Ohio offering financial incentive including full ride scholarship for vaccination; also ending most health orders June 2nd

[Jean in Newcastle]

27 minutes ago, KSera said:

 I know these statistics have been pretty true all along, but I still worry that repeating them just makes the hesitant Republicans even more so, because their decision is already primarily political, and this just reinforces that (not saying you shouldn’t share them, just sharing how I anticipate people responding to them). 

If they want their party to be strong, perhaps they would be motivated to vaccinate for survival. 

*Note:  I do not belong to any political party. 

[pinball]

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/

This says 20% of Republicans are in the “definitely not” category. 

Next is independents at 13% in def not. Dem at 4%.

my question is...if republican affiliation is dropping, and this number is  relatively small...why bother trying to target them? Why target a small stubborn group that has no intention of getting  the vaccine? Isn’t 20% of 45% (which is a high estimate of republican affiliation, IMO) 9%?

maybe I’m not mathing it correctly 

but if I were a business, would I try to get the business of someone who said I would definitely not utilize your business?

[Jean in Newcastle]

30 minutes ago, pinball said:

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/

This says 20% of Republicans are in the “definitely not” category. 

Next is independents at 13% in def not. Dem at 4%.

my question is...if republican affiliation is dropping, and this number is  relatively small...why bother trying to target them? Why target a small stubborn group that has no intention of getting  the vaccine? Isn’t 20% of 45% (which is a high estimate of republican affiliation, IMO) 9%?

maybe I’m not mathing it correctly 

but if I were a business, would I try to get the business of someone who said I would definitely not utilize your business?

From an epidemiological perspective wouldn’t it depend on the distribution of groups of people?  If you have a bigger concentration of vaccine resistant people (for whatever reason) in an area then the virus can start to spread in that area. And while to some extent it’s a natural consequence, is there a responsibility for society to protect people from themselves?  And what about other people in that area who are “collateral damage “ because they genuinely can’t be vaccinated due to age or for medical reasons?  Or what about the potential of varients popping up in that area which might not be covered by the vaccines out there ?  

[pinball]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

From an epidemiological perspective wouldn’t it depend on the distribution of groups of people?  If you have a bigger concentration of vaccine resistant people (for whatever reason) in an area then the virus can start to spread in that area. And while to some extent it’s a natural consequence,  is there a responsibility for society to protect people from themselves?   And what about other people in that area who are “collateral damage “ because they genuinely can’t be vaccinated due to age or for medical reasons?  Or what about the potential of varients popping up in that area which might not be covered by the vaccines out there ?  

I’m just going to address the bolded...in terms of THIS discussion? If you mean that society has to protect those who don’t ever want the Covid vaccine from themselves?

Ewwww.

no, IMO, no...society does not need to protect people who don’t want the Covid vaccine from themselves 

shudder. Or maybe shutter. Not sure.

Shutter Island? Shudder Island? Whatevs.

[ktgrok]

13 hours ago, TravelingChris said:

Well most of the unvaccinated are not Trump fans

Being Republican is the biggest correlation to vaccine refusal or hesitancy. In fact, yesterday I was listening to a story about a recent poll, and they found even after you controlled for rural vs urban this was true. And that if you controlled for political party, there was no difference in rural vs urban. It was political party that was the tie. Not geography. 

[Innisfree]

56 minutes ago, pinball said:

I’m just going to address the bolded...in terms of THIS discussion? If you mean that society has to protect those who don’t ever want the Covid vaccine from themselves?

Ewwww.

no, IMO, no...society does not need to protect people who don’t want the Covid vaccine from themselves 

shudder. Or maybe shutter. Not sure.

Shutter Island? Shudder Island? Whatevs.

I don't think protecting people from themselves is the best argument. I think the other points Jean listed are quite valid, from an epidemiological perspective. Tamping down spread in any particular area with a hesitant population *is* important in order to protect people who can't be vaccinated, and in order to stop mutations. How do you feel about those goals?

This week we've started to see a light at the end of the tunnel in this country, but a few months ago, India thought they were approaching the same situation. As long as anywhere in the world has uncontrolled transmission, there's a chance of a mutation which could resist our current vaccines. We're far better positioned than most of the world, but it could still happen here.

[pinball]

21 minutes ago, Innisfree said:

I don't think protecting people from themselves is the best argument. I think the other points Jean listed are quite valid, from an epidemiological perspective. Tamping down spread in any particular area with a hesitant population *is* important in order to protect people who can't be vaccinated, and in order to stop mutations. How do you feel about those goals?

This week we've started to see a light at the end of the tunnel in this country, but a few months ago, India thought they were approaching the same situation. As long as anywhere in the world has uncontrolled transmission, there's a chance of a mutation which could resist our current vaccines. We're far better positioned than most of the world, but it could still happen here.

 

4 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

From an epidemiological perspective wouldn’t it depend on the distribution of groups of people?  If you have a bigger concentration of vaccine resistant people (for whatever reason) in an area then the virus can start to spread in that area. And while to some extent it’s a natural consequence, is there a responsibility for society to protect people from themselves?  And what about other people in that area who are “collateral damage “ because they genuinely can’t be vaccinated due to age or for medical reasons?  Or what about the potential of varients popping up in that area which might not be covered by the vaccines out there ?  

Jean actually did NOT LIST anything.

she just asked a bunch of questions.

i answered the one I was the most interested in answering, like this is a buffet. 

[KSera]

8 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

If they want their party to be strong, perhaps they would be motivated to vaccinate for survival. 

*Note:  I do not belong to any political party. 

