> Polls show that about 30 percent of the U.S. population is still reluctant to be vaccinated. That number is expected to improve but probably not enough. “It is theoretically possible that we could get to about 90 percent vaccination coverage, but not super likely, I would say,” said Marc Lipsitch, an epidemiologist at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
This is really poor, positive vaccine sentiment in the UK has increased to 94% (late March) since December 2020 and actual take-up in my area isn't far off (about 91%). That's almost 1 in 3 people in the US who are reluctant to get vaccinated.
Is this an education problem? Is there not a consistent minimum science curriculum for K-12 which covers pathogens, treatments and the history of vaccination programmes? Are there other factors that are relevant?
It's not an education problem. It's an ideology problem. A huge fraction of the country has basically lost all faith in public and academic institutions. In these polarized times, when many leaders that institution-skeptics listen to decided to make COVID a political issue in the ongoing culture war, listening to public health recommendations (including masking, vaccination) is akin to "letting the other side win".
Earlier in the vaccine rollout, some minority populations were skeptical of the vaccine for more historically-grounded reasons (i.e. historical discrimination/abuses in the healthcare system), but that skepticism has faded dramatically [1] as more and more people get the vaccine. Only one group [2] has been pretty consistently unwilling to get the vaccine, and it's tightly coupled to the same ideological alignments that are dividing society in all political and social arenas.
More education won't change deeply-held ideological beliefs.
Part of it is that many Americans loudly distrust the government, and other systems of power. This isn't all that irrational, because these institutions have routinely proven themselves to be untrustworty.
Then there are people who are normally on board with vaccines, who are reluctant for covid because it is brand new. Just like any sysadmin worth their salt doesn't blindly install every update the moment they come out. If I didn't have a compromised immune system I probably would have waited at least another year before getting my shots.
>This is really poor, positive vaccine sentiment in the UK has increased to 94% (late March) since December 2020 and actual take-up in my area isn't far off (about 91%). That's almost 1 in 3 people in the US who are reluctant to get vaccinated.
Blame the media and hypocritical politicians who talk out both sides of their mouths. You can't expect the citizens to want the vaccine while simultaneously doing sensationalist stories on very rare side effects.
Even Fauci and the CDC to be promoting the idea that the vaccine isn't that effective. Get the vaccine! You still have to wear masks, social distance, and effectively stay locked down! That's not making it sound like you think the vaccine is effective at all.... On top of that they seem to double down on more authoritarian rhetoric which just causes more distrust. News flash: vaccine passports and forced contact tracing don't make people think your intentions are altruistic.
No I don’t think it’s education. I think it’s a mistrust of a system that has screwed people over for money many times in recent memory.
Many healthcare workers originally said they weren’t willing to get the vaccine[0], people who are clearly educated, maybe not specifically about vaccines, but about medicine in general.
Antivax tendencies have become related to political identification in the US in a rather unusual way; I don't think this has really happened anywhere else. At the extreme, various polls show that about 50% of Republican men won't take the vaccine when offered. This is particularly dangerous because political identification in the US is highly regionalised, so there's a risk of pockets of permanently heavily under-vaccinated population.
Don't people who've been infected count toward the herd immunity. That ~30% of Americans. I know there's some overlap but if we can get to 70% of people vaccinated I think we'd be really close, no?
>Is this an education problem? Is there not a consistent minimum science curriculum for K-12 which covers pathogens, treatments and the history of vaccination programmes? Are there other factors that are relevant?
I think it is more complicated than just education. The general sentiment I hear from people is in the past we were told that once we get vaccinated we could return to normal. Now we are told we still need to wear a mask, socially distance, not go back to our offices, can't send our kids to school, etc. Many people figure if that is the case why bother taking the vaccine, especially since they haven't even been FDA approved and are using newer methods (mrna) without long term testing on the effects. Some scientists are saying we cannot return to normal until there are no new cases while also saying it will become seasonal and be with us forever. People are losing faith in the scientists because of their ever changing statements.
It may be the wrong mentality but in my view it is understandable.
