While "elite cues" matter on issues like vaccines, and mistakes have been made, there is a lot of misinformed nonsense being talked about how vaccine hesitancy works in different countries. (Eg "Single-handedly" is demonstrably simply wrong here).
We have conparative vaccine attitudes before the comments. This was growth in pro-vaccine sentiment from November to January. France is a consistent outlier for hesitancy but was going up from very low base before Macron comment. Germany less of a rise before regulator spoke
Why is France a consistent outlier? Academic research suggests French attitudes to vaccines (before Covid) were significantly damaged longterm by the mainstreaming of scepticism during controversy from mishandling of 2009 avian flu vaccine procurement.
Populist politics risks lives in Europe. Most FN and AfD voters said they were unlikely to take the vaccine (December) with opposite pattern to Macron, Merkel supporters. (Causal dynamics complex: sociology, lower trust in leaders & institutions, elite populist cues, online info)
So single-handedly = simplistic tosh. But governments, regulators & media in France and Germany are culpable. Have encouraged and/or failed to counter vaccine-specific hesitancy. That has damaged what seemed strong opportunity of rising pro-vax sentiment
This was before these interventions. They may be able to get back on track. This comparison of November and January suggests the German challenge may have somewhat different dynamics to the French challenge
This criticism is very valid. However it is unlikely that Macron's ill-judged and irresponsible comment created the broad scepticism - nor is he best placed to challenge the anti-vax norm among those Le Pen voters who oppose and often despise Macron
A major political elite group who are either risking lives or failing to communicate well to save them are US Republicans. Vaccine hesitancy is shrinking in the United States, but hesitancy is very high and stubborn among GOP voters
Kekst found a link between online anti-vax jnformation & hesitant attitudes in Germany. The correlation between exposure to info and hesitancy was weak outside Germany. Misinformation can be ineffective or outweighed by pro-vaccine motives and messages
I obvs do appreciate the value of sporting metaphor for public comms. But if we are three goals up on Covid now, it surely can't be three-nil. (Maybe its 6-3 or something? After following on, a set or two down, etc etc!!)
Of course, we almost never see it go 3-4 from three-nil.
But, if we were two-down, yet now have bounced back to lead three-two in extra-time, then the need for caution and vigilance to not get pulled back into a replay of lockdown would be a most valid metaphorical warning.
He may, in all fairness, have in mind the QPR v Partisan Belgrade UEFA cup tie of 1984, where Rangers won 6-2 in the first leg before going out on away goals
Speaker has made a bad decision on the principle (though the practice can be negotiated). It is a legitimate research topic to find out if employers, landlords discriminate by protected characteristics. It can not be a contempt of parliament to find out if elected MPs do so.
Prime Ministers including David Cameron and Theresa May have been clear about the value of such research (eg CV studies). Opportunity cost should not be onerous. Potential value is high if done well. ESRC or relevant voices should challenge this. EHRC could take a view too.
Indeed, Commons ought to itself have a project (with research partner) to conduct such research on annual basis, eg for intern places & employment opps & maybe correspondence. Knowledge of such research findings can audit & shift culture of how institutions respond to citizens.
Papers who are putting "selfish" in the headline are probably making this message less effective. (But it may be a popular message with those who dont need persuading)
New report from @rakibehsan has an ICM poll boost of 558 Black British respondents, and a general poll of 1000 people. As the author notes, 3% Black British population under-surveyed, a minority among the under-surveyed ethnic minority groups
On its headline question - is Black Lives Matter a voice for Black Britons - ICM data says, on balance, Yes. Personal views differ, but by a 4-1 margin (59% positive, 14% negative) Black British respondents saw the 2020 BLM anti-racism protests as + for race relations in the UK
The report also shows a plurality of the general population saw the Black Lives Matter protests as net positive (across nations/regions), though much more decisively in London. This mixed but net positive picture is in line with most (but not all) other survey findings.
Encouraging. A strong advance in pro-vaccine norms, lifting willingness/closing gaps among more hesitant groups (class, ethnic minority). These look like narrow & weak partisan political effects in UK in contrast to US (dramatic major party gap),Europe (populist party supporters)
A lot (most) hesitancy was weak and has shifted to pro-vaccine sentiment since the Autumn among 3/4 who were unlikely. There are big gains in confidence if focus on the hesitant, not the narrow anti-vaccine core of the last 5-7% or so.
This evidence suggests that approaches to tackling hesitancy should be practical, proactive, local and confident about growing pro-vaccine sentiment & efforts to reach everybody. (Should shift some of the discourse, which risks over-amplifying hesitancy)
Free Speech Union proposes that, as the "simplest solution" the FA should ban any footballers from taking a knee (!) It also argues that fans who boo the gesture should not be sanctioned. But its preferred/proposed free speech solution is a ban on the knee, over a ban on neither.
There is a logic in FSU defending taking a knee (free speech) and defending support of it (speech) and opposition (counter-speech). It is a surprising departure to see its initial proposal being to curtail speech, on grounds it is political.
The FSU - in mooting the proposal to ban taking a knee - are appealing to the rules which were (disproportionately) used by Fifa to ban England & Scotland wearing poppies, until common sense prevailed on not banning the poppy.