3 ms·

> It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a though

> It's funny you say that, but really, there are just a lot of people that don't want to get any of the vaccines, myself included. That's because, with a thought cost-benefit analysis, it did not make sense for me. Honestly, the US has met the number of vaccinated people I expected to see, even ignoring any cost-benefit analysis of the specific vaccines available. When I looked at other vaccination rates in the US before the COVID vaccine rollouts, I expected the COVID vaccination rate to meet somewhere in the 50% to 70% range at the end of everything. I don't know what the target goal was for whoever in the government tracks this, or what the public was expecting, but I was expecting the 60%-70% range to be the end goal. Right now we're at 60% at least one dose, 50% full vaccination.

jfengel 5y ago
The government was hoping to hit 70% quickly, and then work its way up to 80-90%. 70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past. They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying. Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.
- perl4ever 5y ago
  >that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance? This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
  - jfengel 5y ago
    It's entirely about long-standing culture wars, not epidemiology. In that it's rather predictable, albeit disappointing. The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.

jfengel 5y ago

The government was hoping to hit 70% quickly, and then work its way up to 80-90%. 70% was their notional "herd immunity" number. It didn't have a really firm scientific grounding, but it was a useful target. They were hoping that people would get behind pushing it up to that number without coaxing, and then a combination of momentum and coaxing would push it well past. They assumed that perhaps 10-20% would be just plain ornery about it, but given the hundreds of thousands of deaths, most would err on the side of getting it. That assumes it was generally seen as safe and effective, which means that they see lots of people getting it and contrasting that with the vast numbers of people dying. Those assumptions turned out to be faulty, for a number of reasons. And that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging.

perl4ever 5y ago
>that has caused them to flounder for alternative messaging Is there any precedent for anybody predicting the evolution of a pathogen like this in detail, in advance? This is just such a weird thing to trigger people, from my perspective. And so was Fauci's early comments on masks.
- jfengel 5y ago
  It's entirely about long-standing culture wars, not epidemiology. In that it's rather predictable, albeit disappointing. The recent uptick in vaccinations coincides with a partial reversal of tactic by one of the most prominent ideological media sources, and maybe that will push us to the magical but arbitrary 70%. What happens then is anybody's guess.