I don't know about you but it's pretty difficult to get 81% of any population to do anything. I'd consider this overwhelmingly successful.

I don’t specifically know about the US experience, but mass covid vaccination didn’t appear to be all that easy to achieve where I live. It required an overwhelming government information campaign, removal of the ability to engage in many activities if unvaccinated, multiple “lockdowns” and the threat of mandating compliance. I almost wonder that anyone managed to get through all of that when refusing the vaccine.

I'd say more than 81% generally comply with the law. Given the extreme measures employed to "get" people to take it, that might be a closer comparison than whatever it is you're imagining comparing this to.

to play devil's advocate:

you can get 81% of the population to do a lot of things, when you lock them in their homes, forbid them to see their family or get a coffee or go to work unless they do the thing you want them to do.

(i am fully vaccinated, but i wouldn't consider what happened successful in any way)

> - 1 in 8 who initially accepted them rejected the second; 5 in 8 who initially accepted rejected the third

Isn't that somewhat expected? I mean, I got covid when I had the vaccine and it was OK (nearly no symptoms), so I (perhaps naively) concluded "ok, this is probably nothing". Then I happened to get it again and again, longer after I had the vaccine so indirectly I was passively and gradually testing how I would react to the virus without the vaccine. In the end I said ok, this is fine, I probably don't have to be vaccinated again.

Expected by whom? Most doctors probably expected that, but the people setting COVID policy appeared to believe that after being vaccinated people wouldn't get or transmit COVID and therefore coercive tactics could be used to force people to get jabbed. Turns out in hindsight they were both authoritarian and spreading medical misinformation. And have probably undermined trust in vaccines and the medical establishment for a good decade.

The issue here isn't that somehow this is surprising news, the issue here is that there was a general suspension of a lot of basic human rights for, in hindsight, poor reasons and insufficient evidence.

This post conflates a lot of errors. But specifically, I remember the uk chief medical officer being fairly open that the effect of vaccines was stochastic and would only reduce spread on the average, and this was uncertain. The emphasis at the time was very much that vaccines would prevent serious disease and death. Specifically, they wanted to keep people out of hospitals to avoid them being overwhelmed. There was much better evidence for that, and in retrospect vaccination was successful in that.

Here is a montage of various vaccine "leaders" making statements ranging from the vaccines completely stopping the spread, to you being unable to catch COVID with the vaccine. [1] Some people, sometimes, made accurate statements. But by and large misinformation and hyperbole were the rule rather than the exception.

Accepting and approaching this is very important, because while some may simply want to forget many of the things that happened, others never will. And so it will only further galvanize the differences and divides between people. What should be done instead is to consider why such statements were not only made, and not only left unchallenged, but in most cases - actively encouraged. And what we could do to help have a better outcome next time.

There's relatively little doubt that the past years have shattered confidence in many US institutions (public and private...), and that's not really good for anybody. Repairing that damage can only happen once the past is reconciled in a way that everybody can feel generally positive about.

[1] - https://twitter.com/ITGuy1959/status/1581034815700488192

CMO liked to say that up until UK data started showing the vaccinated getting sick (and therefore spreading it) more often than the unvaccinated. That data got worse with time until the vaccinated had a >3x case rate.

2022 meanwhile had record-breaking case levels. Vaccines didn't reduce the spread even on average. But the UK still treated the unvaccinated horribly, justified by these lies about spread.

The correct response to all this is to realize that governments employ a lot of people who are fanatical about vaccines and will lie to any extent necessary to get people to take them.

"Rejected" just means "didn't get" which doesn't automatically imply vaccine hesitancy/doubt.

Also, depending in country, getting after Shot 1/2 counted as shot 2/3. So that should be considered in those Numbers.