Attitudes Toward The COVID-19 Vaccine Among North Carolina Participants In The COVID-19 Community Research Partnership

Willingness to receive the newly developed Coronavirus Disease-2019 (COVID-19) vaccines is highly variable. To assess the receptiveness of a select sample of North Carolinians to COVID-19 vaccination, a brief survey was conducted among participants in the COVID-19 Community Research Partnership (CCRP) affiliated with five medical centers in North Carolina. A total of 20,232 CCRP participants completed a multiple choice, mini survey electronically between December 17, 2020 and January 13, 2021. Of the 20,232 survey respondents, 15,422 (76.2%) were receptive to vaccination. Vaccine receptiveness increased incrementally with age with those >70 years being the most willing to be vaccinated compared to all other age groups. Respondents with no previous COVID-19 diagnosis were more likely to accept the vaccine compared to those that have a previous COVID-19 diagnosis (76.6% vs 60.9%). Comparative analysis of gender, race/ethnicity, and residence locale revealed that women, African Americans, and suburban participants were less willing to get a COVID-19 vaccine. There was no difference in vaccine intent based on healthcare worker status. Of those unwilling to get the vaccine, 82% indicated that the reason was uncertainty about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.

1916

Bradley spent a year investigating the health of rural North Carolinians in the coastal plain and mountains. Disparity between the care available to whites and blacks challenged Bradley’s racial attitudes, especially vis-à-vis midwives and maternal mortality. The bureau published a book-length account of her North Carolina findings that inspired other states to request rural field studies by Bradley.

Charlie van der Horst (1952-2019)

Charlie van der Horst, an emeritus professor at the University of North Carolina and a friend of Pathogens and Immunity, disappeared from sight on Friday, June 14 during a marathon swim in the Hudson River. His death was confirmed. Few who knew him would call him Charles as formality was not his strong-suit. Charlie was born in Holland to a Dutch father and a Polish Holocaust survivor mother. His family moved to the Buffalo, New York area and sent Charlie to school at Andover. He attended Duke University where he captained the varsity swim team in 1973-74. He remained a powerful swimmer, competing often in national Masters’ competitions. He received his MD degree from Harvard in 1979 and trained in medicine at Montefiore Medical Center and Infectious Diseases at the University of North Carolina. He was an expert in the management of fungal diseases and when the AIDS epidemic began, he knew he had to commit his career to AIDS research and care. He led a highly successful AIDS Clinical Trials Unit at the University of North Carolina and was a respected leader in this national consortium who gained international recognition and respect for his work. More than most anyone else I know, Charlie was driven to fight for justice, anywhere, any time. At the 2000 IAS meeting in Durban, South Africa he recognized that the greater AIDS need was in the developing world and he redirected his entire career towards the development of research and care programs in Africa. When Ebola hit West Africa, Charlie rushed to Liberia to help. In the U.S., Charlie was on the front lines urging his state legislature to deal fairly with all North Carolinians, working hard to fight for equity in health care. He was beloved by so many, respected for his talents, admired for his decency. He was, as my grandmother would have said—a mentsch—and more. Our world is lucky to have had him and is diminished by his loss.

Two North Carolinians, Same Goal, Different Approaches

The volume’s final substantive essay compares and contrasts the public careers of two of the most important members of that generation of North Carolina politicians who rose to prominence after the founding era. Archibald D. Murphey was an Orange County judge and state senator who became known as a champion of constitutional reform and state support for education and internal improvements. Nathaniel Macon served 24 years in the U.S. House of Representatives and 13 years in the Senate and acquired a reputation as an archconsevative. This essay suggests traditional accounts may exaggerate their differences. Macon’s opposition to the Sedition Bill of 1798 showed a civil libertarian streak. Both men owned slaves and neither supported any significant steps to end slavery. Both men supported the University of North Carolina. Their differences stemmed in part from the different realms in which they operated. As a member of Congress, Macon felt compelled to address the constitutional limits of federal power, issues which Murphey, as a state politician, did not have to confront.

North Carolina's Revolutionary Founders

This collection of essays profiles a diverse array of North Carolinians, all of whom had a hand in the founding of the state and the United States of America. It includes stories of how men who stood together to fight the British soon chose opposing sides in political debates over the ratification of the supreme law of the land, the Constitution. It also includes accounts of women, freedmen, and Native Americans, whose narratives shed light on the important roles of marginalized people in the Revolutionary South. Together, the essays reveal the philosophical views and ideology of North Carolina’s revolutionaries.

The Rise and Fall of the Branchhead Boys

Louisiana had the Longs, Virginia had the Byrds, Georgia had the Talmadges, and North Carolina had the Scotts. In this history of North Carolina’s most influential political family, Rob Christensen tells the story of the Scotts and how they dominated Tar Heel politics. Three generations of Scotts – W. Kerr Scott, Robert Scott, and Meg Scott Phipps – held statewide office. Despite stereotypes about rural white southerners, the Scotts led a populist and progressive movement strongly supported by rural North Carolinians – the so-called Branchhead Boys, the rural grassroots voters who lived at the heads of tributaries throughout the heat of North Carolina. Though the Scotts held power in various government positions in North Carolina for generations, they were instrumental in their own downfall. From Kerr Scott’s regression into reactionary race politics to Meg Scott Phipps’s corruption trial and subsequent prison sentence, the Scott family lost favor in their home state, their influence dimmed and their legacy in question. Weaving together interviews from dozens of political luminaries and deep archival research, Christensen offers an engaging and definitive historical account of not only the Scott family’s legacy but also how race and populism informed North Carolina politics during the twentieth century.