(no subject)

[eugenegp]

С участием Фейсбука было проведено большое исследование, чтобы выяснить, кто же все-таки эти американцы, которые не хотят привиться от COVID-19. Выяснилось, что по состоянию на май 2021 г. при анализе по уровню образования самой закоренелой группой, заявляющей о нежелании вакцинироваться, являются обладатели научной степени (PhD).
Среди них избегающих вакцинации в три раза больше, чем среди тех, у кого дипломы магистра.



https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.20.21260795v1.full-text

via Serhiy Dibrov

UPDATE: Уточняю еще раз, каждый столбец - доля нежелающих вакцинироваться в соответствующей образовательной группе. То есть среди всех PhD не хочет прививаться 24%. А среди всех обладателей диплома магистра не хочет прививаться 8%. (А вовсе не то, что 24% непривитых - доценты с кандидатами_).

Comments

[timelets]

Вы практикующий в США доктор?

[eugenegp]

Нет.

[timelets]

Did you read the original paper?

[eugenegp]

Да, довольно внимательно.
Заходите сразу с козырей, не надо тратить время.

[timelets]

Just in case, we are not playing cards here. Rather, we are trying to figure out the relevancy of of the findings presented in the paper to one's decision to be vaccinated.

The data shows that COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy in the PhD group didn't change much since January 2021. Therefore, it's reasonable to conclude that their hesitancy is not based on any new clinical information about COVID-19 vaccine efficacy, potential side effects, etc. Would you agree with this conclusion?

[eugenegp]

I'd rather rephrase that any new findings made available between January and May polls made no change of this group beliefs'.

Changing opinions has been proved very "expensive" for the person once informed decision has been made. So some major data has to emerge. It could be interesting to see Delta wave influence.

[timelets]

Would you agree that between January and May of 2021 large amounts of previously unavailable data, e.g. related to real-life use of COVID-19 vaccines, became available to the general public?

[eugenegp]

Yes.
Could you please cut the chase.

[timelets]

"cut to the chase".

Can you please formulate your thesis about the relevance of the data presented in the "PhD" chart to one's decision whether to get vaccinated against COVID-19 or not?

[eugenegp]

One should not be bullied into making health-related decisions based on media presentations of some choices as uninformed and lacking necessary knowledge.

[timelets]

Thank you. This is a good general principle. Did you conclude from the study that the PhD group made their vaccination decisions based on COVID-19 health outcome data, as opposed to media presentations?

[eugenegp]

No, not enough data on that.
It is worth mentioning though some pre-covid research on pediatric vaccine-decliners, they tend to make informed decisions more often than vaccination acceptors. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0738399117303610

[timelets]

Unfortunately, in the cited study "informed decisions" are based on rudimentary questions that have very little, if any, relevance to COVID-19 vaccines. Moreover, the study deals with vaccines that have a long history of clinically proven health outcomes, both short- and long-term. Therefore, one's claim of being informed would pass at least the smell test, which is not the case with COVID-19 vaccines.

In any case, there's not enough data to conclude that people with PhDs are more informed about COVID-19 than, e.g. Masters. Moreover, as a group, they can be seen as relatively close-minded or conservative, because they didn't change their opinions despite a vast amount of new health-relevant data. One could even say that they are as informed or uninformed as people with just a high-school diploma.

Anecdotally, I have PhD family friends who for a while had quite opposite opinions on COVID-19 vaccines. The wife, an MD PhD, got her vaccine as soon as she could and recommended everybody to do the same. The husband, a math PhD, refused to get the jab until the Delta variant hit. It was nothing more than an odd combination of his desire to maintain his non-conformist reputation and good old analysis paralysis. Fundamentally, the study we are discussing neither stratifies Masters and PhDs according to their majors, nor infers their level of competence in making vaccination decisions. Enough said.

[eugenegp]

"It was nothing more than an odd combination of his desire to maintain his non-conformist reputation and good old analysis paralysis. " This looks like a very biased description.

It would interesting if Delta variant hit also changed the wife's opinion.
Unfortunately, the poll we discussed provides no option for "vaccinated but changed opinion later on".

[timelets]

To a stranger on the internet, it may look like a biased opinion but on my part it is an informed one because I've known this person for a long time and had lots of opportunities to observe his decision making process first-hand. In the meantime, his wife is ready to take a booster shot as soon as it becomes available. She's seen enough sick people already.

[eugenegp]

So she also did change her position and no longer believes that regular FDA approved vaccination schedule provides sufficient protection.
Turbulent times.

[timelets]

It's a weird way to put it. She says that it's likely that her immune response has weakened since she got the second shot about six month ago. Therefore, given her risk profile, it's prudent to get a booster when it becomes available.

Speaking of FDA, your data is out of date. https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/coronavirus-covid-19-update-fda-authorizes-additional-vaccine-dose-certain-immunocompromised

[eugenegp]

I certainly don't know her details.
But "Other fully vaccinated individuals do not need an additional vaccine dose right now".

[timelets]

Yeah, she's not getting it "right now."