WWIII

Biden inches towards authorising Storm Shadows in Russia


14 September 2024
Michael Evans
NEW STATESMAN


Storm Shadow, Britain’s highly-prized, air-launched cruise missile, is not going to win the war for Kyiv against the Russian invaders. However, this particular weapon, along with the American ATACMS (Army Tactical Missile System) are literally waiting in the wings for Kyiv to launch a new-style, more deadly and more provocative strike on air bases and missile sites deep inside Russia. They could transform the near-31-month war into the biggest confrontation between Moscow and the West since the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962.




President Putin has warned that if authority is given for these weapons to be used against targets inside Russia, it would mean war between Russia and Nato. Storm Shadow, a heavyweight weapon with a range of more than 150 miles, and ATACMS which can reach 190 miles, have already played significant roles in the war, but exclusively against Russian targets in occupied eastern Ukraine and Russia-annexed Crimea.

Ever since the start of the Russian invasion on 24 February, 2022, the US-led coalition supporting Kyiv has ploughed billions of dollars’ worth of weapons and ammunition to the Ukrainian military to fight off the Russian aggressors – in the hope of protecting Ukraine’s sovereignty. However, there was from the beginning a proviso, set in stone by President Biden., that the weapons which progressively became more advanced and more sophisticated should be used to defend Ukraine from attack, not deployed to mount over-the-border strikes into Russia itself.

To Kyiv this made no military sense. If Moscow could launch attacks on Ukrainian cities from the safety of the Russian motherland – stand-off cruise missiles fired by bombers well away from Ukrainian air defences- then why should Ukraine not do likewise and hit the very bases inside Russia from where the strikes originated.

A basic military maxim is that you hit the enemy where it hurts the most. But Biden said no, fearful of pushing Putin too far, down the nuclear escalatory road. Other members of the pro-Ukraine coalition went along with Biden’s edict, although with less enthusiasm in London.

All that has now changed, and for a number of reasons. First, Biden is slowly becoming persuaded that Russia deserves to be targeted in retaliation for the huge increase in destructive missile strikes on Ukrainian cities, and, in particular, attacks by heavy precision-guided glide bombs that can weigh up to three tons.

Second, Ukraine is developing its own longer-range missiles which will be capable of hitting targets inside Russia. Kyiv already possesses long-range armed drones which have had some notable successes in striking Russian sites, although with only limited explosive warheads. Under this reasoning, the US and UK would just be contributing towards Ukraine’s own home-grown weapons capability.

The new Labour government in Britain clearly wants to be on the front foot as far as the war in Ukraine is concerned

Third, there is a growing confidence, albeit with an element of having one’s fingers crossed, that Putin is never going to resort to using tactical nukes against Ukraine. The West sent battle tanks and F-16 fighter aircraft, both supposedly red-line escalatory moves in Putin’s mind, but his warnings of dire consequences proved to be bluster.

Fourth, Iran has sent hundreds more short-range ballistic missiles to Russia, all of which will be used to hit Ukrainian civilian and military targets. Although Iran had sent ballistic missiles to Moscow earlier in the year, the continuing flow of such systems between Tehran and Moscow has begged the question: if Moscow can get arms from an overseas ally for use against Ukraine, why shouldn’t Kyiv be allowed to fire Western long-range missiles at Russian targets, wherever they might be.

This is where Storm Shadow and ATACMS have come into play. Both are highly effective weapons which, with the benefit of their longer range, could cause significant damage to the bases from where Russia is currently launching aircraft with their payload of deadly glide bombs.

The new Labour government in Britain clearly wants to be on the front foot as far as the war in Ukraine is concerned, and already appears to be persuaded that Storm Shadow, a Franco-British weapon which has performed to all expectations since its introduction into Ukraine last year, should be used to help Kyiv strike at legitimate targets inside Russia. David Lammy, the foreign secretary, and Antony Blinken, the US secretary of state, who were in Kyiv together this week, appear to be of the same mind, that now is the time to concede to President Zelensky’s long-argued wishes for the US and UK to remove the caveat covering the use of these weapons.

