 |
| Caption |
A survey by researchers, Paul L.Reiter, Michael L.Pennell and Mira L.Katz, from Ohio State University has shown that 69% of Americans "probably" or "definitely" would get the SARS-CoV-2 vaccine when one becomes available, but 17% are "not sure" and 14% are "probably" or "definitely" unwilling to.
The astonishing thing is how this opinion is influenced by politics, or political affiliation. As the Ohio State press release put it:
One of the more unexpected findings in this study – and something that isn’t typical of public health research – is the correlation between political affiliation and willingness to adopt a public health intervention, Reiter said. Respondents who identified as liberal or moderate were significantly more likely to accept a vaccine. “COVID-19 has turned into a political issue in many cases, and I think that some people just pick their side based on that, without much research,” he said. “We’ve seen that with mask wearing. It’s a promising public health intervention, but it’s turned into a political powder keg.”It seems that many Republicans have been influenced by Donald Trump's reaction to the pandemic which was first to dismiss it as a political stunt - a hoax by Democrats, then to minimise the threat by claiming in March, at the start of the pandemic, that the numbers were small and it would disappear by April. Then declaring that the hot weather in summer would kill it. None of these were true of course and had no basis in science.
At every step, Trump's response resembled a man out of his depth, unable to comprehend the science or get a grasp of the facts, and preferring denial rather than face up to the magnitude and seriousness of the problem; even accusing people who wore face masks of being elitist and trying to show how superior and PC they were, whilst advocating wackadoodle, proven to be dangerous, medication such as chloroquine and hydroxychloroquine as preventatives and, apparently, suggesting drinking disinfectants might be a cure.
As always, the problem for Trump was not that people were sufferring and dying but that the numbers reflected on his competence. Typical of a man with acute narcissistic personality disorder, Trump denied any responsibility for anything and blamed others, at one point even blaming the increasing numbers on too much testing, suggesting that they should stop testing to bring the numbers down. A clear case of shooting the messenger who brings bad news.
The result is that Trump supporters have learned to be dismissive of the threat and to look for scapegoats in the medical profession and science, to subscribe to wackaddodle conspiracy theories and to minimise the perceived threat to themselves and the threat they pose to others by not sociaql distancing or wearing face-coverings. Rather than admit they backed a loser, they double down and go along with Trump's increasingly bizarre behaviour and noticably deteriorating mental faculties, as though this is exactly what they wanted, so they want more of it!
This survey result is consistent with the finding I reported on last June, as reported in Christianity Today, that white evangelical Christians, who form Trump's core support, are the least concerned about the welfare of others and are most likely to minimise the Covid-19 risks, with many of them convinced that it was all a plot to stop them going to church!
Amongst the more deranged conspiracy theories circulating in Trumpanzee circles is the claim that SARS-CoV-2 was a computer virus written by Bill Gates and sent to everyone's computer and smartphone in an attachment to Hillary Clinton's emails and that any vaccine will contain gay genes and "nanobots" so that "they" can monitor you. The sort of people who can believe that will have no trouble in believing Donald Trump is a competent POTUS and a good, Bible-reading Christian.
As the lead researcher, Paul Reiter, points out:
“You hear a lot of talk of vaccination and the benefits of herd immunity, the idea that when enough people have resistance to a virus it reduces the threat to the entire population. At 70%, we may or may not get there,” Reiter said.Another alarming statistic uncovered by this survey is just how much opinion is divided along racial lines, with only 55% of black respondents saying they were willing to get a vaccine, despite the evidence that black people are more at risk from the virus.
That makes it especially important to work toward educational efforts, the elimination of obstacles and other strategies to increase the chances of vaccination among those who face increased risks of severe illness or death. If the vaccine against COVID-19 requires more than one dose, it will present even more challenges, he said
The most worrisome finding was among Black survey respondents, as only 55% said they were willing to get a vaccine. “Given the disproportionate burden of COVID-19 infection and death among Black Americans, it’s concerning to see that Black survey participants had less interest in a vaccine,” Reiter said.Given the open contempt in the Trump camp for the Black Lives Matter campaign following the recent shootings of black people by white policemen, the denial of the flagrant institutionalised racism in America and Trumps description of neo-fascist white supremacists as "very fine people" and of those who stand up to them as "Marxist terrorists", it is hardly surprising that the black underclass is deeply suspicious of anything coming from the "white establishment".
“I think there are likely several factors at play, including access to care and trust in health care and potential socioeconomic barriers.”
Reducing such barriers is important since only 35% of participants in the study would pay $50 or more out-of-pocket for a COVID-19 vaccine, Reiter said.
