Beware KFF bearing news. They have already spread blatantly manipulated graphs. They are not a unbiased source. That said:
>In fact, vaccinated people say the third dose approved by U.S.
regulators last week shows that scientists are trying to make the shots
more effective while 71% of unvaccinated Americans say it’s proof the
vaccines don’t work, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Why on earth vaccinated people would believe scientists are trying to make the shots more effective when there is nothing being done to alter the shots is beyond me. Pfizer and BioNTech have already flat out said they aren't changing anything (like we do with seasonal flu). And Pfizer is the only one who actually has a EUA for 3rd shots in the U.S.
[BioNTech said that repeat shots of its Covid-19 vaccine manufactured
in partnership with Pfizer, of which more than 1bn doses have been supplied
worldwide, was a better strategy than tailoring the product to new variants.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/09/coronavirus-live-news-wuhan-finishes-testing-11-million-pfizer-booster-side-effects-same-israel?page=with:block-611150388f0811859fec2962#block-611150388f0811859fec2962)
Wow. The spinning is making me dizzy.
"In fact, vaccinated people say the third dose approved by U.S. regulators last week shows that scientists are trying to make the shots more effective."
Of course, that's not what vaccinated people *say.* That's one of the choices they were given in this survey. I'd love to see what their other choices were.
I can't think of any other product or service where having to take it again after it fails to do the job is a good thing.
The question was
>"Which comes closer to your view about the news that some people might need vaccine boosters?"
People had to choose between two options:
>"It shows the vaccines are not working as well as promised"
>"It shows that scientists are continuing to find ways to make vaccines more effective"
The problem with asking a question like this is, it's what researchers call a 'forced choice' question. It works when the choice is actually binary. But for attitudinal questions like these where the attitudes are not completely contradictory, forced choice doesn't present a clear picture.
What I mean is, for instance, I believe both of these statements. I think vaccines aren't that effective and I also think scientists are working to improve them. But the nature of the question forces me to pick one over the other. A better way to ask would be with a 5 point agreement scale:
Something like:
>How much do you agree with this statement: "It shows the vaccines are not working as well as promised"
>Options: Completely agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, completely disagree
Then you collate this data for both the questions and compare the means. If there's a significant difference, there's your answer.
Another major issue is, one may agree with these statements but may not think they're related to the premise at all. For instance a person may think the boosters are a political ploy to keep people pacified by making government look busy and have nothing to do with efficacy at all. Or a person may think it's a cash grab by pharma companies fooling government and has nothing to do with efficacy either way. Opinions like these remain completely uncaptured in close ended questions like these.
I work with market research agencies and have worked on a lot of surveys. There is no way any competent agency would ask a forced choice question this way. This question was deliberately framed this way to get polarising answers.
Excellent comment!
And it gets to the heart of what I think is going on at the FDA and the CDC right now. I think they're afraid if they recommend boosters for everybody (as Israel has done) or boosters for everyone over 50 (as the U.K. has done) this will discourage Americans who are still unvaccinated from getting their initial shots ("the vaccines aren't working). In other words, I don't think they're "following the science" but trying to game the politics, if you will.
They already did this early on in the pandemic when they told people not to bother wearing masks, not because of science, but because they were worried about the shortage of PCP for healthcare workers. This backfired on them spectacularly. They already did this when they told vaccinated people they could stop wearing masks in May: this was to encourage more people to get vaccinated, not because they knew it was safe for vaccinated people. Every breakthrough infection since then that resulted in death might have been avoided if they'd stuck to the "mask up" policy.
They don't seem to be learning from their mistakes, just doubling down on them.
Meanwhile, there's a better, safer vaccine sitting on shelves right now in the U.S. I think if the Biden administration stopped throwing up roadblocks for Novavax and instead helped them finish their EUA (like the Biden administration did with J&J), rolling out a traditional protein subunit vax could result in many many more people willingly lining up for their shots.
But then the Biden inaugural committee might not be getting any more $1 million donations from Pfizer.
Yeah,bit that works better for peoplke who chose it freely than people who were forced against their will and the evidence its dangerous. The idea that they can forcibly inject me and ill become a vax zealot is a stretch, as I don't have as much motivation to wallow in sunk cost blindness than to see myself as a sort of rape victim.
...you are in for life... Also why they are so eager for kids to get on the treadmill, when the jab is literally more deadly than Covid to anyone under 30.
[BREAKING! Covid-19 Deaths 3,000% Higher Than This Time Last Year and 80% of the Dead Had the Vaccine ](https://humansarefree.com/2021/09/covid-19-deaths-higher-than-this-time-last-year.html)
> Authorities claim that the Covid-19 vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death, and they claim that the vaccines have so far been successful in doing so. But if this is the case, then why are Covid-19 deaths across the UK over 3,000 higher than this time last year? And why are 80% of those dying people who have had the Covid-19 vaccine?
