A new Washington Post–KFF poll reveals a troubling shift in the United States: about one in six parents have delayed or skipped some vaccines for their children, excluding COVID-19 and flu shots. Nine percent have skipped the polio or measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccines. In a nation where routine childhood immunization has long been a bedrock of public health, the findings mark a significant tilt away from consensus and toward cautious hesitation. For Thai readers, the study offers a mirror to reflect on how trust, risk communication, and cultural values shape decisions about vaccines in a densely interconnected world.
Behind the numbers is a portrait of motivation. The poll shows that concerns about side effects and vaccine safety are the primary reasons parents choose to skip or delay vaccines, not barriers to healthcare access such as costs or scheduling difficulties. Half of the survey respondents admitted limited faith in federal health agencies’ ability to guarantee vaccine safety. In short, this is less a problem of supply and more a challenge of trust and perception. The message for Thailand is clear: even when vaccines are readily available and free, confidence in safety and the science behind immunization remains a decisive factor in whether families proceed with vaccination on schedule.
The demographics drawn in the poll are as telling as the numbers themselves. Parents who home-school a child, White parents who identify as very religious, and those who align with Republican identities or are under 35 are the most likely to skip or delay vaccines. Yet the vast majority of parents continue to vaccinate, underscoring that vaccine acceptance is not a binary state but a spectrum shaped by politics, religion, and personal experience. In a Thai context, this spectrum resonates with how communities weigh medical recommendations against deeply held beliefs, traditional practices, and the influence of trusted leaders—from school administrators to temple communities.
The study’s findings about trust are especially instructive. Roughly half of the parents surveyed do not have confidence in the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration to ensure vaccine safety and effectiveness. The report notes a complex landscape where trust in experts coexists with skepticism toward certain voices in public discourse. The Washington Post and KFF describe a climate in which some parents feel that vaccines are pushed too aggressively or are driven by factors other than clear, evidence-based risk assessment. And while concern for safety dominates, the data also shows that many parents still see value in vaccines for diseases like measles and polio, and remain willing to vaccinate in those cases. For Thailand, the takeaway is not to demonize vaccines but to bolster transparent, continuous risk communication that respects families’ concerns while reaffirming the scientific rationale for immunization.
The political and media environment matters. The poll notes that belief systems around vaccines are influenced by broader conversations about public health, government credibility, and the appearance of conflicting information from various public figures. The study highlights a notable trend: even as the majority still supports immunization, trust can loosen among younger or more skeptical audiences when misinformation is amplified by influential voices. Thailand’s public health landscape faces similar challenges in the era of social media, where misinformation can spread rapidly and shape perceptions about vaccine safety, efficacy, and the necessity of every shot on the schedule. The Thai public health system has long emphasized safety monitoring and science-based guidance, but the new U.S. findings underscore the ongoing need to adapt communication approaches to evolving information ecosystems and diverse audience segments.
In terms of vaccination patterns, the poll shows that people remain more consistent about traditional vaccines that protect against highly infectious diseases. In contrast, confidence around vaccines for newer threats, such as COVID-19, has shown more variability. For Thai readers, the contrast between routine immunization (which protects children from serious diseases) and newer vaccines (which may trigger heightened debate or concern) highlights an essential policy question: how to preserve high coverage for standard immunizations while ensuring flexibility and appropriate scrutiny for newer additions to the schedule. The key is balancing precaution with the imperative to prevent preventable disease outbreaks.
Expert voices quoted in the coverage emphasize a cautious optimism: while many parents still support vaccines, a non-trivial minority express doubt or hesitancy that could translate into real-world decisions. Liz Hamel of the health policy research institute notes that the country still has strong support for vaccines overall, but the fissures in confidence among younger or more politically heterogeneous groups are worth watching. Public health experts warn that delaying or spacing out doses can leave children unprotected during vulnerable periods, potentially widening transmission windows within communities. The broader message is that vaccines remain among the most effective tools for preventing disease, but public health success depends on sustaining trust through clear, consistent, and compassionate messaging.
