MIT: Vaccine Hesitancy Highly Informed, Scientifically Literate, Sophisticated
Vaccine hesitancy is a big problem, according to the Biden administration. Less than half the public is fully vaccinated while about 56 percent have received at least one jab. The goal of fully vaccinating the American public appears to have stalled. This should not surprise us.
When the vaccines were first approved for emergency use back in December 2020, 40 percent of Americans expressed skepticism about the vaccine.
Trying to shame the holdouts has failed spectacularly. Insulting and degrading them as “morons” or “ignorant” has resulted in a vicious pushback and a hardening of positions on getting vaccinated.
The administration’s plan of sending people door to door to vaccinate them only feeds anti-vaccine skepticism. Trust in authority is at an all-time low, which makes a government-sponsored vaccine program suspect. But the root cause isn’t ignorance or a belief in conspiracy theories. An MIT study on the problem revealed some surprising results.
Proponents of the vaccine are unwilling or unable to understand the thinking of vaccine skeptics — or even admit that skeptics may be thinking at all. Their attempts to answer skepticism or understand it end up poisoned by condescension, and end up reinforcing it.
The condescension is political in nature and crosses party lines. Sometimes, arguments against vaccination are mistaken for irrational thinking.
Sometimes the perception of irrationality is almost accidental, because arguments are usually social interactions, not strictly logical exercises. A vaccine skeptic may brush off a proponent by saying, “It’s approved for emergency use only; it’s not FDA-approved. I don’t think we should require it.” The skeptic is beginning with a fact that’s easily established and shareable. But when pressed, they might reveal that their line of thinking is elsewhere: “There are no long-term studies, and I’m worried about possible long-term effects.” Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected, the proponent concludes it is irrationalism all the way down.
But a study done at MIT showed that a substantial portion of public-health skepticism was highly informed, scientifically literate, and sophisticated in the use of data. Skeptics used the same data sets as those with the orthodox views on public health.
The study’s lead author, Crystal Lee, says those same exact data sets can be used by either side to marshal arguments.
The researchers combed through hundreds of thousands of social media posts and found that coronavirus skeptics often deploy counter-visualizations alongside the same “follow-the-data” rhetoric as public health experts, yet the skeptics argue for radically different policies. The researchers conclude that data visualizations aren’t sufficient to convey the urgency of the Covid-19 pandemic, because even the clearest graphs can be interpreted through a variety of belief systems.
“A lot of people think of metrics like infection rates as objective,” says Crystal Lee. “But they’re clearly not, based on how much debate there is on how to think about the pandemic. That’s why we say data visualizations have become a battleground.”
In fact, because of the data sets being used interchangeably, vaccine skepticism becomes logical and rational.
But most vaccine skepticism, if by that we mean reluctance, is not based on conspiracy theorizing — it’s based on risk-benefit calculations. You may think it’s an innumerate calculation. But when you look at patterns of uptake in the United States, two factors stand out, factors that are larger in their effect than partisanship: age and density. The older you are and the denser your community, the more likely you are to be vaccinated.
The younger you are, and the more rural your community, the less likely you are to have gotten it. This reflects the real facts about the risk of death from COVID. People may be wildly overestimating their risk from the vaccine and underestimating their risks from COVID — but they have the directional thinking correct. Those who are in less danger, act like it.
This is why vaccine choice is so important. Why have the same mandate for someone who lives in New York City and someone who lives in rural South Dakota?
Allowances must be made for the legitimate concerns of citizens who, for their own reasons, don’t want to get jabbed. Individuals are doing their own risk-benefit calculations, it would help enormously if the Left would refrain from their sickening condescension toward those with serious, legitimate questions.
See more here: kickthemallout.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Expose The Lies About COVID19
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
dnomsed
| #
Vaccine refusenicks…
Reply
very old white guy
| #
I keep reading the words “fully vaccinated”, when no one is fully vaccinated against anything with the whu who flu shots, no one.
Reply
WhoKoo
| #
Those who have died after the covid shot could claim to be “fully vaccinated” if they were able to do so.
