[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.

[jollybean]

1) Communicating in terms that people understand is not manipulative.

Developing Social Consensus through Medical Propaganda, you could argue is manipulative, yes, but it's an inherent artifact of fighting off an existential threat to the wellbeing of the community.

You must herd most of the cats into the pen to get vaccinated or they will die.

2) Get away from the idea that there's something wrong or immoral with identifying that some people are smarter than others, more conscientious, lazier, inept, disagreeable.

In a crisis (and otherwise) we need to deal with actual reality.

3) You need to communicate with people at their level.

There are plenty of people smarter than you and I who might want to be communicated with in different terms than you and I might expect - the same goes for less literate.

Children obviously are not developed, and talking about facts is pointless. So you get Superman to tell them.

Oprah has more credibility to 1/2 the population that the media. So you get her to say it in the way she thinks will work best.

...

The Scientific Literature is public information, it's openly available, and frankly, the national health advisers are on TV 10x more than they even need to be, they've 'over explained' everything so 'transparency' for the most part has never been a problem.

It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.

If you gave yourself the job of getting everyone vaxxed, and then you realize that 1/2 of people were not showing up, you'd quickly start to alter your plan and arrive at much the same conclusions.

We've been doing this since the dawn of time, often in much worse ways, this is Public Communications.

[Natsu]

As to point (1) that isn't the part I identified as manipulative.

And Covid isn't an existential threat. It's terrible, mind you, but killing 2% of the population is only enough to cause widespread misery, not to wipe out the human race. Inasmuch as people compare it to the flu, that's because the flu is badly underestimated and has killed a large number of people. The 1918 pandemic, for example, killed several of my own family.

For (2) I didn't say it was wrong or immoral, I said it was terrible specifically because it causes mistrust. Someone who does not like you cannot be expected to make good decisions on your behalf.

And what people saw was others prioritizing their own safety and not caring about anyone else. E.G. with the early mask advice the doctors appeared to be prioritizing themselves. There are actually good and rational reasons why doctors should be protected first in such a case, but the notion that they'll stab you in the back does not engender trust.

For (3), I've not argued otherwise, I'm simply pointing out more effective means of it based on actually talking to a lot of people who are skeptical of the medical advice being given and successfully convincing some to get vaccinated.

It's true that I've seen instances of abject quackery, but part of the problem is that they get their veneer of false credibility via comparison to the more visible failures.

> It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.

It's mostly the fear that's played up: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qp3gy_CLXho

But I get it, it's hard to motivate people towards moderation and so much easier to push people towards one extreme or another.

Like, this isn't some existential risk, this is something that's going to make a lot of people miserable when a lot of grandparents die and the hospitals get flooded. This is from people not having any intuitive understanding of exponential equations (or S-curves) and not realizing how quickly this stuff explodes in a population. This is people being selfish and going around sick or not taking precautions because they don't understand asymptomatic spread or how just spreading the virus that's probably (but not necessarily) harmless to them is likely to kill a lot of people.

Sure, the science is open, but the people need someone they can actually trust who cares about them to translate it for them. That too many would trust random quacks talking about how iron ions or some BS are responsible for Covid and the vaccine allegedly makes you magnetic or something (seriously, I don't even understand this nonsense, that's just what they said), as I saw recently, just makes me sad that it's hard to bridge the trust gap here.

I mean, sure, I can point out that no, my arm is not magnetic now. And yes, just for the hell of it, I really did check despite this being an incredibly stupid theory. But that only does so much.

I don't think we're at half the population who are going to avoid vaccines, maybe more like 10%, though they're noisier than average, so it's hard to get a read on it. From other data, hopefully things work out at around 80% vaccinated, so we may be okay as long as we work on bridging the gap in trust by doing our best to get informed consent by talking through people's fears.

I fear this requires more of a one-on-one approach with family/friends/acquaintances discussing this on a personal level rather than mass communication, though, and I'm well aware of how badly that scales.

[jfengel]

the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that

The problem is that they're not suspect enough. They apply different standards to different sources of manipulation. If they were consistent in their suspicion, we wouldn't be having this problem.

[Natsu]

That's a fair point and you can and should press people for their sources and how they can validate them because that's a good point of comparison when you're able to point out ways that things can be checked and they're not.

For example, some people were nattering on about the vaccine remaining in the blood supply or whatever for years after and worrying that they would somehow acquire a vaccine that way. For that, you can point to the mRNA sequences on Github and tell them about the tests that can be used to detect them.

Meanwhile there's some incoherent nonsense about the vaccine making your arm magnetic and free radicals from someone on 4chan who claims to be posting 2nd hand info with no sources. You can give them a damn magnet and let them see that it doesn't stick to the arm they vaccinated you in.