08/31/2023
For those who are paying attention to the "medical experts" and the world of trying to medicate everyone all the time... this is going to be a long one.
There is a study from the Lancet covering all 50 states that gets into the "vaccine" Hesitancy"... and then another article by A former lancet editor.
Both worth reading if you're willing to have these kinds of conversations.
For the record: I do not agree with, or refute anything specifically at this point, But i present these for the sake of the national conversation. and this while interesting, is certainly not those whole picture by any stretch.
This post includes links to both articles, that as of this moment are live on the Lancets website.
covid data from the LANCET:
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/new-tool-shows-more-50-percent-population-vaccine-hesitant-over
https://www.healthdata.org/news-events/newsroom/news-releases/new-tool-shows-more-50-percent-population-vaccine-hesitant-over
article body:
Data down to ZIP code level shows huge variations in vaccine hesitancy within counties
SEATTLE—The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) at the University of Washington School of Medicine and COVID Collaborative launched a new tool today that shows data on people’s openness to receiving a COVID-19 vaccine by ZIP code and county for the entire United States. As of June 10, the percentage of people who express some degree of vaccine hesitancy varies across neighboring ZIP codes in some counties by more than 50 percent.
“This data visualization is designed for health officials and other policymakers who are working to educate their constituents about the safety and benefits of COVID-19 vaccines,” said John Bridgeland, Co-Founder and CEO of COVID Collaborative. “By making this data easily accessible down to the level of individual ZIP codes, IHME and COVID Collaborative can help ensure that those efforts reach the ‘movable middle’: those people who aren’t yet vaccinated but are open to being convinced.” The model shows estimates for more than 30,000 ZIP codes in the United States, compared to just 3,000 counties.
In more than 670 ZIP codes, over 20 percent of unvaccinated people answered “probably yes” or “probably no” to a survey question asking whether they would get a COVID-19 vaccine. The visualization tool allows health officials and other users to view this group, who may be most open to receiving more information about vaccines, or toggle to include those who answered “definitely not” when asked about their intentions for getting a vaccine.
The data shows that even within counties where hesitancy overall is low, there are ZIP codes where a much larger proportion of the population is unsure about getting a COVID-19 vaccine. In northeastern Washington state, county-level hesitancy hovers at about 20 percent, but some ZIP codes have hesitancy as high as 50 percent. In almost all states, neighboring ZIP codes show wide disparities. In Minnesota, for example, two adjacent ZIP codes have hesitancy of 9 percent and over 60 percent. As county-level officials work to address hesitancy, this ZIP-code-level data will enable more effective geographic targeting.
Some additional key findings from the data:
* Over 1,900 ZIP codes have less than 5 percent hesitancy.
* The median hesitancy among all ZIP codes is 19 percent.
* More than 6,000 ZIP codes have hesitancy above 30 percent.
By providing such fine-grained data, the tool can help ensure that efforts are geographically targeted where they will have the greatest impact.
“Increasing vaccination rates is crucial to prevent further deaths and infections from COVID-19, especially with new variants circulating,” said IHME Director Dr. Christopher Murray. “It is more dangerous now to be unvaccinated than it was a year ago, because the variants are both more transmissible and more deadly. We hope that this tool will provide valuable guidance to health leaders as they work to reach those who are not yet vaccinated.”
The visualization, currently in beta, is hosted on IHME’s website. The Institute expects to revise the tool further based on feedback from users—and use that feedback to explore possible new features to further nuance the visualization. It will continue to be updated every two weeks with the latest survey data to capture ongoing trends. The data is gathered from an ongoing Carnegie Mellon University survey that collects responses from 50,000 Americans every day via Facebook.


Data and methods
IHME uses statistical models based on this survey data to estimate vaccine hesitancy for more than 32,900 ZIP codes and 3,100 counties in the United States. The US COVID-19 Symptom Survey
(link is external)
, run by Carnegie Mellon University’s Delphi Research Group with Facebook’s support, invites people on Facebook to respond to questions about how they are feeling, including any symptoms of COVID-19. The surveys are designed to provide information to help monitor and forecast how COVID-19 may be spreading.
