The 95.3% efficacy for Pfizer and 94.1% efficacy for Moderna are based on early studies. This is incredibly old news. We've since learned that the efficacy wanes over time. This was first evidenced by increasing case counts with Delta and then the huge resurgence in cases with the arrival of Omicron. In other words, you can only expect 95% efficacy for a number of weeks. That is why the narrative changed to instead focus on reduction in hospitalization.
Biden was literally boosted again in March. Has Covid-19 now, 15 weeks later. Fauci was double boosted in March and caught Covid 10 weeks later.
My wife, who is fully vaccinated + 1 booster is presently fighting Covid and due to her asthma we took her to the ER on Friday. The ER doc told her that she has noticed that vaccinated Covid patients she has seen seem to have less hypoxia issues when they catch it but almost all of the people she sees are vaccinated.
Maybe cases are milder if vaccinated, but really do we know this? How do you separate the difference between the variant causing a more mild case from the vaccine causing the variant to be milder. If a population is significantly vaccinated, but the unvaccinated have likely already contracted and developed a natural immunity, the # of unvaccinated, first time covid infected people might be rather small bit this is the control we need to measure natural immunity effectiveness from vaccine effectiveness on Covid variants spreading today.
Never said this. What I have said is that we don’t seem to have an adequate control group to truly know or not what efficacy the vaccines have for the current variants or if the current variants are simply less severe.
Almost every study the government touts for vaccine efficacy now relies on correlation instead of causation evidence.
I think that gives us cause to look at the information from the government with a skeptical eye.
I never made the claim that people should not get vaccinated. What I said was—vaccines and boosters do not prevent you from catching it or getting sick. I also said that it does not appear that we know for sure that the vaccines and boosters actually make the disease milder because we don’t seem to have statistics that show an effective control group of non-vaccinated, first time sufferers of Covid 19 reactions to the existing variants.
A year ago, we were being told by the same people telling us now that the vaccines are effective at preventing severe disease…that the same vaccines prevent people from catching Covid. We also know that these same people have intentionally misled, emphasized problematic studies that supported their POV, and downplayed good studies that did not support their POV. They have played politics with science and that is bad.
So it’s important to look at this pragmatically. If the experts are telling us that their advice has evolved as their understanding of the disease has improved, it’s reasonable to assume their current advice is as problematic as their past advice.
Really? July of 2021 both President Biden and Dr. Fauci we’re making the claim on television that the vaccines “prevented” people from catching Covid.
If it was known a year ago that this was not true, but they said it anyway…do you believe that makes their case for vaccines today more persuasive?
More likely—“Current studies” at that time lead them to “know, or at least strongly believe” that the vaccines did prevent contracting the virus.
Either they were lying, or they were wrong. Either one of those reasons is enough for me to apply a fair dose of skepticism and pragmatism to the topic.
Perhaps you just have more faith than I do that this time things are different.
This tactic where you tell us what someone said and it turns out to be wrong is getting old.
He wasn’t sure in March but according to you he was sure in July
“Fauci explains that it is not yet clear how effective the current vaccines are at curbing the spread of the virus from an immunized person to others. In other words, a vaccine will prevent the recipient from getting sick, but that person may still carry the virus and expose those who have not received the vaccine.”
> In other words, a vaccine will prevent the recipient from getting sick, but that person may still carry the virus and expose those who have not received the vaccine
I just read this little tidbit. So you posted here that he said in July in essence: “that the vaccine will prevent the recipient from getting sick” (which as we know, quite wrong). Yet, you derided me for saying that he said that very same thing a year ago.
Fascinating that you somehow think you are providing evidence on here that we shouldn’t be skeptical of the claims that are being made. You yourself are apparently engaing the same misdirection that the administration did.
I can find no clips of Fauci “correcting” the president after that clip. Only after it became apparent to everyone that the vaccines were not effective at preventing Covid, did the administration start shifting the narrative to the prevention of disease severity talking point.
Fact is, they were wrong, or they were lying to intentionally mislead to encourage vaccination. Either way, what they say now about it now should be examined skeptically.
For the same reason, that this post will quickly vanish from the HN front page, be shadow banned or outright flagged - a huge proportion of the well to do E-Mail class can’t stand a debate.
It’s “follow the science” (ie STFU)- even though science inevitably has debate at its footing.
I don't think so. Your point wasn't complicated and I agree with a version of it, but your tone (there and here) is negative/insulting/inflammatory. Debate on social topics is frequently hostile, due to human nature, and often those pining for "debate" (using language that tells an opinion that those on one side of the topic are unintellectual and afraid of debate) are really just wanting to express their emotions as an outlet - i.e. they want the negativity part, not the debate part, or perhaps both. As I said, I think that negativity is why such things are more often flagged on HN than many other platforms.
People offering their own science that "masks work", for example, were shouted down by the same people who later demanded their use.
Mentioning the scientific and logical flaws with Daszak's Lancet paper, or discussing the lab leak theory, got your posts deleted. Many legit scientists received death threats after speaking of them, thanks to the media's coverage of those topics.
Where was the debate on those topics? Not on social media, where lab leak discussion was censored. Not on corporate news. Not in the NYT or WaPo, at least not for the first 20 months or so.
This all isn't as simple as you seem to think. The science is not as clear as is claimed. The messaging is inexcusably bad. The trials are hidden to protect us from "misinterpretation". The contracts are secret, the analysis is fragmented.
For a current example, the scientific basis and the cost/benefit analysis for vaccinating under 14 year olds is incredibly suspect. Out of 1 million Irish children, one under the age of 14 has died from Corona in all this time - one child. Yet leaky vaccines with rapidly fading effectiveness are being pushed on them by state agencies.
