18 ms·

Reaching ‘Herd Immunity’ from Covid Is Unlikely in the U.S., Experts Now Believe

57 points by harambae 6y ago

lol768 6y ago
> 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?
- distribot 6y ago
  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?
  - ls612 6y ago
    Israel has 60% vaccinated and they have controlled the pandemic through that. The US probably has more natural immunity than them so overall I’d say we are in a decent position. The issue will be localized outbreaks in places with less vaccine coverage.
  - HarryHirsch 6y ago
    There have been high-profile cases of re-infection in India, and the experience from Manaus tells the same story. Expecting herd immunity from letting the disease spread is wishful thinking.
    - thehappypm 6y ago
      It's important to understand why reinfection might not be such a big problem. First, the virus can only spread broadly with an R0 above 1. Even if some portion of the population is susceptible to reinfection (vaccinated or natural immunity), so far there's been little evidence that it's widespread. In a fully vaccinated population, the R0 will only reach above 1 if the virus is able to break through vaccines wholesale. Second, the vaccines seem to be highly effective at preventing serious cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, even in reinfected individuals.
    - ravi-delia 6y ago
      No matter what you'd see greatly reduced spread. Ideally everyone would be vaccinated, but it would be unwise to ignore the substantial overlap between antivax people and antimask people. Everything pushing R beneath 1 is a good thing that should be counted.
    - jeofken 6y ago
      There has been 70 cases and 3 deaths of reinfection worldwide [0]. If this source is not false, reinfection is negligible, and I am yet unconvinced herd immunity will not materialise [0] https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/ https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...
  - klmadfejno 6y ago
    The flaw with these kinds of statements is that it assumes the 70% is uniformly distributed throughout a population. Obviously, if an entire town decides to avoid vaccination, it'll be vulnerable. Less obvious is if certain social circles don't get vaccinated such that things look geographically well mixed, but in terms of actual interaction patterns, not so much. Reinfection and new variants surviving in networks like this imply COVID will be around for a very long time.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
- snypher 6y ago
  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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
- _huayra_ 6y ago
  If you want a deep dive on this, Peter Attia's last two guests on his podcast were great 1. https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/ https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/ Peter Hotez on the history of anti-vax 2. https://peterattiamd.com/pauloffit2/ https://peterattiamd.com/pauloffit2/ Paul Offit on the outlook for the coronavirus based on the current data
  - caeril 6y ago
    I'm not sure "traditional" anti-vax history or ideology is particularly relevant to the specific matter of anti-covid-vax. The vast majority of those who eschew the current efforts have no problem with the TDAP vaccines, etc. It's almost entirely political, along with a mistrust of the experts and authorities who proclaimed, in March of last year, that masks are ineffective and that travel restrictions are racist.
- SigmundA 6y ago
  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.
  - nlft 6y ago
    I'd say that the resentment comes from having been screwed over in the past, like with Thalidomide. I'm not saying that the vaccines are unsafe, but the whole Corona Industry is suspect. Loads of ffp masks without actual certifications, ffp masks that are contaminated and have to be recalled, etc.
    - asdff 6y ago
      How many people are citing thalidomide vs. just reposting conspiracy theories like "china virus," though? These people's opinions don't come from caution after a careful analysis of literature or past events. It comes from reading clickbait online that plays into their psychology.
  - nitrogen 6y ago
    Most of these people are on the anti-vax, all natural, anti-gmo, wifi and microwaves cause cancer spectrum Lumping all of the opposition into a single category and assuming they are all the same is both dehumanizing and counterproductive.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  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.
  - anonAndOn 6y ago
    US education: Those asymptomatic sweethearts are largely languishing, at least the ones in part-time distance learning environments. This has not been the case for those kids that could afford to attend private schools as many have been attending classes at school for most/all of the entire school year. So you've got private school kids on track and public school kids with stunted academic development because why, exactly?
    - edmundsauto 6y ago
      Because the teachers, who often feel that they are not paid enough for the regular job, don’t feel safe? I don’t get why this is so controversial - they don’t want to risk their health to teach your kids.
      - anonAndOn 6y ago
        It's controversial because teaching in person can be done safely as evidenced by thousands of private schools during the past school year. If teacher's unions were doing what's in the best interest for the kids, they would have largely returned to school at this point. However, it has become clear that what is best for the kids is second to what is comfortable for the teachers. If this obstruction to in-class instruction continues, the short-sightedness of this position will become readily apparent in the Fall as many families who have the means will go private (if they haven't already) thus depriving the schools of both tax dollars and the critically-important engaged families that support many of the extra/co-curricular amenities of public schools. Voucher Programs/charter schools/religious schools will all benefit to the detriment of public schools.
- cltby 6y ago
  > Is this an education problem? 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-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people...
- minikites 6y ago
  >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".
- kossTKR 6y ago