Contact: media@healthdata.org
(link sends email)
About the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation
The Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) is an independent global health research organization at the University of Washington School of Medicine that provides rigorous and comparable measurement of the world’s most important health problems and evaluates the strategies used to address them. IHME is committed to transparency and makes this information widely available so that policymakers have the evidence they need to make informed decisions on allocating resources to improve population health.
About the COVID Collaborative
COVID Collaborative, a project of the Office of American Possibilities, is a national assembly of experts, leaders and institutions in health, education and the economy and associations representing the diversity of the country to turn the tide on the pandemic by supporting federal, state and local COVID-19 response efforts.
summary:
Title: Vaccine Hesitancy Varies by Area, New Data Shows
A new tool has been created by the Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) and COVID Collaborative. This tool shares information about how willing people are to get a COVID-19 vaccine. It shows this information by ZIP code and county in the United States. This means it tells us about different places where people live.
Did you know that some people are unsure about getting the COVID-19 vaccine? The tool tells us that in some places, the percentage of unsure people changes a lot. For example, in some areas close to each other, the percentage of unsure people can be more than 50% different.
People who are working to help others understand the vaccine can use this tool. It helps them see where more information is needed. The tool tells us about over 30,000 places called ZIP codes in the United States.
In more than 670 places, more than 20% of people who haven't gotten the vaccine are not sure if they will get it. This tool helps officials know where to focus their efforts. They can help people who might want to learn more about the vaccine.
Even in places where most people are okay with the vaccine, there are some places where many people are still not sure. For example, in one part of Washington state, about 20% of people in the county are unsure about the vaccine. But in some smaller areas, called ZIP codes, up to 50% of people are unsure. This happens in many states. Even in Minnesota, two areas next to each other have very different numbers – one has 9% unsure people, and the other has over 60%.
More information from the tool:
* About 1,900 places have less than 5% of people unsure about the vaccine.
* Most places have around 19% of people unsure about the vaccine.
* More than 6,000 places have over 30% of people unsure about the vaccine.
lancet editor from 2015 article:
Lancet Editor Proclaims Half of All Scientific Studies are False
May 31, 2015
https://www.madinamerica.com/2015/05/lancet-editor-proclaims-half-of-all-scientific-studies-are-false/
body of article.
Collective Evolution discusses a recent commentary by Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, in which Horton states that “much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.”
“Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness,” writes Horton.
“This is quite disturbing, given the fact that all of these studies (which are industry sponsored) are used to develop drugs/vaccines to supposedly help people, train medical staff, educate medical students and more,” comments Arjun Walia on Collective Evolution. “It’s common for many to dismiss a lot of great work by experts and researchers at various institutions around the globe which isn’t ‘peer-reviewed’ and doesn’t appear in a ‘credible’ medical journal, but as we can see, ‘peer-reviewed’ doesn’t really mean much anymore.”
Horton, Richard. “Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?” The Lancet 385, no. 9976 (April 2015): 1380. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(15)60696-1. (Full text)
Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False (Collective Evolution, May 16, 2015)
Quotes and ideas from said article…
1. Quote by Richard Horton, Editor of The Lancet: "Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue."
2. Concerns About Scientific Studies: Richard Horton points out issues in scientific studies like small sample sizes, weak effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and conflicts of interest. He mentions that science has taken a negative direction.
3. Industry-Sponsored Studies: The commentary mentions that many studies used to create drugs and vaccines are sponsored by industries. These studies are meant to help people, train medical staff, and educate students.
4. Challenges to Credibility: Arjun Walia, from Collective Evolution, highlights that some valuable work isn't considered important because it's not peer-reviewed or in reputable medical journals. The credibility of peer-reviewed work is questioned.
5. Reference to Original Source: The commentary by Richard Horton is published in "The Lancet" in April 2015, titled "Offline: What Is Medicine’s 5 Sigma?"
6. Publication Source: The discussion comes from an article titled "Editor In Chief Of World’s Best Known Medical Journal: Half Of All The Literature Is False" on Collective Evolution, published on May 16, 2015.
Collective Evolution discusses a recent commentary by the editor of The Lancet stating that "much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue."