The only reasoning given - trust the professionals. Trust the science. There's no debate on it, no dissenting view tolerated. Those with a different view can't show their evidence or their reasoning - they're smeared and vilified, called right-wing, Russian agents, Trumpists, morons, plague rats.
Meanwhile, vulnerable populations such as the elderly and sick in poor countries that can't afford the vaccines are watching us put the fourth shot into young and middle aged healthy people. It's profoundly sick - and not really very scientific, if preventing novel outbreaks and death is the goal.
For the most part, people are trying their best. There is no "perfect" or even "best" answer, but policy must exist, and it is a misinterpretation to assume that the existence of policy must mean that those supporting it are sure it is perfect. Your tone is omnipresent: The fixation on the worst aspects of argument - lamenting the concepts of "shouting down", "censorship", etc. Yes, these are well represented on all sides, and are magnified by the nature of the problem (health - the most concrete consequence of policy that there is). However, the fact is that, for all the people with a reasonable non-policy opinion, there are people who are irrationally anti-science and they have an impact on our health, and that will inevitably provoke a strong response, and part of that response will be an over-application of criticism. Returning back that over-applied criticism yet even more over-applied is what the people who use your tone are doing, and it's a very human part of anger and argument, but this back-and-forth is destroying the very idea of communication.
It is not, as you say, as simple as many people think. And yet, while you have legitimate complaints, you then oversimplify by saying "the only reasoning given - trust the professionals. Trust the science." But that is actually one of the most reasonable options in an unsure situation. It is unrealistic and unfair to expect normal people to be able to justify why they e.g. get a flu shot beyond "trusting professionals". Yes, it is wrong to blindly trust science if there is some kind of extenuating circumstance that suggests your personal situation might differ from the norm, or the science is being put forward by a very small group of professionals and is potentially biased; but it is also wrong to blindly distrust science merely because some people are assholes about it, or people with the "wrong politics" are championing it.
I would say the best thing is to keep criticisms specific and strong, and avoid the temptation of returning hostility and politicization using the same broad strokes with which you are receiving them. You receive news and opinions and videos and forum posts from an enormously wide context, but you deliver it in the narrowest possible context (that of an individual human), so you can't afford to be as broad (e.g. "all people on X side of Y argument do Z.").
> For the most part, people are trying their best.
I believe that about regular people. Believing that about government, media, or megacorps is foolish.
> this back-and-forth is destroying the very idea of communication.
That scenario was created when media and politicians and Pfizer et al. took control of the narrative by force.
To take just one example - they're trying to stick bi or tri-annual shots into children at €20 a pop. There's no scientific or economic justification for it. The math isn't there, the evidence isn't there, and crucially, there are better places for those shots to go. It's not sane.
The only reason children in wealthy countries are getting shots before vulnerable people elsewhere is cash. It's pure greed. There are very real consequences to this.
Your comment is reasonable, with much wisdom - but what they're doing isn't motivated by science, or by helping people. It's just greed. It's evil.
You have to be perfect if you deny people taking their turn to speak. Or alternatively accept that you could be wrong and let people propose other ideas. Even if you believe these to have absolutely no merit, it is not something you have the right to answer for everyone. This was always one of the largest problems of scientific progress, not "wrong science". If it is wrong there will be a counter-proof. Not some self-asserted authority to filter anything.
The same concept applies for making health decisions of course. It would indeed be an interesting question if states have overstepped their authority with some enforced measures and I believe it can be argued that they did.
An appeal to authority is weak if some professionals get shouted down. And they were and some of them later proved correct. You undermine your own argument if you propose this to be the most reasonable option. I hope the communication and tolerance for diverging opinion is seriously improved in the next pandemic. It has to.
We were all fortunate that the social and political resistance to covid vaccines and other public health measures did not result in large-scale loss of life. This was balanced by the rapid development of symptom treatments such as steroids and posture when using ventilators, the appearance of vaccines well-tailored to the initial presentation and a reduction in social interaction caused by a mixture of public health and fear. Finally, the appearance of omicron with its reduction in lethality allowed the hospitals to empty out.
The next wave of vaccines will resemble flu shots in being tailored to current and anticipated variants, so if covid does not mutate into a more lethal form it will shift to an endemic problem like other viruses. The pandemic has shown how well systems can respond to threats, but it’s an open question whether the politization of vaccines and public health will lead to increased problems going forward. If the damned things are encountered by naive hosts, they’ll spread. It’s what viruses do.
And we’ve burned out a portion of the health profession which will have to be replaced at some cost and effort.
You mentioned the social and political resistance to the covid vaccine.
I watched a supercut of world leaders and health officials saying with absolute confidence that the vaccines were "effective" and that, if you took it, you would NOT get the virus and everything would return to normal. Then it showed them all rolling up their sleeves and smiling getting jabbed. Then it showed them all announcing very seriously and sadly that they had coronavirus.
The social and political resistance to the vaccines were because, from the outset, so much of the response to the virus was media and governments reacting (or overreacting) without knowing whether the actions they were taking were actually going to be effective. It was throw everything at the wall and see what sticks, regardless of science or even common sense.
Add to that the fact that you saw the same politicians and health officials ignoring their own rules (I just read an article about a California health official who, on the same day she announced a renewal of mask mandates was later pictured partying in a group maskless) and it just completely eliminated any trust many people had in what was being told to them. That's where much of that social and political resistance comes from.
> This was balanced by the rapid development of symptom treatments such as steroids and posture when using ventilators, the appearance of vaccines well-tailored to the initial presentation and a reduction in social interaction caused by a mixture of public health and fear.
It was also balanced by the fact that COVID-19 is without major health consequence to the vast majority of the population.
> If the damned things are encountered by naive hosts
How many of those exist anymore? At this point the vast majority of us have gotten Covid at least once, and research increasingly supports the notion of robust protection from other variants by past exposure.