  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: https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament-to-investigate-who-pandemic-scandal.html 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.
  - passivate 6y ago
    I work in biotech (vaccines), so we have some overlap with pharma, and none of what you said resonates with me. Sorry, but you're applying a pretty broad brush to millions of hardworking people in this industry that is completely unwarranted. As an aside, nobody I know is going to refuse life saving medication because 'pharma industry is bad'. The pharma industry is no different than any other industry. The vast majority of people are honest hardworking folks just doing their job, and you have a handful of assholes. As such, you have to look at things on a case by case basis. You can't reject the tech industry because Facebook did something bad. There are millions of criminals in the world, we don't reject humanity based on it. This is simply not a sustainable method of arriving at any sort of conclusion.
    - kossTKR 6y ago
      I don't disagree. Most people actually working with the actual science are good people - just as in tech. The problem comes from ruthless profit incentives, lobbying, marketing, investor pressure etc. Nowhere did i say that the everyone in the industry are bad people, my whole point was about history of shadiness. That's not controversial - again just as in the sector big-data / internet business that i work in. Anyone should be highly sceptical of any huge corporations. I find it very weird that there have literally been non stop scandals, and huge ones too, and still people get angry when people are sceptical of anything "big corp". Always be sceptical of anything with billions of dollars invested, armies of lawyers, PR departments that would shadow small governments etc.
- _-david-_ 6y ago
  >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.
  - aphextron 6y ago
    >People are losing faith in the scientists because of their ever changing statements. I'd say this perfectly illustrates the complete lack of understanding of how science works among the public. There is never one specific stance that will always be right and hold up to all scrutiny. It's just highly intelligent educated experts giving their best possible estimate based on current data. As the data evolves, so do the recommendations. People not understanding this is the root of the "experts know nothing" insanity.
    - cltby 6y ago
      The data didn't evolve, though. The only thing that ever changed was the political winds. Throughout this whole pandemic, experts have bent over backwards to defend and justify political decisions--and most humiliatingly, decisions that _directly_ contravene their prior advice. Two examples: - Experts encouraged the George Floyd protests because "racism is the real virus," despite their prior anti-protest stance. Given the apparent magnitude and seriousness of the problem, it's curious they only noticed in May 2020. - In Washington, there was a big battle around opening schools. Public health authorities insisted that this was a verrryyy fraught process that needed to be handled veeerrrryyy slowly and veerryyy carefully. In the middle of this, Gov. Jay Inslee suddenly demanded that the schools be opened in a matter of weeks. The authorities weren't perturbed in the least: after all, they suddenly claimed, "we've known all along that the risk to children is very manageable". Most people understand that mistakes happen, and they are generally forgiving when those mistakes are acknowledged and corrected. But it's plain to see that the sort of "expertise" that's being held up is deeply and pathologically broken.
- 2lwxxtj 6y ago
  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.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    I do think it's a bit ironic to choose not to get a vaccine because you don't trust Big Pharma. Because the alternative to the vaccine is putting yourself at risk for a deadly virus which can cost a lot of money to treat, which would give more money to Big Pharma. Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies.
    - 2lwxxtj 6y ago
      It's not about not wanting to give money to them, it's about not wanting their products injected in to your body. The vast majority of people that get infected with the coronavirus do not get any pharmaceuticals put in to them whatsoever. >Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. As far as I know, no one has done any long term (10+ year) studies to determine whether people that get vaccines end up using more pharmaceuticals than people that don't get vaccines.
  - jgwil2 6y ago
    Not sure why you're being downvoted; this is exactly the mentality of many people. I don't even think it's subconscious necessarily: many people think this is a conspiracy to ensure profits for Big Pharma. EDIT: to be clear, I do not endorse such a view. I am merely stating that I have observed others espousing it.
- beisner 6y ago
  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. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans-say-theyll-get-vaccinated-but-its-still-unclear-just-how-many-will/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans... [2] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-republicans-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-re...
  - thu2111 6y ago
    I don't think it was "institution skeptics" who made COVID a political issue. How many months did it take before academics were claiming that anti-lockdown protests were dangerous and must not happen but BLM protests were to be encouraged, because "systemic racism" is a public health issue? Not many. How many other academics condemned this blatant politicization of science? Not enough. Lockdowns don't work: US states that locked down hard have not seen different results from those that had far fewer restrictions. Sweden has been less impacted than the UK and many other European countries that locked down hard. Have academic institutions ever acknowledged that, or accepted that their predictions were wrong? They do not. The ones I've seen just claim anyone who disagrees with them is an ideologically motivated anti-science conspiracy theorist. These things are not the right way to re-assure people institutions are on top of things. They clearly are not.
    - arcticbull 6y ago
      Lockdown worked fine in New Zealand it not? The thing is, it’s something you have to commit to. You can’t just half ass it.
- neither_color 6y ago
