Why are highly educated and trained professionals refusing to vaccinate?

[probinson]

Fact is though, by this point if you haven't had it, fundamentally, I just figure you are scared about it.

I believe the vast majority of the remaining vaccine-hesitant is because of distrust of public health and government, not fear of the vaccine.

One of my employees is in his early 30s. We have a good relationship and he's talked to me quite a bit about the pandemic since it began. Last month, he went and got an antibody test because he thought he had COVID earlier in the year. It came back negative. So when I was talking with him, he was asking me about risks and what-not, and I took him to the CDC website to show him the data. I showed him his personal risk according to his age-bracket and was honest with him that if he contracted COVID, there was a greater than 99.5% chance he would recover and be perfectly fine. But I then explained to him that there is an uncertainty of what causes that 0.5% to have severe outcomes, and even sometimes die, and that his risk would be made even less if he were vaccinated.

Throughout these discussions, there is a recurrent theme. "They're a bunch of liars! I can't trust them!" And I affirm to him that he is correct. The public health "experts" have been awful. Dreadful even. The politicians on both sides of the aisle have hijacked the pandemic for their own political agendas and purposes. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't get vaccinated. The data, I tell him, says that his risk will be lower if he did get infected if he were vaccinated. But he can't get past his distrust. And I can't really say I blame him.

This shouldn't surprise anyone. History teaches us that coercion and mandates breed distrust. The ACLU wrote a paper about this in 2008 in talking about pandemic preparedness. They said;

American history contains vivid reminders that grafting the values of law enforcement and national security onto public health is both ineffective and dangerous. Too often, fears aroused by disease and epidemics have justified abuses of state power. Highly discriminatory and forcible vaccination and quarantine measures adopted in response to outbreaks of the plague and smallpox over the past century have consistently accelerated rather than slowed the spread of disease, while fomenting public distrust and, in some cases, riots.

...

Coercion and brute force are rarely necessary. In fact they are generally counterproductive—they gratuitously breed public distrust and encourage the people who are most in need of care to evade public health authorities.

https://www.aclu.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/privacy/pemic_report.pdf
​

This is precisely what we're seeing happen right now. Those shouting, "Just shut up and get vaccinated!" are the biggest drivers of vaccine-hesitancy. Yes, there is a group of people that are anti-vaccine, and those people will never get vaccinated no matter what. But there is a larger group of people who are vaccine hesitant. The first major error is conflating the vaccine-hesitant with the anti-vaccine crowd. The second major error is trying to force people to do something. Of course this is going to result in resistance.

So I don't think most of these people are "scared" of the vaccine. They simply distrust those telling them they need it, and with good reason.

If we really wanted to increase vaccine uptake, we would do the following;

• Pass legislation that holds vaccine manufacturers accountable for vaccine injuries from the COVID vaccines.
• Acknowledge natural immunity.
• Stop with the coercion and mandates.
• Admit that many, MANY mistakes have been made and that much of the "guidance" has missed the mark.

I am 100% convinced those actions would decrease vaccine hesitancy in a meaningful way. But we'll likely never know, because people seem to be tied to the idea that forcing people to do something against their will is the only possible solution.

 

[pacomascarot]

Because they're just talismans and virtue signals.

What if you are wrong?

But here's the thing. I am not responsible for what other people do. They can disregard me just like you do.

What if they DON'T disregard you and you are wrong thus leading others into perdition, pain, suffering and possible death?

If they choose not to wear a mask, that's their decision.

Your actions have consequences.

It's fun to watch Christians denigrate the Bible when it suits them.

Talismans don't stop people from being sick.

What if you are wrong?

See? There you go again, pretending like wearing a talismanic face covering has anything at all to do with salvation.

Be careful there. Don't want you to bear false witness. But at this point I'm guessing you can write off the Ten Commandments when it suits you.

Funny. That's exactly what I was thinking about your posts.

My posts take in the possibility that I might be in error.

But what if YOU are wrong? ANd what if someone listens to your "witness" on here?

