6 ms·

>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 (ab

>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 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
    You can make the same argument for just about anything they say.
Sohcahtoa82 5y 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.
- josephcsible 5y ago
  > the CDC wants to play it safe Isn't having a policy that significantly reduces the number of people who will take the vaccine the opposite of "playing it safe"?
  - Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
    I would argue that anybody who thinks "Why bother getting the vaccine if I'll still have to stay locked down/masked/etc" probably would be avoiding the vaccine anyways, and this is just a convenient excuse.
    - josephcsible 5y ago
      Why do you think that? It's a risk-reward balance. Why wouldn't increasing the reward tip the scales?
      - ryandrake 5y ago
        At this point, we know there is close to zero risk to getting vaccinated. How much reward do we need to convince people to do it?
        josephcsible 5y ago
        Right now, the reward is close to zero too. Basically the only things the CDC lets you do after being vaccinated are things you've been able to get away with the whole time anyway.
rsynnott 5y ago
> You can't expect the citizens to want the vaccine while simultaneously doing sensationalist stories on very rare side effects. Only 6% of people in Ireland say they won't take the vaccine, despite both the media and government here making a _much_ bigger deal of the side effects (J&J is _still_ restricted to people over 50, and both it and AZ were temporarily withdrawn from use), so it's probably not that. There is maybe an argument that the media shouldn't talk about side effects, but it's a very paternalistic one and likely to, if anything, increase distrust.

maxerickson 5y 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 5y 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 5y ago
  You can make the same argument for just about anything they say.

Sohcahtoa82 5y 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.

josephcsible 5y ago
> the CDC wants to play it safe Isn't having a policy that significantly reduces the number of people who will take the vaccine the opposite of "playing it safe"?
- Sohcahtoa82 5y ago
  I would argue that anybody who thinks "Why bother getting the vaccine if I'll still have to stay locked down/masked/etc" probably would be avoiding the vaccine anyways, and this is just a convenient excuse.
  - josephcsible 5y ago
    Why do you think that? It's a risk-reward balance. Why wouldn't increasing the reward tip the scales?
    - ryandrake 5y ago
      At this point, we know there is close to zero risk to getting vaccinated. How much reward do we need to convince people to do it?
      - josephcsible 5y ago
        Right now, the reward is close to zero too. Basically the only things the CDC lets you do after being vaccinated are things you've been able to get away with the whole time anyway.

rsynnott 5y ago

> You can't expect the citizens to want the vaccine while simultaneously doing sensationalist stories on very rare side effects. Only 6% of people in Ireland say they won't take the vaccine, despite both the media and government here making a _much_ bigger deal of the side effects (J&J is _still_ restricted to people over 50, and both it and AZ were temporarily withdrawn from use), so it's probably not that. There is maybe an argument that the media shouldn't talk about side effects, but it's a very paternalistic one and likely to, if anything, increase distrust.