[tobesure]

It's dishonest to conflate people who are hesitant about covid vaccines with anti-vaxxers. No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested (it will take time for manifestation and detection of possible long term side effects), and the two primary vaccines are novel technologies.

The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.

[bawolff]

> No amount of "listening" will change the fact that all three vaccines are untested

They've had significant testing, similar to other medications of a similar type.

Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random? Or is this the sort of thing where someone could run a 100 year study, and you would still object, because what-if i live to a ripe ole' 150 and the long term effects only start 110 years later?

[totony]

Not parent, but I think it's pretty clear (at least) mRNA vaccines have not had "[testing] similar to other medications of a similar type," because they are quite novel and the first of their kind that has been approved for widespread use. (Aka they had testing, but not as strong historical real-world testing as others)

As for the other available vaccines, I'm not as familiar, but they seem more tested (although less efficient afaik). Although they also have their risks, especially for younger people, which one may want to factor in their risk/cost analysis.

[hilbertseries]

You know that before covid only two adenovirus vectored vaccines had been approved? And neither Ebola vaccines have really reached wide adoption.

[Izkata]

> Do you have an actual threshold you think would be a reasonable amount of "testing" and a reasonable argument as to why that is an appropriate amount as oposed to just picked at random?

Personally, because the risks of the virus are so low, I'm likely going to wait until the long term safety studies are complete: Oct 2022 and Apr 2023 for Pfizer and Moderna (I forget which is which), and early 2023 for both AstraZeneca and J&J.

And if it turns out I did get the virus already, any vaccine has risk for no reward. Naturally gained immunity seems to be as good or better than vaccine immunity.

[bawolff]

Fwiw, i think people downvoting you is unfair. I may disagree with your risk assesment, but i asked the question and you gave your answer, so it seems unfair for people to downvote you when you appear to have answered in good faith.

That said though - i'd point out that https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04470427 isn't solely a safety study. They are also checking things like how long the immunity lasts.

[rkk3]

> The truth of the matter is that covid vaccination has its risks and they need to be weighed against those of the virus. And when you make an honest effort to perform such an evaluation, the choice is not quite so clear cut.

What risks from vaccination make it not clear cut?

[Natsu]

Yeah, vaccine denial is a spectrum and not all of the concerns are easily dismissed nonsense, even if the far end of it is.

My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations.

There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know.

I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you).

Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in.

After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.

[version_five]

Your approach seems pretty reasonable. Personally I think the scientific part of the debate is a bit of a red herring. People do things and take medicines all the time that they dont fully understand the risks and consequences of. I think a lot of the wariness comes from the obvious doctrinal viewpoint of a lot of vocal advocates of covid measures - making it an ultimatum where you're either fully on board or a "denier", anti-masker, whatever is not a way to win people over.

It's an interesting problem, because in one respect you don't to encourage apathy or laziness, but on the other hand, people are rightly wary of any kind of zealotry or promotion - in most cases I see heavy advertising as an obvious red flag that something isn't what it seems.

So like you say, having an honest discussion seems like the best approach (and respecting people's choices once you've given them the information). But that's probably true of most controversial things.

[Natsu]

Yeah, it's funny, if you read How to Win Friends and Influence People and look only at the techniques mentioned directly without understanding them, you'd end up effectively becoming an old-timey salesman stereotype.

If you look at the techniques being used on you, the reader of that book, and try to understand the principles, it's a much different book.

Those techniques are constantly getting overused and burning out, they're just not a stable foundation to build something like public health communication on.

It's better to do our best to be honest and present all the things we know and don't know and explain when and how new data enters the picture and changes our conclusions. But you have to be aware of that within your own reasoning process first to be able to explain it to someone else, so it's not that easy to communicate.

[jollybean]

Except that large swaths of the population have reading comprehension of 9th graders.

