Yeah, vaccine denial is a spectrum and not all of the concerns are easily dismissed nonsense, even if the far end of it is.
My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations.
There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know.
I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you).
Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in.
After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.
Your approach seems pretty reasonable. Personally I think the scientific part of the debate is a bit of a red herring. People do things and take medicines all the time that they dont fully understand the risks and consequences of. I think a lot of the wariness comes from the obvious doctrinal viewpoint of a lot of vocal advocates of covid measures - making it an ultimatum where you're either fully on board or a "denier", anti-masker, whatever is not a way to win people over.
It's an interesting problem, because in one respect you don't to encourage apathy or laziness, but on the other hand, people are rightly wary of any kind of zealotry or promotion - in most cases I see heavy advertising as an obvious red flag that something isn't what it seems.
So like you say, having an honest discussion seems like the best approach (and respecting people's choices once you've given them the information). But that's probably true of most controversial things.
Yeah, it's funny, if you read How to Win Friends and Influence People and look only at the techniques mentioned directly without understanding them, you'd end up effectively becoming an old-timey salesman stereotype.
If you look at the techniques being used on you, the reader of that book, and try to understand the principles, it's a much different book.
Those techniques are constantly getting overused and burning out, they're just not a stable foundation to build something like public health communication on.
It's better to do our best to be honest and present all the things we know and don't know and explain when and how new data enters the picture and changes our conclusions. But you have to be aware of that within your own reasoning process first to be able to explain it to someone else, so it's not that easy to communicate.
Except that large swaths of the population have reading comprehension of 9th graders.
Someone sent me an article about the issues surrounding AZ vax, which concluded that it was safe. However, my friend interpreted all the concerns in terms of 'fear' - literally taking the results upside down. She didn't understand the article, just 'fear'.
Which is why by and large 'transparency' is important, but also as important is to keep less material negative artifacts muted in terms of dissemination. Yes, the major news outlets do a side piece, and officials do their little press interviews and publish data, but it doesn't go to prime time.
Literally the best thing to 'convince' people is to show others getting it.
I'm still dismayed that Trump or Biden didn't ask the Avengers team to do more pro-vax stuff.
Little vignettes with Captain America and Iron Man getting vaxxed would have been great.
And then follow up with the real actors getting vaxxed.
I'm surprised not to see more coordinated campaigns of celebrities, authors, singers, athletes especially NASCAR drivers and country singers do little public notices. If Lebron and Jordan want to help their community they could spend a few months going town to town, going to visit vax clinics, talking to staff, raising awareness, dropping into the local radio station/barber shops, schools. That would really help move the needle. Pun intended.
Facts, or anything that requires cognitive interpretation is out of range for 1/2 the population, and may not get across to most of the rest through noisy media channels. I don't watch the news because I find it terrible, but it causes me to miss some key things.
Very simple concepts, examples, images, emotion and especially 'social evidence' by those with 'social influence' (i.e. athletes, actors) is how the masses are moved. 'Keep Calm, Carry On' in red, with the Crown ... is one of the simplest, smartest public communications issuances ever.
Edit:
"Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in."
This is a little upside down and implies kind of a misconception of public communications.
It's very, very difficult to get simple, even essential messages across to large populations. Nuanced information is almost impossible.
We can barely get the message of vaccine availability out.
So we definitely want to have 'the latest information' about vaccines available on gov. web sites, and probably places like reddit threads etc. - but the people on the more literate end of the spectrum are already convinced. Those on the lower end of the spectrum are the problem - and they're not even going to be able to read 'scientific reviews' let alone even know what one is, let alone come across the literature in the first place, let alone have any interest whatsoever in reading it.
I would urge you to go to Los Angeles and get on the bus. Just look around. Listen to what people are saying, what they are paying attention to, their vocabulary, the music they are listening to, their behaviour and interactions. Strike up a conversation. Many are elderly, many are isolated, many are migrants with weaker language skills and live in more isolated communities often not exposed to proper information. The 'lowest common denominator' is quite low and those are the people that are the most skeptical. 'The Rock', 'Oprah' and 'Kenney Chesney' would do 100x more to improve awareness than any pamphlet referencing scientific research.