In Washington DC yesterday, Keir Starmer met Biden to discuss the Storm Shadow issue, and left without the approval that he badly wanted. The final decision, he hinted, could be taken at the United Nations General Assembly at the end of the month.

Putin has only just got round to sending infantry and marine brigades to try and push Ukrainian troops out of the Kursk region in western Russia which they invaded last month. What would the Russian leader do if Western F-16s flew bombing raids with Storm Shadow cruise missiles over the border? Would it mean war between Russia and Nato? Does the West back down or call Putin’s bluff? It will be the biggest decision Biden has to make in his last four months as president.


Written by  Michael Evans
Michael Evans was defence editor at the Times for 12 years. He still writes regularly about defence and security for the paper. He wrote a memoir called First with the News.

ANGLO SAXON ANTI-SEMITISM

Hundreds of Jews were offered the chance to escape Nazi Austria. Civil servants in the UK turned them away

Rory Carroll
Sat 14 September 2024 

Alfred Neumann, back right, with six Jewish workers from Vienna with whom he opened a factory in Newtownards, County Down in August 1938.Photograph: The Northern Whig

On 26 August 1938, Zionistische Rundschau, a Jewish newspaper in Vienna, ran a two-paragraph article under a tantalising headline: “Jewish artisans for Northern Ireland”.

The authorities in Belfast were seeking immigrants from central Europe with skills to train local people and set up enterprises, said the article. “Applications for the registration of startups should be sent to the Northern Ireland Ministry of Commerce, which will examine them in a careful but supportive manner.”

It was, one reader recalled, “like a sign from destiny”. Five months earlier, Adolf Hitler’s troops had annexed Austria and unleashed a campaign of confiscations, intimidation and violence against Vienna’s 170,000 Jews. Now, for some artisans and business owners, came the possibility of sanctuary in a corner of the UK, an escape ahead of the Holocaust.

Around 300 applications with the names of 730 men, women and children landed at Stormont, the seat of Northern Ireland’s government. A handful of civil servants processed the applications. Most ended up inscribed with one of two brief, dry responses: “Regret” or “No reply”.

The first was an instruction to junior civil servants and typists to send a letter of rejection. The second was an instruction to not bother sending any reply. Just a few dozen applications were accepted before the scheme ended. Northern Ireland’s chance to save hundreds and potentially thousands of Jews, and give an example to the rest of the world years before Oskar Schindler, slipped away.

A new book, The Saved and the Spurned: Northern Ireland, Vienna and the Holocaust by Noel Russell, has told the full story for the first time. Based on archives, unpublished family memoirs, letters and interviews with survivors, it tells a heartbreaking story of lost opportunity as evil seeped across Europe.

“It was shocking to learn that people turned away had been murdered in the Holocaust,” said Russell. “It was very emotional to read the letters. Your heart bleeds when you find out what happened to them.”

There is inspiration in the tales of those who did reach Northern Ireland and made an outsized economic and cultural impact, but the overriding sense is regret at what might have been, said Russell, a journalist-turned-author.

“Civic society was not unified enough to put pressure on the government to allow in refugees. There was a chance missed. For people to be saved, you’ve got to be more openminded than the bureaucracy. I think there would have been a more generous response had more people known what was happening.”

The Stormont authorities, using their limited autonomy from Westminster, conceived the initiative in response to a moribund economy and crippling unemployment. There was a precedent: two centuries earlier, Huguenots fleeing persecution in France had founded a linen industry.

And earlier in 1938, a Jew named Alfred Neumann had brought in seven workers from Austria to train locals at a fabric factory in Newtownards, County Down, providing a template for a wider scheme.

The Zionistische Rundschau news item came as Nazi officials, including Adolf Eichmann, ratcheted up pressure on Vienna’s Jews. They were hounded from homes and jobs, forced to scrub pavements, jeered at, beaten and detained.

The Belfast Telegraph and other Northern Ireland newspapers chronicled the persecution – there were vivid, syndicated reports - but Stormont’s bureaucrats viewed the scheme in narrow economic terms, said Russell. “They weren’t operating as humanitarian appraisers, they were operating as civil servants with a job creation scheme to implement.”

