I'd love to do a comparison using properly scoped data and by time ranges to fully illustrate how effective being fully vaccinated is versus not fully vaccinated over time.
As would I, grubs. An example, my Dad is in the at risk group. 65+ but healthy enough. When the vaccines rolled out last year for his age group, he was hesitant to say the least. He’s been down a few conspiracy rabbit holes my whole life but fortunately reason can usually prevail. In this case he was concerned about COVID but also didn’t trust the vaccines. The Canadian epidemiology reports have some great statistics on it, with their aide I was able to show him where he placed in the at risk groups. How much more at risk he was compared the rest of the population. Not that he didn’t know before hand, but seeing the numbers sure helped reinforce it.
Of course next came which vaccine to get…Which turned out to be a bit of a nightmare in itself. Because at that time we were running low on Pfizer and Moderna, and AstraZeneca was being pushed, but that was the same time the blood clots were appearing. However the blood clots were appearing in women 30-50, so our government decided to use AstraZeneca for the older population as a safety precaution. "Sure, the vaccine is killing off people so let’s give it our pensioners so they don’t collect their money instead." Was the response I got from him… I had to chuckle. But after reviewing current data and weighing the risks, I was able to convince him to get a shot and that happened to be AstraZeneca. Yay! The next day the government pulled AstraZeneca to review it further because of more blood clots. Obviously a good thing, but man did I hear about it.
Shortly after our government adopted one shot in all is better than two in those at risk. Second shots were moved from three weeks apart to two months. Twenty year old family members were getting shots before my dad could get his second. The old man had things to say about that. Then our government decided to start cocktails, to get vaccines in peoples arms. More confusion, more data to sort through, some experts saying they shouldn’t be mixed, some saying they can, some talking about reduced efficacy. I really didn’t think I was going to be able to talk him into the second shot. But we sat down and worked through available data at the time and it was still in his favour. He got his second shot, Moderna.
Talk about vaccine passports comes out, different governments are talking about not recognizing mixed vaccines as fully vaxxed. Fuck me, if I didn’t hear about that…
Sorry for the long rant, but it just an example of how tough it can be to convince someone to get the vaccine. And that was in someone in the at risk group.
The bigger point to this whole diatribe would be this. Having the stats are very helpful when talking to unvaccinated. Imagine how helpful complete stats would be. I was rather upset when my government decided to quit showing current hospitalization vaxxed and not. It was a tool we could use. "The numbers weren’t showing the message they wanted to convey" great so now those who already had mistrust have just had it reinforced. Things like I pointed out earlier in the thread where the government front loaded numbers, why? It’s just another reason for mistrust. I’d absolutely love to have numbers available broken down by age group, vaxxed, unvaxxed, cases, hospitalizations, icu, weekly, monthly… They’ve shown they are capable of providing this. Just not reliably. But what a great tool it could be. Could it be damaging, possibly, the alternative?
Saying trust the science just isn’t going to cut it for those who have mistrust. Brow beating and shaming is only going to reinforce their conviction. I’m mean hell, our leader went on tv and decided to call the unvaxxed racists and misogynists (not a political comment, please don’t make it one), what the fuck do you think you’d accomplish with that statement beside more reinforcement and more division.
Anyway, once again, long, sorry, food for thought.