Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Chowdmouse t1_j2nauus wrote

Reply to comment by SaladShooter1 in Researchers find that public health trust was the strongest predictor of positive attitudes towards COVID-19 vaccination. Information literacy, science literacy, and religiosity affected attitudes to a lesser degree. by glawgii

I am a little confused by your comment, because in my recollection literally every single public statement had the disclaimer you mention- that it (was) based on the information available at the time.

−1

mmmmerlin t1_j2owj8x wrote

NPR had different kinds of public health experts from a city or hospital or health org on the air what seemed like every other hour on the daily pushing facts without disclaimers in an effort to get people to comply with public policy (vaccines, masks, whatever). You could tell from the messaging it was a public health campaign that had a messaging angle that did not want to show any policy weakness lest someone get doubts. While I understand why, it does not establish trust in people that already have misgivings or are wary about “facts” from the health care or pharmaceutical industries or government generally.

1

Chowdmouse t1_j2p2nx4 wrote

NPR? What does NPR have to do with it? And I do not mean any disrespect, but there is a big difference between scientists having a consensus based on the science and a public policy not wanting to “appear weak”???? I honestly think you are projecting your personal beliefs onto what other people are saying. What exactly does “appearing weak” mean to you? Why do you think medical professionals are afraid to appear weak? What does weak have to do with any of this? It is not a competition.

1

mmmmerlin t1_j2pawa8 wrote

NPR, news at 6, 9, CNN. There’s more than one source of public health being rolled out to the public. Some people get their info from Reddit sourced articles or Karen on FB. We are talking about the OP post. Why people don’t have faith in public policy. You are essentially ignoring other forms of public health messaging. Obviously some forms are better than others and the discerning individual is careful what they consume. But I think we are not talking about the careful, discerning person here, right? You misunderstand. I’m not taking about the people themselves appearing weak, like a character flaw. Imagine Public health policy is like a shield to the public. Inviting doubt may invite delay or non participation. Things that weaken the shield of the public health policy. Public health messaging (generally again, not quoting only the specific scientists you seemed to listen to) was saying things like “is PERFECTLY safe”, and other statements indicating something like 100% efficacy. We all know there are outliers. Not trusting the public with the actual numbers (providing risk data or any unknowns) was the position taken by many. I know this 100% safe, 100% effective position turned off some people in my circle. It’s not transparent. It’s not trustworthy to them.

1