One would think there would be some concern among Republicans that they are going to lose even more Republican voters by being disproportionately unvaccinated and that even gerrymandering and making voting harder for minorities won’t be enough for them to win  elections anymore if they’re dying at higher rates. 
 

*Note: I do not belong to any political party either

[Jean in Newcastle]

10 minutes ago, pinball said:

 

Jean actually did NOT LIST anything.

she just asked a bunch of questions.

i answered the one I was the most interested in answering, like this is a buffet. 

Exactly. I was just asking questions. And the one you answered was the weakest one (in my opinion) but still a valid one from a public health perspective. We do have lots of laws designed to keep people safe (and to protect them from themselves). Seatbelt laws. Drunk driving laws. Speed limits. Laws against putting gas in the wrong containers or pumping gas into a running vehicle. Laws against food workers working with contagious hepatitis A.  I could go on..,,,

[pinball]

2 minutes ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Exactly. I was just asking questions. And the one you answered was the weakest one (in my opinion) but still a valid one from a public health perspective. We do have lots of laws designed to keep people safe (and to protect them from themselves). Seatbelt laws. Drunk driving laws. Speed limits. Laws against putting gas in the wrong containers or pumping gas into a running vehicle. Laws against food workers working with contagious hepatitis A.  I could go on..,,,

Ooh, so it’s OK to just ask questions here?

good, duly noted! 😁

aaaaaannnnndddd...my answer was specific to THIS situation, (Covid vaccine), which I clearly stated in my reply:

“society does not need to protect people who don’t want the Covid vaccine from themselves“

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

2 minutes ago, pinball said:

Ooh, so it’s OK to just ask questions here?

good, duly noted! 😁

aaaaaannnnndddd...my answer was specific to THIS situation, (Covid vaccine), which I clearly stated in my reply:

“society does not need to protect people who don’t want the Covid vaccine from themselves“

 

This is a discussion board. Asking questions is one way to contribute to a discussion. 
 

If we could round up all the anti/vaxxers (and only the ones old enough to make informed decisions for themselves), put them on an island where their decisions can’t affect anyone else, then I have no problem with letting the chips fall where they may. But most of our communities have a mix of generations, health statuses and people traveling while taking  the virus with them. This is why I have had no issue with public health mandates with regards to the pandemic. Curtailing things like pandemics is part of the job description of a state health department. 
 

Of course the question now is ; when is the proper time for the health department to back away from those mandates?  Interestingly enough, those “freedom first “ people who were so sure that health departments were all covert arms of a socialist state trying to take away all our freedoms are happy that the mandates are being lifted. (Though they won’t admit that it wasn’t actually a plot to begin with). 
 

Personally as a vaccinated empty nester in a very highly vaccinated area I feel “safe” with local restrictions being lifted. But I predict some additional heartache in areas that aren’t so careful. But I honestly hope that I am wrong. 

[happi duck]

Covid deniers, antivaxxers etc are a danger to the whole community if they keep the spread going.  What if a mutation comes along that the vaccine doesn't fight?  

All these places lifting mask mandates for the vaccinated are putting trust in a group (antivaxxers) that is selfish and untrustworthy.

Masks would be about protecting everyone.

[frogger]

2 hours ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

Exactly. I was just asking questions. And the one you answered was the weakest one (in my opinion) but still a valid one from a public health perspective. We do have lots of laws designed to keep people safe (and to protect them from themselves). Seatbelt laws. Drunk driving laws. Speed limits. Laws against putting gas in the wrong containers or pumping gas into a running vehicle. Laws against food workers working with contagious hepatitis A.  I could go on..,,,

The only law you mentioned that protects people from themselves is the seatbelt law, which I'm not sure should exist. The others all protect others from you, even if it may also end up protecting you.

That being said, vaccines also protect others from you but I don't want to live in a totalitarian country. 

 

Not related to quote:

I think a huge issue comes down to free speech to be honest with you. It is also not just vaccines that are an issue. Teaching people how to sort fact from fiction would be a huge start. Not shutting down opponents view points, but rather recognizing craziness. 

The truth is the social media is like a modern machine gun or bomb in 2nd amendment terms if something "goes viral". 

I do think socially responsible media would have algorithms that pushed opposing viewpoints rather than creating echo chambers, would be a start. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. There will be more issues than just vaccines where people live in echo chambers. 

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

7 minutes ago, frogger said:

The only law you mentioned that protects people from themselves is the seatbelt law, which I'm not sure should exist. The others all protect others from you, even if it may also end up protecting you.

That being said, vaccines also protect others from you but I don't want to live in a totalitarian country. 

 

Not related to quote:

I think a huge issue comes down to free speech to be honest with you. It is also not just vaccines that are an issue. Teaching people how to sort fact from fiction would be a huge start. Not shutting down opponents view points, but rather recognizing craziness. 

The truth is the social media is like a modern machine gun or bomb in 2nd amendment terms if something "goes viral". 

I do think socially responsible media would have algorithms that pushed opposing viewpoints rather than creating echo chambers, would be a start. Of course, you can lead a horse to water but you can't make it drink. There will be more issues than just vaccines where people live in echo chambers. 

 

?  Public health departments (which btw have been part of our country since 1916) is not equal to a totalitarian country. 

Free speech?  What in the world do these last three paragraphs even mean?  We are all exercising free speech on a public message board.  No one is being booted off for having differing views.  The government isn't stepping in to censor our speech.  This word salad of yours makes absolutely no sense but you are free to toss it around. 