Ah yes, vaccine reluctance must only come from ignorance. Certainly not education or research into the side effects of vaccines and how these in particular affect people of younger ages with more risks than getting covid.
I think a big part of it is how genuinely fucked up the US healthcare system is. This sows a lot of distrust towards all related industries, including the pharmaceutical industry. Not at all saying this is a true or justified belief, but from what I can gather many of the skeptics think this is a scam designed to profit Big Pharma. Others are equally disposed to distrust government in general. And on top of that you had a president who politicized the pandemic from the very beginning, meaning for many people there is simply no way for them to view the situation rationally or objectively.
People in the US rightly don't trust the pharmaceutical industry or the government. They may not be able to pinpoint why, but when they look around they see that every year the people around them are more obese and have more chronic health conditions. They may not be able to tie those things together consciously, but it leaves the powerful subconscious feeling that the government and pharmaceutical industries do not want them to be healthy.
Have you read any articles on this subject? There are many factors affecting someone's medical decisions. It's not as simple as some K-12 education plan.
>Is there not a consistent minimum science curriculum for K-12 which covers pathogens, treatments and the history of vaccination programmes?
There is not a consistent curriculum and there's a significant portion of the US population who believe anything that runs against "the experts" because they're mistrustful of education and the concept of expertise. It's the same reason we don't have a federal ID card because to them it's the Biblical "mark of the beast".
A number of reporters have gone out and talked to vaccine skeptics, e.g. [1]. They don't appear to be suffering from a deficit of knowledge or "false consciousness" or whatever. Their beliefs are reasonable and their preferences are internally consistent.
>Is this an education problem? Is there not a consistent minimum science curriculum for K-12 which covers pathogens, treatments and the history of vaccination programmes? Are there other factors that are relevant?
It's not an education problem and while most comments I predict will consider that the main factor, I disagree and consider it a condescending take. We all learn about Louis Pasteur and successful eradications in the past. It's a cultural/philosophical problem. Right-leaning americans in general value a certain degree of autonomy over a guarantee of safety and if you coerce them "for their own good" they'll double down on whatever the opposite of what you're suggesting is. In the case of this pandemic, all of the mixed messaging regarding mask-wearing and other prevention measures poisoned the well in the first quarter of 2020, before the messaging became consistent by the summer. This turned a health debate into a struggle for rights: "We're all in this together" vs "99% let me take my chances". It's the same debate as 2A. For 2A absolutists, no statistic has come out that justifies giving up what's perceived as an inalienable right.
Just look at the standoff between the teacher unions and the CDC. The unions take the side of their members who would rather stay away from the little asymptomatic sweethearts while the CDC takes the government's side and would like to have school going again so both parents can be back at work.
If the government's messaging is that the economy takes precedence over individual safety, that's the priors that people work with when they evaluate vaccine safety.
I honestly think it's weird that more people aren't "sceptics", however stupid that word is in itself.
I would gladly take the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine right this minute, but i also know of the terrible track records the pharmaindustry - there is so many shady examples to choose from it's incredible that anyone doubts how vulture-like that industry is, - also there was corruption the last time a pandemic hit:
Yes from what I have seen its an education problem. The people I know who are reluctant have no clear idea how vaccines work or a good grasp of statistics. They generally seem to be ok with taking the risk of getting the virus but perceive a higher risk with taking a new vaccine even though the evidence is to the contrary.
Most of these people are on the anti-vax, all natural, anti-gmo, wifi and microwaves cause cancer spectrum and it all comes from a lack of understanding the science and technology of modern life.
This story is also an example of the conflicting stories we get out of leaders? How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? They were saying we needed that just last summer!
That loss of trust in giving us correct/congruent information from leaders is absolutely hurting America right now
Manipulating the population behavior by manipulating goalposts seems to have been intentional the whole time. From the NYT in December titled How Much Herd Immunity Is Enough?
> In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
> "When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
The rest of the interview doesn't make it sound any better.
