TUESDAY, MARCH 2, 2021
Baker City, Oregon
4A
Write a letter
news@bakercityherald.com
OUR VIEW
Possible
effects of
legislation
to protect
our rivers
Oregon lawmakers at the state and national level
do far more work regarding unintended consequences
when they craft new legislation.
That isn’t an easy task, especially when a politician
is trying to get reelected, salve the often-sharp politi-
cal edges of his constituents, or is besieged by special
interest groups.
Yet, it is a real issue that typically goes unnoticed
until a piece of legislation becomes law. Then, the unin-
tended consequences are obvious and a whole new set
of problems exist.
A good case in point is a recent proposal by Demo-
cratic Sens. Ron Wyden and Jeff Merkley to add more
than 4,000 miles of Oregon rivers and streams to the
National Wild and Scenic Rivers system.
The bill is set to greatly expand the amount of ter-
rain protected from a quarter-mile strip on each side of
a specifi c river to one-half mile.
At fi rst glance there is something in the bill for
everyone. The fears of environmentalists are assuaged,
hikers and other outdoor enthusiasts will see their
favorite pristine piece of land near a river safeguarded,
and it’s a giant step forward in terms of conservation.
A lingering question, though, should be, “What
would be the unintended consequences to this legis-
lation?” If you are an environmentalist, the answer
would be none. However, if you are not fi rmly rooted
in the conservation camp, what does such a bill really
mean?
Wyden said in a press release regarding the bill
that Oregonians made it “loud and clear: They cherish
Oregon’s rivers and want them protected for genera-
tions to come.”
Wyden is probably correct. Generally, most people
want to see our rivers and mountains protected from
damage, not only now but for future generations.
Still, what Oregonians made it “loud and clear”?
Umatilla County? Morrow County? Folks in Baker
County? If so, how many?
Let’s be clear. We are not in opposition to the bill.
What we do hope is the lawmakers who have carefully
— we hope — crafted the legislation have thought the
idea all the way to the end.
Making wide-sweeping proclamations to appease
conservation groups is all well and good, but the im-
pact of the legislation to the folks on the ground should
be a key question with a readily available answer.
Too often lawmakers develop a grand idea that
sounds great. On paper it makes everyone happy.
Then it becomes law and someone, somewhere, loses.
We think Wyden’s and Merkley’s legislation is too
important to fall into the category of unintended con-
sequences.
Unsigned editorials are the opinion of the Baker City Herald.
Columns, letters and cartoons on this page express the opinions of
the authors and not necessarily that of the Baker City Herald.
Vaccine hesitancy exaggerations
By Sinan Aral and Dean Eckles
Human beings are deeply social, and
that’s not surprising. But this fact has
taken on new urgency as we struggle to
reach herd immunity in the face of new,
more transmissible forms of COVID-19.
One fear that public health offi cials
have repeatedly articulated is vaccine
hesitancy — that despite the availabil-
ity of safe vaccines, not enough people
will accept them, creating insuffi cient
protection for us all.
There is a dangerous irony in
this style of health communication:
Although some portion of society will
resist or refuse vaccines, our research
highlights how overstating or overem-
phasizing hesitancy can, by itself, keep
others from getting vaccinated. Public
health communications should instead
be emphasizing the reality that large
majorities around the world are accept-
ing vaccines, not rejecting them.
Our team at the Massachusetts
Institute of Technology Initiative on the
Digital Economy analyzed the impact
of communicating accurate vaccine in-
tentions on the acceptance or non-ac-
ceptance of the COVID-19 vaccine in a
large global experiment involving over
300,000 people in 23 countries. In the
study, we randomized whether people
were given information about vaccine
acceptance in their country before or af-
ter a detailed question about their own
intentions to accept a vaccine.
For example, participants were told
that based on survey responses in the
previous month, we estimate “that X
percent of people in your country say
they will take a vaccine if one is made
available.” The stated percentage
refl ected accurate survey information
about how many people in the respon-
dent’s country reported they would be
vaccinated.
We wanted to fi nd out how informing
people about the prevalence of vaccine
takers around them would infl uence
their own vaccination choices. It’s an
important question because conformity
Letters to the editor
• We welcome letters on any issue of
public interest. Customer complaints
about specifi c businesses will not be
printed.
• The Baker City Herald will not
knowingly print false or misleading
claims. However, we cannot verify the
and reciprocity could motivate people
to take vaccines the more others take
them. However, there is a possibility
that people would rather free-ride on
the herd immunity created by other
people’s vaccinations.
Understanding which factor will
prevail is essential to promoting vac-
cines effectively. Since some people in
the study were randomly exposed to
the vaccine acceptance of others before
being asked about their own vaccine
intentions, we could estimate how com-
municating this information affected
people’s vaccine choices.
We found that giving people accurate
information about the vaccine accep-
tance of others substantially increased
the likelihood that they would take a
vaccine themselves. Simply informing
them about the fraction of vaccine tak-
ers in their communities reduced the
fraction of people who said they were
“unsure” or would not accept a vaccine
by 5%.
Our analysis also made clear that
this message works best on those who
overestimate vaccine hesitancy the
most. Those who came into the survey
saying they thought vaccine acceptance
was low compared with our estimates
of country-wide intentions were more
likely to tilt toward accepting the vac-
cines once they were given concrete
numbers.
While our experiment involved a
subset of 300,000 people, our survey
— conducted in collaboration with
Facebook and researchers at Johns
Hopkins University and the World
Health Organization — is much larger
and has tracked the vaccine decisions
of 1.6 million people across 67 countries
since July 2020.
Over the last four weeks in the
United States, more than 65% of adults
intend to accept a vaccine or have
already received one, according to our
estimates. More than 80% of adults in
our surveys either say they will take
a vaccine or that they simply don’t
know yet. These majorities, which have
grown over the last few months, are the
largest since we began tracking this in
July.