[Corraleno]

8 hours ago, pinball said:

https://www.kff.org/coronavirus-covid-19/dashboard/kff-covid-19-vaccine-monitor-dashboard/

This says 20% of Republicans are in the “definitely not” category. 

Next is independents at 13% in def not. Dem at 4%.

my question is...if republican affiliation is dropping, and this number is  relatively small...why bother trying to target them? Why target a small stubborn group that has no intention of getting  the vaccine? Isn’t 20% of 45% (which is a high estimate of republican affiliation, IMO) 9%?

maybe I’m not mathing it correctly 

but if I were a business, would I try to get the business of someone who said I would definitely not utilize your business?

Just going with the stats on Trump voters, if 74 million people voted for Trump, and 47% of those say they don't want the vaccine, that's 35,000,000 adults. That is more than 10% of the total US population and by far the largest block of vaccine refusers. And presumably some of those adults also have minor children they will be making vax decisions for. Why wouldn't public health officials want to target such a huge group, when they're also working on strategies to reach much smaller percentages of much smaller demographics that are vaccine hesitant, like Black and Latinx groups?

Of course some percentage of the "don't want it" Trump voters will be "never under any circumstances no matter what," but most may be persuadable — the majority (53%) apparently have been persuaded to get it, so it's certainly worth trying to get the rest on board, since that 10% could easily mean the difference between reaching herd immunity or not.

Edited May 15, 2021 by Corraleno

[historically accurate]

8 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Just going with the stats on Trump voters, if 74 million people voted for Trump, and 47% of those say they don't want the vaccine, that's 35,000,000 adults. That is more than 10% of the total US population and by far the largest block of vaccine refusers. And presumably some of those adults also have minor children they will be making vax decisions for. Why wouldn't public health officials want to target such a huge group, when they're also working on strategies to reach much smaller percentages of much smaller demographics that are vaccine hesitant, like Black and Latinx groups?

Of course some percentage of the "don't want it" Trump voters will be "never under any circumstances no matter what," but most may be persuadable — the majority (53%) apparently have been persuaded to get it, so it's certainly worth trying to get the rest on board, since that 10% could easily mean the difference between reaching herd immunity or not.

On my way back from DD's vaccine appointment, I happened to look over at the corner at a red light. There was a small sign that said, "I Got My Vaccine. Now it's TIME to get yours!" with some small print I couldn't read before the light turned green and a picture of former President Trump on it. So, someone in my area believes that reaching out to Trump supporters is worth it. 

[KungFuPanda]

16 hours ago, Corraleno said:

 

Sources: here, here, here, here, and here

 

 

I love you. 🤣

[frogger]

1 hour ago, Jean in Newcastle said:

?  Public health departments (which btw have been part of our country since 1916) is not equal to a totalitarian country. 

Free speech?  What in the world do these last three paragraphs even mean?  We are all exercising free speech on a public message board.  No one is being booted off for having differing views.  The government isn't stepping in to censor our speech.  This word salad of yours makes absolutely no sense but you are free to toss it around. 

Everyone is assuming if someone quotes you they are in absolute contradiction. I'm attempting to have a discussion, not an argument. I should probably just never quote people. I just wanted to quickly comment that most laws are (and I think should be) for protecting others from you. 

I didn't say we HAVE a totalitarian gov't. I was saying we need to be careful what we are willing to FORCE people to do. It is much better to persuade people and for people to have some sort of social consensus. I then wanted to put in the difficulty of getting to social consensus and even tried to put a disclaimer that I was no longer referring to your post. 

I also in no way was saying we don't currently have free speech. I was attempting to say free speech is dangerous. Lies and propaganda and all sorts of evil is spread by people. People who listen to their echo chambers only are not going to create a civil society. Right now the people I know who are most anti vax are listening to constant echo chambers. I was trying to add in that I don't want to curtail free speech in any way even though people use it very poorly. It is too important; it is essential to living in a free society but we as a society have to learn how to deal with these echo chambers that are creating division and antagonism toward fellow Americans. Vaccination is not the only area of life where people struggle to get real information. My new name for the information age is the disinformation age. 😕

[Bootsie]

The discussions surrounding political affiliations, opinions on Trump, and vaccine hesitancy appear to be difficult to sort out.  Some of the statistics being thrown around go back to early fall 2020, when for most people getting a vaccine was highly theoretical.  Many on this board who expressed concern regarding how quickly they would vaccinate back then have since been vaccinated.  I do not see that those statistics are useful in addressing vaccine hesitancy now, over six months later, when were are in a very different place.

The statistics people quote also seem to confuse registered Republicans, Trump voters, and Trump supporters.  I do not think those terms can be used interchangeably.  

I know two adamant anti-vaxers--one is the farthest from a Trump supporter that you can get; she is also not a conservative Christian, some of the other ways anit-vaxers have been described. Nor is she uneducated or into conspiracy theories.  In fact, she has worked in one of the leading biological research labs in the world.

The other anti-vaxer that I know well is a Trump supporter--but would not consider herself a Republican and is not even a registered voter. So, I don't know how you would classify her in any of the statistics.  

In my circle of friends, at least, the decision to vaccinate is not political in the sense that they are making a choice because of a political affiliation or because of something someone in a poltical party is doing.  Yes, they may have some underlying philosphical views, ideas, and values that cause them to draw the conclsuions they draw about vaccines AND the choice of political party affiliation that they think best lines up with their views and values.  There may be a correlation between their politcal party affiliation and their choice to vaccinate, but the choice of party affiliation is not the cause of their vaccination hesitancy.    

