13. Hornsey MU, Harris EA, Fielding KS (2018) The psychological roots of anti-vaccination attitudes: A 24-nation investigation. Health Psychology 37(4): 307-315.
14. Schmidt AL, Zollo Z, Scala A, Betsch C, Quattrociocchi W (2018) Polarization of the vaccination debate on Facebook. Vaccine 36(25): 3606-3612.
15. Allam A, Schulz PJ, Nakamoto K (2014) The impact of search engine selection and sorting criteria on vaccination beliefs and attitudes: two experiments manipulating Google output. J Med Internet Res 16(4): e100.
16. (2020) The COCONEL Group. A future vaccination campaign against COVID-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20(7): 769-770.
17. Larson HJ, de Figueiredo A, Xiahong Z, Schulz WS, Verger P, et al. (2016) The state of vaccine confidence 2016: Global insights through a 67-country survey. EBioMedicine 12: 295-301.
18. (2021) A Dozen Misguided Influencers Spread Most of the Anti-Vaccination Content on Social Media.
19. (2020) The Anti-Vaccine Movement in 2020.
20. Jiang X, Su MH, Hwang J, Ruixue Lian, Markus Brauer, et al. (2021) Polarization Over Vaccination: Ideological Differences in Twitter Expression About COVID-19 Vaccine Favorability and Specific Hesitancy Concerns. Social Media + Society 7(3): 1-14.
21. Peretti Watel P, Seror V, Cortaredona S, Odile Launay, Jocelyn Raude, et al. (2020) A future vaccination campaign against COVID-19 at risk of vaccine hesitancy and politicisation. The Lancet Infectious Diseases 20(7): 769-770.
22. Dror AA, Eisenbach N, Taiber S, Nicole G Morozov, Matti Mizrachi, et al. (2020) Vaccine hesitancy: The next challenge in the fight against COVID-19. European Journal of Epidemiology 35(8): 775-779.
23. Larson HJ, Broniatowski DA (2021) Volatility of vaccine confidence. Science 371(6536): 1289-1289.
24. Jolley D, Douglas KM (2014) The effects of anti-vaccine conspiracy theories on vaccination intentions. Plos One 9(2): e89177.
25. Kennedy J (2019) Populist politics and vaccine hesitancy in Western Europe: An analysis of national-level data. European Journal of Public Health 29(3): 512-516.
26. (2021) Deschutes County reports 326 COVID-19 cases, sets daily record; rate leads state.
27. Finkel EJ, Bail CA, Cikara M, Peter H Ditto, Shanto Iyengar, et al. (2020) Political sectarianism in America. Science 370(6516): 533-536.
28. Blank JM, Shaw D (2015) Does partisanship shape attitudes toward science and public policy? The case for ideology and religion. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658(1): 18-35.
29. Kraft PW, Lodge M, Taber CS (2015) Why people “don’t trust the evidence”: Motivated reasoning and scientific beliefs. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 658(1): 121-133.
30. Jost JT, Glaser J, Kruglanski AW, Frank J Sulloway (2003) Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin 129(3): 339-375.
31. Miller J (2020) Psychological, political, and situational factors combine to boost COVID-19 conspiracy theory beliefs. Canadian Journal of Political Science 53(2): 327-334.
32. Baumgaertner B, Carlisle JE, Justwan F (2018) The influence of political ideology and trust on willingness to vaccinate. Plos One 13(1): e0191728.
33. Reuben R, Aitken D, Freedman JL, Gillian Einstein (2020) Mistrust of the medical profession and higher disgust sensitivity predict parental vaccine hesitancy. Plos One 15(9): e0237755.
34. Featherstone J D, Bell RA, Ruiz JB (2019) Relationship of people’s sources of health information and political ideology with acceptance of conspiratorial beliefs about vaccines. Vaccine 37(23): 2993-2997.
35. Newheiser AK, Farias M, Tausch N (2011) The functional nature of conspiracy beliefs: Examining the underpinnings of belief in the Da Vinci Code conspiracy. Personality and Individual Differences 51(8): 1007-1011.
36. Lewis JR (2020) What is driving the decline in people’s willingness to take the COVID-19 vaccine in the United States? JAMA Health Forum 1(11): e201393.
37. Wood MJ, Douglas KM, Sutton RM (2012) Dead and alive: Beliefs in contradictory conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science 3(6): 767-773.
38. Prooijen J, Krouwel APM, Pollet TV (2015) Political extremism predicts belief in conspiracy theories. Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(5): 570-578.
39. Nagata J (2001) Beyond Theology: Toward an Anthropology of Fundamentalism. American Anthropologist 103(2): 481-498.
40. Ruthven M (2005) Fundamentalism: The Search for Meaning. In: Ruthven M (Edt.)., Oxford: Oxford University Press, UK.
41. Torrey RA (1909) The Fundamentals. In: Torrey RA (Edt.)., Biola University, Los Angeles.
42. Altemeyer B, Hunsberger B (1992) Authoritarianism, religious fundamentalism, quest, and prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion 2(2): 113-133.
43. Volkmar FR, Klin A, Schultz RT, State MW (2017) Autism Spectrum Disorder and Social Communication Disorder. In: Sadock BJ, Sadock VA, Ruiz P (Eds.)., Kaplan & Sadock's Comprehensive Textbook of Psychiatry (10^th)., Philadelphia- Wolters Kluwer, pp. 3574-3579.
44. Shoja Shafti S (2021) Jung as a Fascist Theorist or Philanthropic Victim: A Second Look. Biomedical Journal of Scientific & Technical Research 38(2): 30160-30167.
45. Shoja Shafti S (2020) Narcissism: Groundwork for Sectarian Misdemeanors. International Journal of Psychiatry and Mental Health 2: 8-16.
46. Burgess RA, Osborne RH, Yongabi KA, Trisha Greenhalgh, Deepti Gurdasani, et al. (2021) The COVID-19 vaccine rush: participatory community engagement matters more than ever. Lancet 397(10268): 8-10.
47. Betsch C, Schmid P, Heinemeier D, Korn L, Holtmann C, et al. (2018) Beyond confidence: Development of a measure assessing the 5C psychological antecedents of vaccination. Plos One 13(12).
48. Mylan S, Hardman C (2021) COVID-19, cults, and the anti-vax movement. The Lancet 397(10280): 1181.

SUMMERY

As is known, the COVID-19 pandemic has caused a series of social limitations to break the spread of the infection. These limitations have not only generated severe complaints by groups of citizens, but moreover have resulted in the reinforcement of some populist activities, which are in general cynical of strategies like vaccinations, which help to stop the spread of the COVID-19 virus. While even before the occurrence of COVID-19 immunization was a conflicting topic, a number of surveys have emphasized that the sociopolitical orientation of people has a direct effect on outlooks regarding inoculation [1]. Undoubtedly, vaccinations are among the greatest successes of contemporary medicine, and presently, immunization is the most reliable method for prevention of the current pandemic, though it is not a perfect approach with unbreakable protection. But, however, the anti-vaccination effort has caused a distressing decline in immunization rates. So, it is necessary to comprehend the causes of vaccine uncertainty, and to find working policies to undo the propaganda of antivaccine believers [2]. In the present article, disregard for lack of information or anxiety as the main causes of hesitation about refusal or deferring vaccination, politicization or party-political polarization of immunization, as an astonishing integration of two unlike subjects in the contemporary epoch, has been looked over, concisely, to analyze the interrelated dynamics of vaccine resistance.

Keywords: Politics; Immunization; Vaccination; Inoculation; Conspiracy Theory; Policymaking; Ideology; Beliefs; COVID- 19