Joe Biden Presidency thread *Please read OP - Threadbanned Users Added 4/5/21*

All Biden's fault though!

It is the first one, yeah. Of the unvaccinated, 60% are Republicans (or Republican-leaning independents).

It's either poorly phrased, or an incorrect interpretation of that data.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://arc-anglerfish-washpost-prod-washpost.s3.amazonaws.com/public/PUP6SZ3SIZEGNPXBNVZ3SEEZ6Q.png&w=916

I really don't get BAME demographics refusing the vax, especially when they usually live, in the UK anyway, in dense cities. Those are the places they are more likely to pick it up. It's quite bizarre.

No, it's historical distrust of the government in many cases. And who can blame them? But sure, labeling them as religious fundamentalists will totally help 👍

Its only when hesitancy among the black population is brought up that justifications are looked for

Well that’s one way of looking at it. It’s exactly the same when other populations are looked at that justifications are looked for - the Wakefield study for example is often cited as being influential in increasing vaccine hesitancy among the population who find ‘scientific evidence’ appeals to them.

There are other explanations proffered as justifications for vaccine hesitancy such as ‘attachment parenting’, more popular among liberals than conservatives, ironically enough it was a method of parenting promoted by religious nut jobs.

And speaking of religious nut jobs, there are few more nut jobby than Rev. Cotton Mather, he of Salem Witch Trials fame, who was less famous for his fervour in promoting vaccination among his congregation, and came to be viewed rather suspiciously himself because of his views (I’m sure the irony wasn’t lost on him) -

In 1716, Onesimus, one of Mather's slaves, explained to Mather how he had been inoculated as a child in Africa. Mather was fascinated by the idea. By July 1716, he had read an endorsement of inoculation by Dr Emanuel Timonius of Constantinople in the Philosophical Transactions. Mather then declared, in a letter to Dr John Woodward of Gresham Collegein London, that he planned to press Boston's doctors to adopt the practice of inoculation should smallpox reach the colony again.

Essentially, people who are socioeconomically deprived (regardless of their ethnicity) have more reason to be suspicious of vaccination programmes than those people who are affluent and less likely to be impacted by disease, and that’s why vaccine hesitancy is increasing among affluent populations too - they regard vaccines as unnecessary given they are less likely to be impacted by disease. That’s not the case for populations who do not have access to the same standard of healthcare, so even while they might be hesitant and suspicious of vaccine programmes, the reality of a diseases impact can often mean the outcomes of their choices are rather more starkly laid out.

To be fair, I don’t think there was any other way to interpret your suggestion that black people who tend to be more religious are being lied to by religious nuts, ie - they don’t mistrust authority, they are beholden to a different authority, but they do have every reason to be suspicious of medical and scientific authorities and indeed Government in the US, given how they have been treated throughout history by white society -

Yes, it was pretty straightforward - you were suggesting that it’s because black people are more religious that they are hesitant about vaccines because they are being lied to by religious nutters. ‘Fundamentalists’ was simply a more polite interpretation of the same thing - nutters.

ceadaoin’s point was that calling them nutters doesn’t help. It doesn’t, it only increases suspicion of people who want them to get vaccinated. History doesn’t help, because it’s littered with examples of how black people have been treated by white society, which makes it easier for religious nutters to propagate lies, y’know, like this -

Identifying them as religious nutters, doesn’t help, if your aim is to convince their audience that they’re being lied to. That’s just name calling,

They wont be getting any from NYC.

Theirs are reserved for non whites only.

I think they're a bunch of more dangerous fools.

That is most certainly not what they have done. They have identified anyone that is non white as being a risk factor. Not certain minorities. You find out about pre existing conditions by taking a medical history not make assumptions based on race.

The New York Governor has thrown her two cents in also declaring Racism is a "Public Health Emergency"

I didn't say they were prioritising non whites. I said that they considered being non white a risk factor. Being non white is a risk, same as a heart condition, diabetes, cancer etc. If you think that this has any medical validity I'd love to hear it.

The rational behind it is " systemic  health and social inequities" .

Links to a Fox article then proceeds to call someone else "dangerous fools." The irony is amusing.