I don’t think this is the right take. The actual opinion poll numbers suggest that the “never vax” population has remained fairly constant over time, while the “vax hesitant” population started higher and has gradually decreased.

See for example https://fivethirtyeight.com/features/unvaccinated-america-in...

There’s a pretty stable “never” population at 14%, and you see that as time goes on the hesitants have been gradually been getting won over.

I’m sure some in the “never” camp are using “it’s not been approved” as their current first-line given reason. But I think you need to break down the groups a bit more. There are genuinely people who are not fundamentally anti-vax that are just nervous about how fast the vaccines were developed or scared about what having “RNA” in the vaccine means (I don’t share these concerns but I understand where they come from). Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval.

>Some of these people will at the margin be persuaded by things like full approval.

Maybe some. But, while I don't really like governments and big employers wielding sticks in this case, you'll probably see even more people decide that they're not hesitant enough about vaccines to lose their jobs or be excluded from a lot of activities.

And while those sort of requirements could be implemented before full approval, a lot of organizations apparently wanted the additional air cover.

Absolutely, it’s all about cost/benefit and incentives. If you look at the share of over-70s that are vaccinated, it’s basically the same extremely high rate regardless of party affiliation. They have skin in the game and so they can’t afford to posture as it very well might cost them their lives to do so.

For 20 year-olds, kind of the opposite currently. Costs very little to use this choice as a political signaling gesture. But if the cost increases, as you say, behaviors will change and people will change their position. Talk is cheap, it’s easy to say “never” when it costs you ~nothing to do so.

But in short, I do strongly agree that mandates will be more persuasive than just approval alone. But I think full approval will still be beneficial in places that won’t make mandates.

It wasn't an excuse. It was just the easiest way to get street preachers on a power trip to bugger off

> You can be hesitant of these new mRNA vaccines but for classic vaccines that use dead / weakened viruses, that doesn't make you an "anti-vaxxer".

Exactly. I've had more vaccines than most people ever will because of my time in the military. I'm good with it, I think it was smart given the circumstances. The question isn't "are traditional vaccines OK?" (yes) but "do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?" Of that I'm far less certain.

> do I trust other people's ability to modify my DNA without error?

There is no vaccine that's based on people's ability to modify your DNA, so no need to worry about that. (I wonder how the idea that they do still keeps floating around...)

Probably the AstraZeneca and J&J ones, which do use DNA instead of mRNA.

Adversarial foreign powers. The west is rotting from inside out, social media is exasperating divide in the west. For example, it’s wasn’t so common to see USA vs EU nationalism couple of years ago on HN.

The more they mandate it instead of convince me with science, the more I am skeptical.