Lindsay Neuberger, PhD, associate professor at The University of Central Florida, talks about the data surrounding the COVID vaccine acceptance by the general public and ways to tailor effective messaging and social policy.
Why did you and fellow researchers decide to ask these states about how they perceive their risk for coronavirus?
NEUBERGER: So, if you think about when we started this study, it was in May, right? So, in April, even in March, we’re starting to think about states that were slightly different and also still represented different parts of the country. So, states like Iowa, right? Slightly more conservative, a little bit more rural, states like Louisiana, a southern state, a more diverse population. So, we really tried to select places. Or Washington state is a great example, right? Really that was where we think about COVID started in the United States. Washington was a big part of that. So, we tried to sample pretty reasonably across the country to get different demographics involved. And we did get representative demographics from each state we sampled.
I know you guys chose those six states from varying demographics, but why these six out of the entire 50 states?
NEUBERGER: So, some of them are representative of where some of our research team members are. So, Michigan is one of those that we have some research team members who are in Michigan, but Washington isn’t, right? Washington is one that was early on. And our work that we just got NSF-funded to do another panel, we’re doing a nationally representative survey. Another thing about the different states, too, is that the first project was really focused on how policy – state policies might affect people’s perceptions and behaviors. we wanted to make sure that we had variance in terms of what those policies looked like and how they might evolve over time. So, you can think about a state like Michigan. Even now, they’ve just gone back down under a lockdown. They were a state that did that a little bit earlier on. Iowa, not as restrictive, right? So, we wanted to make sure that we had some good variance across the states to see how the state policy would affect these things as well.
W as there anything in the study that really surprised you? Something you weren’t expecting at all?
NEUBERGER: I think the biggest surprise to me is the vaccine acceptance rates decreasing over time. That was really shocking. When it started off saying, OK, over half of the people said they were likely to go get the vaccine. And then over our periods of time and our different waves, we found that people are less likely to report that they want to get vaccinated, which is really shocking. I think even at the beginning when it said, the first time, which is in May and June, 54 percent of people said they would be likely to be vaccinated. To me, it felt a little low. But we know vaccination is really complicated. If you look at the research on flu vaccination or even the HPV vaccination, there are lots of reasons why people choose not to be vaccinated. Some of them are based in reasonable thought and some of them are based on fallacies, right? But the fact that it’s been decreasing over time was really – has been really shocking to me.
So as for how the people received their information, all the different platforms they used, do you think that plays a big part in raising misconceptions about the coronavirus?
NEUBERGER: Certainly, we know that people seek information, we know, with selective exposure, right? People try to expose themselves to content that’s going to reinforce their beliefs, right? So certainly, we know that different platforms have different ideological bans in some ways. And certainly, that can affect how people consume content and also how they perceive the risks out there, which is concerning, right? Because I’m a social scientist. Us scientists, we think, OK, we want to find out the answer and get as close to the truth, Truth, as we can. And that’s really a challenge when people are taking information and spinning it all sorts of different ways. So, yes, we think the content can affect people’s perceptions. It’s not the main kind of focus of our research, but we definitely have been tracking it over time. And because we know that people also stay consistent. And people who are CNN viewers tend to stay there. People who are MSNBC viewers tend to stay there. People who are Fox News viewers tend to stay there. And again, because it reinforces their existing belief systems, it’s not necessarily changing people’s minds. It’s reinforcing what they might already believe.
So, I’ve only received the first two waves. So, have you guys received any new information from the third wave in October? Can you please list just a couple of changes, increases, decreases?