The first sentence was terrible. The rest of it was reasonable but the thing is people don't like being manipulated.
They may not always know the precise terms of the manipulation but public health is not somewhere I like to see a lot of manipulation.
Now, they're not wrong that people take things out of context, that's why I generally approach things by adding context. Yes, there are one in a million risks with vaccines, give or take a bit, but there are much higher covid risks.
That's why I don't try to manufacture consent, I try to give people the most honest, brutal factual assessment I can and let them assess the facts honestly. I will poke holes in their theories and push them on the points that are just plain false, but I won't try to BS them with false confidence or try to manipulate them with social proof.
Techniques like that may work for a time but they don't last. It's better to build on a foundation of honesty.
While reasonable, your statement ignore the fact that humans have issues considering the difference between a 1 in the million risk and 1 in 100000 (made up numbers). Many are afraid of flying and drive instead even if the risks are way higher driving.
It is funny you mentioned driving because if you are in the 18-29 year age group you have a much larger risk of dying from driving (or other people driving?) than you do from COVID.
Deaths in the 18-29 age group in the US: 2253. I believe this figure is over a longer period than 12 months. So this is going to overestimate covid risk when comparing to 12 months of driving fatalities: Source: https://www.statista.com/statistics/1191568/reported-deaths-...
> Yes, but you don't 'pass along' 'car accient death' to others.
Actually you might, if you were the dangerous driver, just not to very many others and it can't spread further than that.
And yes, that's a very good point about the risk for kids that's not often appreciated. That's one of the points I try to make people understand, along with the idea that vaccines aren't perfect (so you can't just immediately drop every precaution once vaxxed), etc.
The first sentence is accurate; you say you want 'honesty' but are unable to deal with very simple factual information yourself, because it's unpalatable?
Otherwise, you are misunderstanding the nature of Public Communications.
The idea that somehow sidelining some confusing information, to focus on simple messaging is somehow 'dishonest' is wrong and naive. It would cause massive harm.
FYI - the strongest example of this is with masks. It's why they told you 'Mask were not necessary' at first (because 300M buying masks in a panic would negate the ability of doctors to get masks), but then, as supplies became available, and the marginal value of masks would make sense for the general public - the CDC turned upside down and told you masks were essential.
That's Dr. Fauci doing his job.
You have 350 Million people to get vaccinated and you have to communicate to them the availability and safety of vaccinations.
About 1/2 of the population has some degree of literacy and education, they watch the news, they roughly believe the government. They watch Dr. Fauci somewhat consistently and roughly understand what he is saying. They are compliant on some level.
But the other 1/2 are not.
Millions don't have the capacity to parse through the information, either in terms of intellectual foundation, vocabulary, etc..
Millions don't watch any news.
Millions don't believe anything the government says.
Millions believe in some other conspiracy theory.
Millions are lazy and don't care.
Millions are in social or work environments that reinforce all of this.
Millions - even among the literate camp are unnecessarily skeptical about vaccines.
...
We're in the middle of a pandemic mass killing elderly, we finally have a vaccine, it's on the news every single night, on every station in, in Canada - and yet only 1/2 (!!!) of eligible seniors are showing up to get vaccine in Toronto? It's similar elsewhere. That's really bad.
I have friends who don't really understand what is being said about the risks of AZ vaccine, others making irrational claims and 'waiting out' for their preferred vaccine which is literally 100% against the often repeated policy of the government and scientific consensus.
Dr. Bonnie Henry of BC goes on TV every 2 days and gives an amazingly detailed presentation about COVID updates. I usually watch it. Epidemioligal graphs etc.. You know how many viewers there are? About 10 0000. 10K viewers among 6 million target citizens. Now that particular form of messaging isn't going to be remotely sufficient in getting the word out is it?
...
So how do you communicate important information with people that are too dumb, incapable, unwilling, irrationally skeptical, not paying attention, because it's their lives depend on it?
Popular individuals with social credibility move masses - not scientists or even 'facts'. Obviously, messaging needs to be truthful and credible, but in a simplified format.
You market the idea using communications that will get the message across, by people that have credibility within groups, and who can draw enough attention.
