How pastors and health experts are struggling to close the vaccine gap among White evangelicals

[essentialsaltes]

LINK

Retired pastor Jerry Belloit waited in his car at 4 a.m. on the first day coronavirus vaccine doses were available in his rural Florida community earlier this spring. His wife and his mother were with him, all eager to be among the first 500 people to get the shot.

Convincing the rest of the congregation at his church to get the shot proved to be more difficult.

[In polls, white evangelicals have the highest levels of refusing the vaccine.]

The reasons for White evangelicals rejecting or hesitating to get vaccinated against the coronavirus are complex and not necessarily tied to religious doctrine.

Much of the hard work in convincing the faithful to get vaccinated is falling on people such as Belloit, who say they are facing a deluge of misinformation.

“Pastor Jerry did send me an email with a lot of information on it, and I did scroll through it a little bit,” [one of Belloit's reluctant parishioners] told The Post. She didn’t read the whole email, she said, but it did make her feel more confident — to a point. ... But she said she went back and forth and remained “wishy-washy” on her decision.

--

“I’ve had pastors say to me: ‘I can’t compete. Tucker Carlson gets them for 12 hours a week. I get them for an hour,’ ” Chang said.

Four Florida evangelical pastors interviewed by The Washington Post agreed that views on coronavirus vaccines are largely shaped by political and other cultural beliefs, with government mistrust being a key factor.

 

[Crwth]

“I’ve had pastors say to me: ‘I can’t compete. Tucker Carlson gets them for 12 hours a week. I get them for an hour,’ ” Chang said.

Maybe that pastor should quit worrying about competing for his audience and recognize his audience is savvy enough to know when he's just parroting the government line and would prefer he stick to the gospel instead.

...just a thought.

 

[Nithavela]

Maybe that pastor should quit worrying about competing for his audience and recognize his audience is savvy enough to know when he's just parroting the government line and would prefer he stick to the gospel instead.

...just a thought.

I agree, he should stick to helping his parishioners prepare for the afterlife. They're gonna need it if they don't vaccinate.

 

[Crwth]

I agree, he should stick to helping his parishioners prepare for the afterlife. They're gonna need it if they don't vaccinate.

Really? The unvaccinated are certain to die?

Last I heard, the death rate from Covid was less than 0.2% I get that the death rate from LIFE is 100%, but comparing the two is problematic, at best.

Might want to check your premises.

 

[Sabertooth]

For health (and not conspiratorial) reasons, this "white" evangelical is waiting for Valneva or Sinovac.

 

[Nithavela]

Really? The unvaccinated are certain to die?

Last I heard, the death rate from Covid was less than 0.2%

It's more around 3 %

 

[jayem]

Four Florida evangelical pastors interviewed by The Washington Post agreed that views on coronavirus vaccines are largely shaped by political and other cultural beliefs, with government mistrust being a key factor.

Absolutely. Mistrust of government—along with deep skepticism of science and expert opinion—derive from human psychology. It’s normal to be wary in an unfamiliar situation. It’s part of the primal self-preservation instinct all animal species exhibit. But in some members of our species it’s magnified to a degree where it becomes maladaptive. Conspiratorial thinking is an aspect of the same mental phenomenon. The link is from the APA website. It’s an interview with a psychologist discussing conspiratorial beliefs. It’s easy reading, and she makes perfect sense.

Speaking of Psychology: Why people believe in conspiracy theories, with Karen Douglas, PhD

 

[Crwth]

It's more around 3 %

Mmm.... no. Latest estimated projections for the US (maybe I should have clarified that) are around 600,000 dead (there's another thread here about specifically that). The US population is roughly 330,000,000.

The math is quite simple. 600,000 / 330,000,000 = 0.0018... or 0.18%

Put differently, that's 1 in every 550 people.

 

[SigurdReginson]

Really? The unvaccinated are certain to die?

Last I heard, the death rate from Covid was less than 0.2% I get that the death rate from LIFE is 100%, but comparing the two is problematic, at best.

Might want to check your premises.

Hmmm... Just curious, but if we stopped wearing seatbelts today, how many deaths would happen in car accidents over the same time period that the virus has had?

Let's assume we knew the exact number, and it happened to be about the same number as people who died from covid. Would you say that wearing seatbelts should be made optional at that point?

Keep in mind, 42,000 deaths from car accidents took place last year. With death rates in the number of 600,000, that would be a rate of about 14x as far as death rate increases go.

 

[Nithavela]

Mmm.... no. Latest estimated projections for the US (maybe I should have clarified that) are around 600,000 dead (there's another thread here about specifically that). The US population is roughly 330,000,000.

The math is quite simple. 600,000 / 330,000,000 = 0.0018... or 0.18%

Put differently, that's 1 in every 550 people.

I wasn't aware that every single person in the USA had caught Covid-19.

 

[Navair2]

It's more around 3 %

Not if one considers that there are probably upwards of 3 times the actual numbers who are asymptomatic, survive exposure and don't get tested.

Stats are only as good as the data collected.

I wasn't aware that every single person in the USA had caught Covid-19.

I've been exposed to it at least twice and tested negative...twice.
I also know of married couples who sleep in the same bed that one caught it, and the other tested negative to it multiple times.