Reply
BIll
| #
I find it admirable that this researcher noted the vaccine research and other papers can often implicate two differing sides of this depending on your bias as a reader. I for example can’t fathom how anyone runs that risk/reward calculation and still gets jabbed. Don’t get me wrong if you’re unhealthy and something like a common flu could kill you, then sure, get the jab. Why not? You’re not long for this earth anyway. Roll the bones and see how they land. But people wanting their healthy young children to get this shot is amazing to me. I’m called irrational but I don’t see it. My child has a higher likelihood of dying from any number of things, such a bee sting. More-so than this escaped virus. The flip to that is the side effects of the vax are so much more than the bee sting example or even the actual virus. So how does the math add up?? I’m so confused- factually the vaccine is more dangerous than any number of alternatives, it’s just a reality right? What am I missing?? The vac won’t stop/slow or prevent spreading? You can still get sick, we’ve seen this proven. You still need masks etc… I mean what is the reasoning???
I can understand why the same foil hatters that followed Q think this to be a massive depopulation experiment, because that’s the only thing that makes sense once you do the math (you can’t assume everyone attached to this is a complete idiot right, surely they ran the math as well? so it must be on purpose and according to a plan). And that is crazy as hell to say!
Reply
Cris
| #
Hi Bill,
I agree with you it’s very confusing this situation, however with other conditions that can harm you, you can take precautions while with the injections you have it then and there with not much turning back from.
I also find it plausible their depop agenda as they jumped too soon to give it to the group that’s least affected by this virus.
Not to mention the opportunities it creates for people becoming reliant on big pharma products to deal with the adverse effects for long term. That is my second suspicion since western countries pay so much for each dose, why not increase demand for other medication that can be sold for various conditions…
Reply
Auntie Vyris
| #
Bill, one need not worship the meanderings of anonymous, quizzical postings to witness the documented, maniacal goals and assertions of unaccountable control freaks. Yeah, there’s a crowd of folks who want to destroy large portions of humanity and they want to do it now. Look up, “billionaires in bid to curb world population”. They’re very public about it, and it’s not a new idea among these weirdos.
I think there’s a lot of validity in the idea these injections are meant to assist them in accomplishing their purpose. After all, VAERS data shows we are suffering dearly from these poisons. I wish you well, good sir.
Reply
Max DeLoaches
| #
I knew from the “getgo” that there was fox in the hen house when I learned that RT-PCR test was being used as a medical diagnostic tool. I had to watch PCR training films 20 or so years ago, where Kerry Mullis, its inventor had described the test as a manufacturing tool. This to me is the smoking gun, which is easily controlled by the cycle threshold. You want to lock down an area increase the CT to 40 cycles.
Reply
James
| #
Straight away I knew something was wrong as the positive result was merely the presence of amplified material in the heat cycled sample. No sizing is done to see if the number of base pairs matches!
Reply
sir_iso
| #
Nevermind that the tool is derived to verify the presence of something real, based on the design/synthesis of something virtual.
I wonder why it’s not peculiar to people how so many of these “contagious viruses” have so much homology with their genetic material. And I wonder how it is that the teleport, considering they have no motile function. But then again, I am even bewildered by their inability to reproduce by known means. Which is not even as bad as them not having internal energy/ATP function.
As they are dead, incapable of energy function, moving or reproducing by known means, I presume they are using ambient dark energy to manifest through necrophilia?
Then I recall, I wonder what happens when genetic material breaks, and fragments of DNA break off as RNA, some reactions and such. Perhaps broken/toxified proteins that get ejected, neutralized and filtered out. I wonder what that looks like?
Then I wonder, how it is that in say, winter, people get RTIs, and regardless of the name of the “virus”, symptoms happen to be quite consistent. Almost as if there is some sort of underlying invariant physical process.
Gee. Then it occurred to me, “Hey wait a minute, regardless of supposed exposure to those “viruses” in winter, people just never seem to get immunity.” That’s odd.
Apparently, a conspiracy theorist suggested that even just vitamin D, happens to regulate genetic material. And that genetic material breaks with deficiency. What’s weird is that there’s also some sort of correlation between “viral load”, genetic breakage and say, deficiency. Almost as if fundamental essential factors and toxicity could be causative in broken genetic material that matches exactly, viruses.
Oh wow, did you get that? Hey, if you read that properly, you’d even understand why “viruses” are results and have discovered the origin of “viruses”.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
So if you use my crazy consistent, evidenced, invariant physics alternate reality world…
You might find you can’t be immune to say, vitamin D deficiency. And if you have deficiency, your genetic material breaks. And if your genetic material breaks, “viral load” increases. Such a mysterious situation.
How insane a thought that would be.
Just imagine if you could correlate that sort of thing for other essential and toxic elements and factors too. Like for instance, how crazy would it be, that just like if vitamin D deficiency, for instance is associated with RTIs to a rather large degree…say, vitamin A deficiency is largely associated with measles? And for instance, various toxic elements with GBS/AFM/Polio (which are essentially the same problem, btw, and also caused by the same sort of factors).
