> They are not vaccinated because they did not want.
That is a perfect answer on the individual level. For example: Why is Bob’s uncle not vacinated? He didn’t want to.
On a population level it is insuficient. When you are asking why only X% of a large population is vaccinated, you can look at larger forces at play.
Is the availablr vacine working? Rationally is the risk of getting the vacine worth the benefit of it based on what we know? ( This is the bedrock of the question. )
Assuming it is worth it, are the people who have this information able to communicate this in a credible way to the population? If not what made the expert not credible? What could have been done differently for them to be more credible in the eye of the population? ( This is equally important! Having a good working vacine, which is not trusted because the system squandered away trust is tragic. )
Was the logistics of the vaccination well executed? ( Less people will get vaccinated if its not convenient for them. )
Are there any other factors which affected the vacination rate?
These are all valid questions, and they are all enclosed in the original one: why only X% of this population is vacinated?
> i am wondering about your question.
That is a good thing, but it sounds like maybe you are insinuating something? If not sorry for the misunderstanding. If yes it would be better if you could spell out what you are wondering so we can discuss it.
That is a perfect answer on the individual level. For example: Why is Bob’s uncle not vacinated? He didn’t want to.
On a population level it is insuficient. When you are asking why only X% of a large population is vaccinated, you can look at larger forces at play.
Is the availablr vacine working? Rationally is the risk of getting the vacine worth the benefit of it based on what we know? ( This is the bedrock of the question. )
Assuming it is worth it, are the people who have this information able to communicate this in a credible way to the population? If not what made the expert not credible? What could have been done differently for them to be more credible in the eye of the population? ( This is equally important! Having a good working vacine, which is not trusted because the system squandered away trust is tragic. )
Was the logistics of the vaccination well executed? ( Less people will get vaccinated if its not convenient for them. )
Are there any other factors which affected the vacination rate?
These are all valid questions, and they are all enclosed in the original one: why only X% of this population is vacinated?
> i am wondering about your question.
That is a good thing, but it sounds like maybe you are insinuating something? If not sorry for the misunderstanding. If yes it would be better if you could spell out what you are wondering so we can discuss it.