It's not conflicting. New evidence changes science-based understanding and decisions. This is at the core of how science works. It's impossible to know everything about everything immediately so you make the best decisions you can based on the information you do have.
Herd immunity is still the holy grail of dealing with an infectious disease like this. If new evidence says we're not going to reach it, for whatever reason, then you have to shift tactics to something else that may not be as ideal but is more likely achievable.
While I understand that messages/information changing can cause some genuine confusion, the concept that once information is delivered it must never change and if it does then you can't trust any of it is just a wedge used to sow mistrust. While it may be comforting to have that sort of authority/consistency, anybody who tells you they know everything about everything immediately is lying to you.
> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity?
If people refuse to take the vaccine, then obviously the US will never reach it. It's not inconsistent to say that the US _must_ reach it, yet will not.
>How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity
The Michael Osterholm podcast goes into this last week.
"So when B117 came along and we see anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more transmission than previous strains, that automatically had to move herd immunity levels up to accomplish the slowing down of transmission. And we don't know what that is. I can truly tell you, as an epidemiologist in the trenches for 46 years, B117 is much more infectious than the strains we dealt with 6 months ago. But I can't tell you with any certainty what that means. So let's just at the outset say, you know, we'd all like to try to achieve concepts of herd immunity, but I don't know what they are. And I can only hope that we can slow down transmission. But I don't have a sense that by itself will ever stop it." [0]
Downvoted. I'd like to snuff out this notion that changing your story after receiving new information is a negative thing.
Research, especially on something like a new virus, takes time. We know more about the virus now than we did a year ago, so of course predictions and recommendations are going to change. That is not weakness, that is science.
I strongly suspect that the U.S. will largely return to some version of 'normal' by the end of the summer at the latest. No required masks, minimal social distancing, and a return to pre-pandemic levels of domestic travel. Under this scenario, it seems that either enough people in a region will be vaccinated to reach local herd immunity or the virus (unstopped by masks/lockdowns/distancing) will quickly infect the remaining unvaccinated population. Either way, wouldn't herd-immunity eventually be attained?
In other words, the vaccine is so effective at preventing serious illness in those that have it, I don't see public policy being put in place to save those unwilling to be vaccined once everyone has had a chance. It seems that will eventually achieve some level of herd-immunity through a combination of infection and vaccination.
Not sure why you're being downvoted, because I think this is accurate.
We will reach a point, probably in a couple months, where everyone in the US who wants the vaccine will have gotten one. By that time, restrictions will be lifted, mask mandates will be gone, lockdowns ended, etc.
The virus will continue to spread among the unvaccinated. And I will have zero sympathy for the people who choose not to get the vaccine and end up hospitalized because of the virus. (Note my emphasis on CHOOSE: I still have sympathy for those that can't get the vaccine and end up infected)
I agree, but I wonder if 'normal' will include some increased border security and international travel restrictions? There are countries that are lagging far behind the US in vaccinations.
my wife has a phd in drug development and is concerned about the speed in which this was released and the lack of long term safety trials. is she antivax/antiscience?
Of course not. But we have to work with the data we have. Which currently says that the vaccine is safer than the disease. Considering hundreds of millions in many different countries have the vaccines it is fairly reasonable to believe that it is safe, considering that we're not seeing deaths associated with it. You always have to do cost/risk balancing. But if a hundred countries are all taking the same action and there's millions of people having already been "experimented" on (some for about a year, i.e. doctors who got the vaccines first) it reasons that there isn't much risk. Countries don't agree that much on anything, not even a pandemic response.
All the experts are concerned too. I work in vaccines (not claiming to be an expert) and I'm concerned too. Long-term safety trials take time, and so the question is how long are you willing to wait for the data? Its a shitty situation all around with the loss of human life, the impact to the economy and the politicization of every damn thing.
>lack of long term safety trials. is she antivax/antiscience?
I don't think so, but in our cultural climate those who bring up real, substantive questions about the process can be brought up. It is a shame since the MRNA vaccines are new for such widespread usage.