NEUBERGER: So, the vaccine acceptance rate has decreased. So, people’s likelihood of getting the vaccine has gone from in time one it was 54 percent, then down to 46 percent in time two and then in time three is 39 percent. And then that was right before the election in October. So again, concerning, right? But that’s the latest update we have there. In terms of mask wearing we have some encouraging news. Time one was 66 percent. Time two went up to 79 percent. And time three is 82 percent. And that’s the percentage of people who are always or almost always wearing their masks in indoor public spaces. So not necessarily wearing their mask when they’re outdoors, but definitely when they’re going to the grocery store and things like that. So that’s really great. That definitely shows that we’re having a big increase with mask wearing. In terms of one of the new questions that we asked was about vaccine trust, kind of who do you trust for information about the vaccine? This is only in the third wave. Fifty-eight percent of people suggested that they trust scientists. Thirty-seven percent of people said that they trusted pharmaceutical companies. And only 17 percent of people said they trusted the government. So that’s really concerning and especially in the aftermath of the election, thinking about how we’re going to rebuild that public trust in government, right? This vaccine is going to be a really big deal. And people, the public, needs to trust these institutions to make sure that they’re going to actually distribute it in a way that’s not only safe but also equitable.
So, you once mentioned that a way to reach people who may not be wearing masks would be to focus on advocacy and risk communication messaging. Can you give me an example of what that could be?
NEUBERGER: So, when we think about mask wearing behavior, two of the things that are the biggest predictors; there are lots of demographic factors that can play into whether or not you wear a mask. And we need to be concerned about those, right? There are certainly priority demographics where we can do more work. But in addition to those two really big factors are response efficacy and self efficacy. So self efficacy is the idea that you perceive yourself as being able to enact that response. And response efficacy is that you perceive that response as being effective in avoiding the risk. So, you have two different factors there. Can you do it? And do you think it works? Some people think masks don’t work. They don’t wear masks because they don’t work. So, one messaging angle would be to try to convince people that masks are very effective. It’s definitely a strategy that has been used to varying levels of success. A lot more has been said about wear your mask. Wash your hands. Keep your distance. Those are very clear directives, but they’re not giving you the rationale behind it, right? We can say those things to people, but, if they understand why, it can be a lot more effective. And then the second component, self efficacy. Do you perceive that you’re able to do it? A really great example of that is like we’re on campus right here. Everyone is required to wear a mask, whether you’re inside or outside. But what if you’re, you know, 90 degrees outside and you’re sweating and you’re a landscaper, right? You’re thinking, I can’t do this. Like, I’m going to pass out. So how can you convince those people that they are able to do that or even people who might have respiratory issues who may think they may have a perception that they shouldn’t wear a mask? Because it’s not going to be that it could be harmful to them, there may be some ability to correct that misperception and say, actually, you are able to do this. Now, these are not ideas that I just made up, right? These are ideas that we’ve known about in social science for a really long time in health and risk communication to tell people – think about safe sex. Think about using a condom. You have to convince people not only that they can do it, but that it works. It’s the same type of action with masks. You can do this, and it works. I don’t know about you, but I haven’t seen a bunch of messages that are pushing that. And our data really suggests that could be effective.
So, on to the vaccines, is a percentage decrease in people wanting to get a vaccine – you told me in the third wave it decreased more. What do you think played a part in the decrease over this six-month span?
NEUBERGER: I think a big part of it is public trust, right? Public trust of our institutions. If we have – the most trusted group is scientists and only 58 percent of people trust scientists. Below that is pharmaceutical companies in the 30s and in the teens is the government. That’s a big problem. There are many reasons why people choose or choose not to take vaccines, right? And there is a really rich literature as to why that happens. But especially if we have these really high efficacy rates of these vaccines that are emerging, it’s difficult to understand why people wouldn’t want to kind of adopt this. But I think the trust, the public trust is a really big part of it. People also have some uncertainty about how it’s going to go down. I don’t know. Maybe they’ve seen the movie “Contagion.” And it was like a lottery system. Is this what it’s going to be? Is it going to be these priority populations get it first? Is it’s going to be state by state? Is it going to be voting district by voting district? Is it going to be like some of these things that we’ve even heard about with celebrities who are getting daily tests? OK. Why are they able to have access to this and I’m not able to have access to this? So, I think there’s just a lot of uncertainty swirling around. And in our political climate, there’s also been some uncertainty and instability, right? And so that doesn’t make people feel confident. Hey, this thing is going to happen. Scientists are working on it. I can do it. It’s going to help me. It’s going to help me kind of attenuate my risk. It’s making people feel like I don’t know. I don’t know if I want to do this. This seems scary. It seems uncertain. And it’s not unreasonable. It’s not that people are being unreasonable. There’s a reason behind it. And now the thing is how do we understand that and then use the knowledge that we have about how to build effective messages, how to construct effective messages, to make those messages to convince people to engage in that positive behavior of getting vaccinated?