Oprah is beloved and respected among huge numbers of people, particularly African American women who are considerably more likely to be vaxx skeptical than other groups - and who are also way more likely to die from COVID.
It's similar with politics - do you remember her endorsement of Obama: 'He Is The One' ?
Not only that, Oprah and her communications team are Master Communicators. She knows exactly how to say something the right way, to get a message across.
Otherwise, entertainers and athletes are who people pay attention to and look up to.
You want to get people down to the vax centre: get Michael Jordan there.
In some places they are having lotteries - get vaxxed - win a million dollars. That's brilliant.
If children were a target of COVID and neededed to get vaxxed then if I were president I would practically 'executive order' Marvel and DC comics hers to make little vax vignettes with Superman getting vaccinated: 'Even Superman Needs His Vaccine, Did You Get Yours? Ask Your Parents'.
If the government were more effective in communicating, they'd be addressing the 'bottom 50%' using better methods.
To think that we use more effective strategies to sell breakfast cereal and iPhones ... than we do critical, life-saving vaccines is kind of pathetic.
I never said it was inaccurate, I said it was terrible. You can't look down your nose at people--even accurately--and expect them to trust you with their health decisions.
I explained it in a comment up thread, but the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that. Right now, half the anti-vaxxers or otherwise hesitant spend their time pointing out all the people encouraging them to vaxx as they're suspect of their motives.
You can certainly get some of the people some of the time, but I don't think this is a stable foundation. It doesn't help that accuracy hasn't always been the first goal. I don't think you can fully hide or sideline the confusion and when it comes out, it just create mistrust.
So you're right that this is about trust, but... manipulation doesn't lead to long term trust. If you read How to Win Friends and Influence People nowadays, you can see the stereotype of a smarmy old-timey salesman in it. A lot of the techniques there are burnt out and the very first chapter is basically a long-winded attempt to use social proof on you the reader that this book is awesome.
Now it is a very insightful book, I won't say otherwise, but you can also see that some of this stuff doesn't hold up over time, especially when it's getting misused.
1) Communicating in terms that people understand is not manipulative.
Developing Social Consensus through Medical Propaganda, you could argue is manipulative, yes, but it's an inherent artifact of fighting off an existential threat to the wellbeing of the community.
You must herd most of the cats into the pen to get vaccinated or they will die.
2) Get away from the idea that there's something wrong or immoral with identifying that some people are smarter than others, more conscientious, lazier, inept, disagreeable.
In a crisis (and otherwise) we need to deal with actual reality.
3) You need to communicate with people at their level.
There are plenty of people smarter than you and I who might want to be communicated with in different terms than you and I might expect - the same goes for less literate.
Children obviously are not developed, and talking about facts is pointless. So you get Superman to tell them.
Oprah has more credibility to 1/2 the population that the media. So you get her to say it in the way she thinks will work best.
...
The Scientific Literature is public information, it's openly available, and frankly, the national health advisers are on TV 10x more than they even need to be, they've 'over explained' everything so 'transparency' for the most part has never been a problem.
It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.
If you gave yourself the job of getting everyone vaxxed, and then you realize that 1/2 of people were not showing up, you'd quickly start to alter your plan and arrive at much the same conclusions.
We've been doing this since the dawn of time, often in much worse ways, this is Public Communications.
As to point (1) that isn't the part I identified as manipulative.
And Covid isn't an existential threat. It's terrible, mind you, but killing 2% of the population is only enough to cause widespread misery, not to wipe out the human race. Inasmuch as people compare it to the flu, that's because the flu is badly underestimated and has killed a large number of people. The 1918 pandemic, for example, killed several of my own family.
For (2) I didn't say it was wrong or immoral, I said it was terrible specifically because it causes mistrust. Someone who does not like you cannot be expected to make good decisions on your behalf.
And what people saw was others prioritizing their own safety and not caring about anyone else. E.G. with the early mask advice the doctors appeared to be prioritizing themselves. There are actually good and rational reasons why doctors should be protected first in such a case, but the notion that they'll stab you in the back does not engender trust.
For (3), I've not argued otherwise, I'm simply pointing out more effective means of it based on actually talking to a lot of people who are skeptical of the medical advice being given and successfully convincing some to get vaccinated.
