In my estimation, probably fewer than authorities think.

US Census collect data on reasons for vaccine hesitancy [1]. #1 and #3 are distrust - of vaccines and of government - which anecdotally matches my network. If that's the case, then we should expect that mischaracterizing treatments to promote vaccines [2] would not be very effective, and most Western countries now are leveling off fairly low in their vaccination rates [3]. But rather than more honesty, we're getting more mandates.

I think Dr. John's Cambell's position, of honest assessment, would have been better as the official position [4]. It's hard to imagine how trust could be regained now though without some sort of reckoning.

1. https://www.census.gov/library/visualizations/interactive/ho...

2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gndsUjgPYo

3. https://youtu.be/hVtX7tY1B0U?t=210

4. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eO9cjy3Rydc&t=600

How many people were convinced of the "95+%" effectiveness of the vaccine only to learn that it fades? Why weren't they told it would fade up front?

Firstly, it wasn’t at all clear how quickly antibody levels would fall, because the data wasn’t available. But it was clear to everybody with scientific literacy that antibody levels would fall over time, because that’s how immune responses work.

What’s been fascinating about the data arising from Pfizer, moderne and astra Zeneca dosing intervals is that it seems quite likely that the spacing is quite to highly responsible for this rather than something inherent to the formulation which is adding to our body of evidence and understanding

I certainly knew last year, as we were watching the stage-1 stage-2 trial results come out, that "how long it lasts" was not known. The news was even saying, it may need to be renewed every few years.

And I'm not really a big follower of science. I just assumed it was like "the flu shot" which you need to get every year.