 

[Albion]

And even when he is in office - he is really not in office unless they tell him he is.

True, true, but in a way he can always BE in his office--so long as he poses for pictures in front of the facade that his people erect and have him pose in front of while the pictures are taken.

 

[probinson]

What if they DON'T disregard you and you are wrong thus leading others into perdition, pain, suffering and possible death?

I'll bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

 

[rambot]

Thought maybe you'd like to see a different perspective. Echo chambers are more comfortable for sure, but reading those we disagree with is often the best way to learn.

I appreciate that but I'm not going to read something JUST BECAUSE. If I'm making a health based decision, I'm going to listen to doctors. I want to read GOOD information that I disagree with.

Sorry to hear that. It's a good read, although I can see from your next comment you wouldn't think so.

Given factual errors in the SECOND paragraph, what is it that makes it good?

Specifically, what do you object to in what you can read?

It is at least inferring it is something that happens to old people and yet all 4 examples I gave are in younger folks; as well as most to all news stories I see dealing with long COVID.

Well I'll tell you some of what it says, because these things can be verified. Long COVID began from an online survey. They basically asked people whether they still had symptoms after being infected. Many reported symptoms and said they had Long COVID even though they never tested positive for the disease. There's more, but since you're not interested...

Well it's pretty simple: if they didn't have COVID, it isn't long covid since it's not part of the definition. The WHO definition I provided before should clarify it.
But again, you are right; this is another example of why I'm not really interested in that article.

That doesn't mean that long COVID doesn't exist; it means it has symptoms similar to other diseases. I've heard of folks likening symptoms to fibromylagia.

I am pleased to have been able to find an article worthy of your time and consideration.

ha! Me too. Sadly, I didn't get a chance. I only briefly scanned it. I hope I'll have a chance later in the day. It really is my intention to.

I did. Last month, me, my wife and my son all had COVID. Lasted about 10 days. All good now. Enjoying that natural immunity.

I truly am glad for you. Did it hit you pretty hard or was it mild? My wife was unable to come upstairs and had to basically live in our basement for a few weeks. It was stressful and terrible (moreso because it was before vaccines AND I am in a high risk group) for us. Every case hsa been different.

Or... they have natural immunity. I know it's taboo to discuss, but 44 MILLION+ confirmed cases of COVID in the US means there's a great deal of natural immunity amongst us.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE natural immunity and if you have had COVID and have immunity then yes I think vaccines are superfluous AND helpful but should not necessarily be mandatory.
I wish I knew of studies that were monitoring antibody presence after covid infection so that vaccines could be recommended at certain times.

Generally speaking, that's true. But there's some interesting research out there talking specifically about young men and the risk of myocarditis that the vaccine presents to them. Some studies have estimated the risk could be as high as 1 in 5,000. It's why some countries have stopped the Moderna shots on young men.

Funny you say that. When I was in the hospital (well one of the times) this summer, a young man in there got myocarditis. He was totally fine within about 4 hrs but it was still disconcerting.
In regards to that risk, 1 in 5,000 is EXTRAordinarily high and would be disconcerting. Of course, science also predicted 2 million American deaths. You want to have several/numerous studies supporting a certain risk. And I feel very very confident that this is the kind of "research soundbite" that would find its way into a meme VERY quickly without any kind of fact checking associated with it because it is shocking and scary.

Most research, as I understand has the risk of myocarditis from COVID is greater than from the vaccine and I will happily hunt down a paper to support that (if I can) at the end of my day; 6 times the rate I just read in an article (though I'm not standing by that).

My 17-year old (will be 18 in 2 weeks) son contracted COVID at the same time my wife and I did. Had a cough, sore throat and low-grade fever from Friday-Sunday, started feeling better Monday and was completely recovered by Tuesday. His experience with COVID has been pretty typical of others in his grade that have had and recovered from COVID.

Yup it's been all over the map, that's the danger. I know of teenagers who've died, teens with long covid, teens who were wiped out for weeks, and teens who had little more than a cold. The point is that the vaccine is SUCH A LOW risk and is GUARANTEED to help reduce symptoms.