Neumann advised the officials yet they still rejected applicants with valuable skills, said Russell, a former BBC producer and documentary maker. One reason was a fear of duplicating existing businesses. “I don’t think they showed much imagination.” Another was that the Home Office in London tightened rules on admitting refugees from Austria.

After the November 1938 pogrom known as Kristallnacht, some applicants strayed from the usual neutral tone and betrayed anguish – “please help a despaired family,” said one – but the rejections continued. “Synagogues burned, murders, it was just a hellhole for Jews. People were clutching at any straw to get out,” said Russell.

Of the 730 people named in petitions, about 630 were rejected. Of them, around 125 were murdered in extermination camps such as Sobibor and Treblinka, with the fate of others unclear, said the author.

The hundred or so Jews who were admitted to Northern Ireland settled, found jobs and some built factories. Neumann was credited with bringing about 70 of them. After war broke out, he was interned as an enemy alien and put on a ship, the SS Arandora Star, with Italian, German and Austrian detainees that in July 1940 was sunk by a German submarine. He drowned.

The anti-immigrant riots in Belfast and other parts of the UK last month showed a depressing lack of humanity, said Russell. “It makes you realise that terrible things that happened can easily be inflamed again.”

UK
780,000 eligible pensioners to lose out on fuel payment - DWP

Emily Atkinson
BBC News
Iain Watson
Political correspondent

EPA


Around 780,000 pensioners in England and Wales are set to lose their winter fuel allowance because they are not expected to apply for benefits they are entitled to, according to the government's own analysis.

The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) estimates were released under freedom of information laws on Friday.

The "equalities analyses" predicted many people entitled to pension credit - and therefore eligible for fuel payments under the new rules - will not submit a claim, and therefore lose the subsidy altogether.

The disclosure comes after the government told opposition parties it had not carried out a full assessment of the policy's impact, amid calls for analysis to be released.

No 10 has previously said it was not legally obliged to produce a full impact assessment on the decision to means test the benefit.

Under the changes, winter fuel allowance will still be available to those claiming pension credit and some other benefits, but around 10 million people are set to be stripped of the payment.

A Treasury spokesman told the BBC that more than a million pensioners would still receive the winter fuel payment, and the government is encouraging people eligible for pension credit to apply.

However, the DWP's internal analysis confirms the government is expecting hundreds of thousands of eligible people to miss out.

The government estimates around 100,000 more people could be persuaded to claim pension credit, but more than three quarters of a million pensioners who are eligible are still not expected to submit a claim, the document confirmed.

The analysis also suggested that nine in 10 pensioners aged between 66 and 79 would lose their allowance, and eight in 10 over 80s would do so.

Since those over 80 receive a higher payment - £300 as opposed to £200 - they would take the greatest financial hit, it said.

The analysis also found that while those with a disability would be most likely to retain the payment, around 71% will still lose their entitlement.

Conservative Party chairman Richard Fuller called on Labour to "immediately" conduct and publish a full impact assessment of "this harmful policy", accusing the government of having "sneaked out" the analysis.

Previously, the Liberal Democrats said not carrying out an impact assessment before cutting support was "absolutely unthinkable".

Speaking on Thursday, Sir Keir Starmer said the decision to cut winter fuel payments was necessary to stabilise the economy, and that the government was putting "mitigations in place".

The DWP said the document - which is more limited than a full impact assessment - was not "routinely published alongside secondary legislation" after it was published in response to a Freedom of Information request.

Government accused of trying to hide ‘horrific’ impact of winter fuel squeeze

The Tories maintained pressure on Sir Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves over the means-testing of pensioners’ winter fuel payments.

PA Wire
David Hughe

Sir Keir Starmer’s government faced accusations of trying to hide from the “horrific” impact of the decision to strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners.

More than 80% of people aged 80 and over will lose out, as will more than 70% of pensioners.

Even among those who should still receive the payments, worth up to £300, an estimated 780,000 will miss out because they have not claimed pension credit.