  >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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - MereInterest 6y ago
    The mixed messaging was because previous studies on influenza showed that the increased occurrence of touching one's face to adjust a mask outweighed the benefit of cloth masks. As covid-specific studies were done, it was found that masks were effective, and so the message changed. I agree that the well was poisoned in the first quarter of 2020, but strongly disagree as to the cause of that. Donald Trump publicly, repeatedly, and strongly downplayed the severity of the pandemic. He dismissed masks as something that he himself wouldn't wear. He continually said that the pandemic was a hoax that would magically disappear. He made public safety measures into a political issue, and the Republican party allowed it to happen.
    - johbjo 6y ago
      > it was found that masks were effective Citation for this would be helpful.
  - 6y ago
- minkzilla 6y ago
  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. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nearly-40percent-of-healthcare-workers-are-not-likely-to-get-covid-vaccine/ar-BB1bx1Xf https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nearly-40percent-of-hea...
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- dec0dedab0de 6y ago
  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. So sure, it's selfish, but its not stupid.
  - fithisux 6y ago
    Even the vote during the elections is selfish. And in general stupid.
- CountDrewku 6y ago
  >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.
  - maxerickson 6y ago
    Maintaining other interventions reduces the overshoot and makes the pandemic go away faster, it isn't an assessment of the vaccines. (Vaccinated people wearing masks doesn't make a huge difference, but it reduces friction for places like stores to just require masks instead of trying to communicate and enforce a mixed policy)
    - CountDrewku 6y ago
      Not my point. I'm telling you that sort of rhetoric will produce an anti-vax response. It's a piss poor understanding of social reactions by the CDC/government. They will convince none of those people to get the vaccine if they continue on that path.
      - maxerickson 6y ago
        You can make the same argument for just about anything they say.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    > 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! This isn't because they don't trust the vaccines, it's because we haven't had enough time yet to figure out if vaccinated people can still actually spread the virus. So far, the data suggests no, but the CDC wants to play it safe.
- auiya 6y ago
  > Is this an education problem? Literally every problem we have in the US, stems from our piss-poor education. Every last one of them.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  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.
- rsynnott 6y ago
  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.
- stmfreak 6y ago
  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.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - eckmLJE 6y ago
    Genuinely curious about side effects of the covid vaccines, do you have sources for this?
    - mannanj 5y ago
      check out the vaers database. 3000 deaths already. you can sort by age group. middle-aged people who would otherwise have been fine with COVID (40's nurses) getting convulsions is certainly a lot worse compared to what people could get with COVID.
- fithisux 6y ago
  So people who get the vaccine are better educated? I really doubt.
aphextron 6y ago
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.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  You hope they adjust architecture. When you teach introductory lectures in a poorly ventilated theatre to 500 students you have a problem.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
losvedir 6y ago
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.
- minikites 6y ago
  The first and second shots have identical formulas and doses.
- kickout 6y ago
  I see you're getting downvoted (probably for the snark). But yea, the experts in this COVID ordeal have been less than accurate (or congruent even).
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    It’s almost as if the experts were learning as the situation developed in a modern pandemic from a novel virus during a hyper globalized era.
    - kickout 6y ago
      But they refuse to go back or admit when they are wrong. They simply have been stubborn. It's killing their trust
      - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
        You sure about that? From what I've seen, the experts have gladly admitted they were wrong. It's the politicians who refuse to go back.
        kickout 6y ago
mr_cyborg 6y ago
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.
- minikites 6y ago
  So in other words, people like that want to wait and see how it goes for all of the expendable people before they try it themselves, because they're the protagonist of reality.
  - retrac 6y ago
    I mean... Yes? That's how it goes with experimental drugs. Let's say it's March 2020. They've whipped up the first batch of mRNA which will hopefully induce spike protein production. Never before tried in humans. But it didn't kill the rats! How eager would you be to take that shot? Like don't get me wrong. We should have begun human experiments with some brave volunteers far sooner and with more recklessness, given the stakes. But no one really wants to be the first dozen, or thousand, or in the first long-term study on side effects.
  - burnished 6y ago
    This is a needlessly inflammatory take on the situation.
    - minikites 6y ago
      I don't have much respect for people who are that selfish. If the only reason someone is "hesitating" is because they believe other people are less important or more expendable than them, I'm not really bothered if their feelings are hurt.
  - ehvatum 6y ago
    I got the Pfizer vax, which like all available COVID vaccines in the US, is authorized for distribution on an emergency basis - because these vaccines have yet to be verified safe and effective by phase 3 studies. Waiting until proper FDA approval does not require solipsism.
don-code 6y ago
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. 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-vaccine-liaisons-go-door-to-door-educate-people-hard-hit-communities/IV773BGRKFBAJKM4NHUSX7NLC4/ 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.