For me it came down to risk/reward. A year of being a hermit and the impact on my family tipped the scales.
When I had both doses and the time after I had no reaction. Others in my family had some sort of reaction even if it was just a sore arm. Does that mean it didn't work? No idea and there isn't a long term study to look at to learn from.
There were many technological advancement that allowed the release of the vaccine faster than ever. Often the long pole and vaccine development is the testing period. The thing is, when a non-trivial percentage of the population is actively infected, you can test really quickly. At this point the vaccines have made their way the tens or hundreds of millions of people, where the usual phase 3 clinical trial lasts a long time, yes, but only involves 3 to 30,000 people.
It’s a question of risk management. We have to weigh the cost of action against the cost of inaction.
I have no basis on which to form an opinion on your wife :-) but everyone’s been reacting differently to this situation. I’m encouraging people to follow the vast quantities of data.
There's a fine line between bravery and stupidity.
Stupidity was going about your normal life, and getting mad about the new reality we were faced with when this whole thing started. The balance of risking your life for the sake of having fun was heavily skewed toward stupid.
Bravery is beginning to build a new semblance of normalcy in a post vaccine world, and attempting to move on. We have the science, we know it works, we just have to trust it now and be brave. The balance of risking a mild flu-like infection at worst for the sake having fun has flipped toward being brave for people who are vaccinated.
This virus is here to stay with us for the rest of the history of humanity. But we know how to beat it now and a fully vaccinated person is clinically proven to be at minimal risk.
Honest question - I'm after good articles to read about this:
Why is it that we have been able to eliminate things like Polio and Smallpox, yet there's doubt about COVID? They were both viruses, must have mutated, were fairly easily spread and it must have taken longer to vaccinate enough people given the advances in logistics and vaccine tech we now have. What's the fundamental difference?
I usually wait to install a software update patch in a production environment until first movers have reported no bugs, so why can't that apply to vaccines as well ?
I'd love if someone broke down _reasons_ for vaccine hesitancy. It seems like the strategies we should develop for addressing them would be different, and that there shouldn't be a one-size-fits-all strategy, as we're trying to do today.
So far, I personally have encountered the following viewpoints in my family and peer group (none of which I share) - in decreasing order of how much credence I'll give them:
1. I'm pregnant and don't know what it does to my baby.
2. I do not think the vaccine is safe, because we developed it too fast. Corollary: blood clots in two of them are my proof.
3. I agree the vaccine is safe and effective, but it was made with "aborted babies" [actually: stem cell lines, as are many vaccines that I'm sure they _have_ taken], and I will not take it on religious grounds.
4. I will not take the vaccine on principle, as it constitutes government overreach into our lives. It is irrelevant whether it is safe or effective.
Given that all of the communication I've seen has centered around safety and effectiveness, it seems like two out of these four cases are not being addressed.
I wanted to add that a lot of the people I know who are “vaccine hesitant” are just waiting a little longer to see how things go. I don’t see a whole lot of representation of folks who intend to get the vaccine this summer when I read publications and articles about it, but I would wager that there’s more people intending to get it but not quite yet than we think.
I think this problem is more complex than many talk about and it ends up just being fear based news.
People aren't hesitant to get the vaccine because it might have Bill Gates microchips, they are hesitant because this was the fastest rolled out vaccine in human history (>3x faster than the second) and people don't trust the government. Their concerns aren't founded in science, but they are reasonable. So treating them as unreasonable is going to make them double down on their position. What's worse is that some news organizations ask similar questions but never answer (come on, you're the news and you can't google? WTF, no wonder people don't trust you). If you want to see the exaggerated version of this look at Russia where few trust the government and there is higher hesitancy to take Sputnik V.
Also we can't forget how the definition of herd immunity has changed. Back when the pandemic started I and many others warned that changing the definition of herd immunity to mean only herd immunity built through natural infection would empower anti-vaxers. Places like Nature[0] are supposed to be the place to get scientific news but botched this (even disagreeing with the experts they are quoting in the article), and they aren't the only one. This makes things rather confusing for people. This build distrust, and now we're seeing the repercussions of that. So when someone like Tucker Carlson goes on air and asks a bunch of questions and is always saying that the government wants you to "shut up and listen" (a common phrase) of course people question.
