2/n The article reports a survey that was run by @smh and @theage talking to adults about whether they were "likely" to be vaccinated "in the months ahead"
3/n According to the article, with nearly a third responding that they were unlikely to be vaccinated, there is a serious reason for concern representing an "alarming level of vaccine hesitancy"
But do the results show this?
4/n In the article, we've first got this bar chart, and indeed the two bottom numbers sum to 29% - nearly a third
Except, add up all the percentages here, and they equal 64%. What's going on?
5/n Well, the chart says that this excludes people already immunized
Further down, we can see a pie chart (shudder) showing that ~36% of people report either being vaccinated or having a booking for one already
6/n So an alternative headline for this piece could've been "More than two-thirds of Australian adults already vaccinated or planning on getting one soon"
In my opinion, that would be an entirely reasonable reading of the data presented
7/n I also strongly disagree that the people saying that they are unlikely to get vaccinated "in the coming months" is necessarily a sign of vaccine hesitancy at all
8/n If you look at the REASONS that people give for not thinking they'll get immunized soon, some are legitimate concerns but some are also literally factual reporting based on the current phased rollout in Australia
9/n It also looks as if a reasonable portion of those waiting for a vaccine are worried about Astrazeneca and thus would rather get Pfizer/Moderna later this year. This is not your traditional vaccine hesitancy!
10/n Indeed, if we are to believe the survey results, they are actually very optimistic (if perhaps a touch impossible)!
22% of all adults vaccinated in Aus, with another 13% getting their shots soon, would be a good sign
11/n I'm not sure the results are entirely possible, sadly. The government reports 3.2m shots so far. Even assuming they're all first doses, and all given to adults that's only 16% of the est 19.7m (19,753,290 per ABS) adults in the country
12/n More likely, in my opinion, is that the survey was slightly biased, or that there is a reasonably wide margin of error in the reports
13/n Regardless, I think it's fair to say that, based on these results, Australians on the whole are very keen to get their COVID-19 shots even if they are thinking of waiting a few months until more Pfizer and Moderna doses are available
14/n All of this comes with the caveat that I can only look at the data presented in the article, and without detailed info on the survey methodology I cannot say anything with a great deal of certainty
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Graduate students are the backbone of all scientific endeavours, and often do amazing work without which we would all be lost
Perhaps more importantly, it is fundamentally unscientific to argue that someone's publication record makes any difference to the truth of their arguments
This is one of the reasons that I usually stay away from offering explicit policy opinions. As a scientist, I can give you a pretty good estimate of the impact of COVID-19, but it's up to us as a society to decide what to do about that
We can say from an epidemiological viewpoint which path has which benefits and costs, but ultimately the decision of which is more beneficial is not scientific
Some people have consistently argued that freedom is the most important value
This is a valid ethical viewpoint! Epidemiologically, we can perhaps place a cost on that ideation, but whether this cost is justified is not a scientific decision
2/n The study is here, and it's a cluster-randomized controlled trial, where people living in dorms of Singapore were given one of the 4 treatments or a vitamin C control during large COVID-19 outbreaks in the dorms ijidonline.com/article/S1201-…
3/n The results seem to show that people who take HCQ or P-I have fewer infections than those who only have vitamin C, with a really impressive risk reduction
The weirdest thing about the whole herd immunity through natural infection argument is that it's never happened ever for any disease long-term so it was always a wild idea for COVID-19
Like, sure, pandemics died out - eventually most diseases became endemic and killed only a small number of people each year
But that's definitely what's been bandied about as herd immunity
Imagine if instead of "herd immunity" the message had been "recurring outbreaks with a slowly diminishing fatality rate until after months/years the number of yearly deaths would get low enough to not bother any more"
The study itself is interesting - sleep duration and risk of dementia, lots of follow-up, decent sized sample (although relatively few events) nature.com/articles/s4146…
But the headline is super misleading for so many reasons. My faves:
1. absolute risk is really small (~1 case per 1,000 person-years) 2. The authors acknowledge later in the article that they don't know if this is causal or not