- josephcsible 6y ago
  For point 3, that's true of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Also, what about this reason? "I don't think the vaccine is effective, since we still have to wear masks and socially distance after getting it, so I'm not going to take the risk that it might be unsafe."
  - philsnow 6y ago
    It's been a while since I looked into it but IIRC both Pfizer and Moderna used HEK 293 during testing phases. There isn't a vaccine available that is completely free of participation, however remote, in the use of the HEK 293 stem cell line or similar.
    - 6y ago
kickout 6y ago
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)
kickout 6y ago
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
- MattGaiser 6y ago
  > How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? It does not circulate sufficiently but neither is a critical mass of vaccinated people reached due to vaccine reluctance.
  - kickout 6y ago
    My impression is they are moving the goal posts and saying _no_ level of vaccination is 'good enough for herd immunity'
    - ashtonbaker 6y ago
      "They" don't set the goalposts - reality does. Also, they are not saying that no level of vaccination is good enough - they are saying that the level of vaccination needed is dependent on a variety of factors, and that level is becoming increasingly difficult to reach due to variants and vaccine hesitancy. From the article: > Early on, the target herd immunity threshold was estimated to be about 60 to 70 percent of the population. Most experts, including Dr. Fauci, expected that the United States would be able to reach it once vaccines were available. > But as vaccines were developed and distribution ramped up through the winter and into the spring, estimates of the threshold began to rise. That is because the initial calculations were based on the contagiousness of the original version of the virus. The predominant variant now circulating in the United States, called B.1.1.7 and first identified in Britain, is about 60 percent more transmissible. > As a result, experts now calculate the herd immunity threshold to be at least 80 percent. If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again.
aphextron 6y ago
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.
grillvogel 6y ago
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?
- godelski 6y ago
  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.
- pgrote 6y ago
  >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.
- arcticbull 6y ago
  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.
3540380503 6y ago
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 ?
- zdbrandon 6y ago
  We are well past first movers.
laGrenouille 6y ago
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.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  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)
- kbelder 6y ago
  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.
alibarber 6y ago
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?
- mattm 6y ago
  My take would be that those diseases affect children while COVID does not. I think we would have seen pretty much everyone on board with COVID vaccines if COVID was severely crippling children.
  - Gibbon1 6y ago
    Those diseases effected children because children didn't have immunity. However childhood diseases often killed adults that somehow didn't catch those diseases as children.
- kosievdmerwe 6y ago
  Polio and Smallpox are terrible diseases, causing terrible deformities or scarring, while COVID is essentially a slightly more dangerous flu.
  - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
    "Slightly" is incredibly wrong. Estimates are that it's around 10x as deadly, and that's only counting death, and not the permanent lung damage some survivors are experiencing.
    - kosievdmerwe 6y ago
      Either way, my point stands, one set of diseases leaves obvious physical marks, the other just kills your or leaves invisible harm. Which do you think will prompt people to be more happy to get a vaccine? Some invisible injury, if that, or knowing people with permanent deformities from a long time scourge?
godelski 6y ago
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. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4
- rovolo 6y ago
tonfreed 6y ago
99.7% survival rate and those in power expect us to bend over and just ask for more violations of our civil liberties.
- dariusj18 6y ago
  I'm not sure your number is accurate, but even if it is, that is a general population number and doesn't take into account the higher risk certain populations, such as over 65 or those with comorbidities. Essentially the use of that number with no context encourages people to act as if the risk is spread evenly, but an asymptomatic 18 year old has a much higher risk of killing their grandparents than 0.3%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
  - tonfreed 6y ago
    You're right, shut down the economy and destroy the poor end of town's livelihoods. Gotta save grandma. Disingenuous statements aside, the people in charge of policy clearly don't care enough to follow the rules themselves. They've put covid patients in nursing homes, ignored their own lockdown rules and intimidated people at religious worship. There's no doubt in my mind that we were deliberately lied to about the severity of this virus
    - dariusj18 6y ago
      It didn't take the government to shut down the economy, it was going to be severely hit anyway, government intervention was aimed at shortening the impact as much as possible, but people really fucked that up. It was unfortunately obvious in retrospect since a large portion of society no longer lives in reality. - Elderly COVID patients being sent back to nursing homes is a great example of an early misstep and misinterpretation of rules creating a bad situation. Hopefully we can learn something from it. - A few people out there hypocritically not following the rules doesn't make the rules wrong. - Intimidated people at religious worship sounds like spin for people being unsafe and trying to claim their religion gives them the right. - Yes, the US was deliberately lied to about the severity of the virus by the US President downplaying the risks, and I'm sure others in government or media played it up. Either can be excused depending on the motives.