Just imagine what sort of psuedoscientific fictional sort of world that must be.
Reply
Ogmios
| #
Note how the article focuses on data and misses out the flagrant use of propaganda, the suppression of alternative views and control of the narrative including the banning on fascistbook of the 70k members of the injection injuries group. Having zero empathy is a little worse than a micro aggression don’t you think Zuckerberg? And they wonder why people are ‘hesitant’?
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Ogmios,
You ignore that in SCIENCE the only facts are observed (measured) DATA. Everything else is opinion about which endless arguments result.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Denis dombas
| #
Whose science you talking about? The one bought and paid by big Pharma?
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Data is derived.
Underlying process is not.
Data itself is in fact INCREDIBLY distant from “fact”. It is associated interpretation.
You rarely actually deal with “facts” in science. You tend to get results and interpretations. Often rather limited, either in methodology, tools or interpretation.
Reply
JerrY Krause
| #
Hi Sir_isO,
You wrote: ” You tend to get results and interpretations.” What are REPRODUCIBLE RESULTS if they are not FACTS???
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
sir_isO
| #
That kinda depends on your definition of “facts”.
For instance, I can take a device that always returns a result, say, it flashes a red light. Now let’s say that red light is intended to be a test for something, but it always flashes a red light. Indeed, the fact is, it flashes a red light. Reproducibly. But it tells you nothing about the correctness of the red light flashing, the methodology, the processes dictating that or the interpretation and the meaning.
It’s not even that a contrived example, if you for instance consider PCR “tests”. It resulted in data, reproducibly, but it is fundamentally unsuitable and incorrect, being an extrapolatory tool that makes things up and deviates from the specimen with repeated, rather biased chemical reactions.
So any derived results have no factual meaning on the context of diagnoses. And the processes which are not only reproducible, but invariant and actually causative are conveniently ignored, in favour of that “factual data”.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
I could write about a far more serious example regarding fundamental fraud by avoiding causation and framing results as causative, with respect to say, “viruses”.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sir_isO and PSI Readers,
Here I prove how STUPID I am by responding to Sir’s comment. I have written: “facts are observed (measured) DATA” and I have further ,more specifically defined RULTS as being REPRODUCIBLE.
Then Sir wrote: “That kinda depends on your definition of “facts”.
I consider myself to be STUPID given this history that it does not matter what I write. For in Sir’s world it seems there are no FACTS regardless of what the definition of FACT is. For the Fact is no word has a FACTUAL definition.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
sir_isO
| #
That’s kinda true Jerry.
“I consider myself to be STUPID given this history that it does not matter what I write. For in Sir’s world it seems there are no FACTS regardless of what the definition of FACT is.”
See, that’s the interpretation you have based on your conjecture. Have you proven that what you write doesn’t matter, as opposed to what you wrote? It might be likely. Who knows?
There are enormous amounts of things considered “facts” currently, that aren’t correct. Some more correct than others.
That’s kinda how (actual) science goes. That’s the very reason science can improve, because it’s fundamentally flawed/limited and always wrong to some degree. It’s always about better approximation, essentially.
The problem we often have is that based on “facts” from resulting data, though no proper methodology or understanding of process, we derive terrible conclusions and “justifications” from.
If your data is flawed because your derivation, understanding, motivations, methodology, tools, implementation, your conclusions are flawed…how “factual” is the data? Coz I can tell you you’re making mistakes, always.
And then, it’s rather often used politically to justify things without consideration for process? That is, causation remains unaddressed because a “dodgy” resulting derivative is used as a causative argument.
It’s an enormously prevalent problem in “science”.
Reply
Dan Paulson
| #
Hey Jerry,
I have to interject here to say I agree with much of what @Sir_isO says and implies. I think your fundamental error is in believing that facts matter in 2021 to anyone other than yourself. Believing that eventually the facts will out, is disproven on a daily basis and a plurality of the people seem to be on board with mad agendas with civilization destroying potential.
I too dream of the day that a host of current villains get their proper due, at The Hague, but I am not naive enough to think that I will ever see it. The absolute rot and stench of corruption is everywhere now.
Science has been, for the most part, entirely corrupted and co-opted by many players who rarely actually have any interest in our little lives and value us only to the limit that they can manipulate us in their favour. Tyrants of all stripes now regularly declare that the “science” is on their side and is irrefutable. Any serious opposition to these narratives will be met with brutal deplatforming attacks and banishment to the alternate content delivery universe with the rest of the conspiracy minded, hitler loving, white-supremacist, God-fearing conservatives.