So why would he get vaccinated? He now has natural immunity from being infected, and if his risk of myocarditis is potentially as high as 1 in 5,000, why should he take that risk? Do we not do risk/benefit analyses any more?
First, do no harm.

So here's my problem with this argument, htough I'm working on the assumption that you all son was unvaccinated.
1) You say you contracted COVID a month ago. Vaccines have been available for almost a year.
2) There has been consistent and STRONG data that the vaccines have a POSITVE effect on health outcomes.
3) You have taken this "1 in 5000" number to heart yet simply put, I think that number is ridiculously offbase based on anything I've read about it. And if hte number was that high but people continued to get the vaccine, it would behove me personally to begin to question the veracity of that science.
https://www.livescience.com/covid-19-vaccine-myocarditis-teens-report.html
One study out of Israel does not feel like strong enough evidence to risk anything.
And the rather disconcerting sentence that should DEFINITELY call this whole study into question:

The report concluded that around 1 in 5,000 men who receive the vaccine may experience this side effect, known as myocarditis, which is higher than the rate seen for the whole vaccinated population during that time period, which was 1 in 50,000.

That is NOT a small area to overlook and should ABSOLUTELY discredit the study you quote.
4) Asking "why should he get a vaccine now?" is a VERY DIFFERENT QUESTION from "why shouldn't he get one at all"? You have the luxury of asking the former now but for 8-9 months you already had an answer to the second one.

The fact that you can NOW in retrospect say "I don't need the vaccine cause I got covid) does not change your relationship or thoughts about the vaccine itself (which is what I was referring to; not a NEED for it). It's abit of a copout answer. There is a REASON you chose not to get the vaccine for 9 months and I'm curious if that's because of fear and distrust.



All this said, I am truly glad your family came through unscathed and healthy!

 

[hislegacy]

What if you are wrong?

You would have to discuss that with the good doctor from John's Hopkins.

 

[pacomascarot]

You would have to discuss that with the good doctor from John's Hopkins.

So you are assuming that that is the ONLY source of information? You know that to be incorrect. There are plenty of health care professionals who say masks are effective.

So what if you are wrong in going with only one side of the debate?

 

[pacomascarot]

I'll bet you're a lot of fun at parties.

Thanks for the personal slam! It's nice that a good Christian can get down and dirty when they need to. You are treat. A real witness for Jesus!

 

[A_Thinker]

He's OFTEN out of his office. Usually hiding somewhere in Delaware.

Actually. this ex-president skulked around Mara-Lago up until a few months ago ...

 

[Albion]

It's fun to watch Christians denigrate the Bible when it suits them.



But at this point I'm guessing you can write off the Ten Commandments when it suits you.

Hmmmm. Those retorts seem rather strong, don't you really agree?

 

[probinson]

It is at least inferring it is something that happens to old people and yet all 4 examples I gave are in younger folks; as well as most to all news stories I see dealing with long COVID.

That's not what it says. It says, "Some patients, particularly older ones with co-morbidities..." That doesn't imply that it's ONLY older people.

Well it's pretty simple: if they didn't have COVID, it isn't long covid since it's not part of the definition.

You wouldn't think so. But they're counted anyway. You'll see in the other paper (if you read it) that nearly two-thirds of people who self-reported they had "Long-COVID" never had COVID to begin with.

I truly am glad for you. Did it hit you pretty hard or was it mild? My wife was unable to come upstairs and had to basically live in our basement for a few weeks. It was stressful and terrible (moreso because it was before vaccines AND I am in a high risk group)

It was fairly mild. I had a fever between 100-101 for most of the days, which was the worst part, but at no point did I ever feel like I needed to go to the hospital.

My wife had completely different symptoms than me. The only common symptom we shared was a cough. She never had a fever, but did lose her taste and smell, and had stomach problems. I'm happy to report we are all fully recovered.

Don't get me wrong. I LOVE natural immunity and if you have had COVID and have immunity then yes I think vaccines are superfluous AND helpful but should not necessarily be mandatory.