57 points by harambae 6y ago

> 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?

distribot 6y ago
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?
- ls612 6y ago
  Israel has 60% vaccinated and they have controlled the pandemic through that. The US probably has more natural immunity than them so overall I’d say we are in a decent position. The issue will be localized outbreaks in places with less vaccine coverage.
- HarryHirsch 6y ago
  There have been high-profile cases of re-infection in India, and the experience from Manaus tells the same story. Expecting herd immunity from letting the disease spread is wishful thinking.
  - thehappypm 6y ago
    It's important to understand why reinfection might not be such a big problem. First, the virus can only spread broadly with an R0 above 1. Even if some portion of the population is susceptible to reinfection (vaccinated or natural immunity), so far there's been little evidence that it's widespread. In a fully vaccinated population, the R0 will only reach above 1 if the virus is able to break through vaccines wholesale. Second, the vaccines seem to be highly effective at preventing serious cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, even in reinfected individuals.
  - ravi-delia 6y ago
    No matter what you'd see greatly reduced spread. Ideally everyone would be vaccinated, but it would be unwise to ignore the substantial overlap between antivax people and antimask people. Everything pushing R beneath 1 is a good thing that should be counted.
  - jeofken 6y ago
    There has been 70 cases and 3 deaths of reinfection worldwide [0]. If this source is not false, reinfection is negligible, and I am yet unconvinced herd immunity will not materialise [0] https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-tracker/ https://bnonews.com/index.php/2020/08/covid-19-reinfection-t...
- klmadfejno 6y ago
  The flaw with these kinds of statements is that it assumes the 70% is uniformly distributed throughout a population. Obviously, if an entire town decides to avoid vaccination, it'll be vulnerable. Less obvious is if certain social circles don't get vaccinated such that things look geographically well mixed, but in terms of actual interaction patterns, not so much. Reinfection and new variants surviving in networks like this imply COVID will be around for a very long time.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
snypher 6y ago
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. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaccine_hesitancy
_huayra_ 6y ago
If you want a deep dive on this, Peter Attia's last two guests on his podcast were great 1. https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/ https://peterattiamd.com/peterhotez3/ Peter Hotez on the history of anti-vax 2. https://peterattiamd.com/pauloffit2/ https://peterattiamd.com/pauloffit2/ Paul Offit on the outlook for the coronavirus based on the current data
- caeril 6y ago
  I'm not sure "traditional" anti-vax history or ideology is particularly relevant to the specific matter of anti-covid-vax. The vast majority of those who eschew the current efforts have no problem with the TDAP vaccines, etc. It's almost entirely political, along with a mistrust of the experts and authorities who proclaimed, in March of last year, that masks are ineffective and that travel restrictions are racist.
SigmundA 6y ago
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.
- nlft 6y ago
  I'd say that the resentment comes from having been screwed over in the past, like with Thalidomide. I'm not saying that the vaccines are unsafe, but the whole Corona Industry is suspect. Loads of ffp masks without actual certifications, ffp masks that are contaminated and have to be recalled, etc.
  - asdff 6y ago
    How many people are citing thalidomide vs. just reposting conspiracy theories like "china virus," though? These people's opinions don't come from caution after a careful analysis of literature or past events. It comes from reading clickbait online that plays into their psychology.
- nitrogen 6y ago
  Most of these people are on the anti-vax, all natural, anti-gmo, wifi and microwaves cause cancer spectrum Lumping all of the opposition into a single category and assuming they are all the same is both dehumanizing and counterproductive.
HarryHirsch 6y ago
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.
- anonAndOn 6y ago
  US education: Those asymptomatic sweethearts are largely languishing, at least the ones in part-time distance learning environments. This has not been the case for those kids that could afford to attend private schools as many have been attending classes at school for most/all of the entire school year. So you've got private school kids on track and public school kids with stunted academic development because why, exactly?
  - edmundsauto 6y ago
    Because the teachers, who often feel that they are not paid enough for the regular job, don’t feel safe? I don’t get why this is so controversial - they don’t want to risk their health to teach your kids.
    - anonAndOn 6y ago
      It's controversial because teaching in person can be done safely as evidenced by thousands of private schools during the past school year. If teacher's unions were doing what's in the best interest for the kids, they would have largely returned to school at this point. However, it has become clear that what is best for the kids is second to what is comfortable for the teachers. If this obstruction to in-class instruction continues, the short-sightedness of this position will become readily apparent in the Fall as many families who have the means will go private (if they haven't already) thus depriving the schools of both tax dollars and the critically-important engaged families that support many of the extra/co-curricular amenities of public schools. Voucher Programs/charter schools/religious schools will all benefit to the detriment of public schools.
cltby 6y ago
> Is this an education problem? 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-who-wont-get-the-vaccine/618765/ https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2021/05/the-people...
minikites 6y ago
>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".
kossTKR 6y ago
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: https://healthcare-in-europe.com/en/news/european-parliament-to-investigate-who-pandemic-scandal.html 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.
- passivate 6y ago
  I work in biotech (vaccines), so we have some overlap with pharma, and none of what you said resonates with me. Sorry, but you're applying a pretty broad brush to millions of hardworking people in this industry that is completely unwarranted. As an aside, nobody I know is going to refuse life saving medication because 'pharma industry is bad'. The pharma industry is no different than any other industry. The vast majority of people are honest hardworking folks just doing their job, and you have a handful of assholes. As such, you have to look at things on a case by case basis. You can't reject the tech industry because Facebook did something bad. There are millions of criminals in the world, we don't reject humanity based on it. This is simply not a sustainable method of arriving at any sort of conclusion.
  - kossTKR 6y ago
    I don't disagree. Most people actually working with the actual science are good people - just as in tech. The problem comes from ruthless profit incentives, lobbying, marketing, investor pressure etc. Nowhere did i say that the everyone in the industry are bad people, my whole point was about history of shadiness. That's not controversial - again just as in the sector big-data / internet business that i work in. Anyone should be highly sceptical of any huge corporations. I find it very weird that there have literally been non stop scandals, and huge ones too, and still people get angry when people are sceptical of anything "big corp". Always be sceptical of anything with billions of dollars invested, armies of lawyers, PR departments that would shadow small governments etc.
_-david-_ 6y ago
>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.
- aphextron 6y ago