It is the reporting in the media that makes the decision to vax about politics.  I don't find that it helps in communicating with anti-vaxers and learning what their hesitancy really is about.  

[KungFuPanda]

As rabidly pro-vaccine as I am, I draw the line at forcing it on anyone.  However, I do think it is perfectly acceptable to require proof of immunization before allowing someone to move about maskless in public spaces.  I'm assuming that the number of people willing to forge a government document is much smaller than the number of people willing to lie about being immunized when they don't have to show proof.  (Plus, it's a felony.) If I can flash a card to get into Costco, I can show proof of immunization until the pandemic is over.  If I'd prefer to keep that particular medical information private, I can just wear a mask. 

I am absolutely on board with colleges requiring the immunization to live on campus and schools requiring it, barring medical exemptions, once it's available for children. I think it is tragic and surreal and really really weird that opinions about science are shaped by political affiliation.  There is enough information to weigh in science without a political party putting its thumb on the scale.

Edited May 15, 2021 by KungFuPanda

[frogger]

It does seem strange that politics has anything to do vaccination. I don't think it actually is politics but I do believe a huge part of it is that the more radical left and right tend to favor specific news outlets, blogs, and information sources. Other sources of information are also passed from person to person and people like info that confirms their bias so too many accept it without much questioning. So whatever those particular sources say will automatically be accepted and a wide variety of topics will all be agreed upon regardless of the fact that they have nothing to do with each other.

I used to think it was mainly a conservative issue because I saw first hand the congregating on issues but after spending a lot of time on our local reddit page, I was aghast at the nonsense of liberals on there. There are crazy and thoughtful people on either end of the spectrum. People who only want to slam the other side are not helpful in problem solving nor are they open to new evidence if it automatically doesn't support their preconceived notions. So yes, it is a problem all over the map. It is simply the Conservative stations seemed to fall to the anti vaccine side, which is strange and sad since Operation Warp Speed and manufacturing vaccines before trials were completed was one of the few things I think Trump got right. 

Edited May 15, 2021 by frogger

[vonfirmath]

2 hours ago, KungFuPanda said:

As rabidly pro-vaccine as I am, I draw the line at forcing it on anyone.  However, I do think it is perfectly acceptable to require proof of immunization before allowing someone to move about maskless in public spaces.  I'm assuming that the number of people willing to forge a government document is much smaller than the number of people willing to lie about being immunized when they don't have to show proof.  (Plus, it's a felony.) If I can flash a card to get into Costco, I can show proof of immunization until the pandemic is over.  If I'd prefer to keep that particular medical information private, I can just wear a mask. 

I am absolutely on board with colleges requiring the immunization to live on campus and schools requiring it, barring medical exemptions, once it's available for children. I think it is tragic and surreal and really really weird that opinions about science are shaped by political affiliation.  There is enough information to weigh in science without a political party putting its thumb on the scale.

But the flashing a card to get into Costco is something you agreed to when you paid your membership fee. You don't flash a card to get into Wal-mart.

 

[KungFuPanda]

1 minute ago, vonfirmath said:

But the flashing a card to get into Costco is something you agreed to when you paid your membership fee. You don't flash a card to get into Wal-mart.

 

No, because I wear a mask when I go in.  I think we're going to see a definite before/after line when it comes to acceptable social behavior.  The pandemic will continue to define a new normal for a while longer. Simply trusting people to do the right thing seems foolish at the moment. Locally we have a 1% positivity rate and a 60% vaccination rate but I'd hate for us to get complacent and ruin all that progress.  

I don't know how it's going to play out.  Today is the first day with no mask mandate and I haven't left the house.  People here are careful and a lot of kids are still doing school from home, so it'll be interesting how the community eases into a little freedom after such a long lock-down.

[Jean in Newcastle]

8 minutes ago, KungFuPanda said:

No, because I wear a mask when I go in.  I think we're going to see a definite before/after line when it comes to acceptable social behavior.  The pandemic will continue to define a new normal for a while longer. Simply trusting people to do the right thing seems foolish at the moment. Locally we have a 1% positivity rate and a 60% vaccination rate but I'd hate for us to get complacent and ruin all that progress.  

I don't know how it's going to play out.  Today is the first day with no mask mandate and I haven't left the house.  People here are careful and a lot of kids are still doing school from home, so it'll be interesting how the community eases into a little freedom after such a long lock-down.

Every where I have been today (and I have been out a lot today) has had everyone masking here. Including me. And I am vaccinated and know for a fact that some of the people that I was interacting with today are vaccinated as well. I am not afraid of contracting Covid. I am not afraid of transmitting it to anyone either. But masking is easy. And our area is close but not quite at the percentage needed for possible herd immunity. So far it seems like others here have the same thought that I do. But I know that other parts of our state haven’t agreed. 

[Faith-manor]

We had to run to the hardware store and the lumber yard today. We, who are vaccinated, were the ONLY people with masks. O.n.l.y. Masks signs had been ripped off the doors, and the stores were so crowded. We went back to the car and waited for it to clear out. In a county with a vaccination rate of under 40%, it is a foregone conclusion that liars were present. I no longer have any grace, patience, or mercy for such individuals. 

 

[TravelingChris]

10 hours ago, Innisfree said:

I don't think protecting people from themselves is the best argument. I think the other points Jean listed are quite valid, from an epidemiological perspective. Tamping down spread in any particular area with a hesitant population *is* important in order to protect people who can't be vaccinated, and in order to stop mutations. How do you feel about those goals?