I'm pleased to hear you say that. Most of the vaccine-hysterical do not agree with that perspective.

Funny you say that. When I was in the hospital (well one of the times) this summer, a young man in there got myocarditis. He was totally fine within about 4 hrs but it was still disconcerting.
In regards to that risk, 1 in 5,000 is EXTRAordinarily high and would be disconcerting. Of course, science also predicted 2 million American deaths. You want to have several/numerous studies supporting a certain risk.

It was disconcerting enough that Sweden, Denmark and Finland all limited the Moderna vaccine for males under the age of 30.

Most resarch, as I understand has the risk of myocarditis from COVID is great than from the vaccine and I will happily hunt down a paper to support that (if I can) at the end of my day; 6 times the rate I just read in an article (though I'm not standing by that).

The problem with most of these papers is that they are talking about ALL vaccine recipients instead of using males under 30 as the denominator. This masks the real risk level that exists in that age group.

Yup it's been all over the map, that's the danger. I know of teenagers who've died, teens with long covid, teens who were wiped out for weeks, and teens who had little more than a cold.

But those things are not evenly distributed. Those with mild illness are, by far, the norm. The deaths in those under 18 numbers in the hundreds, and most of those were in those with severe co-morbidities.

So here's my problem with this argument, htough I'm working on the assumption that your son was unvaccinated.
1) You say you contracted COVID a month ago. Vaccines have been available for almost a year.

Correct. If you read my post about distrust, I was in the same boat. Both my wife and I struggled with whether or not to get vaccinated. We were just about to the point where we were going to schedule an appointment, and then Joe Biden came out like an angry, ranting grandpa. Then a week later, we were infected.

2) There has been consistent and STRONG data that the vaccines have a POSITVE effect on health outcomes.

There has also been consistent and STRONG data that healthy people my age were at pretty low risk to begin with, even if they did get COVID. That certainly was a factor in my decision.

3) You have taken this "1 in 5000" number to heart yet simply put, I think that number is ridiculously offbase based on anything I've read about it. And if hte number was that high but people continued to get the vaccine, it would behove me personally to begin to question the veracity of that science.

Let's be clear that we're talking about males under the age of 30, not all vaccine recipients.

4) The fact that you can NOW in retrospect say "I don't need the vaccine cause I got covid) does not change your relationship or thoughts about the vaccine itself (which is what I was referring to; not a NEED for it). It's abit of a copout answer. There is a REASON you chose not to get the vaccine for 9 months and I'm curious if that's because of fear and distrust.

Not out of fear. Almost entirely out of distrust. I knew what the data said, but the incessant push to "GET VACCINATED!" actually had the exact opposite effect on me, and I have to believe I'm not alone. It drove my hesitancy.

All this said, I am truly glad your family came through unscathed and healthy!

Thank you. I am also glad that you made it through.

 

[rambot]

I believe the vast majority of the remaining vaccine-hesitant is because of distrust of public health and government, not fear of the vaccine.

One of my employees is in his early 30s. We have a good relationship and he's talked to me quite a bit about the pandemic since it began. Last month, he went and got an antibody test because he thought he had COVID earlier in the year. It came back negative. So when I was talking with him, he was asking me about risks and what-not, and I took him to the CDC website to show him the data. I showed him his personal risk according to his age-bracket and was honest with him that if he contracted COVID, there was a greater than 99.5% chance he would recover and be perfectly fine. But I then explained to him that there is an uncertainty of what causes that 0.5% to have severe outcomes, and even sometimes die, and that his risk would be made even less if he were vaccinated.

1) Gotta tell you makes no sense to me that your employee wouldn't go talk to a doctor who is a trained professional and has professional obligations to keep informed
2) Seems really REALLY weird that you say "vaccine hesitant people distrust" public health and then show him data from the CDC.

Throughout these discussions, there is a recurrent theme. "They're a bunch of liars! I can't trust them!" And I affirm to him that he is correct. The public health "experts" have been awful. Dreadful even.