  >People are losing faith in the scientists because of their ever changing statements. I'd say this perfectly illustrates the complete lack of understanding of how science works among the public. There is never one specific stance that will always be right and hold up to all scrutiny. It's just highly intelligent educated experts giving their best possible estimate based on current data. As the data evolves, so do the recommendations. People not understanding this is the root of the "experts know nothing" insanity.
  - cltby 6y ago
    The data didn't evolve, though. The only thing that ever changed was the political winds. Throughout this whole pandemic, experts have bent over backwards to defend and justify political decisions--and most humiliatingly, decisions that _directly_ contravene their prior advice. Two examples: - Experts encouraged the George Floyd protests because "racism is the real virus," despite their prior anti-protest stance. Given the apparent magnitude and seriousness of the problem, it's curious they only noticed in May 2020. - In Washington, there was a big battle around opening schools. Public health authorities insisted that this was a verrryyy fraught process that needed to be handled veeerrrryyy slowly and veerryyy carefully. In the middle of this, Gov. Jay Inslee suddenly demanded that the schools be opened in a matter of weeks. The authorities weren't perturbed in the least: after all, they suddenly claimed, "we've known all along that the risk to children is very manageable". Most people understand that mistakes happen, and they are generally forgiving when those mistakes are acknowledged and corrected. But it's plain to see that the sort of "expertise" that's being held up is deeply and pathologically broken.
2lwxxtj 6y ago
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.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  I do think it's a bit ironic to choose not to get a vaccine because you don't trust Big Pharma. Because the alternative to the vaccine is putting yourself at risk for a deadly virus which can cost a lot of money to treat, which would give more money to Big Pharma. Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies.
  - 2lwxxtj 6y ago
    It's not about not wanting to give money to them, it's about not wanting their products injected in to your body. The vast majority of people that get infected with the coronavirus do not get any pharmaceuticals put in to them whatsoever. >Generally, vaccines aren't in the best interests of pharmaceutical companies. Maybe they are, maybe they aren't. As far as I know, no one has done any long term (10+ year) studies to determine whether people that get vaccines end up using more pharmaceuticals than people that don't get vaccines.
- jgwil2 6y ago
  Not sure why you're being downvoted; this is exactly the mentality of many people. I don't even think it's subconscious necessarily: many people think this is a conspiracy to ensure profits for Big Pharma. EDIT: to be clear, I do not endorse such a view. I am merely stating that I have observed others espousing it.
beisner 6y ago
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. [1] https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans-say-theyll-get-vaccinated-but-its-still-unclear-just-how-many-will/ https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/more-and-more-americans... [2] https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-republicans-poll/ https://morningconsult.com/2021/03/24/trump-covid-vaccine-re...
- thu2111 6y ago
  I don't think it was "institution skeptics" who made COVID a political issue. How many months did it take before academics were claiming that anti-lockdown protests were dangerous and must not happen but BLM protests were to be encouraged, because "systemic racism" is a public health issue? Not many. How many other academics condemned this blatant politicization of science? Not enough. Lockdowns don't work: US states that locked down hard have not seen different results from those that had far fewer restrictions. Sweden has been less impacted than the UK and many other European countries that locked down hard. Have academic institutions ever acknowledged that, or accepted that their predictions were wrong? They do not. The ones I've seen just claim anyone who disagrees with them is an ideologically motivated anti-science conspiracy theorist. These things are not the right way to re-assure people institutions are on top of things. They clearly are not.
  - arcticbull 6y ago
    Lockdown worked fine in New Zealand it not? The thing is, it’s something you have to commit to. You can’t just half ass it.
neither_color 6y ago
>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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- MereInterest 6y ago
  The mixed messaging was because previous studies on influenza showed that the increased occurrence of touching one's face to adjust a mask outweighed the benefit of cloth masks. As covid-specific studies were done, it was found that masks were effective, and so the message changed. I agree that the well was poisoned in the first quarter of 2020, but strongly disagree as to the cause of that. Donald Trump publicly, repeatedly, and strongly downplayed the severity of the pandemic. He dismissed masks as something that he himself wouldn't wear. He continually said that the pandemic was a hoax that would magically disappear. He made public safety measures into a political issue, and the Republican party allowed it to happen.
  - johbjo 6y ago
    > it was found that masks were effective Citation for this would be helpful.
- 6y ago
minkzilla 6y ago
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. [0] https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nearly-40percent-of-healthcare-workers-are-not-likely-to-get-covid-vaccine/ar-BB1bx1Xf https://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/world/nearly-40percent-of-hea...
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
dec0dedab0de 6y ago
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. So sure, it's selfish, but its not stupid.
- fithisux 6y ago
  Even the vote during the elections is selfish. And in general stupid.
CountDrewku 6y ago
>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.
- maxerickson 6y ago
  Maintaining other interventions reduces the overshoot and makes the pandemic go away faster, it isn't an assessment of the vaccines. (Vaccinated people wearing masks doesn't make a huge difference, but it reduces friction for places like stores to just require masks instead of trying to communicate and enforce a mixed policy)
  - CountDrewku 6y ago
    Not my point. I'm telling you that sort of rhetoric will produce an anti-vax response. It's a piss poor understanding of social reactions by the CDC/government. They will convince none of those people to get the vaccine if they continue on that path.
    - maxerickson 6y ago
      You can make the same argument for just about anything they say.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  > 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! This isn't because they don't trust the vaccines, it's because we haven't had enough time yet to figure out if vaccinated people can still actually spread the virus. So far, the data suggests no, but the CDC wants to play it safe.
auiya 6y ago
> Is this an education problem? Literally every problem we have in the US, stems from our piss-poor education. Every last one of them.
jgwil2 6y ago
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.
rsynnott 6y ago
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.
stmfreak 6y ago
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.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- eckmLJE 6y ago
  Genuinely curious about side effects of the covid vaccines, do you have sources for this?
  - mannanj 5y ago
    check out the vaers database. 3000 deaths already. you can sort by age group. middle-aged people who would otherwise have been fine with COVID (40's nurses) getting convulsions is certainly a lot worse compared to what people could get with COVID.
fithisux 6y ago
So people who get the vaccine are better educated? I really doubt.