Someone sent me an article about the issues surrounding AZ vax, which concluded that it was safe. However, my friend interpreted all the concerns in terms of 'fear' - literally taking the results upside down. She didn't understand the article, just 'fear'.

Which is why by and large 'transparency' is important, but also as important is to keep less material negative artifacts muted in terms of dissemination. Yes, the major news outlets do a side piece, and officials do their little press interviews and publish data, but it doesn't go to prime time.

Literally the best thing to 'convince' people is to show others getting it.

I'm still dismayed that Trump or Biden didn't ask the Avengers team to do more pro-vax stuff.

Little vignettes with Captain America and Iron Man getting vaxxed would have been great.

And then follow up with the real actors getting vaxxed.

I'm surprised not to see more coordinated campaigns of celebrities, authors, singers, athletes especially NASCAR drivers and country singers do little public notices. If Lebron and Jordan want to help their community they could spend a few months going town to town, going to visit vax clinics, talking to staff, raising awareness, dropping into the local radio station/barber shops, schools. That would really help move the needle. Pun intended.

Facts, or anything that requires cognitive interpretation is out of range for 1/2 the population, and may not get across to most of the rest through noisy media channels. I don't watch the news because I find it terrible, but it causes me to miss some key things.

Very simple concepts, examples, images, emotion and especially 'social evidence' by those with 'social influence' (i.e. athletes, actors) is how the masses are moved. 'Keep Calm, Carry On' in red, with the Crown ... is one of the simplest, smartest public communications issuances ever.

Edit:

"Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in."

This is a little upside down and implies kind of a misconception of public communications.

It's very, very difficult to get simple, even essential messages across to large populations. Nuanced information is almost impossible.

We can barely get the message of vaccine availability out.

So we definitely want to have 'the latest information' about vaccines available on gov. web sites, and probably places like reddit threads etc. - but the people on the more literate end of the spectrum are already convinced. Those on the lower end of the spectrum are the problem - and they're not even going to be able to read 'scientific reviews' let alone even know what one is, let alone come across the literature in the first place, let alone have any interest whatsoever in reading it.

I would urge you to go to Los Angeles and get on the bus. Just look around. Listen to what people are saying, what they are paying attention to, their vocabulary, the music they are listening to, their behaviour and interactions. Strike up a conversation. Many are elderly, many are isolated, many are migrants with weaker language skills and live in more isolated communities often not exposed to proper information. The 'lowest common denominator' is quite low and those are the people that are the most skeptical. 'The Rock', 'Oprah' and 'Kenney Chesney' would do 100x more to improve awareness than any pamphlet referencing scientific research.

Some literacy stats [1]

[1] https://literacyproj.org/

[MrMan]

Don’t understand the downvotes, this is literally how societal consensus used to be built

[Natsu]

The first sentence was terrible. The rest of it was reasonable but the thing is people don't like being manipulated.

They may not always know the precise terms of the manipulation but public health is not somewhere I like to see a lot of manipulation.

Now, they're not wrong that people take things out of context, that's why I generally approach things by adding context. Yes, there are one in a million risks with vaccines, give or take a bit, but there are much higher covid risks.

That's why I don't try to manufacture consent, I try to give people the most honest, brutal factual assessment I can and let them assess the facts honestly. I will poke holes in their theories and push them on the points that are just plain false, but I won't try to BS them with false confidence or try to manipulate them with social proof.

Techniques like that may work for a time but they don't last. It's better to build on a foundation of honesty.

[deodorel]

While reasonable, your statement ignore the fact that humans have issues considering the difference between a 1 in the million risk and 1 in 100000 (made up numbers). Many are afraid of flying and drive instead even if the risks are way higher driving.

[benmmurphy]

It is funny you mentioned driving because if you are in the 18-29 year age group you have a much larger risk of dying from driving (or other people driving?) than you do from COVID.

Deaths in the 18-29 age group in the US: 2253. I believe this figure is over a longer period than 12 months. So this is going to overestimate covid risk when comparing to 12 months of driving fatalities: Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...