So now that the election has passed, has there been a change in the percentage of those uncertain of the vaccine?
NEUBERGER: So, we don’t have data on that right now. We just got NSF funding for a second study. So, the first study was ending before the election. And then we just got funding for the second wave for the kind of second study, which will be a national panel survey that we’ll do, again, multiple waves over time. We’re getting ready to roll out our first wave of that here in November. And we’re really excited about it because we want to see those data and see if those numbers are shifting or if they seem pretty consistent. Not really in a place to guess on that, but I think it’s not unreasonable to think that there will be some shifts over time in that as people we kind of know Biden’s first things he, our presumptive nominee, was saying, here’s my COVID task force, right? And here are the people on my COVID task force. And they’re broadly representative of not only diverse disciplines but diverse backgrounds. And that’s really important. So, it seems like he and his camp already understand that they need to rebuild that public trust, that there are some issues and how these things have been handled. And there may be ways that we can rebuild that over time. Not when you start in January, but start now, right? Because especially with what we know about the vaccine timing, I mean, let’s get this underway so that by the time it’s more publicly available, people feel comfortable actually getting it.
So, with Pfizer announcing their 90-percent-effective vaccine Monday, November 9, have you noticed any changes in the percentage of those uncertain with the vaccine?
NEUBERGER: So, we don’t have those data yet. But I do think that we definitely will be able to track that. I mean, I assume that rate will increase. I don’t have any reason to assume that aside from just my knowledge of how these trends have been going so far. I assume that will increase because that efficacy rate is also higher than it was anticipated. So, we’re optimistic about that. And then today, another kind of release that we have a 94, 95 percent rate is really good news. We were expecting more in the 60 percent rate or definitely not 90. So that’s a really positive move. I think that will, and again, it’s not like people go home at night and write love letters to pharmaceutical companies and say, dear Pfizer, you’re the best. I can’t wait to see your vaccine, right? But they are trusting pharmaceutical companies more than they are trusting government. And a good part of pharmaceutical companies is scientists working within those companies, right? And so, if we can focus people on that positive news and steer them away from maybe some of the concerns that they could have about government, that could be really positive.
So, with the election results and the announcement of the vaccine being so close together, will you be able to tell what’s really caused the change in perception if there is any?