aphextron 6y ago

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.

HarryHirsch 6y ago
You hope they adjust architecture. When you teach introductory lectures in a poorly ventilated theatre to 500 students you have a problem.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]

losvedir 6y ago

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.

minikites 6y ago
The first and second shots have identical formulas and doses.
kickout 6y ago
I see you're getting downvoted (probably for the snark). But yea, the experts in this COVID ordeal have been less than accurate (or congruent even).
- edmundsauto 6y ago
  It’s almost as if the experts were learning as the situation developed in a modern pandemic from a novel virus during a hyper globalized era.
  - kickout 6y ago
    But they refuse to go back or admit when they are wrong. They simply have been stubborn. It's killing their trust
    - Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
      You sure about that? From what I've seen, the experts have gladly admitted they were wrong. It's the politicians who refuse to go back.
      - kickout 6y ago

mr_cyborg 6y ago

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.

minikites 6y ago
So in other words, people like that want to wait and see how it goes for all of the expendable people before they try it themselves, because they're the protagonist of reality.
- retrac 6y ago
  I mean... Yes? That's how it goes with experimental drugs. Let's say it's March 2020. They've whipped up the first batch of mRNA which will hopefully induce spike protein production. Never before tried in humans. But it didn't kill the rats! How eager would you be to take that shot? Like don't get me wrong. We should have begun human experiments with some brave volunteers far sooner and with more recklessness, given the stakes. But no one really wants to be the first dozen, or thousand, or in the first long-term study on side effects.
- burnished 6y ago
  This is a needlessly inflammatory take on the situation.
  - minikites 6y ago
    I don't have much respect for people who are that selfish. If the only reason someone is "hesitating" is because they believe other people are less important or more expendable than them, I'm not really bothered if their feelings are hurt.
- ehvatum 6y ago
  I got the Pfizer vax, which like all available COVID vaccines in the US, is authorized for distribution on an emergency basis - because these vaccines have yet to be verified safe and effective by phase 3 studies. Waiting until proper FDA approval does not require solipsism.

don-code 6y ago

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. 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-vaccine-liaisons-go-door-to-door-educate-people-hard-hit-communities/IV773BGRKFBAJKM4NHUSX7NLC4/ 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.

