Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Communication is key. Scientists and health professionals fail at it. Listing cold facts does not effectively communicate to the broad public, because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view. Messaging is critical in public communication.
> This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with.
No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.
Telling people the truth (including what you don't yet know) and letting them freely assume their own risks is a powerful way to win them over.
> because they receive the message not by learning the new facts to change their word view, but by trying to fit it in their world view
People don't change their worldview because someone tries to change it for them. Straight facts without manipulation of any sort is the best way.
People know when they're being manipulated, talked down to, and lied to. That's the worst way to try to change their opinion. Fauci and other officials did a lot of this early on, unfortunately, and they lost credibility with large swaths of the public, leaving a truth vacuum that badly misinformed youtubers rushed in to fill.
> No, this isn't the reason. Straight, clear communication of facts from professionals is one of the best ways to combat erroneous viewpoints.
For better and for worse, this is not true with most people. Most people are most open to changing their viewpoints if you engage them in a manner where you try to take their side, first, and then lead them in a new direction.
Straight facts might work best for you, but I'm afraid they're pretty much a sure-fire away to turn off most adults who've already made up their minds and don't already agree with you.
You're right that communication is critical, but it's precisely because facts are omitted that causes the problem. Those facts just come out later, and that only makes things worse. Instead of transparency and straight forward communication, public health officials are engaging in manipulation of the public. So called noble lies, like telling people masks don't work in order to cover for the lack of mask availability. That burned their credibility and is just one example.
The lies and lies by omission are literal oxygen to anti-vaxxers because they can point out, with proof, that we were lied to. Naturally the next question is, what else are we being lied to about?
Stop lying, start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax and anti-expert sentiment dissipate.
I would also point out that there is an intentional conflation between anti-vaxxers (those opposed to all vaccines) and vaccine hesitant (those who are pro-vaccine generally, but are weary about a new vaccine or were already infected and have natural immunity). The latter are being grouped with the former, and this has also destroyed a great amount of credibility and trust.
> Start treating people like adults, be upfront from the start, and you'll see anti-vax sentiment dissipate.
I've only seen Anti-vaxxers treated as adults from the onset, being upfront about the data etc. It just get disputed, debated and then denied.
I'm burnt out and numb to them at this point. I do agree with you that information shouldn't be omitted; However, the damage is done at this point. It's not going to stop either.
"Do this willingly and this can all be over...okay, that didn't work, now we're going to make you" isn't exactly what I'd call treating someone like an adult.
I'm not convinced the biosecurity state will go away anymore than the TSA will disappear tomorrow. Government agencies rarely cede power back to the citizenry.
Every single government, bureaucracy, expert, official, authority in anyway all gained power during covid. A lot of them “discovering” powers they had no idea they had (CDC, evictions).
I agree it’s unlikely anyone will give it up willingly.
Here is the full conclusion of the paper, rather than the blog post which summarizes the paper:
> This study demonstrated that natural immunity confers longer lasting and stronger protection against infection, symptomatic disease and hospitalization caused by the Delta variant of SARS-CoV-2, compared to the BNT162b2 two-dose vaccine-induced immunity. Individuals who were both previously infected with SARS-CoV-2 and given a single dose of the vaccine gained additional protection against the Delta variant.
No - we have anti-vaxxers because nobody will debate them. Instead we ask them not to post their nonsense and so they just retreat to their echo-chambers and begin reinforcing their views to each other.
I've seen many online debates with antivaxers and nobody convinces anybody of anything. People just get angrier and more hardened in their opinions. Everyone goes into it with an us vs them mentality instead of open minded.
Sorry, no. This is why there are anti-vaxxers to begin with. Trying to hide crucial information inside the article or censor it altogether just fuels all these misinformation campaigns.
