Authored by Joe Martino via Collective-Evolution.com,
The Facts: The US government and Yale University collaborate in a clinical trial to determine the best messaging to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine.
Reflect On: Why do people need to be persuaded? Is it possible they have a lack of trust in public health recommendations for good reason?
The US Federal government in collaboration with Yale University held clinical trials to determine what the best messaging would be to persuade Americans to take the COVID-19 vaccine when it is ready. The news of this study does show an interest in finding the best way to persuade people into an ideal decision for the Federal government, and likely vaccine makers, and it also shows that a mandatory vaccine campaign may still be the plan B down the road, as opposed to plan A.
The official title of the trial is, “Persuasive Messages for COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: a Randomized Controlled Trial, Part 1.”
According to the brief summary for trial:
This study tests different messages about vaccinating against COVID-19 once the vaccine becomes available. Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm. We will compare the reported willingness to get a COVID-19 vaccine at 3 and 6 months of it becoming available between the 10 intervention arms to the 2 control arms.
Study participants are recruited online by Lucid, which matches census based sampling in online recruitment.
The study essentially looks at the best possible messaging that can be used on Americans, ranging from expressing vaccine benefits, to using messaging about economic impact, making someone feel guilty or embarrassed for not taking the vaccine, and so on.
The study looked at around 4000 participants aged 18 years and up, all of whom had to be US residents of course.
The various ‘arms’ used in the study when it came to messaging were as follows:
- Other: Control message
- Other: Baseline message
- Other: Personal freedom message
- Other: Economic freedom message
- Other: Self-interest message
- Other: Community interest message
- Other: Economic benefit message
- Other: Guilt message
- Other: Embarrassment message
- Other: Anger message
- Other: Trust in science message
- Other: Not bravery message
» Lees verder
Authored by Eresh Omar Jamal for The Daily Star (Bangladesh):
Stefania Maurizi is an investigative journalist working for the Italian daily La Repubblica. She has worked on all WikiLeaks releases of secret documents and partnered with Glenn Greenwald to reveal the Snowden Files about Italy. She has authored two books—Dossier WikiLeaks: Segreti Italiani and Una Bomba, Dieci Storie. In an exclusive interview with Eresh Omar Jamal of The Daily Star, Maurizi talks about the continued arbitrary detention of Julian Assange, why powerful governments see WikiLeaks as an existential threat, and the implications for global press freedom if Assange is prosecuted for publishing secret government documents.
You recently had the chance to visit Julian Assange at the Ecuadorian Embassy in London. When was this and can you describe the state he is in?
I was able to visit him on November 19, after 8 months of failed attempts, because last March the Ecuadorian authorities cut off all his social and professional contacts, with the exception of his lawyers, and in the preceding 8 months, I had asked for permission to visit him nine times without success—the Ecuadorian authorities didn’t reply at all to my requests.
When I was finally granted permission to visit the WikiLeaks founder at the Ecuadorian embassy in London last November, I was literally shocked to see the huge impact his isolation has had on his health. Because I have worked as a media partner with him and his organisation, WikiLeaks, for the last nine years, I have met him many times and can tell when there are any changes in his body and mind. I wondered how his mind could keep working; but after talking to him in the embassy for two hours, I have no doubt that his mind is working fine. I still wonder how that’s possible after six and a half years of detention without even one hour of being outdoors. I would have had a physical and mental breakdown after just 6 months, not after 6 years.
Detention and isolation are killing him slowly, and no one is doing anything to stop it. The media reports, the commentators comment, but at the end of the day, he is still there; having spent the last six and a half years confined to a tiny building with no access to sunlight or to proper medical treatment.
» Lees verder