NEUBERGER: Yeah, that’s a really good question. For us to be able to extricate that is going to be really difficult because right now they’re almost co-occurring, right? They’re so close in time span and we didn’t get data on November, you know, eight or something where it was in between that point. So, we’re going to have to really be very careful with how we write the questions to make sure that we can kind of not only ask them how likely they are to do it but also how the rationale as to why, right? And one of the questions that we asked in the earlier phases was why – what kind of why or why not would you be vaccinated? And so, we’ll kind of unpack that a little bit more in these rounds now that we have – the political tie is a little bit closer and we know more from the pharmaceutical side what’s going on. So, in the first two waves, people said people were really concerned about two things. The first thing was the cost. And that’s definitely not unreasonable for people to be concerned about that. And it’s not unreasonable especially in the wake of people, of us not having a second COVID relief bill, right? And we don’t have the knowledge that right now if you want to get a COVID test, it’s pretty much covered if you have insurance. And if you don’t have insurance, you can make sure that you get it covered. But do we know that when we get the vaccine that that will be the case? We don’t know that. So, people are worried about that. For example, a flu vaccine, most people are going to have that covered, whether it be through their insurance or public funding. But the HPV vaccine isn’t always like that. So, you might have people who don’t get vaccinated for HPV because it’s not covered by their insurance and because it’s not covered by the government. That uncertainty still exists around COVID. And until those things get kind of ironed out, it’s going to keep being like that. The second factor for not only expense but it was also like, will I be able to get it? So, if you think about when we talked about self efficacy before, do you perceive that you’re able to do the thing? It seems easy for me to say, right now, I can say it’s easy for me to get a flu vaccine. Walk into Target, I get like a little five-dollar gift card. It’s not so bad. I’ve done it a couple of times before. It’s no big deal. What is it going to look like to get the COVID vaccine? We don’t know. No one has communicated that to the public probably because we don’t know yet, right? It’s not because they’re withholding this information and it’s this horrible scheme that they’re trying to keep the public in the dark. It’s because we don’t know yet. So, people have uncertainty around that. And what are the ways in which he can help people manage that uncertainty in the meantime, right? Instead of piling more uncertainty on top of it, say, hey, here’s our plan for understanding this. When we get the data, when we understand how we’re going to roll it out, we’re going to be really clear. So those are two big issues: price and availability. Honestly, like I said earlier, you even think about celebrities. OK, so if you’re LeBron James, do you get it before me? I don’t know. I don’t know. Like maybe he should. Maybe he shouldn’t. I don’t know. I don’t know what his preexisting conditions are. People wouldn’t know what mine could be, right? Or what our family exposures could be or how much we’re around other people. How does that get done? Does it get done equitably? And so that’s a really big concern as well.
So now that many Americans know the vaccine is on the way soon, do you think they will ease on their actions like not wearing masks as much or going out more?
NEUBERGER: I read an article the other day that was just talking about we have COVID fatigue, right? People are worn down. It’s a lot. It’s a lot to live your life in this protected fashion, right? Like, I haven’t been inside a restaurant since March, right? That’s a big shift to how I used to live my life. I haven’t been on a plane since March. That’s a giant shift of how I live my life. We’re coming up on the holidays, right? Where we’re used to gathering with family. The big hot – the biggest travel day of the year is coming up. I think that’s playing into it more than people’s perception of their immunity or the perception of a vaccine that may or may not come. I think that part of the hesitancy with the vaccine is people don’t know when it’s going to come. They don’t know if they’re going to be able to get it. So, I don’t know that the kind of honestly, at some points, rampant public recklessness is necessarily affected by that. At this point, I think it is affected by a bunch of other psychosocial factors of people. And I want to say, like, there are people who are also put at risk because of the type of work they do, right? You are here with me. I’m able to work at home most of the time, right? That’s a difference. Two of my brothers are physicians. One of my brothers had COVID, right? Well, that is the nature of their work. You’re working at a supermarket. If you’re a bus driver, you are going to be exposed more, right? But it’s the people who have the privilege to be able to not engage in these things that need to be a little bit more conscious about how they are behaving. In the middle of a global pandemic, there’s no reason to go to a bar and hang out inside. There’s just not. And it doesn’t matter whose baby shower it is, and it doesn’t matter what’s going on, it just doesn’t make any sense to do that. I saw this visual the other day of like when you were hanging out with someone, you think you’re just hanging out with them. But really you’re hanging out with everyone that they ever hung out with and everyone they ever hung out with. And your bubble gets really big, really quick. And so, it’s a kind of a scary prospect. At this point, do I think that it’s being affected by the vaccine announcement? I don’t think so. Do I think that you could have some kind of reckless behavior on the back of that eventually? Perhaps. You haven’t heard a bunch of anecdotes about that related to people who have the antibodies, right? So, like my brother, it’s a great example. He had COVID. He has antibodies. He’s a doctor. So, he’s still pretty reasonably responsible about how he acts in the world. But some people, you don’t hear a lot of stories about people being like, well, I already had it, so I’ll just do whatever I want. Could that happen? Maybe, but hopefully not.