But these people will change, I've seen it. They have a bunch of questions but no answers, and like many, often don't know how to find them. This may be obvious to us who are so used to the internet and google daily to do our jobs, but these people don't even know how to do that or find credible sources. So it then comes down to us, the "smart people", to help. To talk about how doctors have been taking the vaccines for months before we got access. That politicians and wealthy white people wouldn't take it if it was an experiment. There's a lot of data to show that this isn't some grand experiment (well it is, but not in the way those people think experiments are. Maybe leave that nuance out?). But you have to do this without making the person feel like a fool. If you do this I promise they will soon change their minds. As for the 5G/Bill Gates people, well luckily they are a very small minority. Let's just not give them a platform. And don't equate vaccine hesitancy for that. It will just make the path to herd immunity more difficult.
Like it or not this is now an endemic threat. Living a normal life was absolutely reckless in the beginning because we didn't have the vaccines, and it was a novel virus with totally unknown characteristics. But with it, your risk of developing health complications or being hospitalized from COVID is practically nonexistent. We will end up living with this now the same way we do with everything else.
Mass downvoting going on for some reason. It's not an education issue IMO, it's an ideological issue that--as others have pointed out-- has been weaponized in the form of profits (pharma) or politics (government, business)
Ah, well in that case I guess it's a sure bet that we'll reach it. Betting against the experts hasn't been such a bad idea through this whole dismal ordeal.
Let's hope, anyway, because that second shot is a doozy and I sure don't want to have to repeat that every year. I suspect, though, if this does become endemic, they'll tweak the dosage a bit of the vaccine, and it might be akin to only needing the first shot (which hardly affected me), possibly slightly more often.
[+] [-] lol768|4 years ago|reply
This is really poor, positive vaccine sentiment in the UK has increased to 94% (late March) since December 2020 and actual take-up in my area isn't far off (about 91%). That's almost 1 in 3 people in the US who are reluctant to get vaccinated.
Is this an education problem? Is there not a consistent minimum science curriculum for K-12 which covers pathogens, treatments and the history of vaccination programmes? Are there other factors that are relevant?
[+] [-] beisner|4 years ago|reply
Earlier in the vaccine rollout, some minority populations were skeptical of the vaccine for more historically-grounded reasons (i.e. historical discrimination/abuses in the healthcare system), but that skepticism has faded dramatically [1] as more and more people get the vaccine. Only one group [2] has been pretty consistently unwilling to get the vaccine, and it's tightly coupled to the same ideological alignments that are dividing society in all political and social arenas.
More education won't change deeply-held ideological beliefs.
[1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans...
[2] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-re...
[+] [-] dec0dedab0de|4 years ago|reply
Then there are people who are normally on board with vaccines, who are reluctant for covid because it is brand new. Just like any sysadmin worth their salt doesn't blindly install every update the moment they come out. If I didn't have a compromised immune system I probably would have waited at least another year before getting my shots.
So sure, it's selfish, but its not stupid.
[+] [-] CountDrewku|4 years ago|reply
Blame the media and hypocritical politicians who talk out both sides of their mouths. You can't expect the citizens to want the vaccine while simultaneously doing sensationalist stories on very rare side effects.
Even Fauci and the CDC to be promoting the idea that the vaccine isn't that effective. Get the vaccine! You still have to wear masks, social distance, and effectively stay locked down! That's not making it sound like you think the vaccine is effective at all.... On top of that they seem to double down on more authoritarian rhetoric which just causes more distrust. News flash: vaccine passports and forced contact tracing don't make people think your intentions are altruistic.
[+] [-] minkzilla|4 years ago|reply
Many healthcare workers originally said they weren’t willing to get the vaccine[0], people who are clearly educated, maybe not specifically about vaccines, but about medicine in general.
