Thread by @magi_jay

In my new piece for @johnastoehr, I write about the most subtle & pernicious form of anti-vaxx propaganda: the manipulation of scientific information & the appropriation of scientific authority editorialboard.com/to-fight-vacci…

Case #1: Anti-vaxxers have latched onto a preprint wherein the authors report results suggesting "natural immunity" is more robust than vaccine-induced immunity. Anti-vaxxers are now arguing this scientific evidence entails it is *preferable* to become naturally immune

Conservatives have reported on "natural immunity" without stipulating all of the risks of contracting COVID. They are using natural immunity to argue against mandates, as well as to claim Democrats are the real enemies of science. Searches for "natural immunity" have sky-rocketed

"Natural immunity" has gotten a heavy boost from a Harvard Medical Professor. The professor fails to correct the anti-vaxxers in his mentions. And, when he has been challenged to be more cautious by other experts, some respond, "he's a Harvard scientist."

Case #2: anti-vaxxers have used scientific info about viral loads to argue that *all* vaccinated people are just as likely to be carrying infectious levels of virus as *all* unvaccinated people. They do not mention vaccinated people are less likely to be infected in the 1st place

This misinfo has found a happy home on conservative media; however, mainstream media also played a role here, albeit unintentionally. For example, this tweet & other headlines neglected to mention that the research pertained to vaccinated people *who had progressed to infection*

(Plz note: The CDC was fully justified in adopting increased caution in light of the viral load/spread research. However, this is different than the claim that science has proven all vaccinated people are equally likely to spread infectious levels of virus as unvaccinated people)

Why does all of this matter? It’s different to hear, “science says . . .” than it is to hear a rant about microchips. “Just asking questions” goes hand in hand with “science says” and “the science is complicated” to subtly undermine the urgency of mass vaccination.

This abuse of science also has particular power b/c it plays against a backdrop of low personal risk perception. Vaccine rates lag in younger people. Now, what happens when, as a young person, you perceive your risk as low, and then you hear about the power of natural immunity?

“Infectiousness of the vaccinated” has been specifically used to undercut public health messaging about protecting your community. What’s the point in getting vaccinated to protect those around you if you're just as infectious? Here's Tucker Carlson manipulating this information:

Now, you might say: “who cares? Unvaccinated people are all fanatics.” This isn’t true. Though many are extremists, there are still unvaccinated people who are hesitant or merely complacent. Extremism cannot account for the gap in vaccination rates between young & older people

Extremism also cannot account for the fact that only *25%* of pregnant women are vaccinated. This group was likely very influenced by a combination of low personal risk perception & fear-mongering about uterine changes & fertility.

Moving beyond unvaccinated adults, there is a looming new battle ahead of us: getting children vaccinated. Polling shows that even adults who are vaccinated themselves are not committed to vaccinating their children. This gap exists even for Democrats, tho it is less large.

So what happens when these parents, who have been told childhood risk from COVID infection is low, now hear about “natural immunity” or viral spread among vaccinated people? Will this make them more or less likely to vaccinate their children?

Conservatives are already seizing on this opportunity, going so far as to argue that, given natural immunity + “low childhood risk from COVID”, childhood vaccinations are evil.

Again, all with the veneer of scientific authority.

One final point: there are age gaps in vaccination for both Dems & Republicans. But, for Republicans, this gap is enormous. Here, again, we see the interplay of personal risk & anti-vaxxing info. Younger & older Republicans have the same bad info, but are behaving differently

You can read more here. And, if you appreciate my research, please consider supporting @johnastoehr and the Editorial Board! editorialboard.com/to-fight-vacci…

Here are the same data w/out goofy Y axis shenanigans