So do facts matter? Not if you want to talk about anything covid related.
Does it matter that the PCR test is not fit for purpose? Not when you realize that the test in use around 80% of the time was conceived and produced over the weekend with nary a sign of actual virus samples or genetic information.
Does it matter that the 4 proteins or particles sought by the test are based on the “sars genome” and a guess, based on a single published paper describing the virus and extracted material? Not when you realize how poor an 80% match truly is, and also learn that the sars genome also only exists “in silico”.
I could go on for days but my point is simply that virtually every “fact” currently pumped out by the massive propaganda apparatus can easily be refuted entirely by simply examining your basic data and eliminating manipulation and half-truth. There have never been any facts to support any public health measures implemented. There are no examples where any of these measures is in any way legitimate. In my opinion all lockdowns and mandates have been implemented without regard to rights and can easily be shown to violate constitutions and bills of rights around the world. The corporations, bureaucrats, and politicos currently seizing power have simply rewritten all the rules and decided that pesky things like constitutions belong on the rubble pile with all the statues.
Does truth even matter? Not to a large percentage of the people of the world. Far too many are quite satisfied with themselves for allowing and encouraging people like Tony Blair, Joe Biden, or Mark Zuckerberg to decide what is fact and what is misinformation that must be torn from public discourse.
Dan
sir_isO
| #
Thanks for the elaboration Dan, some valuable notes there.
Particularly that about the supposed virus being concocted in-silico, which I also mentioned in a reply above, and yet the supposed virus also having significant homology with your own genetic material. The spike protein (only produced by the vaccines) happens to include fairly significant Nagalese homology, and Nagalese only being present in the rather toxic MMR vaccines.
So yeah, to recap, something made up in software is used as the basis to find something “real”, by design with a tool to “massage” results, continually deviating from specimen with alterations, used as the the basis for comparison. Those results are used as “facts”. Consideration for process was lost.
It’s some of the dumbest shit I’ve ever seen.
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Sir_isO and especially PSI Readers,
Especially PSI Readers because I don’t want you to believe everything you read is even close to fact, especially in the case of Sir. However, Sir is correct that no SCIENTIST can ever claim that his/her interpretation of Reproducible Data is FACT (absolute Truth).
Here is an actual case of how Galileo refused to accept that the quantitative astronomical observations Tyco Brahe were precise enough and/or Johannas Kepler’s mathematical analysis of the data could determine that the path of the planets orbiting the Sun indicated the fact the orbits were not circular but instead were elliptical. For a fact was that Kepler had originally analyzed the data of all the naked-eye observable planets and accepted the ‘data’ as being close enough to being a circle until he could not accept that data of Mars. Which had to be elliptical. And when he went back to reanalyze the paths of the other planets he found that the data fit an elliptical path better than it had fit a circular path.
So, Sir, do you propose that Brahe’s data was not factual because it was not precise enough to see the slight influences of the gravities of the planets upon
each other. In Science we often refer to the first approximation.to recognize that there could be more subtle influences involve in addition to the primary influence.
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
MC
| #
Give it up Jerry. You’re making yourself look like you’re unable to admit you made a mistake. Suck it up, stop throwing the toys, move onward and upward.
Reply
Tom
| #
Joey and his gang of vaccine thugs have never presented any rational reason to want any injection of an experimental mRNA gene altering poison. I will always be anti-vaxx until pharma, the FDA, CDC and government can prove without any doubt that vaccinations and injections are safe and effective over a lifetime.
It’s not a question of hesitency because many of us will never submit our bodies to the evil intentions of pharma and government. I will never trust pharma, the CDC or FDA…that window has closed forever and I couldn’t care less how stupid the vaccinazis are.
Reply
sir_isO
| #
Agreed, Tom.
Decades of experience, research, understanding and consideration has made me entirely dissociate with their idea of “healthcare”.
Practically every aspect of it is fundamentally fraudulent, degenerate, subversive and deceptive…with motivations from industrial exploitation as the basis, including the demonization of nature and “medicine” and methodology used which is always damaging and/or toxic.
I simply will not associate with that system/industry.
Reply
tom0mason
| #
There are so many things completely wrong with this piece —
1. ALL medications that anyone takes must (as far as possible) be their decisions — We each have a right to be allowed informed consent (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Informed_consent ). NO mere (MIT) academics, or medics, and NEVER politicians can take this from us.
