Thread: Coronavirus
View Single Post
Old 08-04-2021, 11:51   #4692
jfman
Architect of Ideas
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 7,250
jfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze array
jfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze arrayjfman has a bronze array
Re: Coronavirus

Quote:
Originally Posted by jonbxx View Post
Yeah, this is where health messaging becomes difficult and can also be an illuminating window into the British pysche. If we look back at the start of this whole thing, the messaging was 'protect the NHS'. The NHS polls well in this country as most people are proud of the NHS as a British institution. Eventually though, messaging gets old and things change and went from protecting the NHS to a more fearful message. What is interesting however is the fearful message wasn't out ward looking - 'behave yourselves or you will kill someone's nan' but more a 'you really don't want to get COVID'.

Masks are a great example of this. The evidence of masks protecting the user is low but the evidence of masks protecting other is much stronger. This was picked up by anti mask people early on as evidence masks don't work which is somewhat true but only for the person wearing them. Mask wearing protects others. So why isn't mask wearing pitched as a civic duty? Do the people putting together the messaging think that we wouldn't care about protecting others or do they know that we wouldn't care about protecting others? The best case scenario is the first but I fear it is the second.

This is where we get to vaccines. The absolute necessity of vaccines for the protection 18-30 years olds is probably low (again, long COVID excepted) but, as jfman said, we need to get the uptake up for herd immunity or at least to lower the Re value. Matt Hancock said this morning on the BBC that is was your 'patriotic duty' to be vaccinated which is arguable (in that I don't want to argue about this!) but it is definitely a civic duty for younger people to be vaccinated to help protect the older population who either didn't seroconvert or couldn't be jabbed.

We tend to get more right wing as we age. Left wing politics is more around collective responsibility in contrast with more personal responsibility on the right side of things. Should we be pitching vaccination as a duty to society when the time comes for younger people to get jabbed?
Or you simply change the dynamics of the question.

“What’s in it for me?”

This is where vaccine passports/certification presents a significant opportunity to shift vaccination from being ‘for the collective good’ to in someone’s personal interest. That’s why they are absolutely inevitable - to inconvenience those who want to sit back and opt out of the 70%+.

---------- Post added at 11:51 ---------- Previous post was at 11:47 ----------

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiderplant View Post
Only in the absence of other vaccines. Ideally you'd get non-AZ, and not care what everyone else gets as long as they get one.

Just wondering: Are all three approved vaccines still considered 100% effective against serious illness? If not, any difference probably outweighs the blood clot risk.

How convenient!
You’re assuming we are being given all the information.

With political pressure from Tory backbenchers, and arguably Government itself, to prop up confidence in the vaccination drive to speed up easing restrictions the legitimate question remains would they tell us if any red flags arose?

I’d contest that the evidence from the MHRA to date suggests they would not.
jfman is offline   Reply With Quote