The number of people in the 18-24 age group in the US: 43,351,778 This is a narrower group than where deaths are coming from so this is going to overestimate covid risk. Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_the_United_Sta...

Covid Death risk per 100,000 = 5.2

Motor vehicle fatality risk for the 15-24 year old age group: 14.1 per 100,000

Source: https://injuryfacts.nsc.org/motor-vehicle/historical-fatalit...

[jollybean]

The first sentence is accurate; you say you want 'honesty' but are unable to deal with very simple factual information yourself, because it's unpalatable?

Otherwise, you are misunderstanding the nature of Public Communications.

The idea that somehow sidelining some confusing information, to focus on simple messaging is somehow 'dishonest' is wrong and naive. It would cause massive harm.

FYI - the strongest example of this is with masks. It's why they told you 'Mask were not necessary' at first (because 300M buying masks in a panic would negate the ability of doctors to get masks), but then, as supplies became available, and the marginal value of masks would make sense for the general public - the CDC turned upside down and told you masks were essential.

That's Dr. Fauci doing his job.

You have 350 Million people to get vaccinated and you have to communicate to them the availability and safety of vaccinations.

About 1/2 of the population has some degree of literacy and education, they watch the news, they roughly believe the government. They watch Dr. Fauci somewhat consistently and roughly understand what he is saying. They are compliant on some level.

But the other 1/2 are not.

Millions don't have the capacity to parse through the information, either in terms of intellectual foundation, vocabulary, etc..

Millions don't watch any news.

Millions don't believe anything the government says.

Millions believe in some other conspiracy theory.

Millions are lazy and don't care.

Millions are in social or work environments that reinforce all of this.

Millions - even among the literate camp are unnecessarily skeptical about vaccines.

...

We're in the middle of a pandemic mass killing elderly, we finally have a vaccine, it's on the news every single night, on every station in, in Canada - and yet only 1/2 (!!!) of eligible seniors are showing up to get vaccine in Toronto? It's similar elsewhere. That's really bad.

I have friends who don't really understand what is being said about the risks of AZ vaccine, others making irrational claims and 'waiting out' for their preferred vaccine which is literally 100% against the often repeated policy of the government and scientific consensus.

Dr. Bonnie Henry of BC goes on TV every 2 days and gives an amazingly detailed presentation about COVID updates. I usually watch it. Epidemioligal graphs etc.. You know how many viewers there are? About 10 0000. 10K viewers among 6 million target citizens. Now that particular form of messaging isn't going to be remotely sufficient in getting the word out is it?

...

So how do you communicate important information with people that are too dumb, incapable, unwilling, irrationally skeptical, not paying attention, because it's their lives depend on it?

Popular individuals with social credibility move masses - not scientists or even 'facts'. Obviously, messaging needs to be truthful and credible, but in a simplified format.

You market the idea using communications that will get the message across, by people that have credibility within groups, and who can draw enough attention.

Oprah is beloved and respected among huge numbers of people, particularly African American women who are considerably more likely to be vaxx skeptical than other groups - and who are also way more likely to die from COVID.

It's similar with politics - do you remember her endorsement of Obama: 'He Is The One' ?

Not only that, Oprah and her communications team are Master Communicators. She knows exactly how to say something the right way, to get a message across.

Otherwise, entertainers and athletes are who people pay attention to and look up to.

You want to get people down to the vax centre: get Michael Jordan there.

In some places they are having lotteries - get vaxxed - win a million dollars. That's brilliant.

If children were a target of COVID and neededed to get vaxxed then if I were president I would practically 'executive order' Marvel and DC comics hers to make little vax vignettes with Superman getting vaccinated: 'Even Superman Needs His Vaccine, Did You Get Yours? Ask Your Parents'.

If the government were more effective in communicating, they'd be addressing the 'bottom 50%' using better methods.

