雅思阅读 133: The Two-Edged Sword of Vaccination（免疫接种的双刃剑）

改编自 Taylor & Francis / Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics（2025年8月）。雅思阅读 Section 3 难度，约 1050 词。 素材来源：https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/21645515.2025.2543167

Reading Passage

A. The rapid development of COVID-19 vaccines stands as one of the great scientific achievements of the century. Coordinated across continents, produced in record time and administered to billions, these preparations were credited with saving many millions of lives. Yet the campaign left behind a strange and troubling legacy: rather than settling public anxiety about immunisation, it seems to have deepened it. Researchers who have studied the aftermath describe a paradox. A global triumph of biomedical collaboration coincided with a visibly emboldened anti-vaccine movement, and trust in routine childhood shots began to slide. The consequences are no longer theoretical. By the middle of 2025, the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention reported more than thirteen hundred confirmed measles cases across forty jurisdictions — the highest national tally since the disease had been declared eliminated a quarter of a century earlier. Roughly eight out of every ten of those cases were clustered in outbreaks that concentrated on communities where few children had been vaccinated. The disease that parents once assumed belonged to history was, in other words, coming back. Kindergarten coverage against measles, mumps and rubella in the United States had slipped below the ninety-five per cent threshold long understood as necessary to block transmission.

B. Public-health scholars tend to interpret such behaviour through the Health Belief Model, which treats an individual's choice to accept or refuse a vaccine as the product of several calculations: how susceptible the person feels to the illness, how serious they believe it to be, what they perceive the benefits and barriers of vaccination to be, and whether anything prompts them to act. Viewed through this lens, the post-pandemic decline is not mysterious. Social platforms proved to be a double-edged instrument. They spread credible guidance quickly, but they also gave conspiracy theories an audience they had never previously enjoyed. Analysts who examined a vast corpus of vaccine-related postings found that messages alleging genetic modification or secret population control were shared disproportionately often. Worse, the small fraction of accounts responsible for most of this malicious content was remarkably unlikely to be suspended by the platforms that hosted it. When early disinformation campaigns were weighed against official health messaging, they frequently outperformed them, sowing fear of side effects among exactly the vulnerable groups that clinics most needed to reach. Analysis of more than a hundred thousand vaccine-related tweets found that conspiracy-laden messages were disproportionately likely to be shared, while barely an eighth of the accounts spreading them were ever suspended.

C. A second, quieter force was the corrosion of trust. Mixed advice about booster doses, though an honest reflection of learning about a novel virus, was read by many people not as science in progress but as evidence of muddle, or worse, of conspiracy. Survey data illustrate the gap plainly: among respondents who said they trusted their local health system, well over a third were willing to be vaccinated, whereas among those without such trust the figure was nearer to a quarter. Distrust of the pharmaceutical industry, often entangled with political loyalties, widened the gap further. Culture and economics played their part too. In some religious communities, objections sprang from misunderstandings about ingredients; in several lower-income countries, uptake tracked household wealth, with measles shots reaching the children of better-off families long before those of poorer ones. The decision not to vaccinate, in short, was rarely a single choice made by an isolated individual; it emerged from a web of institutions, identities and economic circumstance. In the United States, those who trusted the federal government were more than twice as likely to accept vaccination as those who did not.

D. The long-term consequences of this retreat are layered. Persistent refusal delayed the moment at which a population could be considered protected as a whole, allowing the virus to circulate and mutate. New variants emerged precisely in regions where vaccination coverage was lowest, prolonged transmission in unprotected people giving nature room to select strains that evaded existing immunity. More alarming still, the suspicion cultivated during the pandemic spilled over from emergency shots onto the routine childhood programme. Coverage against measles in American kindergartens fell by a couple of percentage points over four years, leaving hundreds of thousands of children unprotected. Opinion polling recorded a parallel softening: support for mandatory childhood vaccines, once overwhelming, slipped from about 85% to under 80%, and more than two in five adults admitted that their own attitudes toward vaccination had shifted over half a decade, most often toward scepticism. The diseases most effectively controlled by twentieth-century immunology — measles, diphtheria, polio — were once again on the radar of public-health agencies. A reshuffling of the federal vaccine advisory committee in 2025, which replaced long-serving members with figures critical of vaccine safety, was followed within months by a measurable rise in parental scepticism.