[0] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nearly-40percent-of-hea...
[+] [-] _huayra_|4 years ago|reply
1. https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/ Peter Hotez on the history of anti-vax 2. https://peterattiamd.com/pauloffit2/ Paul Offit on the outlook for the coronavirus based on the current data
[+] [-] rsynnott|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] distribot|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _-david-_|4 years ago|reply
I think it is more complicated than just education. The general sentiment I hear from people is in the past we were told that once we get vaccinated we could return to normal. Now we are told we still need to wear a mask, socially distance, not go back to our offices, can't send our kids to school, etc. Many people figure if that is the case why bother taking the vaccine, especially since they haven't even been FDA approved and are using newer methods (mrna) without long term testing on the effects. Some scientists are saying we cannot return to normal until there are no new cases while also saying it will become seasonal and be with us forever. People are losing faith in the scientists because of their ever changing statements.
It may be the wrong mentality but in my view it is understandable.
[+] [-] stmfreak|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] auiya|4 years ago|reply
Literally every problem we have in the US, stems from our piss-poor education. Every last one of them.
[+] [-] jgwil2|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] fithisux|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] 2lwxxtj|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] snypher|4 years ago|reply
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
[+] [-] minikites|4 years ago|reply
There is not a consistent curriculum and there's a significant portion of the US population who believe anything that runs against "the experts" because they're mistrustful of education and the concept of expertise. It's the same reason we don't have a federal ID card because to them it's the Biblical "mark of the beast".
[+] [-] cltby|4 years ago|reply
A number of reporters have gone out and talked to vaccine skeptics, e.g. [1]. They don't appear to be suffering from a deficit of knowledge or "false consciousness" or whatever. Their beliefs are reasonable and their preferences are internally consistent.
[1] https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people...
[+] [-] neither_color|4 years ago|reply
It's not an education problem and while most comments I predict will consider that the main factor, I disagree and consider it a condescending take. We all learn about Louis Pasteur and successful eradications in the past. It's a cultural/philosophical problem. Right-leaning americans in general value a certain degree of autonomy over a guarantee of safety and if you coerce them "for their own good" they'll double down on whatever the opposite of what you're suggesting is. In the case of this pandemic, all of the mixed messaging regarding mask-wearing and other prevention measures poisoned the well in the first quarter of 2020, before the messaging became consistent by the summer. This turned a health debate into a struggle for rights: "We're all in this together" vs "99% let me take my chances". It's the same debate as 2A. For 2A absolutists, no statistic has come out that justifies giving up what's perceived as an inalienable right.
[+] [-] HarryHirsch|4 years ago|reply
If the government's messaging is that the economy takes precedence over individual safety, that's the priors that people work with when they evaluate vaccine safety.
[+] [-] kossTKR|4 years ago|reply
I would gladly take the Pfizer/Moderna vaccine right this minute, but i also know of the terrible track records the pharmaindustry - there is so many shady examples to choose from it's incredible that anyone doubts how vulture-like that industry is, - also there was corruption the last time a pandemic hit:
https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament...
Besides that we are on completely uncharted territory scale wise and trial wise no matter what your perspective is.
[+] [-] SigmundA|4 years ago|reply
Most of these people are on the anti-vax, all natural, anti-gmo, wifi and microwaves cause cancer spectrum and it all comes from a lack of understanding the science and technology of modern life.
[+] [-] kickout|4 years ago|reply
That loss of trust in giving us correct/congruent information from leaders is absolutely hurting America right now
[+] [-] simonsarris|4 years ago|reply
> In a telephone interview the next day, Dr. Fauci acknowledged that he had slowly but deliberately been moving the goal posts. He is doing so, he said, partly based on new science, and partly on his gut feeling that the country is finally ready to hear what he really thinks.
> "When polls said only about half of all Americans would take a vaccine, I was saying herd immunity would take 70 to 75 percent," Fauci said. "Then, when newer surveys said 60 percent or more would take it, I thought, 'I can nudge this up a bit,' so I went to 80, 85."