So, what kind of messaging do you think it will take for more people to be on board with the vaccine?
NEUBERGER: That’s a really good question. I think that addressing those efficacy components is really important, convincing people that they can do things and the things that they can do will work. Those are two really big components. You can do something to avoid this risk, and those things that we’re suggesting work. So, masks are a big part of that. If we had this interview a year ago you don’t know if we’d be wearing masks, right? It’s fundamentally changed the way the world around us works, right? That’s a big shift. In terms of other messages, I would say addressing the uncertainty angle is really important. One of the issues with uncertainty is people have different levels of tolerance for uncertainty. I am a person who needs to read 15 Yelp reviews before I can pick a restaurant. Not everyone is like that. People are like, oh yeah, let’s just go there. I don’t understand that. But there are people in the world who operate like that. I want to be certain that before I engage in these preventive actions that they’re actually going to work. Some people don’t need to have that same level of certainty. But it may be helpful to have messages acknowledging the uncertainty, telling people we understand right now it may seem like we don’t have a solution. Here are the things that we’re doing to move us into that space. And that’s kind of what I was talking about with the COVID task force is, is this a way that we can tell the public we’re working on it? We promise you we’re working on it. We set this up as our first priority once we got started.
So now that it is near the end of the year and you’ve nearly completed your three waves of research and you’ll go into the second study, can you tell me three things you want policymakers to understand from your findings?
NEUBERGER: Oh, yeah. OK, three things I want policymakers to understand from my findings, from our findings as a group. I would say the first thing is that some of the things that they’ve done have worked. And I guess that I would want them to be commended for some of the policies that have been put in place because that’s a big part of this is you want people to have that efficacy, right? So that’s even for policymakers. The things that you did to make sure that people were staying in their homes, to make sure people were wearing their mask, those things did slow the spread. Those things did change people’s behaviors in terms of mask wearing. That’s really positive. So, these people have some potential and some power to have this positive impact. In the state of Michigan, for example, Governor Whitmer just the other day said they are now under a kind of, I hesitate to call it a lockdown, but they’re under a more restrictive situation in the state of Michigan. That’s great, right? They learned that it worked last time. They’re going to do it again. Going into the holidays, there’s more concerns about that. So, I think kind of sharing with them that they can have a positive impact on their areas, with their constituents, they can help make things better, is really important. I think we want to say negative things to people all the time. And sometimes it’s worth saying, hey, you did something, and it worked. And you can keep doing that type of work. The next thing that I would say is that it’s important to have a robust understanding of the idea that this global pandemic and other diseases like this do not affect everyone in the same way, right? There are structural inequalities in how our country works that put specific groups of people at a disadvantage in such ways that, you know, we know that Black African American people, Hispanic LatinX people are exposed to diseases at a higher rate. One of the big reasons behind that is because we see more of our minority populations who are essential, who are deemed essential workers, who are these frontline workers. And they may not always be in health care, which is where we think, but in these other essential things. Another thing that we found in our study was that people from minority populations use public transportation more. You know, I’m a person who used to ride the bus to work. I am able to not do that right now. I would not put myself at risk in that way. But if that’s your choice, that’s your ability, that’s what you’re able to do, that’s what you’re going to do. And that’s really a big problem. So, the idea that this is affecting everyone the same is something that I think we need to dispel that myth, right? It’s like everyone says, oh, we’re all in the same boat. Everyone’s in this, OK? And then the really – the other side of that is we’re not in the same boat. We’re in the same storm, and we’re in different boats, right? Some people have a yacht, and some people have a dinghy, and some people have, you know, like a canoe. And those are set up by how our country is set up with these structural inequities. And so, the idea that somehow we can have one solution that’s going to