2. It is up to each and every person to assess risk for themselves, if they don’t (or can not) and ‘societal’ pressures makes that decision for them, then society bares the burden of blame when it goes wrong.
3. Freedom means each and everyone is free to make their own decisions and they are responsible for it. Each person’s choice may bring successes or mistakes (within or sometimes outside the law!) With freedom and responsibility comes with consequences.
4. Academics and medics seems to think they are in charge of government policy these days — NO YOU ARE NOT! (Especially not the numpties at MIT). Someone get those at MIT a copy of the Nuremberg Code, and the latest iteration of The World Medical Association (WMA) Declaration of Helsinki. (see https://www.wma.net/policies-post/wma-declaration-of-helsinki-ethical-principles-for-medical-research-involving-human-subjects/ )
““It’s approved for emergency use only; it’s not FDA-approved. I don’t think we should require it.” The skeptic is beginning with a fact that’s easily established and shareable. But when pressed, they might reveal that their line of thinking is elsewhere: “There are no long-term studies, and I’m worried about possible long-term effects.” Because the two objections aren’t exactly logically connected, the proponent concludes it is irrationalism all the way down.”
It is far from irrational it is a personal assessment of risk that says —
a) These injectable GMO and chemical concoctions are not fully tested, that is why they are not ‘it’s not FDA-approved’ ( or any other national health authority approved!)
b) Part of the ‘normal’ testing regime for a drug or medication prior to being released to the unsuspecting public is that they undergo full long term tests to determine ‘long-term effects’.
Therefore as this ‘medication’ is not fully tested it is experimental (by most of the manufacturers own admission). Humans undergoing experimental treatment(s) fall ‘fair and square’ into the constraints of Declaration of Helsinki — i.e. informed consent before treatment.
MIT’s irrationality evidently (from their article) is the belief that ignorance is a safe option.
Doctors:
1. “First, do no harm” (Primum, non nocere)
2. Just treating symptoms is only half the job, identifying and treating the underlying cause is the whole job.
3. As far as is possible cure the patient of what ails them.
4. Make use of nature’s great healing power — it often is the best method.
5. Prevention is better than cure.
6. Patients must be allowed full ‘informed consent’ for any treatment. Informing the patient many take minutes for some and days for others. So, teach, do not preach!
Reply
sir_isO
| #
I often joke somewhat sardonically, without joking, that the human species is the most imbecilic of all the species I’ve seen and the only species that actively devolves.
Hilariously(?) attacking infants with toxins that can in no way benefit them, repeatedly. And then lying to themselves and each other about the “benefits” and dangers of that as they gleefully amble about in ignorant denial.
Just think of how advanced a species it must be, to actively attack its progeny.
And people wonder how chronic disease went from 10/100 to 60/100 within a few decades.
Luckily I’m not human, as I hail from Orion.
Reply
Jwrry Krause
| #
Hi TomO, PSI Readers, and Sir_isO,
I have screwed up by failing to observe that this medical and political stuff has nothing to do with SCIENCE. Relative to this medical thing one FACT I claim to know is that China lost about half of its swine herd in 2019. The second Fact I know from raising swine and my bother, nephew, and nephews sons who continued to raise swine (big time) is that swine are very susceptible to diseases so that pork producer quarantine their swine herds from outside influences brith to death.
I will not try to explain how it was that I have screwed up because I do not know why I do many things (good or bad)..
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
sir_isO
| #
That’s a wonderful example of what I was describing with people interpreting facts, with no understanding of process, concern of methodology and then from their rather often horribly flawed interpretation using it as justification.
Were the causative processes discovered? Was methodology examined, feeds, space, environmental toxins, medications? Variations tested and compared?
Because I’ve noticed, that often, farmed animals have stressful conditions, toxic environments, numerous toxic inputs and not necessarily great nutrition.
I’ve also noticed that often leads to ill health.
“The second Fact I know from raising swine and my bother, nephew, and nephews sons who continued to raise swine (big time) is that swine are very susceptible to diseases so that pork producer quarantine their swine herds from outside influences brith to death.”
Now let’s review that, the fact is, swine raised and kept by swine raisers are susceptible to disease.
That’s the ONLY fact you can derive from that, but it tells you nothing about why or what to do about it. Examination of the methodology might explain that those combined factors (stressors, environment, nutrients, toxins) I mentioned is causative in disease.
But of course, you can choose to do as modern “science” does, and ignore such obviously physically affective factors, sit in denial and instead jump to the conclusion that there is some contagious gremlin out to curse you.
Reply