This week we've started to see a light at the end of the tunnel in this country, but a few months ago, India thought they were approaching the same situation. As long as anywhere in the world has uncontrolled transmission, there's a chance of a mutation which could resist our current vaccines. We're far better positioned than most of the world, but it could still happen here.

India only had 1 or 2% vaccinated.  We have a whole lot more.

[Innisfree]

1 hour ago, TravelingChris said:

India only had 1 or 2% vaccinated.  We have a whole lot more.

Yes. As I said, we're far better positioned than most of the world.

But as long as the virus is reproducing, new mutations can occur. Uncontrolled transmission opens the possibility of variants which can escape our vaccines, even after all the efforts of the last year.

This is why vaccinating as many people as possible is important, and why states, localities, and businesses are encouraging vaccinations with incentives like Ohio's lotteries, and Krispy Kreme doughnuts, and beer giveaways, and all the others. 

[PeterPan]

nt

Edited May 16, 2021 by PeterPan

[Corraleno]

22 hours ago, Bootsie said:

Some of the statistics being thrown around go back to early fall 2020, when for most people getting a vaccine was highly theoretical.  Many on this board who expressed concern regarding how quickly they would vaccinate back then have since been vaccinated.  I do not see that those statistics are useful in addressing vaccine hesitancy now, over six months later, when were are in a very different place.

If you're referring to the poll results I posted, none of them are from last fall. The NPR/Marist Poll was from mid-March, and the others were done in mid- to late April. The CNN poll was just 3 weeks ago, so they do in fact represent where we are right now..

Edited May 16, 2021 by Corraleno
corrected error; it was CNN not Quinnipiac

[Bootsie]

13 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

If you're referring to the poll results I posted, none of them are from last fall. The NPR/Marist Poll was from mid-March, and the others were done in mid- to late April. The Quinnipiac poll was just 3 weeks ago, so they do in fact represent where we are right now..

I was not referring to any particular post, or paying attention to who posted which polls, but this is one poll/statstic that has appeared in this thread

Trust in COVID-19 vaccines aligns with political parties, new national study finds - News @ Northeastern and it has a Sept 15 2020 date.

The NPR/Marist poll that I have seen was March 3-March 8; in my area it was still very difficult for Tier 1 senior citizens to find vaccinations.  Over two months later, I think we are in a much different place than we were then.  

The Quinnipiac poll was Apri 8-12, so more like five weeks ago (not 3).  1237 were polled.  Of those 27% said they would not vaccinate (334 people).  Of the 1237, 22% were Republican==> 45% of those said the would not vaccinate, so 122 people.  So, 212 people were NOT Republican and would not vaccinate..    63%--almost 2/3 of those who said they would not vaccinate were NOT Republican.  

[KSera]

33 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

The Quinnipiac poll was Apri 8-12, so more like five weeks ago (not 3).  1237 were polled.  Of those 27% said they would not vaccinate (334 people).  Of the 1237, 22% were Republican==> 45% of those said the would not vaccinate, so 122 people.  So, 212 people were NOT Republican and would not vaccinate..    63%--almost 2/3 of those who said they would not vaccinate were NOT Republican.  

Those statistics are screwy and don’t show what the bolded might imply. I almost don’t want to explain why, because I think it might actually help get more people to vaccinate if people think they’re accurate 😂. It should be obvious when looking at the percentage of those polled who are  Republican vs the percentage of those who won’t vaccinate that are Republican. 

[Corraleno]

48 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

I was not referring to any particular post, or paying attention to who posted which polls, but this is one poll/statstic that has appeared in this thread

Trust in COVID-19 vaccines aligns with political parties, new national study finds - News @ Northeastern and it has a Sept 15 2020 date.

The NPR/Marist poll that I have seen was March 3-March 8; in my area it was still very difficult for Tier 1 senior citizens to find vaccinations.  Over two months later, I think we are in a much different place than we were then.  

The Quinnipiac poll was Apri 8-12, so more like five weeks ago (not 3).  1237 were polled.  Of those 27% said they would not vaccinate (334 people).  Of the 1237, 22% were Republican==> 45% of those said the would not vaccinate, so 122 people.  So, 212 people were NOT Republican and would not vaccinate..    63%--almost 2/3 of those who said they would not vaccinate were NOT Republican.  

Sorry, my mistake, I had too many windows open at once — it was the CNN poll not Quinnipiac that was 3 weeks ago (April 21-26). Still, last month is a far cry from last fall.

I'm not sure why "if you add the vaccine refusers in all the other groups together, the combined total is larger than Republicans " in any way refutes the fact that Republicans, as a group, are by far the most hesitant demographic — 40-45% vs single digits for Dems in most polls, with independents somewhere in the middle. No matter how you divide the groups — urban/rural, degree/no degree, white/black/HIspanic, etc., no other group has a rate of vaccine refusal as high as Republicans. That's just a fact.

Edited May 16, 2021 by Corraleno

[HeartString]

2 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

. No matter how you divide the groups — urban/rural, educated/noneducated, white/black/HIspanic, etc., no other group has a rate of vaccine refusal as high as Republicans. That's just a fact.

I’m not sure why this fact seems to bother people. I don’t get it.

[Bootsie]

4 minutes ago, Corraleno said:

Sorry, my mistake, I had too many windows open at once — it was the CNN poll not Quinnipiac that was 3 weeks ago (April 21-26). Still, last month is a far cry from last fall.

I'm not sure why "if you add the vaccine refusers in all the other groups together, the combined total is larger than Republicans " in any way refutes the fact that Republicans, as a group, are by far the most hesitant demographic — 40-45% vs single digits for Dems in most polls, with independents somewhere in the middle. No matter how you divide the groups — urban/rural, educated/noneducated, white/black/HIspanic, etc., no other group has a rate of vaccine refusal as high as Republicans. That's just a fact.