fit everyone is not going to work. There are going to have to be targeted interventions. So, one of the things as a communication scholar, people will ask me, how should we make a message about X? And my answer is always, well, who’s your target population? Right now, we’re all affected. So, the target population is everyone. When your target population is everyone, you reach no one, right? And so, what you need to do is instead think about who am I really focused on? Who are our most at-risk individuals? Is it people with pre-existing health conditions? Is it people who have children in school? Is it people who are older? Is it people who are from minoritized populations? What is that group? And make targeted interventions with those groups instead of thinking that sending a postcard in the mail to every American is going to somehow stop COVID. And the third thing I would say is really rebuilding that public trust. So that’s something that has been really harmed by recent political issues – right? – the idea that what is true, what is reality, and to rebuild that with your constituency, whether you’re a local politician, a state level politician or at the federal level, to be able to share with people that like – and you’ve even seen this in the last couple of weeks with some of the even higher level legislators in the United States distancing themselves a little from Trump now, all of a sudden. Kind of that rebuilding of, hey, we’re going to do this the right way. This is something that happened. This is a period that has passed now. It’s on its way out. How can we rebuild that public trust so that when politicians say things there’s any sense of trust behind it? In our research, people said that they had very low trust of President Trump and they had higher trust of Dr. Fauci, right? A year ago, most people had never heard of Dr. Fauci before, right? And so it’s really interesting how quickly those things can shift. And if we have really trustworthy, credible sources that are available to people, I think that we will see a rebuilding of that trust over time.
The messaging, can you give me an example like of one of the ways you can do it or it’s possible, what would you suggest policymakers – like is it advertising? Like how would it?
NEUBERGER: I think it could look like a lot of different ways. Another thing that I always say when people say like, well, what should we do in a situation? What I say is you should ask people (laughter) right? Like people think I had to do this job, like, I have all these great ideas. It’s like, well, I don’t have these great ideas. What I do is I ask people how they want to receive information and try to give them information in that way, right? So, let’s say you like to receive information in the newspaper. Then we need to get it to you there. Let’s say I want to get my information scrolling through the Gram. Make sure that it’s there, right? It needs to be in different places for different populations, and it needs to be targeted to those populations. So that’s the big deal is like can you make a message that not a one size fits all message but something that can be put, adapted, for different platforms, for different priority populations? Another way you can do that is if we’re doing online things, we can have not only targeted messaging but also tailored messaging where if you get people to actually engage with the content, they can kind of like a choose your own adventure story book, right? Where you can say you can answer some questions throughout it and you can get more specific information for yourself. That would be, I think, a really fruitful strategy for people moving forward.
So from this step, once you collect this information, you’re going to send it to policymakers and then how will policymakers, like, what you just said about getting it to that platform, how are they going to do that? Or what’s the next step after they receive this information?
NEUBERGER: Sure. So that’s a really good question. Like a good example of this is like in the state of Colorado, we’ve been working really closely with their public health officials. And they’ve been sharing that information with their governor. So those organizations are able to work together and make campaign materials to disseminate effectively. We can give them feedback and say, hey, here’s what we’re noticing about mask rates. Here’s what we’re noticing about vaccine rates. Here’s what we’re noticing about perceptions of efficacy and how that might affect behavioral intention to engage in these positive behaviors. And so, we can use data to inform recommendations, right? So, what we’re doing is like as a social scientist, I’m not saying maybe this would work. I’m saying here is an evidence-based recommendation. Here is what our data say to other people. Here is actual science that’s really going to point us towards a solution, not saying here’s what I hope will work.
So, for example, you said the governor, I remember you mentioning government is at 17. So, how’s that percentage going to go up?
