Posted on 06/10/2022 4:15:02 PM PDT by DoodleBob
Public health authorities seek to increase vaccine uptake, especially among those who are hesitant. But there is little evidence as to the best way to achieve this. New research suggests that rather than direct incentives, such as money, government-imposed mandates requiring vaccination to access certain public spaces could be the key. To explore this, researchers used the variation in the dates of mandates and subsequent COVID-19 vaccine uptake across Canadian provinces and European countries.
The COVID-19 pandemic has been a trying time for everyone. Amongst the challenges facing public health authorities around the world is the struggle to vaccinate as many people as possible in order to slow the spread of the virus. Although the majority of people do seem to realize the benefits of vaccination, people vary in how urgently they seek vaccination or in how hesitant they might be to vaccinate at all.
Different ways to encourage people to vaccinate have been suggested and tried, including public awareness campaigns and even financial incentives. But Professor Hitoshi Shigeoka from the Graduate School of Public Policy at the University of Tokyo and his international team have studied the impact of vaccine mandates—requirements for proof of vaccination to use certain public spaces and amenities—and found those might be more effective at persuading people to vaccinate.
"Despite the proven benefits of vaccination, uptake in many countries slowed in the summer of 2021, so naturally health officials wished to reverse that," said Shigeoka. "Previously, we investigated the effectiveness of mask mandates and found that those did lead to a reduction of cases. To follow up, we thought there might be a relationship between vaccine mandates and the uptake of vaccinations. Provinces in Canada, as well as the European countries of France, Italy and Germany, all issued mandates at different times and also had national vaccination programs. So we looked into what happened around and after the time the mandates came into effect or were announced."
Shigeoka and his team used a statistical method called difference in differences to explore potential connections between mandates and vaccine uptake. Since the timing of the announcement of vaccination mandates differs across 10 provinces in Canada, ranging from early August 2021 (Quebec) to late September 2021 (Prince Edward Island), they used the provinces that had not yet announced vaccine mandates as the control groups for those which had already announced mandates.
"We knew there was increased uptake following the mandates, but something that surprised us was how much the mere announcement of mandates rather than their actual implementation boosted vaccination rates," said Shigeoka.
It's important to note that although this kind of data analysis about the effect of mandates is important for public health authorities, there are other related issues such as ethics, economics, politics, and other factors, which were not a part of this study.
The study is published in Nature Human Behaviour.
“Some of the folks willing to take shot after shot of questionable substance hang around this website!”
Until they drop dead from the vaxx and don’t have the courtesy to admit they were wrong.
Yes, exactly.
Didnt work on me.
Mandates are not science.
We see now which doctors were correct. The doctors that said natural immunity is superior. The doctors that warned all about the horrible health problems these genetic therapy modification shots would cause.
Its clear which side was truly on the side of science.
Of course. My employer (federal govt) required it or I’d be fired. International travel requires it. College campuses require it—and the booster, too.
Come and try it again. They tried to fire me over it, and I still didn’t take it.
“Public health” = Fascism in a white coat. A true vaccine sterilizes and, therefore, protects the vaccinated. They had to change the definition of “vaccine” because the clot shot is not a vaccine. WEF’s Yuval Harari said that if they called it gene therapy almost no one would take it. So, they decided to call it a “vaccine”, and the Covidiots lined right up.
Nobody has to comply.
If everybody told them to get bent they’d have massive issues.
We’re too stupid at this point to realize we have options however.
Nobody has to comply. There are inconveniences and consequences, and they are often difficult, but these are choices we make.
Right. Not at all hesitant, flat refusing.
But it’s evident the vaccines don’t work and have deadly risks. Why, if any government cared about the safety of their people, would they force the entire population to ingest a medical product with serious risks?
Wasn’t “First, do no harm” good for 3000 years, as the ideal health care motto? How did we dump this?
Pretty soon it won’t matter, will it?
When people cannot feed their kids the SHTF in a major way.
Their stupid social scores will be meaningless and not matter a whit.
We don’t live in the United States of America anymore. TPTB will be very surprised to find out what losing everything means to the rubes.
This is how communists and fascists act. Trudeau - which one is Little Castro?
I said this repeatedly....I will not criticize anyone for their personal health decision. Remember my body, my choice? It works both ways. Utility curve optimization isn't in the Constitution, nor my personal code. I may have THOUGHTS about how to optimize your curve, but until asked it'll stay tucked away.