But this depends upon your putting people in a "group".  You might find another group--cyclists, stock brokers, left-handed Baptists, blue-eyed psychology majors, etc has a higher rate.   I do not think "Republican" is that homegenous of a group--or at least as homogenous as the news outlets would like us to think.    

And it does make a big difference at how the issue is addressed of encouraging those who are hesitant to vaccinate.  Just because the highest percentage of a group (in a way that we have chosen to group people) are hesitant, it does not mean that going after that group will be the way to increase vaccinations.  Most people who are saying they will not vaccinate are not Republican.  If I want to increase vaccinations, it would make more sense to find out why all of those non-Republicans are hesitant since it is a larger pool of people.  If you could find something that would encourage 36% of those who are saying that they won't be vaccinated to vaccinate, you get the same result as if you can convince 100% of the Republicans who are hesitant.  

[Bootsie]

10 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I’m not sure why this fact seems to bother people. I don’t get it.

I don't know of anyone that fact bothers (maybe there are some who it does), but it is important to interpret that fact for what it is worth.  The fact is that the majority of the people who are vaccine hesitant are NOT Republicans.  So, characterizing the group of people who are vaccine hesitant as Trump supporters or Republicans is not an accurate characterization--most are not.  

[Bootsie]

20 minutes ago, KSera said:

Those statistics are screwy and don’t show what the bolded might imply. I almost don’t want to explain why, because I think it might actually help get more people to vaccinate if people think they’re accurate 😂. It should be obvious when looking at the percentage of those polled who are  Republican vs the percentage of those who won’t vaccinate that are Republican. 

How does it not show that?  There were 1237 people polled.   22% were Republicans.  That is 272 people.  45% of thosse said they would not vaccinate.  272 X 45% is 122 people.  

Of all of the people who were polled, 27% said they would not vaccinate.  1237 X 27% = 334.  

So, there were 334 total who were polled who said they would not vaccinate.  122 of those people were Republicans.  

The reported numbers were not for the percentage of those who won't vaccinate that are Republican.  

 

[Jean in Newcastle]

37 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

But this depends upon your putting people in a "group".  You might find another group--cyclists, stock brokers, left-handed Baptists, blue-eyed psychology majors, etc has a higher rate.   I do not think "Republican" is that homegenous of a group--or at least as homogenous as the news outlets would like us to think.    

And it does make a big difference at how the issue is addressed of encouraging those who are hesitant to vaccinate.  Just because the highest percentage of a group (in a way that we have chosen to group people) are hesitant, it does not mean that going after that group will be the way to increase vaccinations.  Most people who are saying they will not vaccinate are not Republican.  If I want to increase vaccinations, it would make more sense to find out why all of those non-Republicans are hesitant since it is a larger pool of people.  If you could find something that would encourage 36% of those who are saying that they won't be vaccinated to vaccinate, you get the same result as if you can convince 100% of the Republicans who are hesitant.  

Vaccination campaigns can be targeted to more than one group.  And in fact are. 

[KSera]

27 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

How does it not show that?  There were 1237 people polled.   22% were Republicans.  That is 272 people.  45% of thosse said they would not vaccinate.  272 X 45% is 122 people.  

Of all of the people who were polled, 27% said they would not vaccinate.  1237 X 27% = 334.  

So, there were 334 total who were polled who said they would not vaccinate.  122 of those people were Republicans.  

The reported numbers were not for the percentage of those who won't vaccinate that are Republican.  

 

Well again, I’m actually not wanting to belabor this point, but just on the statistics side, for Republicans to make up only 22% of the sample, but 36.5% of those who won’t vaccinate shows they are disproportionately likely to not vaccinate. That was a strangely chosen sample (I haven’t seen anything but what you quoted, so perhaps it’s the case that ~22% of the sample was Democrat also, in which case at least the sample makes a little more sense.)

[Bootsie]

21 minutes ago, KSera said:

Well again, I’m actually not wanting to belabor this point, but just on the statistics side, for Republicans to make up only 22% of the sample, but 36.5% of those who won’t vaccinate shows they are disproportionately likely to not vaccinate. That was a strangely chosen sample (I haven’t seen anything but what you quoted, so perhaps it’s the case that ~22% of the sample was Democrat also, in which case at least the sample makes a little more sense.)

Yes, Republicans were disproportionaly likely to say they would not vaccinate but it is also true that the majority of the people who said that they would not vaccinate were not Republicans.  Therefore, I do not think it is appropropriate to conclude that the group who does not vaccinate is Republican (or a Trump supporter.)  

What makes you conclude this is a strangely chosen sample?

You can easily look up the sample statistics:

[KSera]

33 minutes ago, Bootsie said:

What makes you conclude this is a strangely chosen sample?

 

Like I said, I hadn’t looked up the survey itself. Seeing the breakdown, it doesn’t look as unbalanced as only 22% Republican made it sound. A little, but not much. Now I’m curious to see what the current breakdown of US adults by political affiliation is. 

[Pawz4me]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

Like I said, I hadn’t looked up the survey itself. Seeing the breakdown, it doesn’t look as unbalanced as only 22% Republican made it sound. A little, but not much. Now I’m curious to see what the current breakdown of US adults by political affiliation is. 

