Polls tend to be a small sample of a population and if elections are anything to go by, are not that accurate. Considering the disruption to people's lives and livelihoods living in lockdown and restrictions, uptake may actually be higher.
My concern is the initial targeted recipients of a new vaccine - I can understand some of the reasoning that the vulnerable and older age groups are more likely to develop serious illness and death rates are higher, so the idea of offering it to them first sounds like a good idea to protect them. But at the same time, vaccines don't necessarily work as effectively for older age groups so if vaccinating 85% of a population is the aim to beat this virus, then choosing this age group first doesn't seem to be the right way to go about it especially if the quantity of vaccine available in the first stage is limited. On the other hand, younger age groups (aged 12-60) are much more mobile in their day to day lives and are at greater increased risk of contracting the virus and passing it on to others - surely choosing this group would be more beneficial for both those who need to work, and also prevent passing on the virus to the more susceptible groups until more vaccine becomes available.
I might agree with you there. During the early stages of the pandemic, I got absolutely riled when friends were posting the same "current death rates from this coronavirus are lower than annual flu" on FB when clearly governments around the world took it much more seriously and were taking drastic actions such as lockdowns to try and curb the spread and rising death rates.manda wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 00:09 I find it fascinating that people will listen to "Madge from down the road" or "thingy on facebook" but they won't listen to people who have spent years studying epidemiology and immunology and have taken on the responsibility of tracking diseases and developing these vaccines.
Sadly, this is true. I cringe when I see the daily briefing on the tv and the scientist show lots of different graphs and tables to explain the spread (and not done very well on live tv) to the point where even I'm struggling to follow with a degree of confidence. It would make more sense to explain it more simply (by all means highlight something such as the rising cases in hotspots rather than a page of graphs for different towns) so that the man on the street can follow it (and refer to detailed information available on a website for those who want to see more) I also get angry with the media questions after - yes, there are shortcomings particularly the financial packages, but they are like a dog with a bone and it is as if they are ridiculing the measures put into place. Little wonder there's discontent at a time when people should be working together on curbing the spread.Mo wrote: ↑ 18 Nov 2020, 10:56Trouble is, a scientist knows that things are rarely clear-cut 100%. Yet if they give all the uncertainties and exceptions it sounds too complicated. Or Madge gets the idea that they are not sure so can't be relied on. But if they decide (on the basis of the evidence) that it's sure enough and give a definite message then someone will accuse them of hiding the evidence.