josephcsible 6y ago
For point 3, that's true of the Johnson and Johnson vaccine, but not the Pfizer or Moderna vaccines. Also, what about this reason? "I don't think the vaccine is effective, since we still have to wear masks and socially distance after getting it, so I'm not going to take the risk that it might be unsafe."
- philsnow 6y ago
  It's been a while since I looked into it but IIRC both Pfizer and Moderna used HEK 293 during testing phases. There isn't a vaccine available that is completely free of participation, however remote, in the use of the HEK 293 stem cell line or similar.
  - 6y ago

kickout 6y ago

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)

kickout 6y ago

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

MattGaiser 6y ago
> How it is possible we'll _never_ reach herd immunity? It does not circulate sufficiently but neither is a critical mass of vaccinated people reached due to vaccine reluctance.
- kickout 6y ago
  My impression is they are moving the goal posts and saying _no_ level of vaccination is 'good enough for herd immunity'
  - ashtonbaker 6y ago
    "They" don't set the goalposts - reality does. Also, they are not saying that no level of vaccination is good enough - they are saying that the level of vaccination needed is dependent on a variety of factors, and that level is becoming increasingly difficult to reach due to variants and vaccine hesitancy. From the article: > Early on, the target herd immunity threshold was estimated to be about 60 to 70 percent of the population. Most experts, including Dr. Fauci, expected that the United States would be able to reach it once vaccines were available. > But as vaccines were developed and distribution ramped up through the winter and into the spring, estimates of the threshold began to rise. That is because the initial calculations were based on the contagiousness of the original version of the virus. The predominant variant now circulating in the United States, called B.1.1.7 and first identified in Britain, is about 60 percent more transmissible. > As a result, experts now calculate the herd immunity threshold to be at least 80 percent. If even more contagious variants develop, or if scientists find that immunized people can still transmit the virus, the calculation will have to be revised upward again.

aphextron 6y ago

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.

grillvogel 6y ago

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?

godelski 6y ago
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.
pgrote 6y ago
>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.
arcticbull 6y ago
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.

3540380503 6y ago

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 ?

zdbrandon 6y ago
We are well past first movers.

laGrenouille 6y ago

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.

Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
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)
kbelder 6y ago
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.

alibarber 6y ago

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?

mattm 6y ago
My take would be that those diseases affect children while COVID does not. I think we would have seen pretty much everyone on board with COVID vaccines if COVID was severely crippling children.
- Gibbon1 6y ago
  Those diseases effected children because children didn't have immunity. However childhood diseases often killed adults that somehow didn't catch those diseases as children.
kosievdmerwe 6y ago
Polio and Smallpox are terrible diseases, causing terrible deformities or scarring, while COVID is essentially a slightly more dangerous flu.
- Sohcahtoa82 6y ago
  "Slightly" is incredibly wrong. Estimates are that it's around 10x as deadly, and that's only counting death, and not the permanent lung damage some survivors are experiencing.
  - kosievdmerwe 6y ago
    Either way, my point stands, one set of diseases leaves obvious physical marks, the other just kills your or leaves invisible harm. Which do you think will prompt people to be more happy to get a vaccine? Some invisible injury, if that, or knowing people with permanent deformities from a long time scourge?

godelski 6y ago

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. [0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4 https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-020-02948-4

rovolo 6y ago

tonfreed 6y ago

99.7% survival rate and those in power expect us to bend over and just ask for more violations of our civil liberties.

dariusj18 6y ago
I'm not sure your number is accurate, but even if it is, that is a general population number and doesn't take into account the higher risk certain populations, such as over 65 or those with comorbidities. Essentially the use of that number with no context encourages people to act as if the risk is spread evenly, but an asymptomatic 18 year old has a much higher risk of killing their grandparents than 0.3%. https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investigations-discovery/hospitalization-death-by-age.html https://www.cdc.gov/coronavirus/2019-ncov/covid-data/investi...
- tonfreed 6y ago
  You're right, shut down the economy and destroy the poor end of town's livelihoods. Gotta save grandma. Disingenuous statements aside, the people in charge of policy clearly don't care enough to follow the rules themselves. They've put covid patients in nursing homes, ignored their own lockdown rules and intimidated people at religious worship. There's no doubt in my mind that we were deliberately lied to about the severity of this virus
  - dariusj18 6y ago
    It didn't take the government to shut down the economy, it was going to be severely hit anyway, government intervention was aimed at shortening the impact as much as possible, but people really fucked that up. It was unfortunately obvious in retrospect since a large portion of society no longer lives in reality. - Elderly COVID patients being sent back to nursing homes is a great example of an early misstep and misinterpretation of rules creating a bad situation. Hopefully we can learn something from it. - A few people out there hypocritically not following the rules doesn't make the rules wrong. - Intimidated people at religious worship sounds like spin for people being unsafe and trying to claim their religion gives them the right. - Yes, the US was deliberately lied to about the severity of the virus by the US President downplaying the risks, and I'm sure others in government or media played it up. Either can be excused depending on the motives.