E. Rebuilding confidence, researchers argue, will require more than better leaflets. One recurring recommendation is to pre-bunk misinformation before it takes hold, rather than chase it with corrections after it has spread. Messages delivered by people the community already trusts — local clinicians, faith leaders, respected figures — have been shown to bridge divides that official announcements cannot. Technology may help: machine-learning models can flag vaccine-hesitant content with considerable accuracy, allowing platforms to intervene early. Structural reforms matter as well. In parts of Africa, modest conditional cash payments roughly doubled full immunisation rates at strikingly low cost per child, while reminders nudged uptake upward by dozens of percentage points. The lesson of the pandemic, then, is double-edged in both directions. Vaccines remain among medicine's most effective tools, but their protection depends on a social fabric — trust, access, honest communication — that can be worn thin if it is taken for granted. The countries that entered the pandemic with the highest baseline acceptance also recorded the highest booster uptake, suggesting that trust, once lost, is slow to rebuild.

Questions 1-4

Choose the correct heading for paragraphs B, C, D and E from the list of headings below.

List of Headings i. How social media amplified false claims about vaccines ii. The cost of producing COVID vaccines iii. Why the measles outbreak began iv. The collapse of trust and its cultural roots v. Long-term consequences for routine immunisation vi. Why herd immunity is biologically impossible vii. Strategies for restoring public confidence

1. Paragraph B: ____
2. Paragraph C: ____
3. Paragraph D: ____
4. Paragraph E: ____

Questions 5-8

Choose the correct letter, A, B, C or D.

5. According to the second paragraph, why did early disinformation campaigns succeed? A. They were funded by pharmaceutical companies. B. They spread faster and wider than official health messages. C. They were exclusively targeted at young children. D. They were repeatedly removed by social platforms.

6. What does the survey evidence in paragraph C suggest about trust? A. Trusting a local health system roughly doubled willingness to vaccinate. B. Trust had no measurable effect on vaccination decisions. C. Distrust was limited to wealthy countries. D. Religious people were always more trusting than atheists.

7. Why did new variants emerge, according to the writer? A. Vaccines were deliberately weakened by manufacturers. B. Prolonged spread in under-vaccinated populations gave the virus room to mutate. C. Older vaccines were abandoned too quickly. D. Travel bans prevented laboratory monitoring.

8. What do conditional cash payments in Africa demonstrate? A. Cash rewards are ignored by most parents. B. Small financial incentives can substantially raise immunisation rates. C. They work only in wealthy nations. D. They replace the need for vaccines.

Questions 9-13

Do the following statements agree with the claims of the writer?

Write:

• TRUE if the statement agrees with the information
• FALSE if the statement contradicts the information
• NOT GIVEN if there is no information on this

9. The measles cases reported in 2025 were mostly concentrated in unvaccinated communities.
10. Most accounts spreading malicious vaccine content were quickly suspended by social platforms.
11. Support for mandatory childhood vaccines rose slightly between 2019 and 2025.
12. The Health Belief Model was developed specifically to explain COVID-19 refusal.
13. Conditional cash transfer programmes in Nigeria cost around $11 per vaccinated child.

Questions 14-15

Complete the summary below using NO MORE THAN TWO WORDS from the passage.

Rather than simply debunking false claims after they spread, researchers recommend that agencies (14) __________ misinformation, using trusted community figures and, in some regions, modest conditional (15) __________ payments.

答案与解析

← 上一篇 | 返回雅思焦点 | 下一篇 →