NEUBERGER: So that’s what I would suggest, is that you have some pairing there. You have partnerships, right? And that’s one of the things that is really important about this project that I’m working on is it’s a really diverse partnership of a research group, the risk and social policy or working group that works together from different perspectives. So that’s really important for this. When I talked about the government trust rates, that was kind of government in general. So, I think people do have different trust rates for their own governors, for example, right? So, people in Colorado might have a higher approval rate for their own governor. So, there may not be as much trust that needs to be rebuilt within those certain areas. So, like, for example, I live here in Orlando. My state representative is Anna Eskamani. She, to me, is an incredible source of information. She is reliable. She is trustworthy. She is credible. Nothing needs to be rebuilt with me, for her. For me, my trust in our government, our federal government, has had some blemishes over the last several years and that trust for me does need to be rebuilt. So, it’s different for different people. And that’s a really important part of this is understanding that not everything works the same way for every person. We can’t pick a one size fits all message. We don’t think just because our data say this, this is among, you know, six states with the people who we sample. Now those are representative numbers, but we have to be a little bit more targeted with our work.
Is there anything you’d like to talk about especially stuff on that notepad … Any interesting findings?
NEUBERGER: Two things. So, the first thing was about 60 percent of our participants think there will be a vaccine in spring of 2021. So, they’re ready for it. They may not be ready to have it themselves. But they think it’s coming. So, we want to make sure that we’re doing that messaging early and often to ensure them that these things are coming. They will work, and they will be able to get them. The other thing that I want to talk about briefly is with our second study that we’re working on is that it’s really going to be the kind of structural inequities and racial inequalities issue is going to be a big centerpiece of that work. And one of the reasons behind that is because of the historical issues that we’ve had in that space as a country. So, let’s say we talked earlier about who might get the vaccine first. Let’s say there are different priority populations who are vaccinated first. It’s like, for example, I can’t go to the pharmacy and get a shingles vaccine because I’m not old enough. That part of our population doesn’t work for me, OK? But let’s say that we as a country or as a government or whoever is making these decisions decides that certain people and certain minoritized populations might have priority access to the vaccine, OK? There are real reasons why that would be a positive thing because we know that COVID is disproportionately affecting people of color, right? So maybe that’s a really positive thing that could happen. But why would people in those groups possibly trust our government and institutions to receive those vaccines, right? Historically, over time, we have evidence to suggest that these types of things have been tested on minoritized populations in ways that have had very negative effects, not only on individuals, but on that public trust of institutions. So that’s something that really is going to need to be addressed. The racial inequality issue is a big part of our second wave of research. In the first wave, we did ask people about how they were attending protests. So we had three waves of research. The first wave, we asked people whether or not they were attending stay-at-home protests. If you remember in that May, June time period, people were marching on the capitals of their states and saying, I’m not going to wear a mask. You can’t make me stay in my house, right? And then in our second wave, we asked about racial injustice. We continued to ask about those initial stay-at-home protests. But then we started to ask about also these racial injustice protests, like in the wake of issues with George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, people kind of engaging in those protests. So, we’ve seen that there’s a kind of a rising public consciousness of these issues. But that’s really important. And then moving on to how that might affect people’s uptake of the vaccine, even people who we know particularly need to get it, but that trust needs to be rebuilt because why would they? If you had been kind of directly or indirectly harmed by these things over years and years and years, why would you want to be the first one to get it, right? That’s a question. And that’s a question that needs to be answered. And it’s something that needs to be done, planned and done in a really thoughtful way. And, in terms of demographics, we also found that men are less likely to wear their masks than women. And we found people who are younger are less likely to wear masks than people who are older, which makes sense because of health conditions. And then also people who politically identify as more conservative are less likely to wear masks as well. In terms of different racial and ethnic groups, we found kind of some variance over time. Initially, we found that some minoritized populations were more likely to wear masks. And then it has kind of evened out over time.
Interview conducted by Ivanhoe Broadcast News.
END OF INTERVIEW
This information is intended for additional research purposes only. It is not to be used as a prescription or advice from Ivanhoe Broadcast News, Inc. or any medical professional interviewed. Ivanhoe Broadcast News, Inc. assumes no responsibility for the depth or accuracy of physician statements. Procedures or medicines apply to different people and medical factors; always consult your physician on medical matters.
If you would like more information, please contact:
ROBERT WELLS
Sign up for a free weekly e-mail on Medical Breakthroughs called First to Know by clicking here