So when we hear statements like
this from infectious diseases expert Dr.
Anthony Fauci: “My primary biggest
fear is that a substantial proportion of
the people will be hesitant to get vac-
cinated,” we cringe. Declarations like
that can cause the public to overesti-
mate vaccine hesitancy. And — as our
experiment demonstrates — beliefs
about others’ vaccine acceptance in-
crease people’s own vaccine acceptance,
so statements that lead to overesti-
mating vaccine hesitancy can create a
vicious cycle of hesitancy.
Our research has signifi cant implica-
tions for how public health offi cials, the
news media and others should com-
municate about vaccine hesitancy. It is
important to couch such conversations
in the context of large — and often
increasing — majorities who intend to
accept COVID-19 vaccines.
Instead of focusing on a negative vac-
cine message, Fauci and others should
emphasize that they are encouraged
that an overwhelming majority are
accepting vaccines, and that it’s im-
portant to convey to those who remain
hesitant that vaccines are both safe
and effective.
These kinds of social norm messages
should be featured in public health
campaigns. Proactively emphasizing
the vaccine acceptance of others — in-
cluding our community leaders, public
fi gures and even our neighbors — can
help boost vaccination rates to the level
needed to end the pandemic.
accuracy of all statements in letters to
the editor.
• Writers are limited to one letter every
15 days.
• The writer must sign the letter and
include an address and phone number
(for verifi cation only). Letters that do
not include this information cannot be
published.
• Letters will be edited for brevity,
grammar, taste and legal reasons.
Sinan Aral is director of the MIT Initiative
on the Digital Economy and author of
“The Hype Machine: How Social Media
Disrupts our Elections, Our Economy and
Our Health — and How We Must Adapt.”
Dean Eckles is an associate professor of
marketing at the MIT Sloan School of
Management.
Mail: To the Editor, Baker City Herald,
P.O. Box 807, Baker City, OR 97814
Email: news@bakercityherald.com
CONTACT YOUR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
President Joe Biden: The White House, 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.,
Washington, D.C. 20500; 202-456-1111; to send comments, go to
www.whitehouse.gov.
U.S. Sen. Jeff Merkley: D.C. offi ce: 313 Hart Senate Offi ce
Building, U.S. Senate, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-3753;
fax 202-228-3997. Portland offi ce: One World Trade Center, 121
S.W. Salmon St. Suite 1250, Portland, OR 97204; 503-326-3386;
fax 503-326-2900. Baker City offi ce, 1705 Main St., Suite 504, 541-
278-1129; merkley.senate.gov.
U.S. Sen. Ron Wyden: D.C. offi ce: 221 Dirksen Senate Offi ce
Building, Washington, D.C., 20510; 202-224-5244; fax 202-228-2717.
La Grande offi ce: 105 Fir St., No. 210, La Grande, OR 97850; 541-
962-7691; fax, 541-963-0885; wyden.senate.gov.
U.S. Rep. Cliff Bentz (2nd District): D.C. offi ce: 2182 Rayburn
Offi ce Building, Washington, D.C., 20515, 202-225-6730; fax 202-
225-5774. La Grande offi ce: 1211 Washington Ave., La Grande, OR
97850; 541-624-2400, fax, 541-624-2402; walden.house.gov.
Oregon Gov. Kate Brown: 254 State Capitol, Salem, OR
97310; 503-378-3111; www.governor.oregon.gov.
Oregon State Treasurer Tobias Read: oregon.treasurer@
ost.state.or.us; 350 Winter St. NE, Suite 100, Salem OR 97301-
3896; 503-378-4000.
Oregon Attorney General Ellen F. Rosenblum: Justice
Building, Salem, OR 97301-4096; 503-378-4400.
Oregon Legislature: Legislative documents and information
are available online at www.leg.state.or.us.
State Sen. Lynn Findley (R-Ontario): Salem offi ce: 900
Court St. N.E., S-403, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1730. Email: Sen.
LynnFindley@oregonlegislature.gov
State Rep. Mark Owens (R-Crane): Salem offi ce: 900 Court
St. N.E., H-475, Salem, OR 97301; 503-986-1460. Email: Rep.
MarkOwens@oregonlegislature.gov
Baker City Hall: 1655 First Street, P.O. Box 650, Baker City,
OR 97814; 541-523-6541; fax 541-524-2049. City Council meets
the second and fourth Tuesdays at 7 p.m. in Council Chambers.
Councilors Lynette Perry, Jason Spriet, Kerry McQuisten, Shane
Alderson, Joanna Dixon, Heather Sells and Johnny Waggoner Sr.
Baker City administration: 541-523-6541. Jonathan Cannon,
city manager; Ray Duman, police chief; Sean Lee, fi re chief; Michelle
Owen, public works director.
Baker County Commission: Baker County Courthouse 1995
3rd St., Baker City, OR 97814; 541-523-8200. Meets the fi rst and
third Wednesdays at 9 a.m.; Bill Harvey (chair), Mark Bennett,
Bruce Nichols.
Baker County departments: 541-523-8200. Travis Ash,
sheriff; Noodle Perkins, roadmaster; Greg Baxter, district attorney;
Alice Durfl inger, county treasurer; Stefanie Kirby, county clerk; Kerry
Savage, county assessor.
Baker School District: 2090 4th Street, Baker City, OR 97814;
541-524-2260; fax 541-524-2564. Superintendent: Mark Witty.
Board meets the third Thursday of the month at 6 p.m. Council
Chambers, Baker City Hall,1655 First St.; Andrew Bryan, Kevin
Cassidy, Chris Hawkins, Katie Lamb and Julie Huntington.