I’ve heard it said that it’s mainly evangelical Christians who refuse to get the vaccine

[NathanH83]

Do you think there’s a reason for that?

Maybe because we trust in God’s protection? Maybe because we believe the virus is here to kill the wicked and not the righteous?

 

[Lamb]

I'm getting the vaccine. I respect those who wish to not get it though because it's their choice.

 

[tango]

Do you think there’s a reason for that?

Maybe because we trust in God’s protection? Maybe because we believe the virus is here to kill the wicked and not the righteous?

It's really hard to say much about such a wide group of people. Chances are within any group you'll find some who will rush to get the vaccine, some who will wait, some who are disinclined and some who will outright refuse to get it. The reasons will be as diverse as the people.

My personal view is that I have no interest in the vaccine. Based on my age and health the chances of me surviving a COVID infection are in the region of 99.98% (and I believe I have already had the virus and recovered from it naturally) so I see no need to protect myself from such a small risk. Furthermore the vaccine offers me no benefit if I'm still expected to stay away from people and put a sock on my head. From a situation like mine the vaccine offers minimal benefit while bringing the potential downside (which, to be clear, is also extremely small) of unwanted side effects. While there are other people who have much more to gain from being vaccinated (older people, immune compromised people, front-line health workers etc) there's no point me jostling for a place in line. I'm also more inclined to trust my body's natural defenses now that it has encountered and successfully fought the actual virus, than to trust its ability to fight a theoretical threat based on encountering an artifically synthesized piece of protein.

I don't have anything against vaccinations in general - I've been vaccinated against things like tetanus, tuberculosis and polio - I just see no benefit in my getting vaccinated against the coronavirus. That's just my view, obviously others have different views and risk assessments so they can get or not get the vaccine as they choose.

Frankly I think the idea that "we trust in God's protection" is a bit silly unless you also refuse to lock your door at night because God will protect you, and refuse to go to work because God will provide for you.

 

[Forgiven1]

If you are going to say that "you heard" something, how about providing the source of your information such as a link. That way, we can read what the source says and evaluate your comment on what that source says. One question I have is what is considered an "evangelical Christian." There may be pockets of people not getting it but that doesn't mean that none are getting it.

I held off on getting the vaccine for several reasons and I am even considered "at risk." I ended up getting it for one reason.

 

[hedrick]

Not mainly. But of the Christian groups, evangelicals are certainly the least likely. Here's the best data I've seen: Survey: 'Faith-Based Approaches' Key to Combating COVID-19 Vaccine Hesitancy

It's not a surprise. Evangelicals are the group least willing to believe consensus science on other topics, and have built up a kind of conspiracy theory about mainstream science, media, etc.

But what I do find surprising is the number of evangelicals posting on CF that say if they aren't personally threatened by Covid, they see no reason to be vaccinated simply to protect others. I hope this view doesn't become too visible to non-Christians. It makes us look like jerks.

 

[tango]

But what I do find surprising is the number of evangelicals posting on CF that say if they aren't personally threatened by Covid, they see no reason to be vaccinated simply to protect others. I hope this view doesn't become too visible to non-Christians. It makes us look like jerks.

Except that it's entirely consistent with what we're being told by the CDC.

If the vaccine protects others we don't need to put a sock on our head to protect others, and don't need to maintain separation to protect others. But apparently we still have to do those things, which casts doubts on what protection the vaccine actually provides.

 

[hedrick]

If the vaccine protects others we don't need to put a sock on our head to protect others, and don't need to maintain separation to protect others. But apparently we still have to do those things, which casts doubts on what protection the vaccine actually provides.

Have you been watching the change in guidance? Most outdoor activities don't require a mask, nor do smallish gatherings among vaccinated people. NYC is going to have normal density in baseball stadiums in sections for vaccinated people. Further changes will be happening.

 

[tango]

Have you been watching the change in guidance? Most outdoor activities don't require a mask, nor do smallish gatherings among vaccinated people. NYC is going to have normal density in baseball stadiums in sections for vaccinated people. Further changes will be happening.

Yes, but that's a recent change in guidance. If the vaccine protects the recipient and others there was never any need for vaccinated people to put socks on their heads. Where I live most people, vaccinated or unvaccinated, largely ignore masking anyway and there's no sign of any outbreak.

 

[NathanH83]

If you are going to say that "you heard" something, how about providing the source of your information such as a link. That way, we can read what the source says and evaluate your comment on what that source says. One question I have is what is considered an "evangelical Christian." There may be pockets of people not getting it but that doesn't mean that none are getting it.