That is factually inaccurate. They have been PRESENTING facts as new facts are made aware to them. If new facts complicate old information it doesn't make them liars.

And that has been the crux of my argument throughout most of the COVID mess. Science changes but people don't change as well as scientists do. The yare experts at incorporating new information into their understanding because their base knowledge on the topic is so vast. If you don't have much of an understanding of a topic it's harder to incorporate new information.
This is a matter of human biology and something that is taught to educators the world over.

The politicians on both sides of the aisle have hijacked the pandemic for their own political agendas and purposes. But that doesn't mean that he shouldn't get vaccinated. The data, I tell him, says that his risk will be lower if he did get infected if he were vaccinated. But he can't get past his distrust. And I can't really say I blame him.

But you can if you understand and accept my above paragraph as factual.

​

This is precisely what we're seeing happen right now. Those shouting, "Just shut up and get vaccinated!" are the biggest drivers of vaccine-hesitancy. Yes, there is a group of people that are anti-vaccine, and those people will never get vaccinated no matter what. But there is a larger group of people who are vaccine hesitant. The first major error is conflating the vaccine-hesitant with the anti-vaccine crowd. The second major error is trying to force people to do something. Of course this is going to result in resistance.

I appreciate what you say here and I agree.
But then what are YOU doing to HELP the situation and encourage vaccination?

So I don't think most of these people are "scared" of the vaccine. They simply distrust those telling them they need it, and with good reason.

and fundamentally that distrust is misplaced.

If we really wanted to increase vaccine uptake, we would do the following;

• Pass legislation that holds vaccine manufacturers accountable for vaccine injuries from the COVID vaccines.
• Acknowledge natural immunity.
• Stop with the coercion and mandates.
• Admit that many, MANY mistakes have been made and that much of the "guidance" has missed the mark.

I am 100% convinced those actions would decrease vaccine hesitancy in a meaningful way. But we'll likely never know, because people seem to be tied to the idea that forcing people to do something against their will is the only possible solution.

I kinda like this list; except for the last one for the above mentioned reasons. They are NOT mistakes. They are decisions based on available data at the time.
That is NOT a mistake.

As for holding vaccine injuries, I would say any permanent injuries yes. But myocarditis that heals itself? No. Although in the US that would incur a HUGE hospital bill cause your health care system sucks.

 

[hislegacy]

So what if you are wrong in going with only one side of the debate?

You have asked that what? 15 times?

I don’t deal in ‘what if’s’.

 

[pacomascarot]

You have asked that what? 15 times?

I don’t deal in ‘what if’s’.

...and that is how you wind up making bad decisions.

If you don't think about what you do and you don't seem aware that your words have repercussions you will one day run up against some really bad outcomes.

(I love how you think that you being wrong is a simple "what if". As if you are incapable of making error. At least I'm honest enough to know that I might be in error.)

 

[hislegacy]

(I love how you think that you being wrong is a simple "what if". As if you are incapable of making error. At least I'm honest enough to know that I might be in error.)

I am not worthy to be in the company of such intelligence and wisdom. I am not worthy!

 

[probinson]

1) Gotta tell you makes no sense to me that your employee wouldn't go talk to a doctor who is a trained professional and has professional obligations to keep informed

I'm pretty sure he did talk to his doctor also. He does trust me, because I've earned that trust.

2) Seems really REALLY weird that you say "vaccine hesitant people distrust" public health and then show him data from the CDC.

Does it? The CDC has consistently poorly presented their data, but the CDC's COVID data tracker is an incredible resource.

That is factually inaccurate. They have been PRESENTING facts as new facts are made aware to them. If new facts complicate old information it doesn't make them liars.

Yeah, I don't buy this at all. Neither do a lot of the vaccine-hesitant.

And that has been the crux of my argument throughout most of the COVID mess. Science changes but people don't change as well as scientists do. The yare experts at incorporating new information into their understanding because their base knowledge on the topic is so vast. If you don't have much of an understanding of a topic it's harder to incorporate new information.
This is a matter of human biology and something that is taught to educators the world over.