The rest of the interview doesn't make it sound any better.
https://web.archive.org/web/20210212003533/https://www.nytim...
[+] [-] devonbleak|4 years ago|reply
Herd immunity is still the holy grail of dealing with an infectious disease like this. If new evidence says we're not going to reach it, for whatever reason, then you have to shift tactics to something else that may not be as ideal but is more likely achievable.
While I understand that messages/information changing can cause some genuine confusion, the concept that once information is delivered it must never change and if it does then you can't trust any of it is just a wedge used to sow mistrust. While it may be comforting to have that sort of authority/consistency, anybody who tells you they know everything about everything immediately is lying to you.
[+] [-] optimiz3|4 years ago|reply
One adjusts approaches based on changing data. Being flexible is a positive trait.
[+] [-] rsynnott|4 years ago|reply
If people refuse to take the vaccine, then obviously the US will never reach it. It's not inconsistent to say that the US _must_ reach it, yet will not.
[+] [-] harambae|4 years ago|reply
The Michael Osterholm podcast goes into this last week.
"So when B117 came along and we see anywhere from 50 to 100 percent more transmission than previous strains, that automatically had to move herd immunity levels up to accomplish the slowing down of transmission. And we don't know what that is. I can truly tell you, as an epidemiologist in the trenches for 46 years, B117 is much more infectious than the strains we dealt with 6 months ago. But I can't tell you with any certainty what that means. So let's just at the outset say, you know, we'd all like to try to achieve concepts of herd immunity, but I don't know what they are. And I can only hope that we can slow down transmission. But I don't have a sense that by itself will ever stop it." [0]
[0] http://www.cidrap.umn.edu/ep-52-transcript
[+] [-] MattGaiser|4 years ago|reply
It does not circulate sufficiently but neither is a critical mass of vaccinated people reached due to vaccine reluctance.
[+] [-] Sohcahtoa82|4 years ago|reply
Research, especially on something like a new virus, takes time. We know more about the virus now than we did a year ago, so of course predictions and recommendations are going to change. That is not weakness, that is science.
[+] [-] laGrenouille|4 years ago|reply
In other words, the vaccine is so effective at preventing serious illness in those that have it, I don't see public policy being put in place to save those unwilling to be vaccined once everyone has had a chance. It seems that will eventually achieve some level of herd-immunity through a combination of infection and vaccination.
[+] [-] Sohcahtoa82|4 years ago|reply
We will reach a point, probably in a couple months, where everyone in the US who wants the vaccine will have gotten one. By that time, restrictions will be lifted, mask mandates will be gone, lockdowns ended, etc.
The virus will continue to spread among the unvaccinated. And I will have zero sympathy for the people who choose not to get the vaccine and end up hospitalized because of the virus. (Note my emphasis on CHOOSE: I still have sympathy for those that can't get the vaccine and end up infected)
[+] [-] kbelder|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] grillvogel|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] passivate|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] pgrote|4 years ago|reply
I don't think so, but in our cultural climate those who bring up real, substantive questions about the process can be brought up. It is a shame since the MRNA vaccines are new for such widespread usage.
For me it came down to risk/reward. A year of being a hermit and the impact on my family tipped the scales.
When I had both doses and the time after I had no reaction. Others in my family had some sort of reaction even if it was just a sore arm. Does that mean it didn't work? No idea and there isn't a long term study to look at to learn from.
[+] [-] unknown|4 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] optimiz3|4 years ago|reply
A phd is just a certification. Take from that what you will.
[+] [-] arcticbull|4 years ago|reply
It’s a question of risk management. We have to weigh the cost of action against the cost of inaction.
I have no basis on which to form an opinion on your wife :-) but everyone’s been reacting differently to this situation. I’m encouraging people to follow the vast quantities of data.
[+] [-] aphextron|4 years ago|reply
Stupidity was going about your normal life, and getting mad about the new reality we were faced with when this whole thing started. The balance of risking your life for the sake of having fun was heavily skewed toward stupid.
