"Vaccine hesitancy" is constantly discussed as a matter of irrational fear or political bias, but some people are just trying to balance costs against benefits. They might be persuaded to change their analysis, but calling them crazy or stupid is bound to alienate them.
Contrary to thinking inside the government and social media bubbles, not all information flows through the Internet. At this point, many people have personal acquaintances who have experienced significant side effects from vaccination, from brief illness to serious reactions.
Some of the "vaccine hesitant" are balancing these costs against the perceived benefits of vaccination - or more precisely, their perception of the risks from not getting vaccinated - and deciding not to get the shots. They made it through the hell year without vaccination.
Those hesitant people might re-evaluate their cost/benefit analysis if perceptions of either change. Vaccination rates dipped quite sharply after J&J had problems. It's not just panic, it's people making adjustments to reasoned calculations in their heads.
Likewise, vaccine hesitancy grows when people think nothing will really change if they get the shots - they still have to wear masks, there will still be social distancing, lockdowns are looming again. Reducing perceived benefits increases resistance.
If people are approached as rational actors with persuasive efforts to change their measurements of cost and benefits, they might be persuaded to adjust their thinking. This would require acknowledging that not all of the data they are considering is scurrilous "misinformation."
It would also require acknowledging that not all vaccine hesitancy is irrational or politicized. Getting them to change their thinking is very different from bullying them into *abandoning* their thinking by insulting them as dupes, stooges, fanatics, and fools.
One other thing: our government and media lack the humility to admit their own culpability in increasing vaccine hesitancy and ruining public trust in authority. That arrogance makes it difficult for the State and its media to approach the hesitant with mutual respect today.
Nobody in the State-Media axis wants to admit they were mistaken, or deliberately lied, during the hell year of Covid. None of them want to admit politics guided their actions more than science. Biden and Harris babbling about their distrust of Trump's vaccines gets memory-holed.
There has been no reckoning, no admission of errors or confession of guilt, so there can be no fresh start. The State has not taken the smallest steps toward rebuilding trust. Now it speaks with rage and threatens those who distrust it, rather than showing penitence and humility.
And the State is STILL acting in bad faith and with blatant hypocrisy, as most recently evidenced by the Covid-riddled Texas Democrat fleebaggers. The privileged elite of the ruling Party still refuse to take the coronavirus as seriously as they insist WE should.
I doubt anyone in the ruling Party has the humility and wisdom to make the fresh start that would be needed to approach the vaccine hesitant with proper respect and persuade them to change their thinking. It's all arrogance, bluster, hypocrisy, and threats. /end
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
One of the core problems with American governance is overfunding. The government has FAR too much money, by an order of magnitude. It uses that excess cash to make itself bigger. It is insulated from every force that would compel greater honesty or efficiency.
The government is so flabby that it can barely move. Its nerve endings are deadened from the layers of fat that protect it from all consequences. It can't actually *do* anything useful, and it collapses in a quivering heap at the first touch of genuine crisis, as in the pandemic.
Overfunded government agencies constantly seek new "missions" so they can demand even more funding, while neglecting their core missions. The sums flowing through these agencies are so immense that corruption has become all but undetectable.
How can anyone think a State-sanctioned cartel of corporations, acting in unison to suppress speech that threatens the ruling Party, is consistent with the First Amendment? What inalienable right could not be easily stripped from the American people with such tactics?
Democrats are asserting that our Constitution provides absolutely no protection against State-directed mega-corporations acting as instruments of ruling Party orthodoxy.
The correct term for a system where capital is privately owned, but controlled by the State, is fascism.
So the Left is telling us: Surprise! After hundreds of years, we've just discovered the U.S. Constitution offers no protection whatsoever against fascist tyranny! As long as the State uses politically-controlled corporations as its agents, your silly little "rights" mean nothing!
Can anyone doubt that American culture is simply *weaker* than it was a generation ago? We can't even handle the name of Boba Fett's spaceship anymore. As totalitarian politics advances, culture withers.
There is a certain grim logic to it. Totalitarianism is the politicization of everything. As it advances, it leaves less room to say, draw, sing, or film anything that doesn't advance the agenda, damage the enemies of the elite, or deliver an approved political payload.
Culture could be seen as a process of asking questions, challenging preconceptions, speculating and mocking, dreaming and guessing. None of that is allowed under totalitarianism, which provides all the answers and requires culture to work backwards from its conclusions.
The battle to define freedom must be won before the war to defend it can be fought.
That's why totalitarian statists and outright fascists can look you in the eye and claim they love "freedom" and see themselves on a patriotic crusade to preserve it.
America was founded on a vision of individual freedom, built from the ground up. The Founders tried to isolate the essential characteristics of individual sovereignty and write a Constitution that would limit the power of government to damage those vital freedoms.
The notion of "inalienable rights" is an example of building the definition of freedom from the ground up. These rights are inherent to free men and women and cannot be compromised, so a just and moral government will fully respect them.
The utter failure of nation-building in Afghanistan, where the Taliban is rolling up the whole country with little resistance while U.S. troops are still boarding the planes for home, has profound implications for Western civilization in an age of globalism and mass migration.
The great nation-building crusade of the neocons was a complete and absolute disaster. 20 years, billions spent, so many lives lost, and we made few lasting impressions on Afghanistan. We walked across sand, and now the evening tide of savagery rolls in to erase our footprints.
Iraq teeters on the verge of becoming an Iranian satrapy, with Tehran's militia proxies brazenly attacking American positions. Obama's nation-building in Libya unleashed a decade-long hell of warlords and terrorists that will now become part of Turkey's Islamist empire.
The next few decades will see an ideological and economic struggle in which nationalism is the most important weapon. Hyper-nationalist states like China have a huge advantage over neurotic self-loathing post-nationalist Western nations that have unilaterally disarmed themselves.
All conflict is a test of will. The battle ends when the enemy loses his will to fight. Nationalism is a vital reservoir of will for ideological conflicts. The new century's authoritarian horror, Communist China, is determined not to be defeated as the Soviet Union was.
Meanwhile, the West is filled with teams that can barely take their own side. The very concept of national cohesion is under sustained, blistering attack all over the "free world" - and it is very clearly becoming less free as that scorched-earth campaign proceeds.