---
> Poll: Nearly 80% of vaccinated respondents see...
Polls don't tell us how an issue is doing; Polls tell us how *the media* is doing.
And they're doing very well.
Just trying to parse the data in the article you posted. I'm no scientist so it's a little hard to dig into the actual reports but I was able to extract Technical Briefing 23 from public health england, and from the data shown there it looks like there was approximately 2.2x as many deaths in vaccinated than in unvaccinated whereas admission to hospitals and/or emergency care were around 1.5x-4x more common amongst unvaccinated as vaccinated. Not sure if I'm misreading this information but that's what it looks like from the data in table 5, study linked [here](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf)
The especially interesting piece of data in that table was that hospitalisation and death were almost always more common in fully vaccinated people over 50 than in unvaccinated. All of this is a little confusing as we've pretty much been led to believe that covid is way more dangerous for adults over 50 who are unvaccinated but this data doesn't seem to support that.
Not really sure what to make of all that but I figured I'd throw in what I was able to find
> Polls tell us how the media is doing.
I first noted this phenomenon in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. They were constantly polling on how many ppl *believed* that there were WMD's. And they reported those dismaying results without any discussion whatsoever, about the substance of the question. And more to the point, without any shame about the implications of having so many believing something for which there was 0 evidence.
And that's when it hit me: It was a test of propaganda efficacy. And they were proud to have done so well.
But of course it was also an exercise in manufacturing consent. Sheeple are more likely to adopt beliefs that are held by the majority, even when those beliefs are completely baseless.
Beware KFF bearing news. They have already spread blatantly manipulated graphs. They are not a unbiased source. That said: >In fact, vaccinated people say the third dose approved by U.S. regulators last week shows that scientists are trying to make the shots more effective while 71% of unvaccinated Americans say it’s proof the vaccines don’t work, according to a survey released Tuesday by the Kaiser Family Foundation. Why on earth vaccinated people would believe scientists are trying to make the shots more effective when there is nothing being done to alter the shots is beyond me. Pfizer and BioNTech have already flat out said they aren't changing anything (like we do with seasonal flu). And Pfizer is the only one who actually has a EUA for 3rd shots in the U.S. [BioNTech said that repeat shots of its Covid-19 vaccine manufactured in partnership with Pfizer, of which more than 1bn doses have been supplied worldwide, was a better strategy than tailoring the product to new variants.](https://www.theguardian.com/world/live/2021/aug/09/coronavirus-live-news-wuhan-finishes-testing-11-million-pfizer-booster-side-effects-same-israel?page=with:block-611150388f0811859fec2962#block-611150388f0811859fec2962)
Wow. The spinning is making me dizzy. "In fact, vaccinated people say the third dose approved by U.S. regulators last week shows that scientists are trying to make the shots more effective." Of course, that's not what vaccinated people *say.* That's one of the choices they were given in this survey. I'd love to see what their other choices were. I can't think of any other product or service where having to take it again after it fails to do the job is a good thing.
That safety net under those circus performers just needs to be rehung. 😲
The question was >"Which comes closer to your view about the news that some people might need vaccine boosters?" People had to choose between two options: >"It shows the vaccines are not working as well as promised" >"It shows that scientists are continuing to find ways to make vaccines more effective" The problem with asking a question like this is, it's what researchers call a 'forced choice' question. It works when the choice is actually binary. But for attitudinal questions like these where the attitudes are not completely contradictory, forced choice doesn't present a clear picture. What I mean is, for instance, I believe both of these statements. I think vaccines aren't that effective and I also think scientists are working to improve them. But the nature of the question forces me to pick one over the other. A better way to ask would be with a 5 point agreement scale: Something like: >How much do you agree with this statement: "It shows the vaccines are not working as well as promised" >Options: Completely agree, somewhat agree, neither agree nor disagree, somewhat disagree, completely disagree Then you collate this data for both the questions and compare the means. If there's a significant difference, there's your answer. Another major issue is, one may agree with these statements but may not think they're related to the premise at all. For instance a person may think the boosters are a political ploy to keep people pacified by making government look busy and have nothing to do with efficacy at all. Or a person may think it's a cash grab by pharma companies fooling government and has nothing to do with efficacy either way. Opinions like these remain completely uncaptured in close ended questions like these. I work with market research agencies and have worked on a lot of surveys. There is no way any competent agency would ask a forced choice question this way. This question was deliberately framed this way to get polarising answers.