Remember too that a central plank of Trump's campaign in 2016 was the abolition of affordable health care for poor people so that tax cuts could be given to the super-rich. The welfare of black people is not even on the agenda for Trump's core supporters. With the divided and divisive state of Donald Trump's America, the prospects for the ultimate defeat of SARS-CoV-2 are grim and cheering from the side-lines as thousands continue to die are the white evangelical Trumpanzee Christians.
Hello, RR
ReplyDeleteIf you can't take criticism from believers, take mine : I don't believe either.
So, where does one begin, really.
You don't want people to post "obnoxious messages" and you don't want them to be abusive, yet "obnoxious" and "abusive" is exactly what you are with whoever happens to disagree with you.
Don't want to hear it?
Well, that's gonna be problematic since I thought you "cared about the truth" and the truth is rather evident to anyone who stumbles upon your blog.
You eventually rejected the commies because of their "cult-like" behaviour but just like them, you cannot stand anyone who disagrees with you - which, I'm sorry to say, *is* cult-like.
If *that's* really one of the main reasons why you left them, perhaps you should now consider going back to their arms, given your own demeanor.
You seem to be content with limiting your attacks to religious fundies and other lunatics (hard to resist, I know) as well as the ontological argument and the Kalam Cosmological Argument.
Great, you've managed to destroy the dumbest, most disappointing arguments in favour of theism - like thousands of people before you, *including* some believers!
However, when it comes to the most refined arguments in favour of theism - to the thought of the greatest theist intellectuals of Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism and Sikhism, in other terms - what rebuttal do you offer?
None.
Nothing at all.
You do not even offer the slightest clue that you know - let alone understand - anything at all about Classical Theism.
You do not even offer the slightest clue that you're familiar with the works of the most formidable modern theist philosophers (like David Bentley Hart and Edward Feser, to name just two of them).
Of course, one would *naturally* assume that someone who's been criticising theism for such a long time would have, you know... READ the finest works of the finest modern theist philosophers and would have then produced a constructive criticism of their arguments against naturalism and materialism and in favour of Classical Theism, instead of just, you know... Focusing on the most idiotic believers and on their pseudo-intellectual moronic nonsense.
But that's not your case, obviously, which puts you in the New Atheists category : the category of those atheists who *think* they know what they're criticising but actually, they DON'T.
To sum up both *who you are* and *your work in general* : you are an old bitter woman who cannot stand meanness and abuse *when they're directed against her precious self* (but who's rather okay with being rude as hell with polite people just because they happen to disagree with her) and whose works never engage at all with those of smart people who disagree with her because she's either too lazy to read said works or too (...) to understand them.
Again : if you can't take it from a believer, take it from a NON-believer.
Now go ahead and delete that message.
Show the world how dishonest you are.
Next time, do you think you could resist the freedom this blog provides you with to post gratuitous abuse and tell lies about people, and try to be polite?
DeleteAlso, can you do as I politely ask and stick to the subject of the blog post, please. I appreciate that home alone and friendless little people need to feel better about themselves somehow, but please find another outlet for your low self-esteem.
If not, any other posts by you will be deleted, no matter how privileged you feel you should be.
Hello AJ!, Hello RR
ReplyDeleteRR,
A couple observations.
1) I have noticed that instead of answering AJ!'s actual criticism, all you did was resort to petty name-calling. His criticism thus remains entirely untouched.
2) Being a newcomer, I do not know you at all. As a result, I decided to see for myself whether his criticism of you was true. In order to do that, I checked the way you talk to believers who stop by and who publish one comment or two. I must say he is obviously right. Even I, a lifelong skeptic who's now well into her sixties, would never take your defence. You appear to be a somewhat elderly woman too, so the only reason why you talk to people the way you do is because you are hiding behind your computer. You know that in real life, you would get exactly what you deserve. That's cowardice of the lowest order. I am also wondering whether the reason why you did not address any of AJ!'s criticism is because you know his points are valid but you are simply too proud to admit it, hence why you've ignored them all to resort to name-calling instead. But hopefully, everyone will notice that rather quickly. Finally, that attempt of yours to save face and prove him wrong (on what he said about your attitude) by replying to him somewhat more politely than the way he addressed you (using "please" and the like) is not going to fool anyone. There is just too much evidence throughout your blog that shows he is basically right about you, and you know it full well. Just like AJ!, I shall now wait and see whether you will (at least) be mature enough to publish my comment, but given what I have seen so far, I shall not be surprised if it does not appear here.
AJ!
Could we please have a private conversation about these gentlemen you talked about (Mr Hart and Mr Feser)? Unlike RR, I happen to be interested in challenging philosophy and new ideas. Here is my email address : brigitte.humphreys@gmail.com
Thanks a lot in advance.
Brigitte
Hello again AJ! How many more accounts are you going to spam this blog with?
Delete