COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1 [Clinical Study]

Well, there's always quite a bit of talk about mind-control and brainwashing of the masses... here we have a little peek into how it's done.

COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging, Part 1

This is a recently posted ongoing study of 4,000 participants, sponsored by Yale University; the recruitment phase has concluded, which ran from July 7 through July 21, 2020.

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.

I'm sure you can already guess many of the "messages" they shall study. In fact, we're already hearing plenty of them already in one form or another:

~~ Personal freedom
~~ Economic freedom
~~ Self-interest
~~ Community interest
~~ Economic benefit
~~ Guilt
~~ Embarrassment
~~ Anger
~~ Trust in science
~~ Not bravery message

Guilt... Anger... Embarrassment... Nice, huh?

In this study, 2/15 of participants will be assigned to a control message (bird feeding passage), 3/15 of sample to a baseline vaccine message, and 1/15 to each of the 10 other treatment arms.

To be a little more specific, for those receiving the "personal freedom" message:

1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this intervention, which is a message about how COVID-19 is limiting people's personal freedom and by working together to get enough people vaccinated society can preserve its personal freedom.

Or the "guilt" message:

1/15 of the sample will be assigned to this message. The message is about the danger that COVID-19 presents to the health of one's family and community. The best way to protect them is by getting vaccinated and society must work together to get enough people vaccinated. Then it asks the participant to imagine the guilt they will feel if they don't get vaccinated and spread the disease.

Nothing like a little emotional blackmail, eh? Well, for those already so inclined to fall for it... and many are.

Which is where the census-based sampling comes into it. They need to know which regions/demographics respond to which messages in order to target the people appropriately. For example, business owners struggling to keep their business afloat would be targeted with the economic freedom message. People with elderly and vulnerable family would be more inclined to respond to the guilt messages. Whatever feeds and fuels the individual's wants/needs/confirmation biases will be the message they will be targeted with from the appropriate sources.

Their primary outcome measure is simple enough:

Intention to get COVID-19 vaccine [ Time Frame: Immediately after intervention, in the same survey in which the intervention message is provided ] This is a self reported measure, immediately after the intervention message, of the likelihood of getting a COVID-19 vaccination within 3 months and then 6 months of it becoming available. During analysis, responses among those assigned to different intervention messages will be compared to those in the control group.

Their secondary outcome measures not so much:

~~ Vaccine confidence scale
~~ Persuade others item
~~ Fear of those who have not been vaccinated
~~ Social judgment of those who do not vaccinate

So there it is. If ATS is still kicking if/when a vaccine is developed, and the study can be completed/updated, I'll try to revisit the topic. But I don't think any of us will be surprised at what happens...

a reply to: Boadicea

For example, business owners struggling to keep their business afloat would be targeted with the economic freedom message.

No. Or don't you understand what randomization means?

Participants are randomized to 1 of 12 arms, with one control arm and one baseline arm.

Here's some help:
lexjansen.com...

a reply to: Boadicea
The messaging I heard over and over again today was: The vaccine may not be safe. Especially if the distribution is on President Trump's aggressive timetable. Wait until its been in circulation for awhile.

a reply to: Phage

Somehow, I knew you were going to be the first to reply...

...don't you understand what randomization means?

I understand what it means just fine. The study will randomly choose who gets which message... and then tally and analyze the responses and reactions of the participants, and ultimately publish their analysis for widespread perusal --

Anonymized data and analysis code will be posted in a public replication archive after publication.

-- and exploitation and manipulation among the masses. Those conducting the study don't necessarily have to be part of that exploitation and manipulation, which can and will be done by plenty of others. They are just providing the tools for others to do so.

The census-based sampling numbers will provide the exploiters enough information to compare/contrast/adjust the targets and messaging by region/demographic.

a reply to: Boadicea

The census-based sampling numbers will provide the exploiters enough information to compare/contrast/adjust the targets and messaging by region/demographic.

People often attempt to distort the results of studies. That doesn't change the validity (or lack thereof) of the actual findings. For example:

“As confirmed by another recent study of thousands of patients at the Henry Ford Health System in Michigan, HCQ is both very safe and highly effective in treating COVID-19, reducing mortality by 50%,” AAPS informed the court in its filing.

aapsonline.org...