Bravery is beginning to build a new semblance of normalcy in a post vaccine world, and attempting to move on. We have the science, we know it works, we just have to trust it now and be brave. The balance of risking a mild flu-like infection at worst for the sake having fun has flipped toward being brave for people who are vaccinated.
This virus is here to stay with us for the rest of the history of humanity. But we know how to beat it now and a fully vaccinated person is clinically proven to be at minimal risk.
[+] [-] alibarber|4 years ago|reply
Why is it that we have been able to eliminate things like Polio and Smallpox, yet there's doubt about COVID? They were both viruses, must have mutated, were fairly easily spread and it must have taken longer to vaccinate enough people given the advances in logistics and vaccine tech we now have. What's the fundamental difference?
[+] [-] 3540380503|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] don-code|4 years ago|reply
So far, I personally have encountered the following viewpoints in my family and peer group (none of which I share) - in decreasing order of how much credence I'll give them:
1. I'm pregnant and don't know what it does to my baby.
2. I do not think the vaccine is safe, because we developed it too fast. Corollary: blood clots in two of them are my proof.
3. I agree the vaccine is safe and effective, but it was made with "aborted babies" [actually: stem cell lines, as are many vaccines that I'm sure they _have_ taken], and I will not take it on religious grounds.
4. I will not take the vaccine on principle, as it constitutes government overreach into our lives. It is irrelevant whether it is safe or effective.
That's not to speak of some of the other egregious ones I've heard that people believe, like the vaccine having an ICE tracker embedded in it to enable roundups (https://www.boston25news.com/news/health/local-leaders-vacci...).
Given that all of the communication I've seen has centered around safety and effectiveness, it seems like two out of these four cases are not being addressed.
[+] [-] mr_cyborg|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] godelski|4 years ago|reply
People aren't hesitant to get the vaccine because it might have Bill Gates microchips, they are hesitant because this was the fastest rolled out vaccine in human history (>3x faster than the second) and people don't trust the government. Their concerns aren't founded in science, but they are reasonable. So treating them as unreasonable is going to make them double down on their position. What's worse is that some news organizations ask similar questions but never answer (come on, you're the news and you can't google? WTF, no wonder people don't trust you). If you want to see the exaggerated version of this look at Russia where few trust the government and there is higher hesitancy to take Sputnik V.
Also we can't forget how the definition of herd immunity has changed. Back when the pandemic started I and many others warned that changing the definition of herd immunity to mean only herd immunity built through natural infection would empower anti-vaxers. Places like Nature[0] are supposed to be the place to get scientific news but botched this (even disagreeing with the experts they are quoting in the article), and they aren't the only one. This makes things rather confusing for people. This build distrust, and now we're seeing the repercussions of that. So when someone like Tucker Carlson goes on air and asks a bunch of questions and is always saying that the government wants you to "shut up and listen" (a common phrase) of course people question.
But these people will change, I've seen it. They have a bunch of questions but no answers, and like many, often don't know how to find them. This may be obvious to us who are so used to the internet and google daily to do our jobs, but these people don't even know how to do that or find credible sources. So it then comes down to us, the "smart people", to help. To talk about how doctors have been taking the vaccines for months before we got access. That politicians and wealthy white people wouldn't take it if it was an experiment. There's a lot of data to show that this isn't some grand experiment (well it is, but not in the way those people think experiments are. Maybe leave that nuance out?). But you have to do this without making the person feel like a fool. If you do this I promise they will soon change their minds. As for the 5G/Bill Gates people, well luckily they are a very small minority. Let's just not give them a platform. And don't equate vaccine hesitancy for that. It will just make the path to herd immunity more difficult.
[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
[+] [-] aphextron|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] tonfreed|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] kickout|4 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losvedir|4 years ago|reply
Let's hope, anyway, because that second shot is a doozy and I sure don't want to have to repeat that every year. I suspect, though, if this does become endemic, they'll tweak the dosage a bit of the vaccine, and it might be akin to only needing the first shot (which hardly affected me), possibly slightly more often.