I held off on getting the vaccine for several reasons and I am even considered "at risk." I ended up getting it for one reason.

 

[Forgiven1]

You have anything other than Saturday Night Live?

EDITED to add: My best guess would be that they believe the stories that the vaccines actually contained aborted fetal cells whereas the research in originally developing the vaccines used stem cell lines that have been around for 50 years. That there are no fetal cells in the end product.

 

[NathanH83]

You have anything other than Saturday Night Live?

That’s where I heard it. Is it not true?

 

[Forgiven1]

That’s where I heard it. Is it not true?

I don't know if it is true or not, but digging deeper it does seem that there are segments who are not getting the vaccine. See my addition to my previous post as to my guess as to why.

 

[hedrick]

Yes, but that's a recent change in guidance. If the vaccine protects the recipient and others there was never any need for vaccinated people to put socks on their heads. Where I live most people, vaccinated or unvaccinated, largely ignore masking anyway and there's no sign of any outbreak.

The simple answer would be that only recently have there been enough vaccinated people to make it worth separate guidance. But I think it goes beyond that. The CDC tends to wait for evidence before creating guidance. That led to a delay in recommending masks, and also in changing guidance for vaccinated people. The tests done to validate the vaccines only checked that it kept people from getting sick. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t have the virus present and spread it. Everyone has pretty much assumed that vaccinated people won’t spread Covid, but there wasn’t clear evidence. That evidence has been building up.

They are also being very conservative on relaxing guidance for activities outside. The NY Times had a scathing article about the recent CDC statement that less than 10% of cases resulted from spread outside. The real number could be as low as 0.1%. But they aren't a lot of good studies, and CDC is being careful.

It's clear that many states are going beyond their guidance. Particularly in the south, where it's warmer, that will probably not cause trouble. I think even the northeast will relax as cases go down, even if the CDC doesn't agree. But everyone is worried about 2020, where after a good summer, cases came back, and about variants. If we don't do better on vaccination rates, it seems likely that there will be another resurgence this fall, though presumably not as bad.

 

[tango]

The simple answer would be that only recently have there been enough vaccinated people to make it worth separate guidance. But I think it goes beyond that. The CDC tends to wait for evidence before creating guidance. That led to a delay in recommending masks, and also in changing guidance for vaccinated people. The tests done to validate the vaccines only checked that it kept people from getting sick. That doesn’t necessarily mean that they didn’t have the virus present and spread it. Everyone has pretty much assumed that vaccinated people won’t spread Covid, but there wasn’t clear evidence. That evidence has been building up.

With respect, I'd disagree that the number of people vaccinated is relevant to whether separate guidance is warranted. If the vaccine truly protects me and those around me then if I'm the only person alive who is vaccinated I don't need a sock on my head any more. If the intention is to get people to sign up to get the vaccine it would make far more sense to present the benefits - it's hard to see much reason to sign up for it when the numbers say I have a 99.98% chance of surviving the virus and getting the vaccine therefore offers minimal benefit to me while also apparently offering minimal benefit to those around me.

Throw in the way more and more areas are showing increasing signs of getting sick of the regulations that seem to be more about maintaining control than doing anything useful and it seems even more important to avoid giving people reasons not to bother with something we're told will help. Instead we've been treated to a steady diet of "it's important that you get the vaccine" paired with rules that indicate it doesn't actually make any difference at all for most of us (i.e. anyone under 50-60 years old and without medical issues), and then those tasked with getting vaccination done wonder why those not at risk aren't rushing to get vaccinated.

The official story just seems more and more like the same tired rhetoric of restricting everybody for the sake of it rather than focusing resources on protecting those that actually need it.

 

[hedrick]

The official story just seems more and more like the same tired rhetoric of restricting everybody for the sake of it rather than focusing resources on protecting those that actually need it.

I think that's paranoia. It's more about an agency that is being very careful about what the evidence shows. It is really, really common for bureaucracies to be risk-averse. No need to assume Machiavellian politics.

In fact you could argue that we want the CDC to be careful about evidence, and that it's up to states to choose to go beyond it.

 

[atpollard]

Do you think there’s a reason for that?

You heard it because humor at the expense of any religious or ethnic group is so politically incorrect that one would need to beaten in public to prove they were truly sorry, and still not be forgiven ... unless the target is white Christians, then the humor is funny because we are all ignorant, racist simpletons that just don’t understand.