At the same time, this saga has been helpful for those people - many of whom took the shot under duress - who had been to this rodeo before. Because at their core, these shots have ONE objective: PREVENTION. From the get go, people were skeptical and were bashed for that skepticism. So let's take a little trip down memory lane, to assess the accuracy of that skepticism.
Per the FDA in June 2020, the FDA would expect that a COVID-19 vaccine would prevent disease or decrease its severity in at least 50% of people who are vaccinated.
This is where words become REALLY important. In the US, the basis of approval EUA and the only "approved" Vaccine, was for PREVENTION...NOT for decreased severity. Indeed, look at the actual FDA and Pfizer-BioNTech info.
On August 23, 2021, the FDA approved the first COVID-19 vaccine. The vaccine has been known as the Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine, and will now be marketed as Comirnaty, for the prevention of COVID-19 disease in individuals 16 years of age and older.(emphasis added)
Per the Comernity Insert,
--------------------------- INDICATIONS AND USAGE----------------------------
COMIRNATY is a vaccine indicated for active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (1)(emphasis added)
Per the Summary Basis for Regulatory Action, under "Indication"
Active immunization to prevent coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) caused by severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) in individuals 16 years of age and older. (Emphasis added)
Clearly, the vaccine is for PREVENTION. Nothing else. All of the clinical trials (limited as they were) and statistical confidence intervals were focused on VE with regard to PREVENTION...not hospitalization, not ER visits, not fatalies, and not symptoms. Accordingly, THAT is the basis upon which approval and Efficacy should be based.
So let's examine the time-series of VE for these shots since authorization, keeping in mind the FDA benchmark of 50%. Remember, VE = the percentage reduction in infection rate in the test vs control groups.
Without making this a massive post, I'll concede that published VEs in various studies in 2021 were above 50%. Indeed, the time EUA was granted, the shots had an in-same VE around 90%....who could oppose such a thing?
As an important side note, all of this research is based on statistical analyses of data. They are NOT clinical trials. That is an important distinction, because 1) none of these shots underwent legitimate trials that examined long-term impacts that other approved vaccines underwent and 2) vaccines fail trials 59% of the time and take a median of 9 years. Therefore, we should have VERY LITTLE TOLERANCE for declining VE for these shots.
Then by the summer of 2021, we noticed VE started declining. In and of itself, this isn't too problematic - few things last forever. BUT, the rate of decay in VE didn't get much airtime. For what it's worth,by the end of July I did some modeling and it looked like VE would fall below 50% just 6 months after the second shot and become totally ineffective by 10 months. Further research in August showed VE during Delta falling to 66%.
Ruh roh.
With Omicron, we saw VE being zero in Norway and Denmark and of course the US.
Pleae note, at no point in this post have I declared that these shots have nanotechnology in them, make you glow, have the Mark of the Beast, or are part of some conspiracy. I'm playing by their rules of "science."
Therefore, if VE is now not only below 50% but at zero, and the benchmark was 50%, the EUAs and approvals should be yanked. Even if these elixirs lower symptoms, that's not the basis of approval...rules are there for a reason.
....unless you're in the government, and rules are for the little people. The 50% VE threshold was blown away when assessing shots for CHILDREN.
Finally, boosters prop up VE but decreasingly so. Soon you'll need a boost every week.
THIS is why people refuse the shots.... If we follow their "rules of science" and these shots don't not have VE above 50%, then they absolutely deserve ridicule and revocation.
And yet, these "approved" shots - which have caused familial and societal strife, vective, unrest, unemployment, and brought us to a Constitutional "crisis" where three lawyers on SCOTUS thought it was peachy for OSHA to enact a mandate without congressional approval - remain in effect under an EUA where the BASIS was PREVENTION.
So yea, while I don't criticize people for their personal health choices, I sure feel confident about the decision to NOT take the shots not just on moral grounds, but empirical grounds. And while the John Galt wannabes criticizing the shot-takers are pests, the vax Karen's who mocked, ridiculed, name-called, and effectively supported totalitarian tactics on the "holdouts" are vile, lothesome creatures who also seem to be dying suddenly. Karma, man.
I think Grampa Dave has the answer to
But it’s evident the vaccines don’t work and have deadly risks. Why, if any government cared about the safety of their people, would they force the entire population to ingest a medical product with serious risks?
A: None of this was about our health.
I’m sure there’s a wall with my name on it waiting for me to lean back on as they blind fold me.
I won’t comply.
I never called anyone sheeple. Do not accuse me of that. Everyone has a right to choose, free country.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.