I feel like a stuck record here, but none of those graphs show vaccine heistancy. Vaccine hesitancy is defined by the WHO's SAGE Working Group on Vaccine Hesitancy as being the difference between
actual take-up of a vaccine and its availability in a region. Those graphs show
polled vaccine hesitancy. It's not the same thing. Asking somebody, "do you intend to take a vaccine" is not reading off of their true future behaviour from some kind of internal dashboard. It's getting them to make a perfomative act of positioning within the discourse that is framed by the question. As such, their response will depend on a hell of a lot of things, not least how they feel about the current political situation and the message that is important for them to give in that context. In short, they don't
know how they will behave when asked to take the vaccine. They don't even know that they don't know. Hell, they don't know that they don't know that what they are answering isn't the question they think they are answering.
It's the same mistake as was made in December, when we also had polled vaccine hesitancy running at 20-30% and subsequent actual hesitancy (in over-50s so far) at less than 5%.
This problem is not just in reports in the Guardian. There are a lot of proper scientific analyses that make this mistake (
this being a key influential one). The nature of the way our political responses are constructed in this neoliberal world is that governments like quantitative studies performed by people who buy into the same neoliberal model of humanity that they do. The study I linked to has absolutely
zero social psychologists included within its collaborators. It's all psychologists who use individualised, universalist models of human behaviour (like CBT) combined with epidemiologists, biomedics and mathematicians. Nobody was involved who understands how information actually gets into the public discourse and affects social behaviour.