“vaccine hesitancy” is one of those very slanted phrases. it’s a sneaky marketing term to make it sound fearful or somehow timid or indecisive. no one wants to be “hesitant.” it’s a word freighted with negative connotation.
so it’s great for shaping image.
but is it really a fair or valid framing?
if these same college kids were asked to chug a beer and refused because they had to drive home, would we call them “budweiser hesitant”?
no. we’d praise their judgement and their ability to resist peer pressure.
so why the massive flip here? are these people hesitant or are they “seeing poor risk reward from taking an experimental vaccine with a significant side effect profile” because they are in an incredibly low risk category for covid?
this is a matter of real and reasonable debate and one of personal choice.
and no, their vax does not protect you in any meaningful way if you are vaxxed yourself. your risk is already so low that nothing they do matters.
stop turning your overblown atavistic fears into policy whereby you demand that people take undue medical risks so you’ll stop fretting. it’s anti-science and anti-social.
longtime gatopal™ and brown university (the gato alma mater) med school professor andrew bostom talks about it HERE.
moralizing is a terrible basis for health policy. it leads to bad outcomes and worse people in charge.
adding a political dimension just weaponizes it further and makes reasonable discussion or even rudimentary trust impossible.
the time for this childish name calling and talismanic superstition is over.
it’s time we got these hectoring karens out of power and out of our lives.
public health has not been at all what they told us it would be, has it?
learn the lesson well. you do NOT want to have to take this class again.
“Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic.”
What would have happened had Kulldorff been in charge of our pandemic response, instead of Tony Fauci? I’m convinced the outcome would have been far better.
These are the principles by which public health ought to operate:
Today got a call with a mellifluous "invitation" for a vaxx appointment from my local health authority, immediatelly and politely declined.
Answered also promptly by an inquisitive/accusative "Does that mean you're REFUSING to get vaccinated?!" (emphasis on the original).
Upon which I found myself answering (trully, in hindsight, without even considering the efforts's uselessness) "What right do you think you have to even dare question me that?!!!"
To which I got a babbling attempt at justification, from a pathetic sad sounding call-center minion: "Look I have to fill out this form in your file and there are only two boxes to check at this question, so which one will you choose?".
By then (still half enraged, half aware I was dealing with the lamest failing of a sentient being at the Turing Test) I shot from the hip that my health decisions are strictly private, up to me and my doctors alone, not to be shared in any dystopian telathon with some fascist Oompa-Loompas, as I would have never had answered Mengele's (if he'd ever questioned anyone of his victims) which side I'd prefer to exit the ramp at Auschwitz: "You chose to be the devil, so do his choice".
As the exchange ended I was left, more amused than annoyed, wondering which box did end up being checked at my "file"...
I'm not hesitant. I flat out refuse. For a time, I thought I might get the Novavax vaccine, which uses a conventional protein platform. When it became apparent that this virus wasn't as dangerous as advertised, I had second thoughts. When the Salk study came out that identified the spike protein as the cause of the cardiovascular injuries seen with infection, I decided not to bother. I don't want to catch this virus, but I don't see the wisdom in injecting the part of the virus that causes severe illness to protect me from severe illness. It seems counter-intuitive.
Apropros comment from @VYdreos: “I don't know any vaccine hesitant people. Hesitant implies they may change their mind someday. Some have made up their mind based on science that the risks far outweigh the benefits therefore they will never agree to have it. Which explains all the threats and coercion tactics.”
Fits the narrative: the great unwashed are deplorable Trump supporters. How are they going to square with the fact that under 50% of black and latinos in blue state MA are vaccinated? My daughter was peer pressured into getting the vaccine, despite having had Covid, and she says the narrative among her friend group re: vax and masks was that if you didn't, you were a Trump supporter. This is how they will coerce you ou tof your freedom.
it is about suppressing individual free will aka "self determination" in obeisance to the covidian (pharma maoists') little red book. defending "self determination" was one sales pitch used to send my generation to vietnam for 9 years.
"hesitancy" is a maoist term, used by would be red guards to shame dissenters. it is a badge of honor to dissent against the covidians, a kind term for pharma maoists.
my work experience is in dod logistics, we did risk analysis all the time, whether it is to send an airplane in the sky with precious souls aboard or to plan the safe sustenance of the airplane or big radar as the case maybe......
i am schooled in the concepts of consequences of an action and probability of those consequences.
my learned observation: for a young person with no serious health issue the risk analysis goes to chancing the virus rather than 100% assimilating the protein (from mrna or virus vector dna and getting an immune response, which carries similar adverse effects as the virus
using 'hesitancy' is design to be like pharma maoist red guards and destroy any diversity from their covidian little red book
Well said. Meanwhile here in SC the department of health is going after the youths by showing up at bars, and giving away a free drink for getting a shot.
