The NFL will not mandate COVID-19 vaccines. Thus, it stands to reason, even with incentives offered to teams and players who are vaccinated, some players aren’t going to get a shot.
Bills quarterback Josh Allen could be one of those. In an appearance on The Ringer’s “10 Questions With Kyle Brandt” podcast, Allen said he has not had a vaccine and might not get one.
“I’m still debating that,” Allen said, via Matt Parrino of nyup.com. “I’m a big statistics and logical guy. So, if statistics show it’s the right thing for me to do, I’d do it. Again, I’d lean the other way, too, if that’s what it said. I haven’t been paying attention to it as much as maybe I should have. I’ve just been doing my thing and masking up when I’m going out and just staying close and hanging around family.”
It is unclear what statistics Allen needs to see to convince him to get a shot. The Pfizer vaccine was shown a 95 percent efficacy rate in preventing symptomatic COVID-19, just 1 percentage point more than Moderna’s. The single-dose Johnson & Johnson vaccine was shown to have a 72 percent efficacy rate in the United States in preventing symptomatic illness and an 85 percent efficacy rate in preventing the most severe disease 28 days after vaccination.
Allen, 24, made clear he’s against any kind of mandate.
“I think everybody should have that choice to do it or not to do it,” Allen said. “You get in this tricky situation now where if you do mandate that that’s kind of going against what our constitution says and the freedom to kind of express yourself one way or the other. I think we’re in a time where that’s getting a lot harder to do. Everybody should have that choice.”
However, the league expects to amend certain protocols for those who are vaccinated and for teams as a whole if certain vaccination levels are met, which will encourage (pressure?) players to get a COVID-19 shot.
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
The funny thing is that I worked with this guy as a dishwasher at a restaurant back in high school, and I was unable to convince him then that it was a bad idea to snack on the leftover food that came in on the plates.
You just needed to show him the data. Obviously an analytical dude. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
You have to take a vaccine to save somebody else is a terrible sales pitch.
If the vaccines work well there should be no need for coercion.
It makes me wonder about other public campaigns that asked people to practice altruism. How effective were they?
The immediate ones that come to mind for me are WWIi campaigns for things like victory gardens and rationing and buying war bonds. Those were all focused on helping other people, I think. My understanding is that they were successful, but I've never really thought about it. What other public campaigns have focused on "help your fellow human beings?"
I guess we had the crying Indian with pollution. That one seemed to resonate and it was more about helping society than oneself. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It makes me wonder about other public campaigns that asked people to practice altruism. How effective were they?
The immediate ones that come to mind for me are WWIi campaigns for things like victory gardens and rationing and buying war bonds. Those were all focused on helping other people, I think. My understanding is that they were successful, but I've never really thought about it. What other public campaigns have focused on "help your fellow human beings?"
I guess we had the crying Indian with pollution. That one seemed to resonate and it was more about helping society than oneself.
People have a much different mindset today than 80 years ago..
We are a selfish nation that values instant gratification, altruism is hard to make work with that. [Reply]
In general, though, I agree about content. It's good to educate people that you can help society by getting vaccinated, but I bet it's not going to be as successful as telling people that they get a personal benefit by being vaccinated. As Mecca said, we're generally selfish and from an evolutionary perspective it's rational to be selfish. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
There is a small subset of people that are against all vaccines. If you wish to make the group bigger this is the way.
Eh, most anti-vax people are off their rocker. [Reply]
Originally Posted by MahomesMagic:
You have to take a vaccine to save somebody else is a terrible sales pitch.
If the vaccines work well there should be no need for coercion.
It's really not just that. You're helping yourself too but it's not something that can be done individually and done successfully. That's not how herd immunity works.
But as we've seen over the last year people generally have no concept of math or the ability to look ahead and plan. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It makes me wonder about other public campaigns that asked people to practice altruism. How effective were they?
The immediate ones that come to mind for me are WWIi campaigns for things like victory gardens and rationing and buying war bonds. Those were all focused on helping other people, I think. My understanding is that they were successful, but I've never really thought about it. What other public campaigns have focused on "help your fellow human beings?"
I guess we had the crying Indian with pollution. That one seemed to resonate and it was more about helping society than oneself.
That commercial was funded by plastic companies I think trying to put the responsibilities of fixing pollution on the people instead of the focus being on the producers to fix it. Was just on John Oliver [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
In general, though, I agree about content. It's good to educate people that you can help society by getting vaccinated, but I bet it's not going to be as successful as telling people that they get a personal benefit by being vaccinated. As Mecca said, we're generally selfish and from an evolutionary perspective it's rational to be selfish.
Wouldn't take much either...imagine if you got a free PS5 for getting vaccinated..the lines would be out the ass. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Rain Man:
It makes me wonder about other public campaigns that asked people to practice altruism. How effective were they?
The immediate ones that come to mind for me are WWIi campaigns for things like victory gardens and rationing and buying war bonds. Those were all focused on helping other people, I think. My understanding is that they were successful, but I've never really thought about it. What other public campaigns have focused on "help your fellow human beings?"
I guess we had the crying Indian with pollution. That one seemed to resonate and it was more about helping society than oneself.
Not saying it's right or wrong, just making a statement but those WWII campaigns weren't really about helping other people. They were about defeating evil. It's a lot easier to really people to help their fellow man when they feel they're actually fighting something and can make a difference.
Again, not saying it's right or wrong, but I think a lot of people feel like they have zero control over this - it's a virus - and I personally know of people that just don't feel like anything they do can make a difference. It's force majeur. [Reply]
Originally Posted by Monticore:
That commercial was funded by plastic companies I think trying to put the responsibilities of fixing pollution on the people instead of the focus being on the producers to fix it. Was just on John Oliver
Well, that was mean.
I read an article a while back about pedestrian deaths due to being hit by cars. The article looked at messaging in the early days of automobiles. Apparently when cars were first appearing on roadways the messaging was aimed at cars to watch out for pedestrians. But by the 1920s it had flipped. The messaging now put the responsibility on pedestrians to watch out for cars. I found that quite interesting. [Reply]