According to this, as of April 1-21 Gallup says

26% Republican

40% Independent

31% Democrat

[HeartString]

4 hours ago, KSera said:

Like I said, I hadn’t looked up the survey itself. Seeing the breakdown, it doesn’t look as unbalanced as only 22% Republican made it sound. A little, but not much. Now I’m curious to see what the current breakdown of US adults by political affiliation is. 

NM

 

Edited May 16, 2021 by HeartString

[ktgrok]

7 hours ago, Bootsie said:

How does it not show that?  There were 1237 people polled.   22% were Republicans.  That is 272 people.  45% of thosse said they would not vaccinate.  272 X 45% is 122 people.  

Of all of the people who were polled, 27% said they would not vaccinate.  1237 X 27% = 334.  

So, there were 334 total who were polled who said they would not vaccinate.  122 of those people were Republicans.  

The reported numbers were not for the percentage of those who won't vaccinate that are Republican.  

 

Because they polled more non republicans. 

That doesn't change what percentage of each group will vaccinate or not. 

[kbutton]

8 hours ago, HeartString said:

I’m not sure why this fact seems to bother people. I don’t get it.

Maybe because if you live in a red area, most of the people you know who are vaccinated are Republican?

I think it's that this divide goes against personal experience for some. 

There are some areas that are largely Republican where the pandemic and the vaccine are both less political than they are where I live, which is also largely Republican. If you live in one of those areas, the area I live in makes no sense, and it does sound offensive.

My parents haven't seen nearly the crap I've seen in the last year, and we both live in very red areas. They don't understand why I think so many pandemic-related personal decisions are so high stakes. People there have largely been cooperative with health orders, etc., at least in their circles. I wouldn't say they are always following things to the letter, but it's rural area where people are not in as close of contact with others to begin with. Social distancing is not difficult unless it's the day before Thanksgiving in the grocery store, Black Friday at the mall (the one that you drive an hour to get to), or there is a festival. The stuff we get excited about on here would not necessarily compute in their world. 

I am not arguing against the stats, just explaining why my parents and I can be on different planets during this whole ordeal and yet still both live in Republican-dominated areas.

[Dmmetler]

I'm in an interesting area because I live in a magenta suburb of a Blue city in a very, very red state. 

 

In my area, most of the folks I know who are saying they won't get the vax are women who are into organic food, essential oils, and natural medicine and are often reluctant to vaccinate their kids for other illnesses as well. They generally have no serious health conditions in their immediate family, and credit their lifestyle. Some are conservative Republicans, but others are the complete other end of the spectrum. Most were actually sewing masks for other people even before the mandates came into play, although they personally feel that their immune systems are strong enough that the mask won't help them.  Some I know have quietly gotten vaccinated once their child became eligible because their child pushed them into it, and in some cases their spouses are vaccinated, but they are not. I have one piano family like this-the dad and 17 yr old are vaccinated because they are in public facing jobs and wanted it ASAP, but homeschooling mom is not, feeling that her immune system will protect her. 9 yr old wants the shot ASAP so she can stop having to wear a mask, because her mom makes her wear one to church and other indoor spaces. 

 

Honestly, I'm not all that worried about this group because they're law abiding and rule abiding enough that if the CDC is requiring that unvaccinated people wear masks, they'll likely continue doing so and making their kids do so. I think the people to work on for getting this group vaccinated are 1)family and 2) alternative medicine folks and social media influencers. The Babylon Bee joke about a COVID vaccine MLM actually seems like a reasonable route-a vaccine party hosted by a close friend to get the one dose J&J, especially if the person giving the vaccine is part of their circle would likely get many vaccinated. So will requirements, or even strong recommendations, that their children have to have the vaccine once it is available to attend school, go to church camp, or do extra curriculars their child really wants to do. 

 

The anti-mask protests here and most vocal anti-mask voices in comment sections and interviews are much more political. I think that if Trump had been vocal about getting the vaccine and supporting it back in January (or vocal and supportive about mask wearing), this would go away. As it stands, we need state level political leaders, congress, public figures who are respected by this group, and pastors of conservative, Evangelical churches to do so. I think vaccination clinics right after church and the pastor leading the flock out to get vaccinated as a group would work very well for some people. And I honestly think that the vaccination clinics at sports events and swag campaigns may sway some as well. 

 

The third group is college age young adults who think they're immortal. If colleges stick to their guns on requiring vaccination, or on being willing to waive testing requirements and quarantine if exposed and make getting vaccinated easy, I'm guessing we'll get a lot of them by January. I honestly don't personally know a college age young person who is not in college who didn't want the vaccine ASAP because they were in public facing jobs and even if they didn't get sick, saw coworkers felled by it, had to quarantine due to exposure and lose work multiple times, had to take time to get tested, etc. And almost all the kids I know locally who feel vaccination isn't needed are those who attended schools that tried to be business as usual and didn't take COVID terribly seriously. Those who attend schools that were completely remote until January, only let specific populations live on campus at all, turned all cafeterias to grab and eat in your room, and closed all campus organizations...they want the shot. 

Edited May 16, 2021 by Dmmetler

[KungFuPanda]

It’s Day 2 of no mask mandate in my central MD town. Reports from friends are that there is no change at the stores and everyone remains fully masked. It seems that nobody wants to trust the a$$holes or be mistaken for one. 😷 👍 

[pinball]

21 minutes ago, Dmmetler said:

I'm in an interesting area because I live in a magenta suburb of a Blue city in a very, very red state. 