In fact,
For everyone that has caught it and experienced symptoms, the US CDC estimates that there may be at least twice that number who are "off the RADAR" when it comes to exposure:

Coronavirus Death Rate (COVID-19) - Worldometer
Mortality Risk of COVID-19 - Statistics and Research
Estimation of total mortality due to COVID-19

On the down side, there may be more deaths that are not being reported throughout the world:
The true death toll of COVID-19: estimating global excess mortality

 

[Crwth]

Hmmm... Just curious, but if we stopped wearing seatbelts today, how many deaths would happen in car accidents over the same time period that the virus has had?

Let's assume we knew the exact number, and it happened to be about the same number as people who died from covid. Would you say that wearing seatbelts should be made optional at that point?

Please.... We could mandate everyone cocoon themselves in perfectly protective vessels that keep us safe from every pathogen and every physical danger that exists - because someone made perfectly reasonable arguments about the importance of our safety of all of them.

But to what end? And at what cost?

 

[hedrick]

Mmm.... no. Latest estimated projections for the US (maybe I should have clarified that) are around 600,000 dead (there's another thread here about specifically that). The US population is roughly 330,000,000.

The math is quite simple. 600,000 / 330,000,000 = 0.0018... or 0.18%

Put differently, that's 1 in every 550 people.

That’s not what people mean by mortality rate. They mean % of those who get the disease. That’s about 2% if you use confirmed cases. Since there are certainly more, it’s like a bit below 1%. But that number is a bit odd, since people tend to compare it with other diseases. But in looking at other diseases we typically use rates based on known cases, not guesses about who might have had it.

Computing a reasonable risk for a church member is difficult. But they tend to be older than the population average. Combine that with the fact that they're not taking a typical level of precaution and you get a bit higher than average risk. This table gives risk of death by age. COVID Infection Fatality Rates by Sex and Age. It’s from late last year, and it’s obviously using past data. The risk for the future would be much lower, since cases are way down. But it shows the dependence upon age. I’d bet many of these congregations have a lot of people over 65.

 

[Crwth]

I wasn't aware that every single person in the USA had caught Covid-19.

No one said they did.

Do I need to explain the numbers? Ok.... The likelihood of someone in the United States catching the virus and dying from it is less than 0.2%

One first needs to catch the virus - then having caught the virus, it needs to cause their death. The likelihood of that happening (in the US) is 0.2%

 

[SigurdReginson]

Please.... We could mandate everyone cocoon themselves in perfectly protective vessels that keep us safe from every pathogen and every physical danger that exists - because someone made perfectly reasonable arguments about the importance of our safety of all of them.

But to what end? And at what cost?

I mean... My shot was free. I think my room mate payed 20 bucks?

Edit: Nevermind, I just asked her. Her shot was free, too.

 

[Navair2]

Hmmm... Just curious, but if we stopped wearing seatbelts today, how many deaths would happen in car accidents over the same time period that the virus has had?

Exactly as many as God wanted to take.
Man's days are in the hands of the Lord ( Job 14 ), not a result of our choices.

Let's assume we knew the exact number, and it happened to be about the same number as people who died from covid. Would you say that wearing seatbelts should be made optional at that point?

To me, personal safety, at least for adults, should be left up to the adults to decide.

On a side note, I'm not putting anything into my body that purposefully manipulates my DNA and could lead to cancer.
Perhaps you may wish to read up on the risks (and potential and real side effects) of using what was, until recently, an experimental approach to developing vaccines.

Keep in mind, 42,000 deaths from car accidents took place last year. With death rates in the number of 600,000, that would be a rate of about 14x as far as death rate increases go.

I agree...
But when compared to ongoing and yearly US death rates from things that are either preventable ( like smoking, alcoholism, AIDS and heart disease... or already have treatments like Influenza, certain forms of Hepatitus, Tuberculosis and STD's ) how does just one respiratory bug that is responsible for the deaths of over 600,000 people in a single year make mandatory vaccinations the right thing to do?

To me, it doesn't.

 

[Crwth]

That’s not what people mean by mortality rate. They mean % of those who get the disease. That’s about 2% if you use confirmed cases. Since there are certainly more, it’s like a bit below 1%. But that number is a bit odd, since people tend to compare it with other diseases. But in looking at other diseases we typically use rates based on known cases, not guesses about who might have had it.

Who called it a "mortality rate?"
Look, I clearly defined my numbers; and those numbers are indisputable. No one disputes them! You can call the result anything you want, but you can't assign it a name that doesn't describe the math and then proceed to dispute the math. That's a classic straw man fallacy, btw.

I think everyone is aware that one needs to first GET the virus - and yes, those numbers are significantly larger than those who actually DIE from the virus (having first gotten it). I frankly don't care what those numbers are, because for the purposes of this discussion and in this context, they're irrelevant.

 

[Crwth]

I mean... My shot was free. I think my room mate payed 20 bucks?

Edit: Nevermind, I just asked her. Her shot was free, too.

Well, good for both of you. I'm going the Ivermectin route. $7. Oh well.

 

[Navair2]

I mean... My shot was free. I think my room mate payed 20 bucks?

Edit: Nevermind, I just asked her. Her shot was free, too.

No, it wasn't free.
Someone had to pay the pharmaceutical companies for both its development and its production.

In other words, what is "free" now, will be made up in taxes.

 

[variant]

No, it wasn't free.
Someone had to pay the pharmaceutical companies for both its development and its production.

In other words, what is "free" now, will be made up in taxes.

It costs much more to treat people who get sick and deal with the economic fallout of having the virus run rampant.

Here we have a solution to the physical ailment but not the psychological one.