This appears to be a randomized and controlled study on propaganda (in the true sense of the word), though there is no indication of the level of blinding. But I appreciate your preemptive disregard of the results.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: Boadicea
The messaging I heard over and over again today was: The vaccine may not be safe. Especially if the distribution is on President Trump's aggressive timetable. Wait until its been in circulation for awhile.

That's what I'm hearing as well.

The immunity granted to manufacturers tells me the authorities aren't so sure it's safe. And, of course, neither do the manufacturers apparently have any confidence in the safety of their own product. Otherwise no need for immunity from any liability -- civil or criminal.

And, of course, the apparent need to find the right and best "messaging" to convince the people to get the jab... voluntarily... or else...

a reply to: Phage

Thank you -- I'll read it...

a reply to: Boadicea

www.abovetopsecret.com...

But, a reminder of what you said:

For example, business owners struggling to keep their business afloat would be targeted with the economic freedom message.

You seem to be saying the study will not be randomized. No?

a reply to: Boadicea

Message to everyone, we will all be human Guinea pigs for any vaccine released and the companies releasing them are exempt from liabilities to the harm they cause.

The companies developing these vaccines have no problem killing children to sell their vaccines. Despite knowing they're potentially life threatening.

a reply to: Phage

Topic:

COVID-19 Vaccine Messaging,

My post:

Reminder to everyone:

Explain where I'm off topic...

Oh wait..i'll edit my post to say...

'Message to everyone:'

a reply to: dug88

Yeah. We know vaccines are bad.
Everybody knows that.

Not the topic.

a reply to: Phage

As of August 2019, over 600 people (mostly children) that had received at least a single dose of the vaccine had died,[4] 

No..just rushed vaccines for profit.

a reply to: Phage

This appears to be a randomized and controlled study on propaganda (in the true sense of the word), though there is no indication of the level of blinding.

If I'm reading this correctly, you are suggesting that the Henry Ford study is propaganda? Or that the AAPS is using the study for propaganda? In either regard, I don't see it... but I'm not ruling it out either. I already think there is far too much propaganda surrounding HCQ, so I'm ready to accept that this is some kind of propaganda as well.

However, if this is a fair assessment --

Fauci had called the study flawed in part because it was a double-blind trial study, as opposed to a randomized, placebo controlled study, The Detroit News previously reported.

The doctors defended the form of the study, arguing that the double-blind study is the "most well-accepted and definitive method to determine the efficacy of a treatment."

-- then I would not say it's flawed so much as limited to what it can tell us, but still valuable in learning and understanding appropriate treatments, including HCQ. Which is also pretty much what the doctors involved in the study are saying:

The doctors said that while difficult to analyze and as imperfect as all studies are, their recently released study should be considered as another important contribution to the study of hydroxychloroquine and the impact it can have in fighting the coronavirus.

Henry Ford Health System Defends Study Fauci Called 'Flawed'

But I appreciate your preemptive disregard of the results.

Disagreeing is not disregarding.

a reply to: Boadicea

Fauci had called the study flawed in part because it was a double-blind trial study, as opposed to a randomized, placebo controlled study, The Detroit News previously reported.

That is not a fair assessment. It is nonsense. It was not blinded at all, single, double, or triple. Show me where Fauci made such a claim, and read the study yourself. You have the link.

Limitations to our analysis include the retrospective, non-randomized, non-blinded study design.

a reply to: Boadicea
Due to the nature of our legal system, there are tons of attorneys ready to sue for almost any mental or physical injury.

Almost every product or service you purchase contains wording to protect the manufacturer/supplier/seller.

a reply to: Phage

Ah, but how would willingness be affected if it were common knowledge nobody will be liable for your death or harm should this vaccine cause this and that the companies working on this have been responsible for large amounts of deaths selling vaccines in countries with inadequate safety laws that are banned in other countries?

Or that the PR for this is being done by Hill and Knorton, those responsible for convincing Americans the gulf war was a good idea through complete and utter lies.

www.hkstrategies.com...