Nor is anti-vax, which was created with the same intention as the also false term of "anti-life" to describe folks who are pro-choice regarding access to abortion. No one is anti-vax or anti-life, they are pro-choice, but that is too reasonable-sounding a term so it is not acceptable.
To quote Martin Kulldorff:
“Public health is about trust. To gain the trust of the public, public health officials and the media must be honest and trust the public. Shaming and fear should never be used in a pandemic.”
What would have happened had Kulldorff been in charge of our pandemic response, instead of Tony Fauci? I’m convinced the outcome would have been far better.
These are the principles by which public health ought to operate:
https://mobile.twitter.com/MartinKulldorff/status/1340352575967784960
okay, that gif/meme was brilliant.
Take us to LUDICROUS SPEED.
Today got a call with a mellifluous "invitation" for a vaxx appointment from my local health authority, immediatelly and politely declined.
Answered also promptly by an inquisitive/accusative "Does that mean you're REFUSING to get vaccinated?!" (emphasis on the original).
Upon which I found myself answering (trully, in hindsight, without even considering the efforts's uselessness) "What right do you think you have to even dare question me that?!!!"
To which I got a babbling attempt at justification, from a pathetic sad sounding call-center minion: "Look I have to fill out this form in your file and there are only two boxes to check at this question, so which one will you choose?".
By then (still half enraged, half aware I was dealing with the lamest failing of a sentient being at the Turing Test) I shot from the hip that my health decisions are strictly private, up to me and my doctors alone, not to be shared in any dystopian telathon with some fascist Oompa-Loompas, as I would have never had answered Mengele's (if he'd ever questioned anyone of his victims) which side I'd prefer to exit the ramp at Auschwitz: "You chose to be the devil, so do his choice".
As the exchange ended I was left, more amused than annoyed, wondering which box did end up being checked at my "file"...
I'm not hesitant. I flat out refuse. For a time, I thought I might get the Novavax vaccine, which uses a conventional protein platform. When it became apparent that this virus wasn't as dangerous as advertised, I had second thoughts. When the Salk study came out that identified the spike protein as the cause of the cardiovascular injuries seen with infection, I decided not to bother. I don't want to catch this virus, but I don't see the wisdom in injecting the part of the virus that causes severe illness to protect me from severe illness. It seems counter-intuitive.
Apropros comment from @VYdreos: “I don't know any vaccine hesitant people. Hesitant implies they may change their mind someday. Some have made up their mind based on science that the risks far outweigh the benefits therefore they will never agree to have it. Which explains all the threats and coercion tactics.”
Fits the narrative: the great unwashed are deplorable Trump supporters. How are they going to square with the fact that under 50% of black and latinos in blue state MA are vaccinated? My daughter was peer pressured into getting the vaccine, despite having had Covid, and she says the narrative among her friend group re: vax and masks was that if you didn't, you were a Trump supporter. This is how they will coerce you ou tof your freedom.
it is about suppressing individual free will aka "self determination" in obeisance to the covidian (pharma maoists') little red book. defending "self determination" was one sales pitch used to send my generation to vietnam for 9 years.
"hesitancy" is a maoist term, used by would be red guards to shame dissenters. it is a badge of honor to dissent against the covidians, a kind term for pharma maoists.
my work experience is in dod logistics, we did risk analysis all the time, whether it is to send an airplane in the sky with precious souls aboard or to plan the safe sustenance of the airplane or big radar as the case maybe......
i am schooled in the concepts of consequences of an action and probability of those consequences.
my learned observation: for a young person with no serious health issue the risk analysis goes to chancing the virus rather than 100% assimilating the protein (from mrna or virus vector dna and getting an immune response, which carries similar adverse effects as the virus
using 'hesitancy' is design to be like pharma maoist red guards and destroy any diversity from their covidian little red book
Well said. Meanwhile here in SC the department of health is going after the youths by showing up at bars, and giving away a free drink for getting a shot.
Is there any info about whether the post-infectious are less likely to get shots?
Nor is anti-vax, which was created with the same intention as the also false term of "anti-life" to describe folks who are pro-choice regarding access to abortion. No one is anti-vax or anti-life, they are pro-choice, but that is too reasonable-sounding a term so it is not acceptable.