4 ms·

Phrased another way: - 1 in 5 people refused them, entirely. - 1 in 8 who initially accepted them rejected the second; 5 in 8 who initially accepted rejected

Phrased another way: - 1 in 5 people refused them, entirely. - 1 in 8 who initially accepted them rejected the second; 5 in 8 who initially accepted rejected the third. - In a three round series, approximately 2 in 3 overall rejected them before the full course. I agree people eventually stop accepting bullshit — but we may disagree on what they’re rejecting.

arcticbull 4y ago
I don't know about you but it's pretty difficult to get 81% of any population to do anything. I'd consider this overwhelmingly successful.
- phillc73 4y ago
  I don’t specifically know about the US experience, but mass covid vaccination didn’t appear to be all that easy to achieve where I live. It required an overwhelming government information campaign, removal of the ability to engage in many activities if unvaccinated, multiple “lockdowns” and the threat of mandating compliance. I almost wonder that anyone managed to get through all of that when refusing the vaccine.
- detrites 4y ago
  I'd say more than 81% generally comply with the law. Given the extreme measures employed to "get" people to take it, that might be a closer comparison than whatever it is you're imagining comparing this to.
- throwaway71271 4y ago
  to play devil's advocate: you can get 81% of the population to do a lot of things, when you lock them in their homes, forbid them to see their family or get a coffee or go to work unless they do the thing you want them to do. (i am fully vaccinated, but i wouldn't consider what happened successful in any way)
endorphine 4y ago
> - 1 in 8 who initially accepted them rejected the second; 5 in 8 who initially accepted rejected the third Isn't that somewhat expected? I mean, I got covid when I had the vaccine and it was OK (nearly no symptoms), so I (perhaps naively) concluded "ok, this is probably nothing". Then I happened to get it again and again, longer after I had the vaccine so indirectly I was passively and gradually testing how I would react to the virus without the vaccine. In the end I said ok, this is fine, I probably don't have to be vaccinated again.
- roenxi 4y ago
  Expected by whom? Most doctors probably expected that, but the people setting COVID policy appeared to believe that after being vaccinated people wouldn't get or transmit COVID and therefore coercive tactics could be used to force people to get jabbed. Turns out in hindsight they were both authoritarian and spreading medical misinformation. And have probably undermined trust in vaccines and the medical establishment for a good decade. The issue here isn't that somehow this is surprising news, the issue here is that there was a general suspension of a lot of basic human rights for, in hindsight, poor reasons and insufficient evidence.
  - bigfudge 4y ago
    This post conflates a lot of errors. But specifically, I remember the uk chief medical officer being fairly open that the effect of vaccines was stochastic and would only reduce spread on the average, and this was uncertain. The emphasis at the time was very much that vaccines would prevent serious disease and death. Specifically, they wanted to keep people out of hospitals to avoid them being overwhelmed. There was much better evidence for that, and in retrospect vaccination was successful in that.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - somenameforme 4y ago
      Here is a montage of various vaccine "leaders" making statements ranging from the vaccines completely stopping the spread, to you being unable to catch COVID with the vaccine. [1] Some people, sometimes, made accurate statements. But by and large misinformation and hyperbole were the rule rather than the exception. Accepting and approaching this is very important, because while some may simply want to forget many of the things that happened, others never will. And so it will only further galvanize the differences and divides between people. What should be done instead is to consider why such statements were not only made, and not only left unchallenged, but in most cases - actively encouraged. And what we could do to help have a better outcome next time. There's relatively little doubt that the past years have shattered confidence in many US institutions (public and private...), and that's not really good for anybody. Repairing that damage can only happen once the past is reconciled in a way that everybody can feel generally positive about. [1] - https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192 https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192
hackerlight 4y ago
"Rejected" just means "didn't get" which doesn't automatically imply vaccine hesitancy/doubt.
- hef19898 4y ago
  Also, depending in country, getting after Shot 1/2 counted as shot 2/3. So that should be considered in those Numbers.

arcticbull 4y ago

I don't know about you but it's pretty difficult to get 81% of any population to do anything. I'd consider this overwhelmingly successful.

phillc73 4y ago
I don’t specifically know about the US experience, but mass covid vaccination didn’t appear to be all that easy to achieve where I live. It required an overwhelming government information campaign, removal of the ability to engage in many activities if unvaccinated, multiple “lockdowns” and the threat of mandating compliance. I almost wonder that anyone managed to get through all of that when refusing the vaccine.
detrites 4y ago
I'd say more than 81% generally comply with the law. Given the extreme measures employed to "get" people to take it, that might be a closer comparison than whatever it is you're imagining comparing this to.
throwaway71271 4y ago
to play devil's advocate: you can get 81% of the population to do a lot of things, when you lock them in their homes, forbid them to see their family or get a coffee or go to work unless they do the thing you want them to do. (i am fully vaccinated, but i wouldn't consider what happened successful in any way)

endorphine 4y ago

> - 1 in 8 who initially accepted them rejected the second; 5 in 8 who initially accepted rejected the third Isn't that somewhat expected? I mean, I got covid when I had the vaccine and it was OK (nearly no symptoms), so I (perhaps naively) concluded "ok, this is probably nothing". Then I happened to get it again and again, longer after I had the vaccine so indirectly I was passively and gradually testing how I would react to the virus without the vaccine. In the end I said ok, this is fine, I probably don't have to be vaccinated again.

roenxi 4y ago
Expected by whom? Most doctors probably expected that, but the people setting COVID policy appeared to believe that after being vaccinated people wouldn't get or transmit COVID and therefore coercive tactics could be used to force people to get jabbed. Turns out in hindsight they were both authoritarian and spreading medical misinformation. And have probably undermined trust in vaccines and the medical establishment for a good decade. The issue here isn't that somehow this is surprising news, the issue here is that there was a general suspension of a lot of basic human rights for, in hindsight, poor reasons and insufficient evidence.
- bigfudge 4y ago
  This post conflates a lot of errors. But specifically, I remember the uk chief medical officer being fairly open that the effect of vaccines was stochastic and would only reduce spread on the average, and this was uncertain. The emphasis at the time was very much that vaccines would prevent serious disease and death. Specifically, they wanted to keep people out of hospitals to avoid them being overwhelmed. There was much better evidence for that, and in retrospect vaccination was successful in that.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somenameforme 4y ago
    Here is a montage of various vaccine "leaders" making statements ranging from the vaccines completely stopping the spread, to you being unable to catch COVID with the vaccine. [1] Some people, sometimes, made accurate statements. But by and large misinformation and hyperbole were the rule rather than the exception. Accepting and approaching this is very important, because while some may simply want to forget many of the things that happened, others never will. And so it will only further galvanize the differences and divides between people. What should be done instead is to consider why such statements were not only made, and not only left unchallenged, but in most cases - actively encouraged. And what we could do to help have a better outcome next time. There's relatively little doubt that the past years have shattered confidence in many US institutions (public and private...), and that's not really good for anybody. Repairing that damage can only happen once the past is reconciled in a way that everybody can feel generally positive about. [1] - https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192 https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192

hackerlight 4y ago

"Rejected" just means "didn't get" which doesn't automatically imply vaccine hesitancy/doubt.

hef19898 4y ago
Also, depending in country, getting after Shot 1/2 counted as shot 2/3. So that should be considered in those Numbers.