Large numbers of minorities do not trust the information on the safety of the vaccines because of a history of government human experimentation with treatments at local health clinics. Read about the Tuskegee Study from 1932-1972 and imagine trying to trust that doctor with YOUR treatment.

 

[tango]

I think that's paranoia. It's more about an agency that is being very careful about what the evidence shows. It is really, really common for bureaucracies to be risk-averse. No need to assume Machiavellian politics.

In fact you could argue that we want the CDC to be careful about evidence, and that it's up to states to choose to go beyond it.

It's one thing for an agency to be risk-averse, to err on the side of caution, and to use a lot of language that indicates when things are known and when things are unknown. It's another thing entirely when guidance is issued, with the full knowledge it will be used as the basis for rules, that require people to suspend their own sense of risk-assessment and demands that all people take needless precautions, rather than focusing on how best to protect those most at risk.

The main aspect of my grievance with so much of the official story where the vaccine is concerned is the sense that the virus presents a minimal threat to me (based on my age and health) and the vaccine therefore offers a minimal gain to me. The ongoing requirement to put a sock on my head even when vaccinated indicates it offers a minimal gain to those around me and therefore there's virtually no benefit in me having it. Yet in spite of this I'm expected to stand in line to receive it anyway.

 

[atpollard]

The ongoing requirement to put a sock on my head even when vaccinated indicates it offers a minimal gain to those around me and therefore there's virtually no benefit in me having it.

It offers about a 90% resistance. So 9 out of 10 times that you receive an exposure in high enough concentration that you should become ill, you will not because of the injection. If 80% of the population becomes “virtually immune”, then a sick person will be unlikely to spread the virus to anyone else and it stops with them. That is the magic ‘herd immunity’. If 40% of the population chooses not to get vaccinated, the virus will never stop finding new hosts to keep going.

The masks and the surface cleaning are just “theatre” to create the illusion that you are doing something about it. The best evidence suggests aerosolized particles rather than droplets are the main vector for transmission, so only ultra-efficient masks will have any effect and airflow makes more of a difference than spacing (indoors or outdoors).

 

[tango]

It offers about a 90% resistance. So 9 out of 10 times that you receive an exposure in high enough concentration that you should become ill, you will not because of the injection. If 80% of the population becomes “virtually immune”, then a sick person will be unlikely to spread the virus to anyone else and it stops with them. That is the magic ‘herd immunity’. If 40% of the population chooses not to get vaccinated, the virus will never stop finding new hosts to keep going.

Sure, although if anything I think the figures are slightly higher than that. But the fact remains that if I've got a 99.98% chance of surviving it without the vaccine the benefit of being vaccinated is minimal. If I'm told I still need a sock on my head after being vaccinated because I might still spread it, it's hard to believe there's much benefit to anyone else.

For the people who have a 5-10% chance of dying it's easy to see why they'd take the vaccine to protect themselves. But people under the age of about 50 without pre-existing conditions aren't in that kind of group. Which goes right back to the idea of focusing resources on those who are vulnerable rather than shutting down everything in sight.

There's also the question of how long natural immunity lasts. I have a friend who had COVID about the same time I believe I had it. They tested positive for antibodies when they gave blood some months later. Now it's more than a year later and they still test positive for COVID antibodies. We don't know how long the immunity from the vaccine lasts but apparently it's important that people with natural immunity get it anyway because.... well.... why exactly?

The masks and the surface cleaning are just “theatre” to create the illusion that you are doing something about it. The best evidence suggests aerosolized particles rather than droplets are the main vector for transmission, so only ultra-efficient masks will have any effect and airflow makes more of a difference than spacing (indoors or outdoors).

Lots of stuff is more about theater than anything else these days. In the early days when we didn't know how it was transmitted it made at least some sense but even then much of it was about companies trying to prove how much they were doing when their efforts were still ineffective. Back when they had people on hand to wipe the handles of shopping carts, when the checkout staff wiped the credit card machine between every use, but they didn't wipe everything on the shelves if someone picked up an item, looked at it and then put it back, it was clear even then that it would have made more sense to remind people to wash their hands and wash their produce than go through the theater of acting like every single thing in sight was being regularly cleaned.

 

[hedrick]

initially there was limited information. There was some reason to be concerned about surfaces. As it became clear that that was not important the CDC said so. As usual, a bit late. I haven’t seen grocery stores cleaning carts for quite some time.