Chancellor Rachel Reeves blamed a ‘black hole’ in the public finances for the decision to means-test the payment (Lucy North/PA)
PA Wire

The figures were quietly slipped out on Friday night, which shadow Treasury chief secretary Laura Trott said was a “downright disgrace”.

Downing Street has said that a full impact assessment of the change, coming into effect this year, has not been carried out.

The Department for Work and Pensions released figures, published in response to a freedom of information request, are based on “equality analyses” which “are not impact assessments and not routinely published alongside secondary legislation”.

From this winter, only people on pension credit or certain other benefits will receive the payments, while about 10 million others are set to be stripped of the allowance.

The Government has insisted the move is necessary to help fill a “£22 billion black hole” in the public finances inherited from the Tory government.

Around 71% of those with a disability and 83% of those aged 80 or over will now miss out on the payment.

However, in its FOI response, the DWP said that while those with a disability will be disproportionately likely to retain the payment, “around 71% – 1.6 million – of people with a disability will still lose entitlement”.

UK Government accused of trying to hide ‘horrific’ impact of winter fuel squeeze

14 Sep 2024 3 minute read

Yui Mok/PA Wire

Sir Keir Starmer’s government faced accusations of trying to hide from the “horrific” impact of the decision to strip winter fuel payments from millions of pensioners.

More than 80% of people aged 80 and over will lose out, as will more than 70% of pensioners.

Even among those who should still receive the payments, worth up to £300, an estimated 780,000 will miss out because they have not claimed pension credit.

The figures were quietly slipped out on Friday night, which shadow Treasury chief secretary Laura Trott said was a “downright disgrace”.

Downing Street has said that a full impact assessment of the change, coming into effect this year, has not been carried out.

‘Equality analyses’

The Department for Work and Pensions released figures, published in response to a freedom of information request, are based on “equality analyses” which “are not impact assessments and not routinely published alongside secondary legislation”.

From this winter, only people on pension credit or certain other benefits will receive the payments, while about 10 million others are set to be stripped of the allowance.

The Government has insisted the move is necessary to help fill a “£22 billion black hole” in the public finances inherited from the Tory government.

Around 71% of those with a disability and 83% of those aged 80 or over will now miss out on the payment.

However, in its FOI response, the DWP said that while those with a disability will be disproportionately likely to retain the payment, “around 71% – 1.6 million – of people with a disability will still lose entitlement”.

And about 880,000 people currently set to lose the benefit this year are pensioners entitled to pension credit who have not claimed it, according to the analysis.

The assessment assumes a five percentage point “loss aversion” increase in pension credit take-up, which the DWP said then cuts the number of eligible pensioners failing to claim to about 780,000.

The DWP said: “The Government has followed its legal and statutory duties ahead of introducing these changes and will continue to do so.”

‘Damning’

Ms Trott said: “The publication of these analyses is a damning indictment of this entire Labour government.

“Not only do these reports confirm that thousands of pensioners will suffer this winter as a result of Rachel Reeves’ cold-hearted decision, but they were also hidden until after Labour forced their MPs to vote through this cut.

“It is a downright disgrace.

“Labour has cut winter fuel payments for 10 million pensioners knowing the horrific impact it will have, but they will not be able to hide from the consequences of it. We will bring them to task every step of the way.”

The revelations have reignited a row over the policy, which has been attacked by both unions and opposition critics as it sets out to strip about 10 million pensioners of the support with their energy bills.

The Government has said the measures are expected to save about £1.3 billion in the first year.

Share this:

High Court rejects the UK's first new coal mine in 30 years

A judge has rejected plans for the U.K.'s first coal mine in three decades, delivering a victory for environmental groups

By  BRIAN MELLEY

 Associated Press
September 13, 2024



LONDON -- A judge on Friday rejected plans for the United Kingdom’s first new coal mine in three decades, delivering a victory for climate groups who challenged the project's claim it would have zero impact on global emissions.

High Court Justice David Holgate's decision follows a June ruling by the U.K. Supreme Court that said planners reviewing oil well-drilling permits must consider the greenhouse gas emissions from burning the extracted oil.

“The assumption that the proposed mine would not produce a net increase in greenhouse gas emissions, or would be a net zero mine, is legally flawed," Holgate said.