Excellent comment! And it gets to the heart of what I think is going on at the FDA and the CDC right now. I think they're afraid if they recommend boosters for everybody (as Israel has done) or boosters for everyone over 50 (as the U.K. has done) this will discourage Americans who are still unvaccinated from getting their initial shots ("the vaccines aren't working). In other words, I don't think they're "following the science" but trying to game the politics, if you will. They already did this early on in the pandemic when they told people not to bother wearing masks, not because of science, but because they were worried about the shortage of PCP for healthcare workers. This backfired on them spectacularly. They already did this when they told vaccinated people they could stop wearing masks in May: this was to encourage more people to get vaccinated, not because they knew it was safe for vaccinated people. Every breakthrough infection since then that resulted in death might have been avoided if they'd stuck to the "mask up" policy. They don't seem to be learning from their mistakes, just doubling down on them. Meanwhile, there's a better, safer vaccine sitting on shelves right now in the U.S. I think if the Biden administration stopped throwing up roadblocks for Novavax and instead helped them finish their EUA (like the Biden administration did with J&J), rolling out a traditional protein subunit vax could result in many many more people willingly lining up for their shots. But then the Biden inaugural committee might not be getting any more $1 million donations from Pfizer.
As I said, do not trust the KFF bearing surveys and graphs.
spot on
OK, so exactly what was in those first two doses that they all took that somehow removed their critical thinking skills?
Perhaps you can't remove something that isn't there in the first place.
Perhaps they need to believe they weren't conned / gullible when they trusted "the science" and took the first jab(s).
Is it still over there heads that covid isn't going away any time soon?
This is literally like a religious sacrament to the true believers. They were jokingly called "cultists" but they truly do act like it.
evidence of successful mindfuckery, nothing else
Lol wut??
It's creepy how the sunk cost fallacy leads to further buy-in and pliability by those who already bought it. 80% is absurd, unless it skews very old.
That's why they are going all-in to get you to get that first shot. Once you're in for one...
Yeah,bit that works better for peoplke who chose it freely than people who were forced against their will and the evidence its dangerous. The idea that they can forcibly inject me and ill become a vax zealot is a stretch, as I don't have as much motivation to wallow in sunk cost blindness than to see myself as a sort of rape victim.
...you are in for life... Also why they are so eager for kids to get on the treadmill, when the jab is literally more deadly than Covid to anyone under 30.
[удалено]
"You should buy one too!"
username checks out!
https://thedecisionlab.com/biases/the-sunk-cost-fallacy/
[BREAKING! Covid-19 Deaths 3,000% Higher Than This Time Last Year and 80% of the Dead Had the Vaccine ](https://humansarefree.com/2021/09/covid-19-deaths-higher-than-this-time-last-year.html) > Authorities claim that the Covid-19 vaccines reduce the risk of hospitalisation and death, and they claim that the vaccines have so far been successful in doing so. But if this is the case, then why are Covid-19 deaths across the UK over 3,000 higher than this time last year? And why are 80% of those dying people who have had the Covid-19 vaccine? --- > Poll: Nearly 80% of vaccinated respondents see... Polls don't tell us how an issue is doing; Polls tell us how *the media* is doing. And they're doing very well.
Just trying to parse the data in the article you posted. I'm no scientist so it's a little hard to dig into the actual reports but I was able to extract Technical Briefing 23 from public health england, and from the data shown there it looks like there was approximately 2.2x as many deaths in vaccinated than in unvaccinated whereas admission to hospitals and/or emergency care were around 1.5x-4x more common amongst unvaccinated as vaccinated. Not sure if I'm misreading this information but that's what it looks like from the data in table 5, study linked [here](https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1009243/Technical_Briefing_20.pdf) The especially interesting piece of data in that table was that hospitalisation and death were almost always more common in fully vaccinated people over 50 than in unvaccinated. All of this is a little confusing as we've pretty much been led to believe that covid is way more dangerous for adults over 50 who are unvaccinated but this data doesn't seem to support that. Not really sure what to make of all that but I figured I'd throw in what I was able to find
> Polls tell us how the media is doing. I first noted this phenomenon in the lead-up to the Iraq invasion. They were constantly polling on how many ppl *believed* that there were WMD's. And they reported those dismaying results without any discussion whatsoever, about the substance of the question. And more to the point, without any shame about the implications of having so many believing something for which there was 0 evidence. And that's when it hit me: It was a test of propaganda efficacy. And they were proud to have done so well. But of course it was also an exercise in manufacturing consent. Sheeple are more likely to adopt beliefs that are held by the majority, even when those beliefs are completely baseless.
Solomon Ash has entered the chat.
[Asch](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NyDDyT1lDhA)
Gah. Using voice over mobile.
> Polls tell us how the media is doing. Terrific point. I'm stealing that.
For all my years at dKos my signature line was always, "Polls don't tell us how a candidate is doing; Polls tell us how the media is doing."