To think that we use more effective strategies to sell breakfast cereal and iPhones ... than we do critical, life-saving vaccines is kind of pathetic.

[Natsu]

I never said it was inaccurate, I said it was terrible. You can't look down your nose at people--even accurately--and expect them to trust you with their health decisions.

I explained it in a comment up thread, but the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that. Right now, half the anti-vaxxers or otherwise hesitant spend their time pointing out all the people encouraging them to vaxx as they're suspect of their motives.

You can certainly get some of the people some of the time, but I don't think this is a stable foundation. It doesn't help that accuracy hasn't always been the first goal. I don't think you can fully hide or sideline the confusion and when it comes out, it just create mistrust.

So you're right that this is about trust, but... manipulation doesn't lead to long term trust. If you read How to Win Friends and Influence People nowadays, you can see the stereotype of a smarmy old-timey salesman in it. A lot of the techniques there are burnt out and the very first chapter is basically a long-winded attempt to use social proof on you the reader that this book is awesome.

Now it is a very insightful book, I won't say otherwise, but you can also see that some of this stuff doesn't hold up over time, especially when it's getting misused.

[la6471]

With all due respect , Only people who have not seen how quickly a COVID case can turn dangerous , can be worried about the risks of COVID vaccine. Please take your COVID vaccines.

[lmilcin]

If you go to a doctor with some kind of pain and she prescribes you some pills, are you hesitant to take them? Are you questioning the science behind these pills? Are you accusing companies the pills are a fraud and government for peddling them for corporate enrichment? Are you looking at list of side effects and say, because it has potential sideffects you are not going to take it?

No, you just take the pill because you trust your doctor, you trust the process is providing you reasonable safety.

Have there been issues in the past? Of course there have been, but the idea is to fix the system rather than deny its value.

Peddling FUD is exactly what anti vaccine movement does where there is no reason to fear it. Just do the best job we can running the process correctly (ie holding "big pharma" to be responsible for what they produce).

[Dylan16807]

Somewhat hesitant people who are not anti-vaxxers are not the problem.

[Natsu]

Don't be so sure, there are a lot of people who are on the fence and just keep quiet. I know enough of them that I'm pushing them towards getting vaccinated with some success, but on average I find more are merely hesitant than outright anti-vax and I think the raw numbers may tip things because very few are completely anti-vax if you really talk things over with them.

The modal vaccine 'skeptic' with respect to covid mostly complies with things while people are watching and is worried about something in their life forcing them to take the vaccine and putting off the choice as long as they can.

Some are combing through VAERS data, reading stuff from scientists about how this stuff works, etc. so I think what we really know is more accessible stuff to relay what we do and do not know as factually as possible without trying to directly convince anyone, instead making an honest best effort to put the 'informed' into 'informed consent'.

Yeah, there will always be a few who don't go for it, but if you want to help the most people who are nervous, that's the best approach to take as someone who has managed to convince a few nervous people to get vaccinated.

I'm doing my best to help people in that vein, but I'm only one person.

[throwaway3699]

Isn't that the vast majority of people that are concerned?

[Dylan16807]

Without antivaxxers spearheading and spreading lies, everyone else gets a much more accurate picture.

[brlewis]

I made what I thought was an honest effort to evaluate the risks of vaccination versus the risks of the virus, but I ended up with a clear cut answer. Could you please point out the dishonest part?

https://en.howtruthful.com/o/remaining_unvaccinated_against_...

[rubyskills]

Just to be clear, any deaths reported by VAERS database does not necessarily mean it was related to the vaccine.

Interesting article on the topic:

https://www.newsweek.com/covid-vaccine-deaths-cause-pfizer-m...

[brlewis]

How is that more clear than "True: A review of available clinical information, including death certificates, autopsy, and medical records has not established a causal link from deaths to COVID-19 vaccines"?

Please don't say "Just to be clear" and say something agreeing with what I posted. That's actually less clear because casual readers will think you're arguing against me.