by James Billot
Thursday, 18
February 2021
Chart
07:45

If even David Icke fans aren’t anti-vaxxers…

A report on high levels of vaccine hesitancy inadvertently shows the opposite
by James Billot

A newly published study by King’s College London investigates the link between lockdown scepticism and vaccine hesitancy, suggesting that people who trust prominent lockdown sceptics are less likely to get the vaccine.

Listing a full gamut of influential Covid voices — ranging from Sir Patrick Vallance to David Icke — on who respondents trust, the survey asks a series of vaccine-related questions, such as whether respondents’ vaccine scepticism would put them off a Covid vaccine:

Half (52%) of those who trust David Icke say that opposition to vaccines in general is likely to persuade them not to get a Covid vaccine, as do significant minorities of people who trust other lockdown sceptics like Denise Welch (40%), Laurence Fox (33%) and Nigel Farage (31%).

Similarly, only 40% of respondents who trust David Icke say there are certain or likely to get a Covid vaccine:

Ostensibly, these charts paint a clear and predictable story: David Icke’s anti-vaxx views are well-known and Laurence Fox has trod close before so it’s little wonder either one sit towards the bottom of the table.

And yet you could equally look at this data as proof of the UK’s unusual vaccine enthusiasm. Of all the people in the UK, you would expect followers of David Icke to be about as vaccine hesitant as they come. After all, this is a man who has made a career out of claiming the world is run by lizards and paedophiles — why wouldn’t his followers take the comparatively smaller leap with him on vaccines? And yet, if 60% of them were not ‘certain or very likely’ to take a vaccine, that looks like they are roughly evenly divided across a four- or five- point scale (the full data has not yet been released).

Compare this to vaccine scepticism in France, where as much 60% of the overall public do not wish to be vaccinated — quite possibly a higher number than even David Icke fans in the UK.

But since we’re on the subject of conspiracies, one finding that does raise questions is why 38% of people who trust Piers Morgan on the pandemic feel like ‘the real truth about the pandemic is being hidden from us’? Feel free to make your own conclusions…

 

 

Join the discussion


  • If the public trust Starmer more than anyone else, the survey must be rigged and they just went round Islington asking people with colourful hair and beards.
    I can’t believe that so many people trust anyone after all the bollox, lies and applied behavioural psychology.

  • On the one hand, you have the Church of Vaccination where belief in the all-mighty power of vaccines to save the world from disease is their Dogma. Anyone expressing any doubt or hesitancy is committing a mortal sin, and full-blown vaccine denial is anathema, punishable by excommunication from social media and academia.
    On the other hand, you have people who are sort-of Vaccine Agnostics. Well-established vaccines that have a good track record are acceptable to them, but newer, experimental vaccines trigger their scepticism. For them, the evidence for new vaccines is lacking. They note the poor track record for products like Gardasil. They view the growing evidence of adverse reactions to the novel mRNA products with dismay. These are the people who adopt a “wait and see” approach to new vaccines. They want clear evidence that the risk/benefit ratio is firmly on the benefit side before committing to an irreversible course of action.
    Then there are disbelievers. This group includes those people who have had actual experience with adverse reactions. Those who have a child who had Guillain-Barré syndrome after vaccination. There are parents of autistic children who wonder if their child was damaged by a vaccine, but hold their peace because they fear the wrath of the Vaccine Inquisition. Also, in this group are those who note that improvements in hygiene, clean water, sanitation and food safety appear to have had more impact on the reduction of diseases than vaccines. The outright disbelievers in the Dogma of vaccination note that injecting a cocktail of toxic substances into a person and thus bypassing the normal route of infection (the mucous membranes, the skin or the gut) is entirely unnatural.
    There’s a range of opinions. The evidence is not overwhelmingly positive or negative, so a person’s right to choose should never be removed. The Church of Vaccination needs to temper their religious fervour with the knowledge that their faith in the Power of the Holy Vaccine isn’t shared by everyone, and the human right to determine bodily integrity trumps their faith.

  • To get involved in the discussion and stay up to date, become a registered user.

    It's simple, quick and free.

    Sign me up