It's true that I've seen instances of abject quackery, but part of the problem is that they get their veneer of false credibility via comparison to the more visible failures.
> It's not like we're telling people giant wartime lies to keep them onside.
But I get it, it's hard to motivate people towards moderation and so much easier to push people towards one extreme or another.
Like, this isn't some existential risk, this is something that's going to make a lot of people miserable when a lot of grandparents die and the hospitals get flooded. This is from people not having any intuitive understanding of exponential equations (or S-curves) and not realizing how quickly this stuff explodes in a population. This is people being selfish and going around sick or not taking precautions because they don't understand asymptomatic spread or how just spreading the virus that's probably (but not necessarily) harmless to them is likely to kill a lot of people.
Sure, the science is open, but the people need someone they can actually trust who cares about them to translate it for them. That too many would trust random quacks talking about how iron ions or some BS are responsible for Covid and the vaccine allegedly makes you magnetic or something (seriously, I don't even understand this nonsense, that's just what they said), as I saw recently, just makes me sad that it's hard to bridge the trust gap here.
I mean, sure, I can point out that no, my arm is not magnetic now. And yes, just for the hell of it, I really did check despite this being an incredibly stupid theory. But that only does so much.
I don't think we're at half the population who are going to avoid vaccines, maybe more like 10%, though they're noisier than average, so it's hard to get a read on it. From other data, hopefully things work out at around 80% vaccinated, so we may be okay as long as we work on bridging the gap in trust by doing our best to get informed consent by talking through people's fears.
I fear this requires more of a one-on-one approach with family/friends/acquaintances discussing this on a personal level rather than mass communication, though, and I'm well aware of how badly that scales.
the techniques to push things on people via social proof and whatnot smack of manipulation and people are rightfully suspect of that
The problem is that they're not suspect enough. They apply different standards to different sources of manipulation. If they were consistent in their suspicion, we wouldn't be having this problem.
That's a fair point and you can and should press people for their sources and how they can validate them because that's a good point of comparison when you're able to point out ways that things can be checked and they're not.
For example, some people were nattering on about the vaccine remaining in the blood supply or whatever for years after and worrying that they would somehow acquire a vaccine that way. For that, you can point to the mRNA sequences on Github and tell them about the tests that can be used to detect them.
Meanwhile there's some incoherent nonsense about the vaccine making your arm magnetic and free radicals from someone on 4chan who claims to be posting 2nd hand info with no sources. You can give them a damn magnet and let them see that it doesn't stick to the arm they vaccinated you in.
My experience in talking to vaccine-hesitant people is that the most important thing is honesty, including honesty about what we don't know, what various authorities (e.g. the WHO) got wrong, the actual magnitude of both the risks (e.g. comparing long Covid to VAERS data), the science backing/not backing various regulations (6 ft is a guess based on the inverse square law and honestly kinda suspect, etc.), and discussion over how the risks are not evenly distributed in all populations.
There's plenty of room in there for questioning things and I say that as someone who got fully vaccinated as soon as possible. Lately I've been spending some of my time trying to help various vaccine-hesitant online populations better understand the actual science on the subject and what we do/don't know.
I find that some of the most prominent misconceptions are things like assuming that the vaccinations are 100% effective (Sinovac is what, maybe 60%?) or that mRNA vaccines are "gene therapy" (only in the sense that all viruses are, and at least the vaccine goes away in ~3 days instead of replicating inside you).
Better resources that explain what we do and don't know focused on those points specifically and accessible to a lay audience would probably help the most people, preferably linking to scientific papers and primary sources to let the more scientifically minded dig in.
After all, many people are not going to believe you if you tell them the vaccines are 100% safe. But they might believe you if you're honest that there are 1 in a million risks that are better on average than taking the same risk with a Covid infection and that the damn virus is likely to exist at least within outbreaks if not in community spread for several more years and talk about how the profile for long Covid vs. long-term vaccine side-effects is similar, but you get a smaller exposure from the vaccine because it breaks down and goes away. And if somehow it doesn't, someone posted the sequences on Github so it could be tested for specifically if that ever became necessary.