Friends of the Earth and South Lakes Action on Climate Change, a local group, challenged the government’s approval of the plan for the mine’s development in a coastal town in England’s northwest Cumbria area.

The developer, West Cumbria Mining, defended the proposal in court after the Labour government, which was elected to power in July, dropped its support for the project approved by their Conservative predecessors.

“This is fantastic news and a huge victory for our environment and everyone who has fought against this climate-damaging and completely unnecessary coal mine," said attorney Niall Toru of Friends of the Earth. “The case against it is overwhelming: it would have huge climate impacts, its coal isn’t needed and it harms the U.K.’s international reputation on climate."

The ruling sends the decision back to the government for reconsideration.

The mining company, which had promoted the project as a net-zero positive, said it would consider the ruling but declined to comment.

When the Conservatives approved the plan in 2022, environmentalists said it was a backward step and would make it harder to achieve a goal of generating 100% of electricity from clean energy sources by 2035 and reaching net-zero carbon emissions by 2050.

The left-leaning Labour government has also distanced itself from its predecessor's emphasis on oil and gas exploration. Prime Minister Keir Starmer has announced plans to increase wind power generation and pledged to not issue new oil drilling licenses in the North Sea.


The mine on the site of a shuttered chemical plant in Whitehaven, a town 340 miles (550 kilometers) northwest of London, would have extracted coking coal used in steelmaking rather than producing electricity.

Opponents said the coal would no longer be needed domestically as Britain's largest steelmaking operation in Port Talbot, Wales, owned by India’s Tata Steel, transitions from coal-fired blast furnaces to electric arc furnaces, which emit less carbon.

___

SCOTLAND

Exclusive:

SNP told to rethink nuclear opposition after Grangemouth energy jobs losses

By David Bol
Deputy Political Editor
THE SCOTSMAN
Published 14th Sep 2024, 06:00 BST

Tarde unions are calling for the Scottish Government to allow nuclear power to contribute to the country’s net zero energy mix - amid fears over highly-skilled jobs.

SNP ministers have been urged to rethink their opposition to nuclear power and “exploit its potential” amid fears highly-skilled energy jobs are leaving Scotland for the rest of the UK.

The renewed fears have ramped up after Petroineos confirmed Scotland’s only oil refinery, at Grangemouth, will close next year, with the loss of 400 direct jobs and impacting almost 3,000 jobs in total.

Torness could be considered as the site for a new nuclear reactor in Scotland. Picture: Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images

SNP ministers have been warned by trade unions “the jobs promised through the just transition have not materialised”, amid concerns the Scottish Government’s tunnel vision on wind power is shutting the door on wider job opportunities in the energy sector.

Read more: Grangemouth refinery closure to hit 2,800 jobs as 'hammer blow' decision a 'significant economic shock'

The refinery closure at Grangemouth came before the Scottish Government’s just transition plan for the site had been published, despite being first promised by Nicola Sturgeon back in 2022. The decision has raised concerns about the prospects of energy workers moving from fossil fuels jobs into cleaner technologies.

Yesterday, First Minister John Swinney met with trade unions at Grangemouth and said “intense dialogue” would continue amid an ambition “to secure sustainable, skilled jobs in Grangemouth for many years to come”.

First Minister John Swinney visited Forth Valley College to meet representatives from the Grangemouth oil refinery and local government representatives (Pic: Michael Boyd/Getty Images)

Energy, including nuclear power, is reserved to Westminster, but SNP ministers can block new developments north of the Border by vetoing planning applications, which is a devolved matter. The SNP has a long-standing opposition to nuclear power, but union bosses are demanding a change of heart.

Nuclear power can contribute to a net-zero energy mix as it has a relatively small carbon footprint. The Labour UK government is supportive of expanding Britain’s use of nuclear power, including in Scotland.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar has previously suggested that “nuclear, and the highly paid and skilled jobs it brings, must be part of Scotland’s energy mix”.

Scottish Labour leader Anas Sarwar | Jeff J Mitchell/Getty Images.