No. Just no.

You are correct that science evolves, but that has been used as an excuse for completely arbitrary changes throughout this pandemic.

Here's but one example;

The director of the CDC back in February said that schools could open safely without vaccinating teachers;

“There is increasing data to suggest that schools can safely reopen and that safe reopening does not suggest that teachers need to be vaccinated,” CDC Director Dr. Rochelle Walensky told reporters during a White House news briefing on Covid-19.

“Vaccinations of teachers is not a prerequisite for safely reopening schools,” she added.

https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/03/cdc...fely-reopen-without-vaccinating-teachers.html​

Pay close attention to her words. There is "increasing data" that says this is safe. This was not her opinion, or her hunch. This was based on, according to her, "increasing data".

So of course the Biden administration threw her under the bus in a press conference later that day saying this was not "official guidance".

Then just a few weeks later, the CDC's official guidance did come out, and it sounded ABSOLUTELY NOTHING like what Dr. Walensky had said earlier. Jake Tapper at CNN took her to task for this. Just watch her uncomfortably try to spin her way out of this mess;

Then you're going to sit there and try to tell me that this official CDC guidance was based on new information and the "science evolved"? Nope. Not buying it. The CDC bowed to political pressure in their school reopening guidance, which would have kept 99% of schools closed, despite saying schools could open safely without vaccinating teachers.

I appreciate what you say here and I agree.
But then what are YOU doing to HELP the situation and encourage vaccination?

I just told you. My employee gets closer to getting vaccinated each time we talk. But ultimately that is his decision, and no matter what he decides, I support his decision.

and fundamentally that distrust is misplaced.

Yeah, I don't think so. It's very real distrust, and it is not misplaced. Even medical professionals said their trust in the CDC and FDA had dropped considerably;

Out of nearly 2,000 U.S. nurses surveyed on Medscape (WebMD's sister site for health care professionals) between May 25 and June 3, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased since the start of the pandemic, and 51% said their trust in the FDA has decreased. Similarly, out of nearly 450 U.S. doctors surveyed in the same time period, 77% said their trust in the CDC has decreased and 48% said their trust in the FDA has decreased.

Trust in CDC, FDA Took a Beating During Pandemic
​

I kinda like this list;

And I'm not even an "expert"!

except for the last one for the above mentioned reasons. They are NOT mistakes. They are decisions based on available data at the time.
That is NOT a mistake.

Mea culpas are called for. It would go a long way to rebuilding trust in public health.

As for holding vaccine injuries, I would say any permanent injuries yes. But myocarditis that heals itself? No. Although in the US that would incur a HUGE hospital bill cause your health care system sucks.

It would be financially devastating for many people.

It erodes trust when you talk about how remarkably safe vaccines are but then absolve the vaccine manufacturers from any and all liability.

 

[pacomascarot]

I am not worthy to be in the company of such intelligence and wisdom. I am not worthy!

You are mighty defensive. Big chip on your shoulder there. Maybe if you weren't as thin skinned you might fare better.

 

[hislegacy]

You are mighty defensive. Big chip on your shoulder there. Maybe if you weren't as thin skinned you might fare better.

LOL. You are indeed humorous. Thank you.

 

[pacomascarot]

I'm pretty sure he did talk to his doctor also. He does trust me, because I've earned that trust.

Wow. So you think you can dispense medical advice because the guy "trusts you"?

What about all those schmucks who spent years and years studying medicine and becoming doctors?

Does it? The CDC has consistently poorly presented their data, but the CDC's COVID data tracker is an incredible resource.

"Consistently"? You sure about that?

You are correct that science evolves, but that has been used as an excuse for completely arbitrary changes throughout this pandemic.

Arbitrary? Not really. But if you need to mischaracterize things you don't understand in service to your "wants" then by all means.

Just remember: you are wrong.

And I'm not even an "expert"!

Finally some honesty!

 

[pacomascarot]

LOL. You are indeed humorous. Thank you.

Sorry if I upset you. I can see you are retreating into full-on defensive mode. That's too bad.