 

In my area, most of the folks I know who are saying they won't get the vax are women who are into organic food, essential oils, and natural medicine and are often reluctant to vaccinate their kids for other illnesses as well. They generally have no serious health conditions in their immediate family, and credit their lifestyle. Some are conservative Republicans, but others are the complete other end of the spectrum. Most were actually sewing masks for other people even before the mandates came into play, although they personally feel that their immune systems are strong enough that the mask won't help them.  Some I know have quietly gotten vaccinated once their child became eligible because their child pushed them into it, and in some cases their spouses are vaccinated, but they are not. I have one piano family like this-the dad and 17 yr old are vaccinated because they are in public facing jobs and wanted it ASAP, but homeschooling mom is not, feeling that her immune system will protect her. 9 yr old wants the shot ASAP so she can stop having to wear a mask, because her mom makes her wear one to church and other indoor spaces. 

 

Honestly, I'm not all that worried about this group because they're law abiding and rule abiding enough that if the CDC is requiring that unvaccinated people wear masks, they'll likely continue doing so and making their kids do so. I think the people to work on for getting this group vaccinated are 1)family and 2) alternative medicine folks and social media influencers. The Babylon Bee joke about a COVID vaccine MLM actually seems like a reasonable route-a vaccine party hosted by a close friend to get the one dose J&J, especially if the person giving the vaccine is part of their circle would likely get many vaccinated. So will requirements, or even strong recommendations, that their children have to have the vaccine once it is available to attend school, go to church camp, or do extra curriculars their child really wants to do. 

 

The anti-mask protests here and most vocal anti-mask voices in comment sections and interviews are much more political. I think that if Trump had been vocal about getting the vaccine and supporting it back in January (or vocal and supportive about mask wearing), this would go away. As it stands, we need state level political leaders, congress, public figures who are respected by this group, and pastors of conservative, Evangelical churches to do so. I think vaccination clinics right after church and the pastor leading the flock out to get vaccinated as a group would work very well for some people. And I honestly think that the vaccination clinics at sports events and swag campaigns may sway some as well. 

 

The third group is college age young adults who think they're immortal. If colleges stick to their guns on requiring vaccination, or on being willing to waive testing requirements and quarantine if exposed and make getting vaccinated easy, I'm guessing we'll get a lot of them by January. I honestly don't personally know a college age young person who is not in college who didn't want the vaccine ASAP because they were in public facing jobs and even if they didn't get sick, saw coworkers felled by it, had to quarantine due to exposure and lose work multiple times, had to take time to get tested, etc. And almost all the kids I know locally who feel vaccination isn't needed are those who attended schools that tried to be business as usual and didn't take COVID terribly seriously. Those who attend schools that were completely remote until January, only let specific populations live on campus at all, turned all cafeterias to grab and eat in your room, and closed all campus organizations...they want the shot. 

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/

this mentions when he encouraged people to vaccinate in Dec, and also other times when he touted the vaccine and stated how it was safe and effective

 

[Dmmetler]

4 minutes ago, pinball said:

https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2021/mar/04/rachel-maddow/what-trump-said-encourage-covid-19-vaccine-use/

this mentions when he encouraged people to vaccinate in Dec, and also other times when he touted the vaccine and stated how it was safe and effective

 

The message simply hasn't sunk in then. There are a decent subset of folks in every comment section on every form of media in my area who seem to believe that the vaccine is a form of Democratic control. 

[HeartString]

1 hour ago, kbutton said:

Maybe because if you live in a red area, most of the people you know who are vaccinated are Republican?

I think it's that this divide goes against personal experience for some. 

There are some areas that are largely Republican where the pandemic and the vaccine are both less political than they are where I live, which is also largely Republican. If you live in one of those areas, the area I live in makes no sense, and it does sound offensive.

My parents haven't seen nearly the crap I've seen in the last year, and we both live in very red areas. They don't understand why I think so many pandemic-related personal decisions are so high stakes. People there have largely been cooperative with health orders, etc., at least in their circles. I wouldn't say they are always following things to the letter, but it's rural area where people are not in as close of contact with others to begin with. Social distancing is not difficult unless it's the day before Thanksgiving in the grocery store, Black Friday at the mall (the one that you drive an hour to get to), or there is a festival. The stuff we get excited about on here would not necessarily compute in their world. 

I am not arguing against the stats, just explaining why my parents and I can be on different planets during this whole ordeal and yet still both live in Republican-dominated areas.

I think I’m reading the stat differently than you are. 

 I don’t read it as saying most Republicans are against the vaccine or are unvaccinated. That isn’t true and I know that.  The stats show that clearly.  

I read it as saying that of those people who say they will never get vaccinated,  Republicans make up a large share of that group that includes a very diverse swath of the population.  

 

If I have 20 people, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans.  If 15 are willing to get vaccinated and that is made up of 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans, then most of Republicans are willing to get vaccinated.  It would also be true that most of the unwilling (2 Democrats and 3 Republicans) are Republicans.  (Numbers totally made up, obviously). 

[Pen]

36 minutes ago, HeartString said:

I think I’m reading the stat differently than you are. 

 I don’t read it as saying most Republicans are against the vaccine or are unvaccinated. That isn’t true and I know that.  The stats show that clearly.  

I read it as saying that of those people who say they will never get vaccinated,  Republicans make up a large share of that group that includes a very diverse swath of the population.  

 

If I have 20 people, 10 Democrats and 10 Republicans.  If 15 are willing to get vaccinated and that is made up of 8 Democrats and 7 Republicans, then most of Republicans are willing to get vaccinated.  It would also be true that most of the unwilling (2 Democrats and 3 Republicans) are Republicans.  (Numbers totally made up, obviously). 

It would be true, but might be correlation not causation.