In Labour’s manifesto ahead of the general election, the party said new nuclear power stations “will play an important role in helping the UK achieve energy security and clean power while securing thousands of good, skilled jobs”.

The GMB has penned a letter to Deputy First Minister and Economy Secretary Kate Forbes and Net Zero Secretary Gillian Martin, seen by The Scotsman, calling on the Government to ensure Scotland does not lose out on the economic benefits of nuclear power.

The letter from GMB Scotland policy and external relations officer Rory Steel said: “Scotland is missing the opportunities that come with nuclear expansion.

“The Scottish Government’s continued block on new nuclear energy is forcing the sector into decline despite the benefits it brings to meeting net zero targets, energy security and high skilled, high-paid employment to thousands. The jobs promised through the just transition have not materialised.”

The Scottish Government’s green industrial strategy, published this week, claims as many as 54,000 jobs could be created in the offshore wind sector.

Mr Steel insisted “nuclear in Scotland means jobs in Scotland”. He said: “If new nuclear sites are being built in Scotland, then the work has to be done here.

“According to the ONS [Office for National Statistics], each nuclear job supports a further 2.3 jobs in the wider economy. This ‘multiplier effect’ is the greatest of any part of the low carbon and renewable energy economy (LCREE), and it is significantly higher than investment in wind power can deliver due to the strong nuclear supply chain.”

Louise Gilmour, GMB Scotland secretary, said: “This is no quick fix and will take decades, but that means there is an even greater imperative to begin work as quickly as possible.

GMB Scotland secretary Louise Gilmour. Picture: Andrew Cawley

“We must make the plans and investments now to meet tomorrow’s targets and if Scotland is at all serious about net zero, then ministers must reconsider nuclear and exploit its potential to reduce emissions and deliver stable and secure energy.

“Hunterston and Torness offer us the opportunity to expand and create low carbon energy and highly-paid jobs. Those jobs are already being created and the economic benefits seized elsewhere on these islands and Scotland must no longer drag our feet.”

A Scottish Government spokesperson said: “New nuclear power is expensive, will take years to become operational and involves significant environmental concerns – not least the long-term disposal and management of radioactive waste.

“Rather than waste further money on nuclear, the Scottish Government has been consistently clear that it makes far greater economic and environmental sense to make greater use of renewable electricity generation.

“We are embracing renewables, hydrogen and carbon capture and storage to drive economic growth, support green jobs and deliver secure, affordable and clean energy for Scotland.

“Our upcoming energy strategy and just transition plan will set out how we will support workers to take advantage of the enormous opportunities offered by becoming a net zero economy.”

Understanding the rationales and information environments for early, late, and nonadopters of the COVID-19 vaccine

• Lisa Singh, 
• Le Bao, 
• Leticia Bode, 
• Ceren Budak, 
• Josh Pasek, 
• Trivellore Raghunathan, 
• Michael Traugott, 
• Yanchen Wang & 
• Nathan Wycoff 

npj Vaccines volume 9, Article number: 168 (2024) Cite this article

• • Article
  • Open access
  • Published: 14 September 2024

  details

Abstract

Anti-vaccine sentiment during the COVID-19 pandemic grew at an alarming rate, leaving much to understand about the relationship between people’s vaccination status and the information they were exposed to. This study investigated the relationship between vaccine behavior, decision rationales, and information exposure on social media over time. Using a cohort study that consisted of a nationally representative survey of American adults, three subpopulations (early adopters, late adopters, and nonadopters) were analyzed through a combination of statistical analysis, network analysis, and semi-supervised topic modeling. The main reasons Americans reported choosing to get vaccinated were safety and health. However, work requirements and travel were more important for late adopters than early adopters (95% CI on OR of [0.121, 0.453]). While late adopters’ and nonadopters’ primary reason for not getting vaccinated was it being too early, late adopters also mentioned safety issues more often and nonadopters mentioned government distrust (95% CI on OR of [0.125, 0.763]). Among those who shared Twitter/X accounts, early adopters and nonadopters followed a larger fraction of highly partisan political accounts compared to late adopters, and late adopters were exposed to more neutral and pro-vaccine messaging than nonadopters. Together, these findings suggest that the decision-making process and the information environments of these subpopulations have notable differences, and any online vaccination campaigns need to consider these differences when attempting to provide accurate vaccine information to all three subpopulations.