Thailand-specific implications emerge clearly from these US findings. First, vaccine confidence is not a one-time hurdle but a moving target that shifts with new information, societal debates, and the personalities shaping public discourse. Thai health authorities should anticipate similar dynamics and invest in proactive risk communication that is transparent about both benefits and potential side effects. Second, trust in health institutions—such as the Ministry of Public Health, the National Communicable Disease Committee, and local health offices—must be reinforced through visible, ongoing safety monitoring and open channels for questions from parents, caregivers, and teachers. Third, collaboration with trusted community voices—pediatricians, village health volunteers, temple leaders, and school administrators—can help tailor messages in culturally resonant ways while maintaining scientific accuracy. And fourth, combating misinformation requires not only fact-based rebuttals but empathetic engagement: acknowledging parental fears, sharing relatable stories, and offering flexible vaccination schedules where appropriate without compromising overall protection.
To translate lessons into action, Thai policymakers and public health professionals could consider several practical steps. First, strengthen routine immunization campaigns with transparent safety data, including accessible explanations of side effects, risk magnitudes, and the safeguards that agencies use to detect and respond to adverse events. Second, expand trust-building outreach that speaks to younger parents and professionals who are active on social media, using clear, plain-language materials in multiple local languages and dialects. Third, continue to emphasize the public health rationale for herd immunity while explaining how individual decisions affect families and communities. Fourth, support schools and communities in implementing convenient, predictable vaccination opportunities—workplace clinics, school-based programs, and community health days—to reduce scheduling friction. Finally, invest in media literacy and science communication training for healthcare providers so that conversations with families are informative, respectful, and culturally attuned.
From a cultural standpoint, Thai society’s emphasis on family, elders, and communal responsibility echoes ancient wisdom about caring for one another. Buddhist and Buddhist-influenced values that stress non-harm and safeguarding the vulnerable align well with vaccination’s core purpose: protecting not only the individual child but the broader community. Yet, just as in the United States, trust in authority and the interpretation of scientific information matters. In Thai communities, where reverence for doctors, nurses, and public officials remains high, transparent guidance and reliable safety monitoring can reinforce confidence. The role of religious and community leaders in shaping health decisions can be leveraged to reinforce pro-vaccination messages while acknowledging and addressing legitimate concerns.
In the longer term, the Thai public health sector should monitor evolving attitudes toward vaccines with the same vigilance seen in the United States. This means preparing for shifts in trust that may accompany new public health debates or policy changes, and ensuring that vaccine safety remains an objective, well-communicated priority. It also means recognizing that vaccine acceptance is not a fixed trait among parents; it can be cultivated through sustained engagement, credible information, and visible demonstrations of accountability. The goal is not to coerce but to invite families into a shared commitment to child health and community protection, in ways that resonate with Thai values around family, community harmony, and respect for healthcare professionals.
For Thai families, the practical takeaway is straightforward: stay informed, ask questions, and participate in routine immunizations as recommended by trusted health professionals. If a parent has concerns about side effects or the necessity of a specific vaccine, the best course is a candid conversation with a pediatrician or public health nurse who can explain the risk-benefit calculus in accessible terms. For communities wary of new or additional vaccines, seek out evidence-based resources, verify information with credible sources, and consider attending community health talks or temple-led health education sessions that blend cultural relevance with scientific clarity. The shared objective is clear: protect children from preventable diseases while maintaining trust in the medical system that safeguards everyone’s health.
In sum, the Washington Post–KFF findings illuminate the nuanced terrain of vaccine decision-making in modern societies. They show that vaccines remain a majority priority, but confidence is fragile and needs continual reinforcement through transparent communication, credible science, and respectful engagement. For Thailand, the lessons are equally applicable: cultivate trust, meet families where they are, safeguard safety with rigorous monitoring, and frame vaccination as a communal duty that aligns with cultural values of care, respect, and collective well-being. As public health professionals, educators, and community leaders collaborate to protect the next generation, the emphasis should be on clarity, compassion, and consistent actions that demonstrate vaccines’ continued value in keeping Thai children healthy and communities resilient.