Introduction

COVID-19 remains an ongoing public health concern, and all indications suggest that the virus will persist for the foreseeable future1. Vaccines have been crucial in mitigating COVID-19, and their uptake as new boosters develop will remain an important element of a public health strategy to manage the continued presence of this virus2. Most Americans (81% according to the CDC) have received at least one dose of a COVID-19 vaccine since the shots became widely available in early 2021. While many were initially eager to roll up their sleeves, a moderate portion of the country expressed hesitancy3, with some waiting months before getting vaccinated. Around one in five Americans remained unvaccinated two years later4, and only one quarter of those who received the original vaccine received the latest recommended booster5. Compared to other countries, Americans had lower COVID-19 vaccine acceptance rates (57%) during the initial rollout phase at the end of 20206.

COVID-19 vaccine hesitancy has been associated with political and social divides, questions around safety of vaccines, declining public trust in government and science, and misinformation more broadly7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16. In general, online information consumption has been linked to offline behaviors17, and there is also evidence that misinformation on the internet, particularly on social media and YouTube, is associated with hesitancy18. This presence of online misinformation can be more impactful because it exists against a backdrop of low health literacy with respect to COVID-1919. Some research also raised the potential that these sources of misinformation may be associated with partisanship20,21,22. Misinformation about COVID-19 is not limited to the United States; it is a global phenomenon23 with false information disseminating worldwide on social media platforms15,24,25,26,27,28,29.

Despite the considerable body of research on vaccine acceptance and hesitancy, there is a gap in our understanding of the more nuanced nature of individual perceptions and decisions about vaccination. Existing work sheds light on two components of this process—the types of people that report hesitancy30,31,32 and the extent to which various message streams contain problematic information33,34,35—but it does not directly link these components, meaning that it is unclear whether certain types of beliefs and attitudes undergird hesitancy or whether both just happen to be present (perhaps because hesitant individuals bolster their rejection of the vaccination by accepting misinformation36). To the extent that digital platforms have been acknowledged as a significant source of vaccine information37,38,39,40, there is a need for a more in-depth examination of how individuals engage with these channels and whether this is related to how they subsequently form their perceptions about vaccination.

This article is an important step toward understanding this relationship. We first determined what factors are associated with decisions to obtain the COVID-19 vaccine. Using the subpopulation categorization presented by Kang et al.41, we then compared rationalizations of those who vaccinated early (early adopters), those who initially expressed skepticism about getting vaccinated but later change their minds (late adopters), and those who chose not to get vaccinated during our study period (nonadopters). One important part of understanding vaccine hesitancy is identifying the types of information different subpopulations are exposed to and how that may have influenced their behavior. A number of studies documented high levels of ideological segregation of political information on social media42,43,44,45. Given this, our final analysis investigated differences in the information environments of these three subpopulations on Twitter/X. This line of inquiry allowed us to better understand any distinguishing features of each of these subpopulations, including the vaccine messaging received and prominent accounts followed.

While previous research investigated the reasons why some people chose to vaccinate and others chose not to11,46,47, these studies focused primarily on one particular group (e.g., late adopters46,47 or nonadopters11). In this longitudinal study, we compared the reasons why early adopters and late adopters chose to get vaccinated, as well as the reasons why the late adopters initially hesitated and nonadopters did not. While investigating all three subgroups, we focused more on those who initially chose not to get vaccinated, but eventually did, in order to gain insight into what the people who changed their minds were thinking and how their rationale aligned with (or deviated from) the other subgroups. This line of research is important because persuasion of initially hesitant individuals constitutes a primary goal for public health officials, and insights into the thought processes and information environments of those who have already undergone this change directly supports this goal. Also, decisions to delay or refuse vaccines have important implications beyond their ability to save lives during the pandemic48, including the tendency to stay up to date on subsequent COVID-19 shots and vaccines for other diseases49

READ ON /  DOWNLOAD PDF